Industry has been very successful at turning back regulation at the federal level with Bush in power, as you say. Hooray for industry. Soon, though, they're going to be asking themselves whether they'd be better off with reasonable federal regulation, as opposed to an emerging patchwork of tougher regulations from states that are increasingly forced to assume responsibilities that the federal government is abrogating. You may be hearing the sound of the pendulum swinging...
Uhm, can someone explain to me how NEW features of a language can be backwards compatible? Ummm... I think it means that programs that were written with previous versions of the language will not be broken by the new version and will continue to run correctly. That's what "backward compatible" has always meant, at least in my lifetime...
You can also limit the lifetime of your cookies to end-of-session. Since Firefox can remember all of your login info and such, it's really not much of an inconvenience.
Not knocking military-sponsored research per se, just saying that DARPA has gone a little off the deep end. I'm sure there are solidly-grounded projects there too. Well, pretty sure.
Someone at the DoD needs to hire slightly less movies and think more about how old fashioned "hearts and minds" would be a better thing to pour money into. Pretty much everyone in the research community knows that DARPA has become a bastion of junk and pseudo-science in recent years. I'm sure they're working (i.e., spending lots of money) on perpetual motion and anti-gravity machines even as we speak. So don't jump to the conclusion that earth-shaking advances right out of SciFi are just around the corner because somebody says that DARPA is on it...
Well, I just had 2 pints of beer so I'm not quite sure I understand where the communist ideology fits in, but yes, there is value in understanding how all of the inputs and outputs of a system (social or otherwise) balance out, and now these are can be analyzed very cheaply and easily. Are there feedback loops, synergies, competitive relationships and the like? Sure, and they're important, but this is just another perspective on things that adds to our understanding. It would be tragic if it lead to a devaluation of the compexities underlying it, though.
I always thought that DNA extraction was a manual process... or at least it required a significant amount of manpower to get. Nope. That's pretty much been automated in the laboratory, as has much of the analysis. A lot easier than sorting and isolating individual critters, anyway...
This is really a new paradigm for microbial ecology. Instead of worrying about how thousands of different species (most of them unknown) are interacting with each other, you can now think about what genomic and proteomic resources are present in a habitat. Think of the organisms themselves as just the bags that contain what you're really interested in looking at, and suddenly a lot of insights and high-throughput techniques open up to you.
Moving/copying a lot of large files is very suspicious behavior. The compliant and well-behaved user who leaves things where they are supposed to be should only rarely have to do that. Perhaps Microsoft is slowing down the process to give you time to reflect on the error of your ways (or maybe to think about switching to a different OS)...
That may be true, but don't overlook the fact that many people feel intimidated by the prospect of learning to navigate the internet and dealing with computers perhaps for the first time. This is usually going to come out as "don't need it" on surveys like this. They may also fear all of the horrible things that they hear about the internet, especially on their local TV news. FUD works.
Real environmentalists live close to work, bike, or take the bus. I wonder about buses, though. If they're full, then I don't doubt that the energy cost per passenger mile beats a private car by a long shot. But where I live, the buses seem to be motoring around nearly empty for most of the day, and that's a lot of mass to be moving around for one or two passengers.
The problem, if there is one, is not that soldiers aren't physically up to the demands that will be made of them. The problem is with the politicians who send them unprepared on ill-advised and ill-defined (but profitable, for them) missions, often for dubious reasons that are unrelated to our national security.
But how are we supposed to ignore our social problems without TV? Which is why our government will open up its pockets to make sure that every family can afford one, even if education and medical care remain beyond their reach...
I said "it wouldn't surprise me" if it were being done "indirectly". That's hardly an indictment, but yes, I guess I would be at least a little surprised, since it's now the subject of a major lawsuit and the consequences of being caught would be huge. So mea culpa on that.
But there's at least one business out there that's doing quite well astroturfing blogs on behalf of paying corporate clients (product testimonials, mostly), so the idea isn't as completely outlandish as you suggest. Of course, it doesn't make it probable, either...
It was a rhetorical point, mostly; Viacom would most likely never pull a stunt like that for the very reasons you mention. However, I doubt that they are eager to see Google succeed at keeping their material off of the site, either, and for the very reasons that I mentioned.
I find it interesting the whenever someone touts the free distribution schema, they tout that there are untold channels to get the free stuff and that's threatening the "Big Distribution" companies. Then, when there's clearly a breach of copyright law, those same people turn around and claim that "BD" is squelching distribution of indies.
Which is it? I'm not touting "free stuff" per se, and I'm certainly not saying that companies (BD or otherwise) don't have a legitimate interest in protecting their copyrights. I'm touting easier access to distribution and a loosening of the media cartel's grip on it. There was nothing in my post at all that condoned or advocated infringement. My point was that the mere existence of channels outside of their control is a threat even if they aren't used to abuse copyright (as they of course shouldn't be).
Viacom couldn't have people indirectly posting. Are you really claiming you think they have people directly posting? Most likely not, because it would be too much of a scandal if it broke. The point that you're apparently missing is that it is now perversely in their interest for infringment to be occurring on YouTube, because otherwise they'd have no legal basis to attack it. But you're right, there's enough of it already that no one needs any encouragement from them, directly or not.
You're right, of course, but sites like YouTube are a huge threat to the Big Media cartel regardless of whether they traffic in copyrighted material. A major barrier to entry in that industry is access to distribution channels: theaters, television and radio airtime, etc. It's like supermarket shelf space. That's why indy musicians and film producers have had such a hard time winning eyeballs regardless of the quality of their stuff. YouTube and sites like it bypass the gatekeepers and short-circuit the whole system; now just about anyone can reach the mass public if their creations catch a wave. Just as in the music industry, that scares the bejesus out of companies like Viacom because it strikes at the core of their business model.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Viacom indirectly had people posting copyrighted material to YouTube as fast as Google can take it down. They need to attack the channel regardless, and to do that successfully they need a copyright case.
Viacom, like other media companies, is mostly worried about two things: (1) losing control of the distribution of their product, and (2) losing control of distribution, period. The first concern is legitimate, but can easily be remedied by Google simply by not allowing Viacom's property to be posted to the site. The second concern has more to do with the fear of the rise of competitive distribution channels, and that exists even if these channels don't deal in copyrighted material. There is a finite pie of ear- and eyeball-hours out there, and if 30% of them are ever drawn to Creative Commons type stuff, that's 30% that isn't paying Viacom.
I know it's easy for you to believe that anyone you agree with must be smart and moral and wonderful and perfect Oh, the "rules don't apply to us because you're not perfect" defense. Yet another example of what I was talking about.
...your divisive horseshit solves nothing. I'm sure the problem would solve itself it we would all just look the other way.
That's the kind of Computer Science that is dead: the kind that Computer Science, by its progress, leaves behind. That just might be "quote of the day"...
Well said. Indeed, Haliburton has no interest above protecting us, the American people. If they choose to move their top execs to a country with no extradition treaty with the U.S., it is certainly because they wish to save us, the taxpayers, the unnecessary expense of a silly investigation that could only lead to the further unnecessary expense of incarcerating them. We should thank them for not wanting us to worry our pretty little heads about such nasty things.
Really, I can almost visualize you as a doe-eyed character in This Modern World.
Who wants to bet that Dick Cheney isn't living in Dubai within a year after he leaves office (or maybe even before)?
Slashdot Mirror
Industry has been very successful at turning back regulation at the federal level with Bush in power, as you say. Hooray for industry. Soon, though, they're going to be asking themselves whether they'd be better off with reasonable federal regulation, as opposed to an emerging patchwork of tougher regulations from states that are increasingly forced to assume responsibilities that the federal government is abrogating. You may be hearing the sound of the pendulum swinging...
You can also limit the lifetime of your cookies to end-of-session. Since Firefox can remember all of your login info and such, it's really not much of an inconvenience.
If you watch porn for "endless hours", you're probably not doing it right...
Not knocking military-sponsored research per se, just saying that DARPA has gone a little off the deep end. I'm sure there are solidly-grounded projects there too. Well, pretty sure.
Well, I just had 2 pints of beer so I'm not quite sure I understand where the communist ideology fits in, but yes, there is value in understanding how all of the inputs and outputs of a system (social or otherwise) balance out, and now these are can be analyzed very cheaply and easily. Are there feedback loops, synergies, competitive relationships and the like? Sure, and they're important, but this is just another perspective on things that adds to our understanding. It would be tragic if it lead to a devaluation of the compexities underlying it, though.
I was going to add "bathing suits, bikini wax, and babes" but it looks like my esteemed colleagues here have beaten me to it...
This is really a new paradigm for microbial ecology. Instead of worrying about how thousands of different species (most of them unknown) are interacting with each other, you can now think about what genomic and proteomic resources are present in a habitat. Think of the organisms themselves as just the bags that contain what you're really interested in looking at, and suddenly a lot of insights and high-throughput techniques open up to you.
Moving/copying a lot of large files is very suspicious behavior. The compliant and well-behaved user who leaves things where they are supposed to be should only rarely have to do that. Perhaps Microsoft is slowing down the process to give you time to reflect on the error of your ways (or maybe to think about switching to a different OS)...
That may be true, but don't overlook the fact that many people feel intimidated by the prospect of learning to navigate the internet and dealing with computers perhaps for the first time. This is usually going to come out as "don't need it" on surveys like this. They may also fear all of the horrible things that they hear about the internet, especially on their local TV news. FUD works.
Someone mod this up, please.
The problem, if there is one, is not that soldiers aren't physically up to the demands that will be made of them. The problem is with the politicians who send them unprepared on ill-advised and ill-defined (but profitable, for them) missions, often for dubious reasons that are unrelated to our national security.
If that could actually happen, I mean.
I said "it wouldn't surprise me" if it were being done "indirectly". That's hardly an indictment, but yes, I guess I would be at least a little surprised, since it's now the subject of a major lawsuit and the consequences of being caught would be huge. So mea culpa on that.
But there's at least one business out there that's doing quite well astroturfing blogs on behalf of paying corporate clients (product testimonials, mostly), so the idea isn't as completely outlandish as you suggest. Of course, it doesn't make it probable, either...
Thank God we've got a vibrant corporate sector to protect our interests as consumers. Or maybe government is merely their tool these days?
It was a rhetorical point, mostly; Viacom would most likely never pull a stunt like that for the very reasons you mention. However, I doubt that they are eager to see Google succeed at keeping their material off of the site, either, and for the very reasons that I mentioned.
Which is it? I'm not touting "free stuff" per se, and I'm certainly not saying that companies (BD or otherwise) don't have a legitimate interest in protecting their copyrights. I'm touting easier access to distribution and a loosening of the media cartel's grip on it. There was nothing in my post at all that condoned or advocated infringement. My point was that the mere existence of channels outside of their control is a threat even if they aren't used to abuse copyright (as they of course shouldn't be). Viacom couldn't have people indirectly posting. Are you really claiming you think they have people directly posting? Most likely not, because it would be too much of a scandal if it broke. The point that you're apparently missing is that it is now perversely in their interest for infringment to be occurring on YouTube, because otherwise they'd have no legal basis to attack it. But you're right, there's enough of it already that no one needs any encouragement from them, directly or not.
You're right, of course, but sites like YouTube are a huge threat to the Big Media cartel regardless of whether they traffic in copyrighted material. A major barrier to entry in that industry is access to distribution channels: theaters, television and radio airtime, etc. It's like supermarket shelf space. That's why indy musicians and film producers have had such a hard time winning eyeballs regardless of the quality of their stuff. YouTube and sites like it bypass the gatekeepers and short-circuit the whole system; now just about anyone can reach the mass public if their creations catch a wave. Just as in the music industry, that scares the bejesus out of companies like Viacom because it strikes at the core of their business model.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Viacom indirectly had people posting copyrighted material to YouTube as fast as Google can take it down. They need to attack the channel regardless, and to do that successfully they need a copyright case.
Viacom, like other media companies, is mostly worried about two things: (1) losing control of the distribution of their product, and (2) losing control of distribution, period. The first concern is legitimate, but can easily be remedied by Google simply by not allowing Viacom's property to be posted to the site. The second concern has more to do with the fear of the rise of competitive distribution channels, and that exists even if these channels don't deal in copyrighted material. There is a finite pie of ear- and eyeball-hours out there, and if 30% of them are ever drawn to Creative Commons type stuff, that's 30% that isn't paying Viacom.
...your divisive horseshit solves nothing. I'm sure the problem would solve itself it we would all just look the other way.Well said. Indeed, Haliburton has no interest above protecting us, the American people. If they choose to move their top execs to a country with no extradition treaty with the U.S., it is certainly because they wish to save us, the taxpayers, the unnecessary expense of a silly investigation that could only lead to the further unnecessary expense of incarcerating them. We should thank them for not wanting us to worry our pretty little heads about such nasty things.
Really, I can almost visualize you as a doe-eyed character in This Modern World .
Who wants to bet that Dick Cheney isn't living in Dubai within a year after he leaves office (or maybe even before)?