Well, that's what you get for reading the review of the book instead of the book itself. Had you read the book, you would have noted in Adams' introduction that a) it is a work of fiction, and b) the beliefs of the characters in the book are not necessarily the beliefs of the author.
Or perhaps you also think Star Trek is "useless" because it involves FTL travel, and in practice Star Trek does nothing to help us get to Mars faster. (Other than inspiring large numbers of people to become interested in space exploration--but that's not important to you, because to you the only valid way to judge works of fiction is by the accuracy of their scientific hypotheses.)
I'll add my voice to those who are suggesting beautifulgarbage isn't copy-protected at all, it's just the Enhanced CD that's causing problems.
I had no problems either ripping or playing the CD under Win98. However, I've changed my Windows settings so it does not automatically run whatever software is on a CD as soon as you insert the CD. (I don't recall where that setting is at the moment, or else I'd describe it.)
They might not know it was you, depending on how much information they store in their computers. But I'd bet you dollars to donuts they do track returns, so they'd record 365 (OK, minus days they were closed) returns of that CD in a year.
And if you think about it, it's even better if they don't know it's you. One person returning 365 copies of a CD could be dismissed as just a nut. If they think it's 365 people returning the same CD, they'll pay more attention.
The low-power chip scans the text and translates it into spoken phenomes and outputs it to a filter for smooth analog sound, or can directly output the digital signal.
But is it smart enough to pronounce the boldfaced word above as "phonemes"?
Where I saw Monsters Inc., the theater's own little promo was between the SW2 preview and the film. So either the rumor is untrue, or else the theater chopped up the reel.
Hypermedia are becoming a health and civic hazard all of their own, transmitting huge amounts of data and misinformation and fear along with real news.
Let's just have everyone read Slashdot for a few weeks. They'll quickly learn to deal with "huge amounts of data and misinformation." They'll learn that, although information [on CNN | in a "5, Informative" comment] is more likely to be accurate than information [on Drudge | in a "-1, Troll" comment], it's still far from an absolute guarantee of accuracy.
I wonder if the EFF also believes that junk faxes should be legal--even though the anti-junk-fax law was upheld as constitutional when challenged on First Amendment grounds.
Any first-year law student can tell you that the short answer to any hypothetical legal question, always, is "it depends."
They'd like to say "yes," but their lawyers won't let them say that. So they manage to say "it depends" in such a way that it sounds as much like "yes" as possible.
If all you did was browse the relevant Slashdot stories at +5, I think you would end up having a better understanding of terrorist events than if you followed any of the mainstream media (and ignored Slashdot).
Maybe, maybe, not. I, for one, don't trust things just because they appear in a +5 comment on/.
It seems to me that if a comment looks informative, all too often moderators will mod the comment up as informative, regardless of whether the moderator has any knowledge in that area, and certainly without doing any fact-checking on the comment.
But the Onion doesn't represent "new media" any more than cnn.com does. The Onion was a print newspaper for several years before it started publishing its web edition. It was (and still is) published in print in only a few cities, so it didn't achieve national prominence until it moved onto the web. But it still is, first and foremost, a print newspaper.
Katz would have you believe this is an either-or situation: either we give up some of our fundamental liberties, or terrorist actions like that of Sept. 11 will continue to happen.
This is not the case. There are many ways in which the security of this country can be improved without infringing upon our liberties. To take just one example, we have all heard many times in the past week about the lax security in airports. Security could be significantly improved if existing security procedures were implemented the way they were supposed to be.
"Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon, gaming sites, EZ-Pass toll systems, online retailers and other Web tracking services which have lists of our shopping, reading, entertainment habits and preferences."
A strawman. For the most part, these involve people voluntarily giving up privacy. If you prefer not to give up that privacy, you don't have to do business with Napster, Amazon, etc. The thing that makes a world of difference is that some of the proposed measures invade citizen's privacy without the consent of those people. Likewise, when a corporation violates a customer's privacy without the customer's permission, slashdotters (rightfully!) complain loud and long.
The problem is that almost everyone gets the quote wrong and I've only ever once seen it properly attributed. It was not Jefferson or Franklin or Einstein or any of the other dozen names I've seen attached to it.
Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, generally regarded as the definitive reference work on quotations, attributes it to Benjamin Franklin. Here is the citation from the 1919 edition.
Franklin never even stole it for Poor Richard's Almanac
Well, you got that part right, at least. Franklin used it as the motto of his Historical Review of Pennsylvania, published in 1759, and not in Poor Richard's Almanac.
The earliest reference to such a quote was from Ludwig Thoma.
I see. I suppose this would be the same Ludwig Thoma who was born over a century after the publication of the Historical Review of Pennsylvania?
How many times do you have to point out that Franklin never said the quotation contstantly mangled here (the one about security and liberty)? Ludwig Thoma. Ludwig Thoma. Ludwig Thoma.
Benjamin Franklin. Benjamin Franklin. Benjamin Franklin.
Here is the quote, attributed to Franklin, in the 1919 edition of Familiar Quotations (commonly referred to as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations). The 1919 edition is the most recent available online, but I was able to check a 1980 print edition, which also attributes the quote to Franklin.
Bartlett's Familiar Quotations is generally considered the definitive work on quotations, so if you're going to challenge it, please provide more evidence than your own assertion.
Is Bartlett's perfect? No, no reference work is. But I'm willing to accept it until I see more definitive evidence.
We can hope so. I'll be the first to admit, the courts have often held up our constitutional rights when the legislative and executive branches have tried to trample them.
But we must also remember that judges are humans, not gods. They are capable of mistakes. So we shouldn't just sit quietly and assume the courts will uphold our rights in all cases.
Also disturbing is the fact that this was passed in spite of the fact that every Senator has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Re:space imaging nyc image 09/12/2001
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
As the AC (on poliglut but not here) who made the original post to poliglut (in response to a RADAR picture of New York posted there--unlike interiot, who apparently assumed that the linked images in the parent comment were radar pictures without even bothering to take the time to look at them), I would just like to note for the record that interiot reposted this here without my permission, in violation of copyright. Please mod him down.
If you write a program that is linked to a library which you have licensed under the GPL, or using someone else's code, which you are permitted to use under the GPL, you are now bound by the GPL with respect to that code.
If you subsequently license the program to someone else under a license other than the GPL--either explicitly or implicitly, as in the case here--you are the one who has violated the GPL.
If you are required to only distribute the software under the terms of the GPL license, but you instead license it to someone else under a different license, and they then take some action which would be in violation of the GPL, you, not they, are the guilty party.
The minimum terms of such license shall grant the University the right to use the original work in its internally administered programs of teaching, research, and public service on a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive basis.
Yeah, according to that, the GPL would be acceptable
I'm not sure I agree. I can easily see that a professor might, as a teaching exercise, want to distribute a compiled version of a program, without making the source code available. This would be within the normal academic mission of the university, but would be prohibited by the GPL.
A common source of confusion among/.ers about the GPL is the
misconception that the GPL applies to software.
OK, before you start laughing so hard that milk comes out of your
nose, hear me out. Of course the GPL is about software. But
it limits the actions of people (and people-like organizations, such as
corporations, universities, etc.) This is important to understand,
because it reveals the flaw in the GPL-as-virus analogy which is commonly
used to explain the GPL.
Suppose I, as the sole author of a piece of software, distribute it under
the GPL. This does mean that anyone who licenses it under the terms
of the GPL, must also make any derivative works available under the GPL.
However, it is important to note what it does not mean: it does
not mean that if I make a derivative work, that I have to release
that under the GPL. It also does not mean that I cannot license the same
software to someone else under a different, non-GPL compatible license. (If
you took the GPL-as-virus analogy too far, you might well believe that these
latter two were not allowed. But that is not the case. Just because some copies
of a program are licensed under the GPL, does not mean that all copies are
magically infected.)
With the UI policy, you license any software you submit to UI under a non-GPL
license. (It seems to me that the implied license described in the linked
document is not GPL-compatible; it might be well within the university's academic
mission to provide students with the compiled version of the program, but not
the source code, something forbidden under the GPL.) This does not prevent a
student from making the software available to other people under the GPL, but
he has already licensed it to the university under a non-GPL license when he
submitted the program.
true blue conservatives don't want the government to have power to intrude into our private lives.
Well, yes. If you use "conservative" in the same way that Barry Goldwater did when he wrote "The Conscience of a Conservative."
But by today's common usage, what Goldwater meant by "conservative" is now commonly referred to as "libertarian," and what is now commonly referred to as "conservative" (in the sense that Scalia is a conservative justice) is very different from that.
In short, it is surprising that a conservative justice like Scalia would uphold privacy rights. Your statement that conservatives would support privacy rights seems to be based on a confusion between the two different usages of the word "conservative."
It sounds to me like it would be pretty easy for the end user to distinguish between links that I've put there, and links that the browser generated to sites that MS thinks I might be interested in.
Sure. And if you had looked at the Florida ballot on Monday, November 6, 2000, you would have thought it was quite straightforward.
But part of the point of that show was that the corporations do a lot of research to find out what's cool. They look for the trend-setters, and do lots of test marketing, focus groups, etc.
I'm not saying that cool isn't manipulated. But the large corporations can't just single-handedly define cool. (This is a flaw in Jamie's article as well: he starts off talking about the "top-down" determination of what's cool--then goes on to describe all the research that corporations have to do in order to keep up with what's cool.)
Another point of the Frontline episode was that once something is corporatized, it ceases to be cool. (Not instantly, but in time.) Thus, the corps are always scrambling to keep up with the latest.
~$250 million over 8-10 years it takes to get a drug approved, only to see a generic maker clone the drug the day it comes out at half the price?
That's quite the hyperbole. If it takes 8-10 years to develop, somehow I doubt it will be "overnight" before someone figures out how to knock it off,
Well, yes, it's hyperbole in the sense that it might, in reality, take a few months.
The bulk of R&D costs in the pharmaceutical research are not how to make a compound. That is trivial. Once one company comes out with a drug, it's relatively trivial to duplicate it--any competent chemist could do it in a matter of weeks, at most. Scaling up to production levels takes a few weeks more.
The bulk of the cost (both monetary and time) are in a) finding out which chemical is the most effective, and b) doing all the testing--cellular, animal, and human--that is required. But once a brand-name pharmaceutical company comes out with a drug, both (a) and (b) are already done, and the generic company does not need to do either.
Slashdot Mirror
Or perhaps you also think Star Trek is "useless" because it involves FTL travel, and in practice Star Trek does nothing to help us get to Mars faster. (Other than inspiring large numbers of people to become interested in space exploration--but that's not important to you, because to you the only valid way to judge works of fiction is by the accuracy of their scientific hypotheses.)
I'll add my voice to those who are suggesting beautifulgarbage isn't copy-protected at all, it's just the Enhanced CD that's causing problems.
I had no problems either ripping or playing the CD under Win98. However, I've changed my Windows settings so it does not automatically run whatever software is on a CD as soon as you insert the CD. (I don't recall where that setting is at the moment, or else I'd describe it.)
And if you think about it, it's even better if they don't know it's you. One person returning 365 copies of a CD could be dismissed as just a nut. If they think it's 365 people returning the same CD, they'll pay more attention.
But is it smart enough to pronounce the boldfaced word above as "phonemes"?
Where I saw Monsters Inc., the theater's own little promo was between the SW2 preview and the film. So either the rumor is untrue, or else the theater chopped up the reel.
I'm a non-parent, and I thought it rocked too. Liked it much better than either of the Toy Story movies (which were quite good, too).
Let's just have everyone read Slashdot for a few weeks. They'll quickly learn to deal with "huge amounts of data and misinformation." They'll learn that, although information [on CNN | in a "5, Informative" comment] is more likely to be accurate than information [on Drudge | in a "-1, Troll" comment], it's still far from an absolute guarantee of accuracy.
I wonder if the EFF also believes that junk faxes should be legal--even though the anti-junk-fax law was upheld as constitutional when challenged on First Amendment grounds.
They'd like to say "yes," but their lawyers won't let them say that. So they manage to say "it depends" in such a way that it sounds as much like "yes" as possible.
Maybe, maybe, not. I, for one, don't trust things just because they appear in a +5 comment on
It seems to me that if a comment looks informative, all too often moderators will mod the comment up as informative, regardless of whether the moderator has any knowledge in that area, and certainly without doing any fact-checking on the comment.
But the Onion doesn't represent "new media" any more than cnn.com does. The Onion was a print newspaper for several years before it started publishing its web edition. It was (and still is) published in print in only a few cities, so it didn't achieve national prominence until it moved onto the web. But it still is, first and foremost, a print newspaper.
This is not the case. There are many ways in which the security of this country can be improved without infringing upon our liberties. To take just one example, we have all heard many times in the past week about the lax security in airports. Security could be significantly improved if existing security procedures were implemented the way they were supposed to be.
"Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon, gaming sites, EZ-Pass toll systems, online retailers and other Web tracking services which have lists of our shopping, reading, entertainment habits and preferences." A strawman. For the most part, these involve people voluntarily giving up privacy. If you prefer not to give up that privacy, you don't have to do business with Napster, Amazon, etc. The thing that makes a world of difference is that some of the proposed measures invade citizen's privacy without the consent of those people. Likewise, when a corporation violates a customer's privacy without the customer's permission, slashdotters (rightfully!) complain loud and long.
Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, generally regarded as the definitive reference work on quotations, attributes it to Benjamin Franklin. Here is the citation from the 1919 edition.
Franklin never even stole it for Poor Richard's Almanac
Well, you got that part right, at least. Franklin used it as the motto of his Historical Review of Pennsylvania, published in 1759, and not in Poor Richard's Almanac.
The earliest reference to such a quote was from Ludwig Thoma.
I see. I suppose this would be the same Ludwig Thoma who was born over a century after the publication of the Historical Review of Pennsylvania?
Benjamin Franklin. Benjamin Franklin. Benjamin Franklin.
Here is the quote, attributed to Franklin, in the 1919 edition of Familiar Quotations (commonly referred to as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations). The 1919 edition is the most recent available online, but I was able to check a 1980 print edition, which also attributes the quote to Franklin.
Bartlett's Familiar Quotations is generally considered the definitive work on quotations, so if you're going to challenge it, please provide more evidence than your own assertion.
Is Bartlett's perfect? No, no reference work is. But I'm willing to accept it until I see more definitive evidence.
But we must also remember that judges are humans, not gods. They are capable of mistakes. So we shouldn't just sit quietly and assume the courts will uphold our rights in all cases.
Also disturbing is the fact that this was passed in spite of the fact that every Senator has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.
As the AC (on poliglut but not here) who made the original post to poliglut (in response to a RADAR picture of New York posted there--unlike interiot, who apparently assumed that the linked images in the parent comment were radar pictures without even bothering to take the time to look at them), I would just like to note for the record that interiot reposted this here without my permission, in violation of copyright. Please mod him down.
If you write a program that is linked to a library which you have licensed under the GPL, or using someone else's code, which you are permitted to use under the GPL, you are now bound by the GPL with respect to that code.
If you subsequently license the program to someone else under a license other than the GPL--either explicitly or implicitly, as in the case here--you are the one who has violated the GPL.
If you are required to only distribute the software under the terms of the GPL license, but you instead license it to someone else under a different license, and they then take some action which would be in violation of the GPL, you, not they, are the guilty party.
IANAL
Yeah, according to that, the GPL would be acceptable
I'm not sure I agree. I can easily see that a professor might, as a teaching exercise, want to distribute a compiled version of a program, without making the source code available. This would be within the normal academic mission of the university, but would be prohibited by the GPL.
IANAL.
OK, before you start laughing so hard that milk comes out of your nose, hear me out. Of course the GPL is about software. But it limits the actions of people (and people-like organizations, such as corporations, universities, etc.) This is important to understand, because it reveals the flaw in the GPL-as-virus analogy which is commonly used to explain the GPL.
Suppose I, as the sole author of a piece of software, distribute it under the GPL. This does mean that anyone who licenses it under the terms of the GPL, must also make any derivative works available under the GPL. However, it is important to note what it does not mean: it does not mean that if I make a derivative work, that I have to release that under the GPL. It also does not mean that I cannot license the same software to someone else under a different, non-GPL compatible license. (If you took the GPL-as-virus analogy too far, you might well believe that these latter two were not allowed. But that is not the case. Just because some copies of a program are licensed under the GPL, does not mean that all copies are magically infected.)
With the UI policy, you license any software you submit to UI under a non-GPL license. (It seems to me that the implied license described in the linked document is not GPL-compatible; it might be well within the university's academic mission to provide students with the compiled version of the program, but not the source code, something forbidden under the GPL.) This does not prevent a student from making the software available to other people under the GPL, but he has already licensed it to the university under a non-GPL license when he submitted the program.
IANAL.
The person who believes refrigerator space is measured in square feet has more problems than the one who paid 82 dollars for a watermelon.
Sentence fragments. Good device. If used sparingly. Annoying. When used too often.
Well, yes. If you use "conservative" in the same way that Barry Goldwater did when he wrote "The Conscience of a Conservative."
But by today's common usage, what Goldwater meant by "conservative" is now commonly referred to as "libertarian," and what is now commonly referred to as "conservative" (in the sense that Scalia is a conservative justice) is very different from that.
In short, it is surprising that a conservative justice like Scalia would uphold privacy rights. Your statement that conservatives would support privacy rights seems to be based on a confusion between the two different usages of the word "conservative."
Sure. And if you had looked at the Florida ballot on Monday, November 6, 2000, you would have thought it was quite straightforward.
I'm not saying that cool isn't manipulated. But the large corporations can't just single-handedly define cool. (This is a flaw in Jamie's article as well: he starts off talking about the "top-down" determination of what's cool--then goes on to describe all the research that corporations have to do in order to keep up with what's cool.)
Another point of the Frontline episode was that once something is corporatized, it ceases to be cool. (Not instantly, but in time.) Thus, the corps are always scrambling to keep up with the latest.
That's quite the hyperbole. If it takes 8-10 years to develop, somehow I doubt it will be "overnight" before someone figures out how to knock it off,
Well, yes, it's hyperbole in the sense that it might, in reality, take a few months.
The bulk of R&D costs in the pharmaceutical research are not how to make a compound. That is trivial. Once one company comes out with a drug, it's relatively trivial to duplicate it--any competent chemist could do it in a matter of weeks, at most. Scaling up to production levels takes a few weeks more.
The bulk of the cost (both monetary and time) are in a) finding out which chemical is the most effective, and b) doing all the testing--cellular, animal, and human--that is required. But once a brand-name pharmaceutical company comes out with a drug, both (a) and (b) are already done, and the generic company does not need to do either.