If you see that 90% of everything is crap, and I see that 90% of everything is crap, who said that your cap and mine are the same 10%? What is crap to you may not be to me.
That's a fair point, and I certainly wouldn't expect that I would be handed independent music I like on a silver platter.
My point is that everyone has slightly different tastes, so categorizing music and allowing a person to listen to music and determine _what_ they like is the tool. By playing only what the major labels push, radio is causing the majority of listeners to settle for _their_ drek.
You'll get no argument from me there. My point is that the time involved to find a few good (to me) bands can be very large, having to listen to a lot of crap (to me). Even with genre classifications, it can be difficult. (I'm more likely to like a ska band picked at random than I am to like any band picked at random, but there are still many more independent ska bands that I dislike than those that I like.)
Now, I haven't spent a lot of time on the internet looking for independent bands, so perhaps there are some good sites out there--thus my request for recommendations, and some other people in this thread have made useful suggestions.
Please keep in mind that my original question--essentially "Given that there are thousands of independent bands, most of which I won't like, how can I find those bands I do like without spending an excessive amount of time?"--is meant as a sincere question, and not as an attack on independent music.
(As an aside, it's interesting you mention TMBG--I am aware of TMBG, but ironically I became aware of them after hearing "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)" and "Particle Man" on an episode of Tiny Toons--a WB produced TV show.)
At least with independent music, you can find bands that have different and new ideas about music, politics, and life in general.... (when was the last time you heard a song on the radio with a radical political message?)
You won't get any argument from me there.
So what if 90% of independent music is crap?
The "so what" is that when I'm trying to find music, I'm primarily interested in the music. If I'm interested in politics, I'll look to read political tracts, listen to talk radio, etc. If the music itself sucks, but the lyrics have an interesting political message, I'm still not interested.
Maybe you listen to music for its political message, but that's not my cup of tea.
The patent seems to be US Reissue 32,580. (Of eight patents granted to AT&T on the date listed in the article, this is the only one remotely close to what is described.) Below are the claims, since the URL from the USPTO site is some ugly long thing that likely won't work if someone else tries to use it.
What is claimed is:
1. A method for processing a sequential pattern comprising the steps of: partitioning said sequential pattern into successive time intervals; generating a set of signals representative of the sequential pattern of each time interval responsive to said time interval sequential pattern; generating a signal corresponding to the differences between said interval sequential pattern and the interval representative signal set responsive to said interval sequential pattern and said interval representative signals; forming a first signal corresponding to the interval pattern responsive to said interval pattern representative signals and said interval differences representative signal; generating a second interval corresponding signal responsive to said interval pattern representative signals; generating a signal corresponding to the differences between said first and second interval corresponding signals; producing a third signal responsive to said interval differences corresponding signal for altering said second signal to reduce the interval differences corresponding signal; and utilizing said third signal to construct a replica of said interval sequential pattern.
2. A method for processing a speech pattern comprising the steps of: partitioning the speech pattern into successive time intervals; generating a set of signals representative of said speech pattern of each time interval responsive to said interval speech pattern; generating a signal representative of the differences between said interval speech pattern and the interval speech pattern representative signal set responsive to said interval speech pattern and said interval speech pattern representative signals; forming a first signal corresponding to the interval speech pattern responsive to said interval speech pattern representative signals and the interval differences representative signal; forming a second interval corresponding signal responsive to the interval speech pattern representative signals; generating a signal corresponding to the differences between said first and second interval corresponding signals; and producing a third signal responsive to said interval differences corresponding signal for altering said second signal to reduce the interval differences corresponding signal.
3. A method for processing a speech pattern according to claim 2 wherein: said interval representative signal set generating step comprises generating a set of speech parameter signals representative of said interval speech pattern; said first interval corresponding signal forming step comprises generating said first interval corresponding signal responsive to said speech parameter signals and said differences representative signal; and said second interval corresponding signal forming step comprises generating said second interval corresponding signal responsive to said interval speech parameter signals.
4. A method for processing a speech pattern according to claim 3 wherein said speech parameter signal generating step comprises generating a set of signals representative of the interval speech spectrum.
5. A method for processing a speech pattern according to claim 4 wherein: said third signal producing step comprises generating a coded signal having at least one element responsive to the interval differences corresponding signal; and modifying said second interval corresponding signal responsive to said coded signal element.
6. A method for processing a speech pattern according to claim 5 wherein: said coded signal generating step comprises generating, for a predetermined number of times, a coded signal element responsive to said interval differences corresponding signal; and modifying said second interval corresponding signal responsive to said generated coded signal elements.
7. A method for processing a speech pattern according to claim 6 wherein: said differences corresponding signal generating step comprises generating a signal representative of the correlation between said first interval corresponding and second interval corresponding signals.
8. A method for processing a speech pattern according to claim 5 wherein said differences corresponding signal generating step comprises generating a signal representative of the mean squared difference between said first and second interval corresponding signals.
9. A method for processing a speech pattern according to claims 2, 3, or 4 further comprising the step of utilizing said third signal to construct a replica of said interval speech pattern.
10. A sequential pattern processor comprising means for partitioning a sequential pattern into successive time intervals; means responsive to each time interval sequential pattern for generating a set of signals representative of the sequential pattern of said time interval; means responsive to said interval sequential pattern and said interval representative signals for generating a signal representative of the differences between said interval sequential pattern and the interval representative signal set; means responsive to said interval pattern representative signals and said differences representative signal for forming a first signal corresponding to the interval pattern; means responsive to said interval pattern representative signals for generating a second interval corresponding signal; means for generating a signal corresponding to the differences between said first and second interval corresponding signals; and means responsive to said interval differences corresponding signal for producing a third signal for altering said second signal to reduce the interval differences corresponding signal; and means for utilizing said third signal to construct a replica of said interval sequential pattern.
11. A speech processor comprising means for partitioning a speech pattern into successive time intervals; means responsive to each interval speech pattern for generating a set of signals representative of the speech pattern of said time interval; means responsive to said interval speech pattern and said interval speech pattern representative signals for generating a signal representative of the differences between said interval speech pattern and the interval representative signal set; means responsive to said speech interval signals and said interval differences representative signal for forming a first signal corresponding to the interval speech pattern; means responsive to said interval speech pattern representative signals for forming a second interval corresponding signal; means for generating a signal corresponding to the differences between said first and second interval corresponding signals; and means responsive to said interval differences corresponding signal for producing a third signal for altering said second interval corresponding signal to reduce the interval differences corresponding signal.
12. A speech processor according to claim 11 wherein: said speech interval representative signal set generating means comprises means for generating a set of signals representative of prescribed speech parameters of said interval speech pattern; said first interval corresponding signal forming means comprises means responsive to said interval prescribed speech parameter signals and said differences representative signal for generating said first interval corresponding signal; said second interval corresponding signal forming means comprises means responsive to said interval prescribed speech parameter signals for generating the second interval corresponding signal.
13. A speech processor according to claim 12 wherein said prescribed speech parameter signal generating means comprises means for generating a set of signals representative of the interval speech pattern spectrum.
14. A speech processor according to claim 13 wherein: said third signal producing means comprises means responsive to said interval differences corresponding signal for generating a coded signal having at least one element; and means responsive to said coded signal elements for modifying said second interval corresponding signal.
15. A speech processor according to claim 14 wherein: said coded signal generating means comprises means operative N times to produce an N element coded signal including means responsive to said differences corresponding signal for generating coded signal elements; and means responsive to the generated coded signal elements for modifying said second interval corresponding signal.
16. A speech processor according to claim 15 wherein: said interval differences corresponding signal generating means comprises means for generating a signal representative of the correlation between said first and second interval corresponding signals.
17. A speech processor according to claim 15 wherein said interval differences corresponding signal generating means comprises means for generating a signal representative of the mean squared difference between said first and second interval corresponding signals.
18. A speech processor according to claims 11, 12, or 13 further comprising the step of utilizing said third signal to construct a replica of said interval speech pattern.
19. A method for encoding a speech pattern comprising the steps of: partitioning a speech pattern into successive time frames; generating for each frame a set of speech parameter signals responsive to the frame speech pattern; generating a signal representative of the differences between the frame speech pattern and said speech parameter signal set responsive to said frame speech pattern and said frame speech parameter signals; generating a first signal corresponding to the frame speech pattern responsive to said frame speech parameter signals and said differences representative signal; generating a second frame corresponding signal responsive to said frame speech parameter signals; generating a signal corresponding to the differences between said first and second interval corresponding signals; and producing a coded signal responsive to said interval differences corresponding signal for modifying said second interval corresponding signal to reduce said interval differences corresponding signal.
20. A method for encoding a speech signal according to claim 19 further comprising combining said produced coded signal and said speech parameter signals to form a coded signal representative of the frame speech pattern.
21. A method for encoding a speech signal according to claim 19 wherein said speech parameter signal set generation comprises generating a set of linear predictive parameter signals for the frame responsive to said frame speech pattern; and said differences representative signal generation comprises generating a predictive residual signal responsive to said frame linear prediction parameter signals and said frame speech pattern.
22. A method for encoding a speech signal according to claim 21 wherein said coded signal producing step comprises generating a coded signal having at least one element responsive to said differences corresponding signal; and modifying said frame second signal responsive to said coded signal elements.
23. A method for encoding a speech pattern according to claim 21 wherein said signal producing step comprises generating a multielement coded signal by successively generating a coded signal element responsive to said differences corresponding signal and modifying said second signal responsive to said coded signal elements.
24. Apparatus for encoding a speech pattern comprising means for partitioning a speech pattern into successive time frames; means responsive to the frame speech pattern for generating for each frame a set of speech parameter signals; means responsive to said frame speech parameter signals and said frame speech pattern for generating a signal representative of the differences between said frame speech pattern and said frame speech parameter signal set; means responsive to said frame speech parameter signals and said differences representative signal for generating a first signal corresponding to said frame speech pattern; means responsive to said frame speech parameter signals for generating a second frame corresponding signal; means for generating a signal corresponding to the differences between said first and second frame corresponding signals; and means responsive to said frame differences corresponding signal for producing a third signal to modify said second signal to reduce the frame differences corresponding signal.
25. Apparatus for encoding a speech pattern according to claim 24 further comprising means for combining said produced coded signal and said speech parameter signals to form a coded signal representative of the frame speech pattern.
26. Apparatus for encoding a speech pattern according to claim 24 wherein said speech parameter signal generating means comprises means responsive to said frame speech pattern for generating a set of linear predictive parameter signals for the frame; said differences representative signal generating means comprises means responsive to said frame linear prediction parameter signals and said frame speech pattern for generating a frame predictive residual signal; said first signal generating means comprises means responsive to said frame predictive parameter signals and said frame predictive residual signal for forming said first frame corresponding signal; and said second signal generating means comprises means responsive to said frame linear predictive parameter signals for forming said second frame corresponding signal.
27. Apparatus for encoding a speech pattern according to claim 26 wherein said coded signal producing means comprises means responsive to said difference corresponding signal for generating a coded signal having at least one element; and means responsive to said coded signal element for modifying said second signal.
28. Apparatus for encoding a speech pattern according to claim 26 wherein said coded signal producing means comprises means for generating a multielement coded signal including means operative successively for generating a coded signal element responsive to said differences corresponding signal and for modifying said second signal responsive to said coded signal elements.
29. A speech processor comprising means for partitioning a speech pattern into successive time frames; means responsive to the speech pattern of each frame for producing a set of predictive parameter signals and a predictive residual signal; means responsive to said frame predictive parameter and predictive residual signals for generating a first signal corresponding to the frame speech pattern; means responsive to said frame predictive parameter signals for generating a second frame corresponding signal; means responsive to said first and second frame corresponding signals for producing a signal corresponding to the differences between said first and second frame corresponding signals; means responsive to said frame differences corresponding signal for generating a coded excitation signal and for applying said coded excitation signal to said second signal generating means to reduce the differences corresponding signal.
30. A speech processor according to claim 29 further comprising means responsive to said frame coded excitation signal and said frame predictive parameter signals for constructing a replica of said frame speech pattern.
31. A speech processor according to claim 29 or claim 30 wherein said coded excitation signal generating means comprises means operative successively to form a multielement coded signal comprising means responsive to the differences corresponding signal for forming an element of said multielement code and for modifying said second signal responsive to said coded signal elements.
32. A method for processing a speech pattern according to claim 5, 6, 7, or 8 further comprising the step of utilizing said coded signal to construct a replica of said interval speech pattern.
33. A speech processor according to claim 14, 15, 16, or 17 further comprising means for utilizing said coded signal to construct a replica of said interval speech pattern.
34. A speech processor for producing a speech message comprising: means for receiving a sequence of speech message time interval signals, each speech interval signal including a plurality of spectral representative signals and an excitation representative signal for said time interval; means jointly responsive to said interval spectral representative signals and said interval excitation representative signal for generating a speech pattern corresponding to the speech message; said interval excitation speech signal being formed by the steps of: partitioning a speech message pattern into successive time intervals; generating a set of signals representative of said speech message pattern for each time interval responsive to said interval speech pattern; generating a signal representative of the differences between said interval speech pattern and said representative signal set responsive to said interval speech pattern and said interval respresentative signals; forming a first signal corresponding to the interval speech message pattern responsive to said speech message pattern interval representative signals and differences representative signal; forming a second interval corresponding signal responsive to said interval speech message pattern representative signals; generating a signal corresponding to the differences between said first and second interval corresponding signals; and producing a third signal responsive to said interval differences corresponding signal for altering said second interval corresponding signal to reduce the interval differences corresponding signal, said third signal being said interval excitation representative signal.
35. A speech processor according to claim 34 wherein said interval differences corresponding signal generating step comprises generating a signal representative of the correlation between said first interval corresponding signal and said second interval corresponding signal and said third signal producing step comprises forming a coded signal responsive to said correlation representative signal.
36. A speech processor according to claim 34 or 35 wherein said speech message interval spectral representative signals are time interval predictive parameter signals.
37. A method for producing a speech message comprising the steps of: receiving a sequence of speech message interval signals, each speech interval signal including a plurality of spectral representative signals and an excitation representative signal; and generating a speech pattern corresponding to the speech message jointly responsive to said interval spectral representative signals and said interval excitation representative signals; said interval excitation speech signal being formed by the steps of: partitioning a speech pattern into successive time intervals; generating a set of signals representative of the spectrum of said speech pattern for each time interval responsive to said interval speech pattern; generating a signal representative of the differences between said interval speech pattern and said interval speech pattern spectral representative signal set responsive to said interval speech pattern and said spectral representative signals; forming a first signal corresponding to the interval speech pattern responsive to said interval spectral representative signals and said differences representative signal; forming a second interval corresponding signal responsive to said speech pattern interval spectral representative signals; generating a signal corresponding to the differences between said first and second interval corresponding signals; and producing a third signal responsive to said interval differences corresponding signal for altering said second interval corresponding signal to reduce the interval differences corresponding signal said third signal being said interval excitation signal.
38. A method for producing a speech message according to claim 37 wherein said interval differences corresponding signal generating step comprises generating a signal representative of the correlation between said first signal and said second signal and said third signal producing step comprises forming a prescribed format signal responsive to said correlation representative signal.
39. A method for producing a speech message according to claim 37 or 38 wherein said speech interval spectral representative signals are speech interval predictive parameter signals.
40. Apparatus for producing a speech message comprising:
means for receiving a sequence of speech message signals for the successive time intervals of the speech message, each time interval speech message signal including a set of coded spectral representative signals for the time interval portion of said speech message and a plurality of pulse amplitude and location coded signals representative of the differences between the time interval portion of the speech message and the time interval portion of the speech message formed from said spectral representative signals;
means for converting the plurality of pulse amplitude and location codes of said time interval into a signal representative of the excitation of the time interval portion of said speech message; and
means jointly responsive to said interval spectral representative signals and said interval excitation representative signal for generating a speech pattern corresponding to the speech message of said time interval.
41. Apparatus for producing a speech message according to claim 40 wherein said converting means comprises means responsive to said amplitude and location codes for forming a sequence of pulses within said time interval representative of the excitation of the speech message
portion of said time interval.
42. A method for producing a speech message comprising the steps of:
receiving a sequence of speech message signals for the successive time interval portions of the speech message, each time interval speech message signal including a set of coded spectral representative signals for the time interval portion of said speech message and a plurality of pulse amplitude and location coded signals representative of the differences between the time interval portion of the speech message and the time interval portion of the speech message formed from said spectral representative signals;
converting the plurality of pulse amplitude and location codes of said time interval into a signal representative of the excitation of the time interval portion of said speech message; and
generating a speech pattern corresponding to the speech message of said time interval jointly responsive to said interval spectral representative signals and said interval excitation representative signal.
43. A method for producing a speech message according to claim 42 wherein said converting step comprises forming a sequence of pulses within said time interval representative of the excitation of the speech message portion of said time interval responsive to said amplitude and location codes.
Granted, you still have to wade through a lot of crap, but at least it's *different* crap.
Sure, I could find good independent music on the internet too, if I had the time to wade through lots of crap. Thus my question: how do you find good independent music without wading through lots of crap?
Admittedly, having to wade through some crap is inevitable, as each person's definition of "crap" varies with taste. I'd like to listen to more independent music, but I don't have the time to listen to twenty bands I don't like in order to find one I do.
The issue isn't necessarily that independent or obscure music is always better... its about the *choice* to listen to those artists. Radio doesn't provide that.
I won't argue with that. But the flip side is that, even though the radio may only play 50 different bands, it's not too difficult to find the 5 that I like. How do I find the good music among 50,000 bands?
(I'm not trying to attack independent music; this is a sincere question.)
You better believe it's causing me to buy fewer major label CDs... because I actually can find *better music*. It's a win for good music, and a loss for the kind of crap that radio wallows in. Radio's a wasteland
Yes, 90% of what they play on the radio is crap. As Theodore Sturgeon noted, 90% of everything is crap. 90% of independent music is also crap.
I'm curious as to how you (or anyone else who would care to comment) separate the wheat from the chaff. What tools/websites/recommendations/etc. do you use to identify the few good groups among all the independent crap?
Re:BBC View on US Politics
on
Congress@Work
·
· Score: 3
The gist of the allergations is that Bush is completly corrupt. He received 50 Million dollars in bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H 'political donations' from US energy companies, and has just given them 5 Billion dollars of subsidy back.
The problem is that this is true of politicians in both of the major parties. And the two major parties have successfully fooled the majority of Americans into believing that there's actually a significant difference between the two, and thus most Americans won't consider a third option.
As long as people say "Republicans may be bad, but Democrats are even worse, so I'd better vote Republican," or vice versa, this system will continue.
I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but since you brought it up, I was already at the karma cap, so I can hardly be karma whoring. In fact, since the +3 came first (which didn't net me anything, since I was at the cap) then the -2, my net karma change was -2. Hardly karma whoring, wouldn't you say?
I'll just call all my friends at NASA and see what they think. I don't have any? Then I'll go to www.spacescientistsondemand.com where friendly NASA engineers and scientists are sitting online waiting to handle all my inane questions.
Um, my whole point was that you already have an answer from NASA scientists. It's in the BBC article. The answer is "we don't know." That's the best you're going to get right now.
If you REALLY want to know, you look elsewhere, but if you kinda want to know and your boss is looking, it's Slashdot all the way.
I'm not saying/. isn't a useful source of information. It's great inasmuch as it collates news items from a number of different sources, so you don't have to read all those sources yourself. (You do have to be aware of the lack of fact-checking in the stories posted, but that's another rant for another time.) What I'm questioning is the usefulness of asking for answers here, when NASA scientists have already tried everything they can think of, and haven't come up with an explanation.
Informed comment? On slashdot? Methinks you're looking in the wrong place.
You'll see lots of speculation by people who have no idea what they're talking about, but at least that won't get modded up. You'll also see lots of speculation by people who have a very slight idea of what they're talking about, and even though that speculation is little better, it will get modded up by other people who have a slight idea of what they're talking about, because it sounds plausible.
Maybe a legitimate space scientist or two will post with something that might actually be useful. Maybe--possibly--that will get modded up. More likely it won't, because it will be over most people's heads, or because he came too late to the conversation (say, two days from now) when no one's going to use mod points on the story.
Assuming your characterization of the BBC story is accurate (/.ed, can't get to it right now), and assuming that the BBC story itself is accurate--both of which are nontrivial assumptions--why wouldn't the quoted "NASA scientists" be the informed comment you're looking for? Is anyone here going to give you a better answer than the "we don't know" you got from the NASA scientists?
(Don't mind my ranting, I'm just in an anti-/. mood today.)
Re:"Just delete it" argument flawed
on
RFC for Spammers
·
· Score: 2
We hear this argument all the time. "Just delete it, it's no big deal."
I do.
It just so happens that my delete key is connected to the spammer's ISP account.
I don't understand this crowd. One minute, you're all spouting Libertarian rhetoric, the next, you're demanding that others foot the bill.
Oh please. The/. hivemind is nowhere near Libertarian. It's more accurately characterized as "I want everything for free, now." In some instances the outcome of this philosophy aligns with libertarian principles, and in such cases the hivemind will claim to be libertarian, in the hopes of deceiving people into thinking that it has more noble principles than simply "I want everything for free, now." But I don't know any libertarian who believes that all corporations are evil and must be stopped, as the hivemind does.
So reasonable that they've already done it. See www.uspto.gov for a searchable index.
And it's just one more example of why the stories on/. are so bad. Timothy couldn't take 30 seconds to find this out for himself before posting???!!
On another note, it's worth mentioning that the USPTO site has every patent back to some time in 1834, and every known patent back to the foundation of the Patent Office, in 1790.
("Every known patent" because the patent office suffered a major fire in 1834, destroying all of its records up to that point. Some of the pre-1834 patents were recovered, when people who had copies of those patents sent them to USPTO, but some are lost for good.)
The Delphion site only went back to sometime in the 1960s, IIRC.
Honestly, I think that patenting random discoveries (genes and the like) is idiotic
Then it's a good thing you can't patent naturally occurring genes.
You cannot patent natural discoveries, such as genes.
Now, you're going to object that you've seen dozen of reports in the popular press of companies patenting naturally occurring genes. How is this, you ask?
Well, the truth is that they didn't technically patent the gene itself, but did something almost as good (or bad, depending on your perspective).
You can patent the use of a gene for a particular purpose. "Use of gene X to treat genetic disease Y," for example. The problem comes when people say, "Use of gene X for A, B, C, D, E,.... " and list a couple of hundred different potential uses. Nearly as good as if they had patented the gene itself.
I agree this is still a problem. I'm just explaining, because those of you who say "It's outrageous that they can patent something that occurs naturally!" can't properly fight the problem until you understand it.
For those of you who still don't believe me, I challenge you to find a single patent where a naturally occurring gene is claimed.
How about doing the things that geeks *love* and they havent done yet. That would be a change. Like oh, grabbing new technology, and making it a prominant part of the show in subsequent shows!... In ST:VOY, they add ablative armor in the second (?) episode, but *never* mention it again.
OTOH, the doctor's mobile holographic emitter, picked up mid-series or so, was very frequently used, and to good effect. Mostly just so the doctor could go somewhere other than sickbay/holodeck (which in itself is good, allowing for character development for the doctor) but occasionally playing a significant plot role as well.
Grr, somehow missed this AC comment when I was reading the responses before. He says what I was trying to, only more quickly and clearly. Downmod parent as redundant.
There's already several good answers to this question, and I'm coming late to the discussion, but nonetheless I'd like to take a slightly different tack than others have here.
If I release code under the GPL, doesn't the GPL "virus" now infect my code and all derivitives?
Every analogy breaks down if you try to stretch it too far. This is where the GPL-as-virus analogy breaks down. Always keep this in mind: the GPL is not a virus. Like a virus in some ways, yes. But different in others.
In fact, it's probably best not to think of the GPL as applying to software at all. The GPL does not apply to software; it applies to people. It tells people what they can and cannot do. It's about software, of course; it tells people what they can and cannot do with a particular piece of software. As a convenience we talk about GPL'ed software, and know what we mean. But, ultimately, the GPL applies to people, not software.
Now, there's some dispute about whether the GPL is a contract or a unilateral transfer of rights, but assume for the sake of argument it's a contract. (The analysis, for these purposes, is pretty much the same if it's a unilateral transfer of rights, but I find it's easier to think about as a contract.)
In the GPL, the author gives the user permission to use his code. In exchange, the user agrees to a) make the source available, if he makes the binaries available, and b) allow any derivative works to be licensed according to the GPL.
So, the GPL can be thought of as a contract between the author and the user. If several users license the software under the GPL, you can think of several independent (but identical) contracts existing, one for each user.
Now, keep in mind that the parties in a contract are not interchangeable. Suppose I contract a roofer to do roofing work on my house, in exchange for which I will pay him a certain amount of money. Suppose instead, I do roofing work on the roofer's house, and he pays me money--neither of us have fulfilled the terms of our contract. Likewise, the author and the user are not interchangeable in the GPL, and the author is under no obligation to release derivatives of his own work under the GPL.
Similarly, the author can release his GPL'ed code under a non-GPL license to, say, Microsoft, and then Microsoft can do with it whatever is permitted by that particular non-GPL license--distribute binaries without source, or create non-GPL'ed derivative works, if it's permitted by the non-GPL license. This follows easily as long as you keep in mind that a) the GPL applies to people, not software, and b) the parties in the GPL are not interchangeable. The user cannot license the software to Microsoft under a non-GPL license, of course, because that is prohibited by the GPL. But the author's obligations under the GPL are not the same as the user's obligations--the two parties to a contract are not interchangeable--and distributing the software under a non-GPL license is not prohibited to the author.
That's not to say there couldn't be a contract which does prevent the author from distributing his software under any license other than that particular one. But the GPL is not that license.
Going back to the car analogy, knowing not to delete dlls is like knowing not to pour sugar in the gas tank. these people have been taught that using a piece of equipment with far more nuances and details than a car, should somehow be magic because its "new" and work perfectly. this is patently false and tech support takes the force of this failed assumption.
That's a fair point. However, my point is that when the consumer has been deliberately given that impression by the computer company and/or salesperson who sold them the computer, the frustrated tech support person should blame the company and/or salesperson, not the hapless consumer.
Yes, and did your car come with specific instructions not to remove the tires, or to pull loose some of the wires under the hood? No.
The large majority of adults--wherever they learned it--know not to remove the tires of cars and then try to drive the, or to pull out wires under the hood.
The majority of adults do not know not to delete dll's, but computer manufacturers assume that they do.
This lady decided to go on a spring cleaning binge and delete all those pesky dll's she was sure she would never need.
Well, I'm probably less computer-saavy than the average/.er, but at least more so than this woman. I know not to randomly delete dll's, or bad things are likely to happen. (I don't recall where I learned this, though.) On the other hand, I don't really comprehend what dll's do. But here's what gets me about this situation: how was this woman supposed to know not to delete dll's? Did the various manuals which came with her computer say, anywhere in them, not to delete dll's? I bet not!
I don't think theres anything in a persons daily life that works correctly without you having knowledge of how to use it.
To a point, yes. But I believe the level of knowledge you are demanding is too high--not only in computers, but also in your car analogy.
In another context, owning a car requires a drivers license.
And the test for the license covers day-to-day safe and legal operation of a car, and not maintenance of that car.
You also have to be aware that regular maintainence is also needed.
Yes, and that fact is spelled out clearly in the owner's manual! So even if you didn't know it before you bought the car, you would know it if you read the owner's manual. No one expects people to innately know that cars require regular maintenance; they have to learn it, at some point. The knowledge cannot be assumed.
Pretty much every guy that is fairly handy can chagnge his own oil/battery/tires or what have you.
Yes, but it's not a prerequisite to owning a car, receiving a driver's license, or even properly maintaining a car.
The use of an automobile has a prerequisite of at least basic automotive knowledge.
Again, to some point, yes, but not to the level you describe. It is not only possible but even common for a person who does not know how to change his own oil or tires to be a good car owner.
I do believe that we can't keep pushing boxes as consumer friendly.
With that, at least, I can agree. So don't blame the poor woman in your story, who was probably told the computer was amazingly easy to use, but the company and/or salesperson who gave her that impression.
IIRC, the term of patents is 17 years from filing date.
You do not recall correctly. Currently, the term of patents is 20 years from the filing date. At one time, the law was 17 years from the date of grant, and for some patents it is currently "17 years from grant or 20 years from filing, whichever is longer." But 17 years from the filing date never entered into it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a fair point, and I certainly wouldn't expect that I would be handed independent music I like on a silver platter.
My point is that everyone has slightly different tastes, so categorizing music and allowing a person to listen to music and determine _what_ they like is the tool. By playing only what the major labels push, radio is causing the majority of listeners to settle for _their_ drek.
You'll get no argument from me there. My point is that the time involved to find a few good (to me) bands can be very large, having to listen to a lot of crap (to me). Even with genre classifications, it can be difficult. (I'm more likely to like a ska band picked at random than I am to like any band picked at random, but there are still many more independent ska bands that I dislike than those that I like.)
Now, I haven't spent a lot of time on the internet looking for independent bands, so perhaps there are some good sites out there--thus my request for recommendations, and some other people in this thread have made useful suggestions.
Please keep in mind that my original question--essentially "Given that there are thousands of independent bands, most of which I won't like, how can I find those bands I do like without spending an excessive amount of time?"--is meant as a sincere question, and not as an attack on independent music.
(As an aside, it's interesting you mention TMBG--I am aware of TMBG, but ironically I became aware of them after hearing "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)" and "Particle Man" on an episode of Tiny Toons--a WB produced TV show.)
You won't get any argument from me there.
So what if 90% of independent music is crap?
The "so what" is that when I'm trying to find music, I'm primarily interested in the music. If I'm interested in politics, I'll look to read political tracts, listen to talk radio, etc. If the music itself sucks, but the lyrics have an interesting political message, I'm still not interested.
Maybe you listen to music for its political message, but that's not my cup of tea.
Sure, I could find good independent music on the internet too, if I had the time to wade through lots of crap. Thus my question: how do you find good independent music without wading through lots of crap?
Admittedly, having to wade through some crap is inevitable, as each person's definition of "crap" varies with taste. I'd like to listen to more independent music, but I don't have the time to listen to twenty bands I don't like in order to find one I do.
The issue isn't necessarily that independent or obscure music is always better... its about the *choice* to listen to those artists. Radio doesn't provide that.
I won't argue with that. But the flip side is that, even though the radio may only play 50 different bands, it's not too difficult to find the 5 that I like. How do I find the good music among 50,000 bands?
(I'm not trying to attack independent music; this is a sincere question.)
Yes, 90% of what they play on the radio is crap. As Theodore Sturgeon noted, 90% of everything is crap. 90% of independent music is also crap.
I'm curious as to how you (or anyone else who would care to comment) separate the wheat from the chaff. What tools/websites/recommendations/etc. do you use to identify the few good groups among all the independent crap?
The problem is that this is true of politicians in both of the major parties. And the two major parties have successfully fooled the majority of Americans into believing that there's actually a significant difference between the two, and thus most Americans won't consider a third option.
As long as people say "Republicans may be bad, but Democrats are even worse, so I'd better vote Republican," or vice versa, this system will continue.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Michael has forgotten that the U.S. does not have an official language.
I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but since you brought it up, I was already at the karma cap, so I can hardly be karma whoring. In fact, since the +3 came first (which didn't net me anything, since I was at the cap) then the -2, my net karma change was -2. Hardly karma whoring, wouldn't you say?
Quite a few universities, and even some public libraries, already do. See here.
Um, my whole point was that you already have an answer from NASA scientists. It's in the BBC article. The answer is "we don't know." That's the best you're going to get right now.
If you REALLY want to know, you look elsewhere, but if you kinda want to know and your boss is looking, it's Slashdot all the way.
I'm not saying /. isn't a useful source of information. It's great inasmuch as it collates news items from a number of different sources, so you don't have to read all those sources yourself. (You do have to be aware of the lack of fact-checking in the stories posted, but that's another rant for another time.) What I'm questioning is the usefulness of asking for answers here, when NASA scientists have already tried everything they can think of, and haven't come up with an explanation.
You'll see lots of speculation by people who have no idea what they're talking about, but at least that won't get modded up. You'll also see lots of speculation by people who have a very slight idea of what they're talking about, and even though that speculation is little better, it will get modded up by other people who have a slight idea of what they're talking about, because it sounds plausible.
Maybe a legitimate space scientist or two will post with something that might actually be useful. Maybe--possibly--that will get modded up. More likely it won't, because it will be over most people's heads, or because he came too late to the conversation (say, two days from now) when no one's going to use mod points on the story.
Assuming your characterization of the BBC story is accurate (/.ed, can't get to it right now), and assuming that the BBC story itself is accurate--both of which are nontrivial assumptions--why wouldn't the quoted "NASA scientists" be the informed comment you're looking for? Is anyone here going to give you a better answer than the "we don't know" you got from the NASA scientists?
(Don't mind my ranting, I'm just in an anti-/. mood today.)
I do.
It just so happens that my delete key is connected to the spammer's ISP account.
Oh please. The /. hivemind is nowhere near Libertarian. It's more accurately characterized as "I want everything for free, now." In some instances the outcome of this philosophy aligns with libertarian principles, and in such cases the hivemind will claim to be libertarian, in the hopes of deceiving people into thinking that it has more noble principles than simply "I want everything for free, now." But I don't know any libertarian who believes that all corporations are evil and must be stopped, as the hivemind does.
And it's just one more example of why the stories on /. are so bad. Timothy couldn't take 30 seconds to find this out for himself before posting???!!
On another note, it's worth mentioning that the USPTO site has every patent back to some time in 1834, and every known patent back to the foundation of the Patent Office, in 1790.
("Every known patent" because the patent office suffered a major fire in 1834, destroying all of its records up to that point. Some of the pre-1834 patents were recovered, when people who had copies of those patents sent them to USPTO, but some are lost for good.)
The Delphion site only went back to sometime in the 1960s, IIRC.
Then it's a good thing you can't patent naturally occurring genes.
You cannot patent natural discoveries, such as genes.
Now, you're going to object that you've seen dozen of reports in the popular press of companies patenting naturally occurring genes. How is this, you ask?
Well, the truth is that they didn't technically patent the gene itself, but did something almost as good (or bad, depending on your perspective).
You can patent the use of a gene for a particular purpose. "Use of gene X to treat genetic disease Y," for example. The problem comes when people say, "Use of gene X for A, B, C, D, E, .... " and list a couple of hundred different potential uses. Nearly as good as if they had patented the gene itself.
I agree this is still a problem. I'm just explaining, because those of you who say "It's outrageous that they can patent something that occurs naturally!" can't properly fight the problem until you understand it.
For those of you who still don't believe me, I challenge you to find a single patent where a naturally occurring gene is claimed.
"Come along, or you will be late."
"Late for what?"
"Late, as in the late Dentarthurdent."
Unfortunately, that only applies to the federal government. State and local governments can hold copyrights.
OTOH, the doctor's mobile holographic emitter, picked up mid-series or so, was very frequently used, and to good effect. Mostly just so the doctor could go somewhere other than sickbay/holodeck (which in itself is good, allowing for character development for the doctor) but occasionally playing a significant plot role as well.
Grr, somehow missed this AC comment when I was reading the responses before. He says what I was trying to, only more quickly and clearly. Downmod parent as redundant.
If I release code under the GPL, doesn't the GPL "virus" now infect my code and all derivitives?
Every analogy breaks down if you try to stretch it too far. This is where the GPL-as-virus analogy breaks down. Always keep this in mind: the GPL is not a virus. Like a virus in some ways, yes. But different in others.
In fact, it's probably best not to think of the GPL as applying to software at all. The GPL does not apply to software; it applies to people. It tells people what they can and cannot do. It's about software, of course; it tells people what they can and cannot do with a particular piece of software. As a convenience we talk about GPL'ed software, and know what we mean. But, ultimately, the GPL applies to people, not software.
Now, there's some dispute about whether the GPL is a contract or a unilateral transfer of rights, but assume for the sake of argument it's a contract. (The analysis, for these purposes, is pretty much the same if it's a unilateral transfer of rights, but I find it's easier to think about as a contract.)
In the GPL, the author gives the user permission to use his code. In exchange, the user agrees to a) make the source available, if he makes the binaries available, and b) allow any derivative works to be licensed according to the GPL.
So, the GPL can be thought of as a contract between the author and the user. If several users license the software under the GPL, you can think of several independent (but identical) contracts existing, one for each user.
Now, keep in mind that the parties in a contract are not interchangeable. Suppose I contract a roofer to do roofing work on my house, in exchange for which I will pay him a certain amount of money. Suppose instead, I do roofing work on the roofer's house, and he pays me money--neither of us have fulfilled the terms of our contract. Likewise, the author and the user are not interchangeable in the GPL, and the author is under no obligation to release derivatives of his own work under the GPL.
Similarly, the author can release his GPL'ed code under a non-GPL license to, say, Microsoft, and then Microsoft can do with it whatever is permitted by that particular non-GPL license--distribute binaries without source, or create non-GPL'ed derivative works, if it's permitted by the non-GPL license. This follows easily as long as you keep in mind that a) the GPL applies to people, not software, and b) the parties in the GPL are not interchangeable. The user cannot license the software to Microsoft under a non-GPL license, of course, because that is prohibited by the GPL. But the author's obligations under the GPL are not the same as the user's obligations--the two parties to a contract are not interchangeable--and distributing the software under a non-GPL license is not prohibited to the author.
That's not to say there couldn't be a contract which does prevent the author from distributing his software under any license other than that particular one. But the GPL is not that license.
Judges? Courts? Could you give an example of when a court has failed to uphold an open-source license?
That's a fair point. However, my point is that when the consumer has been deliberately given that impression by the computer company and/or salesperson who sold them the computer, the frustrated tech support person should blame the company and/or salesperson, not the hapless consumer.
The large majority of adults--wherever they learned it--know not to remove the tires of cars and then try to drive the, or to pull out wires under the hood.
The majority of adults do not know not to delete dll's, but computer manufacturers assume that they do.
Well, I'm probably less computer-saavy than the average /.er, but at least more so than this woman. I know not to randomly delete dll's, or bad things are likely to happen. (I don't recall where I learned this, though.) On the other hand, I don't really comprehend what dll's do. But here's what gets me about this situation: how was this woman supposed to know not to delete dll's? Did the various manuals which came with her computer say, anywhere in them, not to delete dll's? I bet not!
I don't think theres anything in a persons daily life that works correctly without you having knowledge of how to use it.
To a point, yes. But I believe the level of knowledge you are demanding is too high--not only in computers, but also in your car analogy.
In another context, owning a car requires a drivers license.
And the test for the license covers day-to-day safe and legal operation of a car, and not maintenance of that car.
You also have to be aware that regular maintainence is also needed.
Yes, and that fact is spelled out clearly in the owner's manual! So even if you didn't know it before you bought the car, you would know it if you read the owner's manual. No one expects people to innately know that cars require regular maintenance; they have to learn it, at some point. The knowledge cannot be assumed.
Pretty much every guy that is fairly handy can chagnge his own oil/battery/tires or what have you.
Yes, but it's not a prerequisite to owning a car, receiving a driver's license, or even properly maintaining a car.
The use of an automobile has a prerequisite of at least basic automotive knowledge.
Again, to some point, yes, but not to the level you describe. It is not only possible but even common for a person who does not know how to change his own oil or tires to be a good car owner.
I do believe that we can't keep pushing boxes as consumer friendly.
With that, at least, I can agree. So don't blame the poor woman in your story, who was probably told the computer was amazingly easy to use, but the company and/or salesperson who gave her that impression.
You do not recall correctly. Currently, the term of patents is 20 years from the filing date. At one time, the law was 17 years from the date of grant, and for some patents it is currently "17 years from grant or 20 years from filing, whichever is longer." But 17 years from the filing date never entered into it.
For more details see here.