So you're assuming that there's only a few seconds between when eigenradio "hears" something and when that sound gets used in eigenradio's own composition. My guess would be that there is actually a longer lag in between these two events.
What makes you think that the slashdot effect changes the content of the music?
I heard the same thing that you did, but as I understand it, the only input that goes into the music is the content of the radio stations to which the server is listening. I don't see how the number of listeners to eigenradio would have cause the effect you're describing.
Not quite something you can dance to, is it? I'd be interested in hearing the original music that's "just like" the Eigenradio (though I think I might prefer the Eigenradio).
I read it.. but the deal is.. blocking can be dynamic.. i.e. your/etc/hosts.deny file does not have to be an IP.. you can add ALL: *.anonymizer.com
The following quote from the article seems to indicates that they are using a wide variety of hostnames and domain names, registered to many different organizations.
The deliberately generic-sounding URLs for the service are publicized over Radio Farda broadcasts and through bulk e-mails that Anonymizer sends to addresses in the country. The addresses are provided by human rights groups and other sources, says Anonymizer president Lance Cottrell.
It's not really a test of the GPL. It's a test of the validity of SCO's claims -- does SCO own what they say they do, and did IBM do what SCO says IBM did?
The fact that SCO themselves distributed Linux under the GPL is one piece of evidence against SCO, there's nothing about the case that would cause the validity of the GPL to be a major issue. Or am I missing something?
Are the claims of either side based on the (non-)validity of the GPL in any way?
Ah. I see how you're reading this. In this sentence,
SCO charges that IBM violated the contract and stole SCO's trade secrets by incorporating SCO software into the hugely popular Linux operating system.
I read "SCO charges that" to apply to the whole sentence -- that is, everything up to the period are allegations by SCO. But you're reading it as SCO alleges everything up to the word "by" and everything after that is presented as a statement of fact. It's definitely poorly/ambiguously written, but I don't think your interpretation is what is intended.
which I would take as their not defending their copyright adequately.
While you have a good point in the rest of your post, I think that here you are confusing copyright with trademark. It's trademark which you have to defend it or lose it. With copyright, you don't lose any rights by not defending it (and when you do defend it, you don't have to do so consistently -- you can arbirtrarily decide to sue one violator and ignore thousands of others)
This movie didn't initially have a general release, and it wasn't planned to have one. While movies usually open big and get less and less business as time goes on, this one opened on just a few screens and slowly grew because of the word of mouth. Over a period of six months, more and more screens were added until it was effectively in wide distribution. At this point, the studio decided to "release" it, which meant, among other things, (a) starting the ad campaign , (b) releasing it in Canada.
The advertising campaign you are talking about (along with nationwide Canadian distribution) was about 6 months after the film was released in the US -- long after the phenomenon described here had occured.
And this comes hot on the tail of a announcement that Ebay was instituting a program to bring back the little guy into their auction system... I smell management on the insurance system and marketing on the little guy program. No one communicated on these deals i'll bet, the idiots! Simply put, they just cancelled each other out.
Um. This is part of their program to help out the little guy. Your sense of scale is a little off here. The "big guys" here are Disney and IBM.
Do you really think someone who's making $1000 a month gross is not a little guy?
Basically, I was wondering what the terms of the employement (contractually or other) between the seller and eBay are, in order for eBay to write-off the health care as an expense.
No employment is necessary. It's a group policy. The group is eBay sellers who sell more than $1000 a month, that's all. It is not unusual to have a group policy that is not employment-related.
What expense do you think eBay is writing off? I don't see anything in the article that suggests that eBay is paying any part of the premium for the insurance
From what I can discern, they are trying to get rid of are the so-called "master merchants", or aggregators.
Yes. That's how it seems at the beginning of the article. But then there's the comment I quoted where they say it won't affect the occaisional users of the aggregator, only those who are processing transactions "on an ongoing basis." Hence my confusion.
There's a longer version of the article at Yahoo (longer than the one on USA Today's own site - weird). There's a statement from MasterCard that I don't understand. Quoting the (longer) article:
The change would not, MasterCard says, affect people who occasionally use third-party services to sell goods online -- only entities who sell goods or services ''on an ongoing basis,'' according to a MasterCard memo. The change would require those merchants to set up deals with banks so they could take MasterCard directly.
I don't know how MasterCard would know the difference. What about the transaction would indicate to them who the PayPal user is and whether that user is selling things on an ongoing basis?
Maybe they are referring to the fact that you need a Business account or Premierre personal account on PayPal to accept credit card payment?
Basically, if you do not select a Money Market Account, then PayPal (obviously) puts your money in a bank account.
This gets you the benefits of FDIC insurance if that bank fails, not if PayPal fails. There is no protection against PayPal failing.
Is my PayPal account insured? Yes, your PayPal balance is FDIC insured up to $100,000, as follows. When you add or receive funds to your PayPal balance, PayPal combines your funds with other customer funds and deposits them in accounts at FDIC-insured banks on your behalf until you decide to send money to another user, withdraw the funds, or enroll in the Money Market Reserve Fund. In the unlikely event that a bank where we place your money were to fail, your funds would benefit from FDIC insurance, along with any other deposits you hold at that bank, up to a total of $100,000. In the event of insolvency of a bank where we place your money, we would act as your representative and file a claim with the FDIC to collect the amount determined from your PayPal balance. You can access a list of the banks where we place your money here.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you approve of the job that Stratton D. Sclavos doing as CEO of Verisign? Vote yes or no in this Forbes.com poll.
From the story.
That is, you can't smell anything else if the swimming pool isn't chlorinated.
Hmmm. No, I guess that wouldn't actually help much either
Right now it's 50-50 with 33720 votes
So you're assuming that there's only a few seconds between when eigenradio "hears" something and when that sound gets used in eigenradio's own composition. My guess would be that there is actually a longer lag in between these two events.
What makes you think that the slashdot effect changes the content of the music?
I heard the same thing that you did, but as I understand it, the only input that goes into the music is the content of the radio stations to which the server is listening. I don't see how the number of listeners to eigenradio would have cause the effect you're describing.
Not quite something you can dance to, is it? I'd be interested in hearing the original music that's "just like" the Eigenradio (though I think I might prefer the Eigenradio).
No, it makes perfect sense -- in both cases they believe that the anonymizer is a tool for those who want to overthrow their own government.
The following quote from the article seems to indicates that they are using a wide variety of hostnames and domain names, registered to many different organizations.
It's not really a test of the GPL. It's a test of the validity of SCO's claims -- does SCO own what they say they do, and did IBM do what SCO says IBM did?
The fact that SCO themselves distributed Linux under the GPL is one piece of evidence against SCO, there's nothing about the case that would cause the validity of the GPL to be a major issue. Or am I missing something?
Are the claims of either side based on the (non-)validity of the GPL in any way?
Ah. I see how you're reading this. In this sentence,
I read "SCO charges that" to apply to the whole sentence -- that is, everything up to the period are allegations by SCO. But you're reading it as SCO alleges everything up to the word "by" and everything after that is presented as a statement of fact. It's definitely poorly/ambiguously written, but I don't think your interpretation is what is intended.
Can you quote the part of the article where he does this? I can't find such an implication
Minor nitpick:
While you have a good point in the rest of your post, I think that here you are confusing copyright with trademark. It's trademark which you have to defend it or lose it. With copyright, you don't lose any rights by not defending it (and when you do defend it, you don't have to do so consistently -- you can arbirtrarily decide to sue one violator and ignore thousands of others)
Okay, I'm curious . . . why does it have to be a van?
This movie didn't initially have a general release, and it wasn't planned to have one. While movies usually open big and get less and less business as time goes on, this one opened on just a few screens and slowly grew because of the word of mouth. Over a period of six months, more and more screens were added until it was effectively in wide distribution. At this point, the studio decided to "release" it, which meant, among other things, (a) starting the ad campaign , (b) releasing it in Canada.
The advertising campaign you are talking about (along with nationwide Canadian distribution) was about 6 months after the film was released in the US -- long after the phenomenon described here had occured.
You got an affiliate commission link into a front-page Slashdot story! You rock!
Okay, I was being too clever. Any trained artist has done painting somewhere along the line.
Warning: Picky complaint about semantics. Stop reading here if such things annoy you.
I didn't know Escher did any painting.
In any case, what I see on this page is a couple of guys have built three of M C Escher's lithographs using Lego bricks.
Um. This is part of their program to help out the little guy. Your sense of scale is a little off here. The "big guys" here are Disney and IBM.
Do you really think someone who's making $1000 a month gross is not a little guy?
No employment is necessary. It's a group policy. The group is eBay sellers who sell more than $1000 a month, that's all. It is not unusual to have a group policy that is not employment-related.
What expense do you think eBay is writing off? I don't see anything in the article that suggests that eBay is paying any part of the premium for the insurance
Yes. That's how it seems at the beginning of the article. But then there's the comment I quoted where they say it won't affect the occaisional users of the aggregator, only those who are processing transactions "on an ongoing basis." Hence my confusion.
There's a longer version of the article at Yahoo (longer than the one on USA Today's own site - weird). There's a statement from MasterCard that I don't understand. Quoting the (longer) article:
I don't know how MasterCard would know the difference. What about the transaction would indicate to them who the PayPal user is and whether that user is selling things on an ongoing basis?
Maybe they are referring to the fact that you need a Business account or Premierre personal account on PayPal to accept credit card payment?
Now if only we could just match up the people who don't pay with the people who don't ship, the problem would be solved
Wait a second there. Below is the info on FDIC insurance from PayPal's help section (Link only works if you're logged in to PayPal).
Basically, if you do not select a Money Market Account, then PayPal (obviously) puts your money in a bank account.
This gets you the benefits of FDIC insurance if that bank fails, not if PayPal fails. There is no protection against PayPal failing.
Note that in addition to the FDIC pass-through insurance described above, PayPal also offers $100,000 insurance against unauthorized transfers.
jpellino wrote:
http://www.retrofuture.com/moontrip.html