These slimeballs just got picked off because they got big enough to get noticed, and they had enough money to make it worthwhile for the government. This will not be likely to give much pause to the small companies and individuals who routinely employ these sleazy tactics.
If his initial attitude changed it must have done so a while ago. I heard the artist and the photographer interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR some months ago, and the latter was quite clear that he considered his photograph to have been stolen, and also made the claim then that he thought he owned the copyright, not the AP. He was a bit peeved, and frustrated by the general attitude that people thought they could do whatever they wanted with images that they happened to find on the internet (which was where this artist found the photograph). He described the difficult, creative work and considerable preparation that went in to making the photograph, and, naturally, did not agree with the artists' view that his transformation of it was creatively significant enough to support his claim of fair use. Originally, I was sympathetic with the artist, but after hearing the photographer's point of view, I'm torn.
'US and UK are pretty much at the top of my list of "countries that suck".'
This makes it pretty hard to take you seriously. Despite my sharing of the concerns with the directions the security apparatus is taking in those two nations, they're still in a different league from China, Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
I didn't see in the comments, and the story submitter doesn't mention, that this essay, which is from 2002, has blossomed recently (April, 2009) into a book.
"Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post."
Don't forget free software and advertising. The sleazy practice of offering advertising income to people who have nice things to say about a product is pretty well established by now; I doubt many readers are fooled.
The problem of Google as content provider and intermediary is potentially deep, and transcends copyright issues. For many of us, Google is where we turn first to find out about a subject. If Google decides not to include a source of information in its search results, we may never learn that such a source exists.
But do they do that? Why would they?
They not only do it, but are willing to lie about it. I show how with an example here:
http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/
I'm having trouble understanding what you're going on about.
I didn't design the tests or any of the security procedures. I'm just pointing out that it is (and therefore you are) a little silly for getting exercised because a test that is designed to detect certain very specific organic molecules didn't also detect gunpowder, a ham sandwich, or anything else.
A moment's thought, should you care to give it a try, would lead you to the revelation that the false positives that would result from detecting fairly common substances such as gunpowder would render the attempt at explosives detection less than useless. If you are still confused: they are worried about small items that can bring down a plane, and that means high explosives, not firecrackers.
But if your expertise leads you to the conclusion that they should redesign their chemical detection procedures, you should by all means share your conclusions with the proper authorities, rather than venting in my direction, despite the urgent temptation arising from having your prolix, rambling slice of your life deflated with a single sentence. I'm sure the DHS will be very grateful to have the results of your research.
he used to write liquification simulations in post-script and send them to be processed by the printer because its postscript engine was faster at floating point math and vectors
Holy crap, that's the most interesting comment in this entire thread. Do you have any more information about this? Can you get this guy to write an article about it?
Preview (what OS X uses to display PDFs) does not handle embedded movies or other annotations, and sometimes has problems with images that display fine using Acrobat.
I use xpdf on linux, and have tried the other readers, but have yet to find an open-source reader that can handle movies and all other annotation types. Any suggestions?
I don't see any mention of this feature in the comments: git cryptographically signs every commit, so you can tell if there was an error in transmission/storage or if someone has attempted to alter history or file contents. In fact, commits are labeled by their hashes. This is the cool feature that convinces me to stay with it, although I still find it occasionally mysterious; I just continue to assume that my incomplete understanding of its opaque machinations is my fault, and that with continued study all will be clear (even the man pages).
I've encountered at least two advanced texts, one in physics and one in mathematics (differential geometry) that actually cited Goldstein's Classical Mechanics text as an example of a physicist's non-rigorous use of mathematics (mainly his attempt to apply variational principles). Both books claim that Goldstein makes multiple errors in many of his proofs. In short, I wouldn't recommend this book to a mathematician.
There are extensions that are supposed to allow you to use your editor of choice for this, but I've never gotten them to work. I just write the comments in vim and paste them in.
So what do you think about Google allowing extremist Muslims decide what videos you are allowed to see, and concealing their censorship like this:
http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/
Google has removed videos critical of the Pakistani government at that government's request, and has many more shameful examples of political cave-in under its belt.
Censoring results for Google China was a HUGE debate within the company and they sincerely cared about the issue. My theory: having decided to censor search results for the Chinese, it became easier for Google management to take further steps, leading to their current censoring of content for Americans, and habitually lying about it.
I'm surprised to see no mention in the comments of Paul Erdos (the 'o' with two dots on top, but Slashdot seems not to be in unicode), one of the most important mathematicians of the century, who might have been responsible for the definition of a mathematician as a machine for turning coffee into theorems. He took Benzedrine or Ritalin almost every day for the last twenty five years of his life. His description of his inability to produce mathematics without these drugs has the fascinating implication that the current state of the mathematical landscape would be noticeably different had they not been available to him
A related problem is Google's appeasement of muslim demands for censorship, not because they don't have a legal right to do this, but because Google is a de facto portal to ideas and speech, and so their capitulation to intimidation (as well as, for example, Borders and Waldenbooks removing magazines from their shelves if they contain articles that might upset Muslims) has the effect of abridgment of the freedom of speech. That this is happening within the U.S. and has a direct effect on what Americans are permitted to see and hear is alarming.
Idiots like Hitchens can pretend that religion has never done anything good[...]has he ever listened to a Bach oratorio[...]
Not really worth replying to, but certainly only an idiot could confuse what Christopher Hitchens does actually say with the fatuous statement above. Any even a glancing familiarity with his writings would inform you that he is familiar with what he calls the transcendent qualities of religious music and architecture.
Slashdot Mirror
These slimeballs just got picked off because they got big enough to get noticed, and they had enough money to make it worthwhile for the government. This will not be likely to give much pause to the small companies and individuals who routinely employ these sleazy tactics.
If his initial attitude changed it must have done so a while ago. I heard the artist and the photographer interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR some months ago, and the latter was quite clear that he considered his photograph to have been stolen, and also made the claim then that he thought he owned the copyright, not the AP. He was a bit peeved, and frustrated by the general attitude that people thought they could do whatever they wanted with images that they happened to find on the internet (which was where this artist found the photograph). He described the difficult, creative work and considerable preparation that went in to making the photograph, and, naturally, did not agree with the artists' view that his transformation of it was creatively significant enough to support his claim of fair use. Originally, I was sympathetic with the artist, but after hearing the photographer's point of view, I'm torn.
'US and UK are pretty much at the top of my list of "countries that suck".'
This makes it pretty hard to take you seriously. Despite my sharing of the concerns with the directions the security apparatus is taking in those two nations, they're still in a different league from China, Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
I didn't see in the comments, and the story submitter doesn't mention, that this essay, which is from 2002, has blossomed recently (April, 2009) into a book.
"Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post." Don't forget free software and advertising. The sleazy practice of offering advertising income to people who have nice things to say about a product is pretty well established by now; I doubt many readers are fooled.
The problem of Google as content provider and intermediary is potentially deep, and transcends copyright issues. For many of us, Google is where we turn first to find out about a subject. If Google decides not to include a source of information in its search results, we may never learn that such a source exists. But do they do that? Why would they? They not only do it, but are willing to lie about it. I show how with an example here: http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/
I'm having trouble understanding what you're going on about. I didn't design the tests or any of the security procedures. I'm just pointing out that it is (and therefore you are) a little silly for getting exercised because a test that is designed to detect certain very specific organic molecules didn't also detect gunpowder, a ham sandwich, or anything else. A moment's thought, should you care to give it a try, would lead you to the revelation that the false positives that would result from detecting fairly common substances such as gunpowder would render the attempt at explosives detection less than useless. If you are still confused: they are worried about small items that can bring down a plane, and that means high explosives, not firecrackers. But if your expertise leads you to the conclusion that they should redesign their chemical detection procedures, you should by all means share your conclusions with the proper authorities, rather than venting in my direction, despite the urgent temptation arising from having your prolix, rambling slice of your life deflated with a single sentence. I'm sure the DHS will be very grateful to have the results of your research.
Did it not occur to you that perhaps the swab kits are made to search for high explosives, rather than gunpowder?
Does any free pdf reader that runs on linux support embedded movies and other special annotations?
Well don't leave us in suspense. What did he decide?
Holy crap, that's the most interesting comment in this entire thread. Do you have any more information about this? Can you get this guy to write an article about it?
Ya think?
Translation: "I don't see biomedicine using LaTeX so it's not important."
You're missing something obvious.
Preview (what OS X uses to display PDFs) does not handle embedded movies or other annotations, and sometimes has problems with images that display fine using Acrobat.
I use xpdf on linux, and have tried the other readers, but have yet to find an open-source reader that can handle movies and all other annotation types. Any suggestions?
hasn't it? What about the stories about Microsoft?
Gary Null, the quack health guru, has his employees writing reviews of his "books".
Mark Bernstein, who sells hypertext software for the Macintosh, unsubtly suggests that he'll advertise on your blog if you mention his products,
I don't see any mention of this feature in the comments: git cryptographically signs every commit, so you can tell if there was an error in transmission/storage or if someone has attempted to alter history or file contents. In fact, commits are labeled by their hashes. This is the cool feature that convinces me to stay with it, although I still find it occasionally mysterious; I just continue to assume that my incomplete understanding of its opaque machinations is my fault, and that with continued study all will be clear (even the man pages).
Same thing happened in France in 2005: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/11/france
I've encountered at least two advanced texts, one in physics and one in mathematics (differential geometry) that actually cited Goldstein's Classical Mechanics text as an example of a physicist's non-rigorous use of mathematics (mainly his attempt to apply variational principles). Both books claim that Goldstein makes multiple errors in many of his proofs. In short, I wouldn't recommend this book to a mathematician.
There are extensions that are supposed to allow you to use your editor of choice for this, but I've never gotten them to work. I just write the comments in vim and paste them in.
with the vimperator extension. Everything should work like vim.
So what do you think about Google allowing extremist Muslims decide what videos you are allowed to see, and concealing their censorship like this: http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/
Google has removed videos critical of the Pakistani government at that government's request, and has many more shameful examples of political cave-in under its belt.
I'm surprised to see no mention in the comments of Paul Erdos (the 'o' with two dots on top, but Slashdot seems not to be in unicode), one of the most important mathematicians of the century, who might have been responsible for the definition of a mathematician as a machine for turning coffee into theorems. He took Benzedrine or Ritalin almost every day for the last twenty five years of his life. His description of his inability to produce mathematics without these drugs has the fascinating implication that the current state of the mathematical landscape would be noticeably different had they not been available to him
A related problem is Google's appeasement of muslim demands for censorship, not because they don't have a legal right to do this, but because Google is a de facto portal to ideas and speech, and so their capitulation to intimidation (as well as, for example, Borders and Waldenbooks removing magazines from their shelves if they contain articles that might upset Muslims) has the effect of abridgment of the freedom of speech. That this is happening within the U.S. and has a direct effect on what Americans are permitted to see and hear is alarming.
Not really worth replying to, but certainly only an idiot could confuse what Christopher Hitchens does actually say with the fatuous statement above. Any even a glancing familiarity with his writings would inform you that he is familiar with what he calls the transcendent qualities of religious music and architecture.