Why would they _need_ to keep records for anything other than outstanding books? Once it is returned, couldn't they wipe the record of who had borrowed it? They could track the number of times a book was lent per year (or month, or such).
This all presumes librarians could actually choose to immediately change their systems to enact the initial suggestion.
According to an article in the Fairbanks paper, an investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board said "It's a fresh-water lake that sits on top of a bluff"... "The clouds sit right on the edge of it."
So weather (visibility) could have been a factor at that particular location. Weather prevented them from recovering the bodies for a while, too.
The odd bit in there: "he has yet to confirm reports that Zampino was teaching Zubkoff how to fly the four-seat helicopter."
just call them song-name.music to imply that they are music.. i think that would probably catch on..
Stop right there! I WANT different file types to have different extensions. I want to filter for them -- and I certainly don't want my 'JPEG's and 'BMP's both labled 'PIC's just because less tech folks would catch on.
IMO, intentionally promoting one extension for multiple formats is WORSE than Microsoft's technique of hiding file extensions (resulting in people clicking the readme.txt.exe embedded in their emails). It'd also be hell to extension mapping.
I'm saying that it is only a political medium in the same sense that it is a pro-Christian or anti-school voucher medium -- namely, it not intended as such, but particular viewers could deem it so for their purposes.
You can find messages in many places where none is intended. While it is a Good Thing that some folks notice trends, and can extrapolate -- that thinking individuals can see all sorts of things in a political light (and in other frameworks) -- there will be a large number of folks (including many game designers) who won't see it at all.
I remember a game where you could kill Barney, the purple dinosaur. I didn't play it thinking, "Hmmm...what are the political ramifications of the joint dislike of Barney by myself and the game creator?" My thoughts were more like, "I hate Barney! Kill Barney!" I got a chuckle out of it and forgot about it.
Similarly, I feel 'political' flash games are mostly in the "I hate [x]! Destroy [x]!" category. The insightful are free to notice the trend towards political games, and to project possible reasons for their existence, but I doubt the majority of game creators set out with the intent to make a political statement. Contrast to political cartoonists who intend to get people to think or otherwise notice things. Ben Sargent example (note: link will expire in ~1 week).
Personally, I marvel at the propagation of war propaganda as it spills out of its original mediums and into the masses. Games like this are 'appeals to emotion' and are not arguments of logic nor critical thinking. They say something about how the public thinks, but the main content is that the public doesn't think -- they just vent their gut urges.
From the article: These games aren't trying to get you hooked or make your thumbs sore. They're trying to make you think.
I don't think the games are trying to make anyone think. I think they are a byproduct of tech guys feeling hatred at an enemy, and choosing to make games rather than pick up a gun and fight.
It might be interesting to think about our culture as reflected in this trend, but thinking is (IMO) an unintended by-product.
By itself, I find Microsoft's Windows Installer to be next to useless. Our software packages generally include hundreds -- if not thousands -- of files in dozens of directories and at least 20 different install options for each. Trying to construct MSIs with *just* the Microsoft SDK tools is incredibly painful and slow.
If I had the option, I would NOT be using the Microsoft package, but I don't get to make the decision. We do have the InstallShield frontend for it, but it seems a bit buggy. Ah well, back to writing automation tools for this stuff.
Isn't one of our Geek Holy Scriptures "Information wants to be free"?
I count it as a difference between the personal and professional. Information about things -- software, hardware, science in general, the Law -- is not the same as information about an individual. Things don't vote, raise kids, or have emotions.
Please don't tell me this story is meant to show the powers of the information age. Given that most the world's communications ceased being pigeon-based (for those that ever were), I don't think it's a particular triumph to take over this niche. I'd also bet that the price of maintaing the birds is significantly less than was the cost to get and maintain email.
redundant pigeons will be given to the state's wildlife
And what would they do with them? How would they keep them from _not_ returning?
Perhaps they'll take the stance my father encountered as a psych. grad student. When finshed experimenting, they just threw their test pigeons out the window. Being accustomed to life in a cage, the liberated pigeons hung out on the windows of the psych. lab trying to get back in.
What I've learned: the government doesn't have to listen to the citizens or acknowledge them. All they have to do is grease the right wheels to get into an election, then spend enough to get their name out. The less voters know about each candidate, the better for both sides, because then the race becomes about personality and party affilitation rather than having to deal with voters.
Even starting somewhat locally (in terms of the Federal Govt.), I've never gotten very far. In the 5 years I've lived where I do, I have snail-mailed my U.S. representative exactly 2xs (note: Before I moved here, I never mailed anyone at all). After the 1st, I got no response. After the 2nd, I got a form response 4 months after the fact which basically said that 'issues are important to this office'. The letter did not mention the bill I was protesting, and arrived months after votes had been cast.
I snail-mailed my State govt. rep. on one bill, too, and have since received occasional mailers from the state govt., but no response to the issue that concerned me.
from the article: just six individuals were responsible for 53 percent of that organization's 966 single-panel cases up to July 7 [note: that there are also 3-panel cases, but the are less than 10% of all cases].
So, make it a lottery. Ammend the UDRP so that instead of saying an arbitrator - known as a panelist under the UDRP - is selected by a service provider such as WIPO or NAF alone when the complainant - the trademark holder - requests just one panelist, it says the panelist will be drawn by lot.
This almost seems to be saying that the UDRP suffers from the same problem as most everything else involving lawyers. Namely, lawyers have nothing to do with moral justice. Their job is to win cases. If they do that, they are considered to be good.
> > for the girl that really just wants a job on the side as a part-time secretary... > hopefully it will perhaps allow that 'girl that just wants to be a secretary' to break out of debilitating stereotypes The continued propagation of that sort of stereotype (e.g. guys code; girls type) is one of the reasons so few of my gender want to get stuck in sunless offices with the current crop geeks. I know females who dislike geek attitudes enough to have no interest in in persuing computer studies.
So, yes, the steroetype is debilitating to females because it means fewer of us will learn computer skills, but at the same time, I believe it also harms the male geek. Some girls assume all geeks are chavanist pigs, and they don't want to be around them. If computer study had seemed so gender biased when I was in school, there's no way I would have gone near it. Heck, the Engineering Frats made me disgusted with Engineers (though not with Engineering).
Would it have been so hard for the initial comment to use the word "person" instead of "girl"? Or perhaps I should assume that geek boys want to be as unattractive and unwelcoming as possible to the opposite sex.
P.S. to the boys in High School: offer to help a female install linux on her PC -- but DON'T install it for her. Let her get involved with it. That way, she is less likely to find you pushy, and you'll have a topic of common interest.
Anyone consider what the new Journals' comments should look like? It occurs to me that a user might get fed up with Trolls and the like. I think it would be nice to be able to delete a comment without deleting your Journal Entry. A similar effect could be achieved by modding garbage posts down -- but wouldn't this (unlike articles) be a special case where the original poster would be the *best* person to determine a comment's value -- regardless of whether they've posted comments to their owm entry? If nothing else, who other than a Journal's owner can be expected to care about comments to personal Journal entries?
Forget Hendrix! I'll be going after a Martin Atkins cast. Seeing as Cynthia is still persuing the casting business, she should be the one to get the rights and profit. In fact, I'd like to see her sue anyone else who tries to encroach on her particular form of replication (hey, more frivolous suits are listed here most every week).
BTW: if anyone needs a list of her existing ummm... specimens, a listing of names and dates is posted (no details on length or girth). She has 'members' from : Dead Kennedys, Revolting Cocks (figures), Pop Will Eat Itself, and the Ruttles.
Well, lucky you! It looks like the money is going to lead towards AIM and away from ICQ. For anyone who didn't read the article, here's the pertinent quote: "ICQ users who downloaded a specific version of AOL Instant Messenger -- widely known as AIM -- can sign on to AIM and communicate with other ICQ users....However, AIM users cannot communicate with ICQ users".
Seems like AOL wants to hook others on their software or customer base, but hide alternates to their users. Note that the referenced version is (supposedly) no longer available. Anyone have it?
Disclaimer: I am forced to use AIM or nothing for chat @ work.
I don't see politics going anywhere. The public would get pissed if we weren't given the opportunity to vote. So I expect we'll get the opportunity, but the value of our choice will diminish.
Instead, I see corporations making rules with little regard to politics. Hell, the companies will buy what politicians they need. Therefore, I doubt that politics will end, but will simply become ever-more business-centric.... of course, businesses have always played a big role in government, but it seems that voters will be offered an ever decreasing number of real choices, while blocks of special interests (insurance companies, car manufacturers, brokerage houses) will work to make their favored candidate look more appealing.
Having more people fed up and ceasing to vote means it becomes easier it is to buy the remaining votes with ads and promises.
Oops. When I originally posted, other/.ers had already found fault the idea of an external auditing group, and I hadn't taken into account that as the threads expanded, those posts would be obscured.
In short, I meant that since there was agreement by other readers, there was no point rehashing discussing why it would or would not be good to have an external audit.
The 2 big points I liked from other posts were on this were 1) Too much liability for auditor. and 2) Govt.'s ineffectiveness (inability to move/change quickly, regulations, being out of touch with new tech, etc.) would make them an unreliable 'guarantee'.
I demand that the bank gives him the award of... one million dollars!
Choas would ensue.
Cute.:-) Seriously, though... There's agreement that a paid auditor group (esp. govt. controlled) would be foolish. If you also believe forcing banks to reward the finding holes, why not require (for consumer protection) that all sites dealing with financial data to hold cracking contents before offering their services?
Shoot, if business holds contests to crack water marks on new music formats, why not *make* business do the same for the sort of protection consumers actively desire?
Forget "fight", this is a *great* way to befriend napster. Sure, it will mean that other bands/companies will produce gobs of ads to flood the system, but it simultaneously lends legitimacy to the use of Napster. You know that some devotees of various bands are going collect the ads, too -- it's by the artist!
Be happy about this!...oh, and get to work on a spam trap for mp3 ads.
Perhaps it isn't that Apple thinks this is fair, but that Apple thinks it is cheaper to buy the license than to argue the legalities of it (though they'd be unlikely to admit that in a press release).
Think of it as 'protection' money. Give Amazon cash; Amazon won't beat you up for giving your customers ease of use.
Since companies spend big bucks to be Olympic Sponsors, I have nothing against them protecting their right to sell official merchandise.
On the other hand, the public at large should fear where this might lead. The existing scanners can differentiate between ink with and without the DNA strands. How long will it be before scanners can differentiate out of a database of people? Will I need a DNA sample to open a bank account? It would be for my safety, of course....and I imagine the information would be sold, bought by companies, and my every move will be tracked by marketing departments. (I honestly wonder if the current hardware is really *that* good, or if ink with some other DNA strand would look identical).
IANAL, so I don't know if your ex-employer can still exert any pressure on you to comply. Regardless, the patent will most likely get filed.
The patent office gets rewarded for issuing patents, so they aren't inclined to help, *but* you might be able to satisfy your personal moral dilemma by anonymously telling them that you've seen the application, and that they should deny the patent because it is too broad to merit a patent, and (if applicable) that the idea is already in the open public and/or that the basis can be attributed to past work.
Amazon can charge whatever they want for their merchandise.
IANAL, but I could have sworn there were laws around this sort of price discrimination, and that they were broader than the protections of the '64 Civil Rights Act. If so, it would have caught my attention during the original public concerns when stores stopped pricing items and started using scanners may have been an influence.
If I'm not misremembering (and my memory is very vague on this), public retailers are required to: a) post prices for merchandise (which is where Amazon can weasle around, because posting was expected to be *public*, not privately tailored), and b) charge no more than the posted price for merchandise.
If there are any legal experts who can refute or verify any such laws (preferably with links), I'd certainly like to know.
If you're in Boston and want to hear the replay... 90.9 FM, WBUR
Umm....if you have a sound card and can play RealAuido.rm files, you can hear it any time you like at: the link from the originally referenced page -- which goes to The Connection's archive of it (at Boston University).
On the 1st point: They [emotions] cause vastly more problems and suffering than any other aspect of human existence, and hold us back from the wonders of tomorrow. We'll all be better off without them.
We'd be better off without love, hate and other emotions? What would have motivated humans to create so many ingenious things that have no direct use towards immediate survival if *not* emotions?? If nothing else, think of how many scientific advances were made in the pursuit of better war machines. Do you suggest such advances are not a result of hate for an enemy or love of one's (war-threatened) family?
Further, consider that genetic selection KEPT humans who could 'Love' as a way to ensure parents stayed together at least long enough to raise their offspring. Or look at how it seems to be a genetic advantage to love your kinsmen and friends -- so that when one is threatened, social bonds lead the rest to assist... and thereby ensure more chances for your gene pools to reproduce.
You may think that this is outdated and no longer relevant to our species, but consider: humans still try to *achieve*. Why? Because it is a means of gaining social rank... which gives access to better mates (and a stronger tribe) to forward their genes. Achievement is as an indirect product of the strongest emotions. It is from our desire for emotional fulfillment that the side effect of advancing science occurs.
I doubt we would we bother to achieve anything without emotional drives.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would they _need_ to keep records for anything other than outstanding books? Once it is returned, couldn't they wipe the record of who had borrowed it? They could track the number of times a book was lent per year (or month, or such).
This all presumes librarians could actually choose to immediately change their systems to enact the initial suggestion.
So weather (visibility) could have been a factor at that particular location. Weather prevented them from recovering the bodies for a while, too.
The odd bit in there: "he has yet to confirm reports that Zampino was teaching Zubkoff how to fly the four-seat helicopter."
Stop right there! I WANT different file types to have different extensions. I want to filter for them -- and I certainly don't want my 'JPEG's and 'BMP's both labled 'PIC's just because less tech folks would catch on.
IMO, intentionally promoting one extension for multiple formats is WORSE than Microsoft's technique of hiding file extensions (resulting in people clicking the readme.txt.exe embedded in their emails). It'd also be hell to extension mapping.
I'm saying that it is only a political medium in the same sense that it is a pro-Christian or anti-school voucher medium -- namely, it not intended as such, but particular viewers could deem it so for their purposes.
You can find messages in many places where none is intended. While it is a Good Thing that some folks notice trends, and can extrapolate -- that thinking individuals can see all sorts of things in a political light (and in other frameworks) -- there will be a large number of folks (including many game designers) who won't see it at all.
I remember a game where you could kill Barney, the purple dinosaur. I didn't play it thinking, "Hmmm...what are the political ramifications of the joint dislike of Barney by myself and the game creator?" My thoughts were more like, "I hate Barney! Kill Barney!" I got a chuckle out of it and forgot about it.
Similarly, I feel 'political' flash games are mostly in the "I hate [x]! Destroy [x]!" category. The insightful are free to notice the trend towards political games, and to project possible reasons for their existence, but I doubt the majority of game creators set out with the intent to make a political statement. Contrast to political cartoonists who intend to get people to think or otherwise notice things. Ben Sargent example (note: link will expire in ~1 week).
Personally, I marvel at the propagation of war propaganda as it spills out of its original mediums and into the masses. Games like this are 'appeals to emotion' and are not arguments of logic nor critical thinking. They say something about how the public thinks, but the main content is that the public doesn't think -- they just vent their gut urges.
From the article: These games aren't trying to get you hooked or make your thumbs sore. They're trying to make you think.
I don't think the games are trying to make anyone think. I think they are a byproduct of tech guys feeling hatred at an enemy, and choosing to make games rather than pick up a gun and fight.
It might be interesting to think about our culture as reflected in this trend, but thinking is (IMO) an unintended by-product.
By itself, I find Microsoft's Windows Installer to be next to useless. Our software packages generally include hundreds -- if not thousands -- of files in dozens of directories and at least 20 different install options for each. Trying to construct MSIs with *just* the Microsoft SDK tools is incredibly painful and slow.
If I had the option, I would NOT be using the Microsoft package, but I don't get to make the decision. We do have the InstallShield frontend for it, but it seems a bit buggy. Ah well, back to writing automation tools for this stuff.
I count it as a difference between the personal and professional. Information about things -- software, hardware, science in general, the Law -- is not the same as information about an individual. Things don't vote, raise kids, or have emotions.
Personal privacy != Corporate secrecy.
redundant pigeons will be given to the state's wildlife
And what would they do with them? How would they keep them from _not_ returning?
Perhaps they'll take the stance my father encountered as a psych. grad student. When finshed experimenting, they just threw their test pigeons out the window. Being accustomed to life in a cage, the liberated pigeons hung out on the windows of the psych. lab trying to get back in.
What I've learned: the government doesn't have to listen to the citizens or acknowledge them. All they have to do is grease the right wheels to get into an election, then spend enough to get their name out. The less voters know about each candidate, the better for both sides, because then the race becomes about personality and party affilitation rather than having to deal with voters.
Even starting somewhat locally (in terms of the Federal Govt.), I've never gotten very far. In the 5 years I've lived where I do, I have snail-mailed my U.S. representative exactly 2xs (note: Before I moved here, I never mailed anyone at all). After the 1st, I got no response. After the 2nd, I got a form response 4 months after the fact which basically said that 'issues are important to this office'. The letter did not mention the bill I was protesting, and arrived months after votes had been cast.
I snail-mailed my State govt. rep. on one bill, too, and have since received occasional mailers from the state govt., but no response to the issue that concerned me.
So, make it a lottery. Ammend the UDRP so that instead of saying an arbitrator - known as a panelist under the UDRP - is selected by a service provider such as WIPO or NAF alone when the complainant - the trademark holder - requests just one panelist, it says the panelist will be drawn by lot.
This almost seems to be saying that the UDRP suffers from the same problem as most everything else involving lawyers. Namely, lawyers have nothing to do with moral justice. Their job is to win cases. If they do that, they are considered to be good.
> > for the girl that really just wants a job on the side as a part-time secretary...
> hopefully it will perhaps allow that 'girl that just wants to be a secretary' to break out of debilitating stereotypes
The continued propagation of that sort of stereotype (e.g. guys code; girls type) is one of the reasons so few of my gender want to get stuck in sunless offices with the current crop geeks. I know females who dislike geek attitudes enough to have no interest in in persuing computer studies.
So, yes, the steroetype is debilitating to females because it means fewer of us will learn computer skills, but at the same time, I believe it also harms the male geek. Some girls assume all geeks are chavanist pigs, and they don't want to be around them. If computer study had seemed so gender biased when I was in school, there's no way I would have gone near it. Heck, the Engineering Frats made me disgusted with Engineers (though not with Engineering).
Would it have been so hard for the initial comment to use the word "person" instead of "girl"? Or perhaps I should assume that geek boys want to be as unattractive and unwelcoming as possible to the opposite sex.
P.S. to the boys in High School: offer to help a female install linux on her PC -- but DON'T install it for her. Let her get involved with it. That way, she is less likely to find you pushy, and you'll have a topic of common interest.
Anyone consider what the new Journals' comments should look like? It occurs to me that a user might get fed up with Trolls and the like. I think it would be nice to be able to delete a comment without deleting your Journal Entry. A similar effect could be achieved by modding garbage posts down -- but wouldn't this (unlike articles) be a special case where the original poster would be the *best* person to determine a comment's value -- regardless of whether they've posted comments to their owm entry? If nothing else, who other than a Journal's owner can be expected to care about comments to personal Journal entries?
flieghund already posted the links from Boucher's page (comment #30)
BTW: if anyone needs a list of her existing ummm... specimens, a listing of names and dates is posted (no details on length or girth). She has 'members' from : Dead Kennedys, Revolting Cocks (figures), Pop Will Eat Itself, and the Ruttles.
Seems like AOL wants to hook others on their software or customer base, but hide alternates to their users. Note that the referenced version is (supposedly) no longer available. Anyone have it?
Disclaimer: I am forced to use AIM or nothing for chat @ work.
Instead, I see corporations making rules with little regard to politics. Hell, the companies will buy what politicians they need. Therefore, I doubt that politics will end, but will simply become ever-more business-centric. ... of course, businesses have always played a big role in government, but it seems that voters will be offered an ever decreasing number of real choices, while blocks of special interests (insurance companies, car manufacturers, brokerage houses) will work to make their favored candidate look more appealing.
Having more people fed up and ceasing to vote means it becomes easier it is to buy the remaining votes with ads and promises.
Oops. When I originally posted, other /.ers had already found fault the idea of an external auditing group, and I hadn't taken into account that as the threads expanded, those posts would be obscured.
In short, I meant that since there was agreement by other readers, there was no point rehashing discussing why it would or would not be good to have an external audit.
The 2 big points I liked from other posts were on this were 1) Too much liability for auditor. and 2) Govt.'s ineffectiveness (inability to move/change quickly, regulations, being out of touch with new tech, etc.) would make them an unreliable 'guarantee'.
Choas would ensue.
Cute. :-) Seriously, though... There's agreement that a paid auditor group (esp. govt. controlled) would be foolish. If you also believe forcing banks to reward the finding holes, why not require (for consumer protection) that all sites dealing with financial data to hold cracking contents before offering their services?
Shoot, if business holds contests to crack water marks on new music formats, why not *make* business do the same for the sort of protection consumers actively desire?
Be happy about this! ...oh, and get to work on a spam trap for mp3 ads.
Perhaps it isn't that Apple thinks this is fair, but that Apple thinks it is cheaper to buy the license than to argue the legalities of it (though they'd be unlikely to admit that in a press release). Think of it as 'protection' money. Give Amazon cash; Amazon won't beat you up for giving your customers ease of use.
On the other hand, the public at large should fear where this might lead. The existing scanners can differentiate between ink with and without the DNA strands. How long will it be before scanners can differentiate out of a database of people? Will I need a DNA sample to open a bank account? It would be for my safety, of course....and I imagine the information would be sold, bought by companies, and my every move will be tracked by marketing departments. (I honestly wonder if the current hardware is really *that* good, or if ink with some other DNA strand would look identical).
The patent office gets rewarded for issuing patents, so they aren't inclined to help, *but* you might be able to satisfy your personal moral dilemma by anonymously telling them that you've seen the application, and that they should deny the patent because it is too broad to merit a patent, and (if applicable) that the idea is already in the open public and/or that the basis can be attributed to past work.
IANAL, but I could have sworn there were laws around this sort of price discrimination, and that they were broader than the protections of the '64 Civil Rights Act. If so, it would have caught my attention during the original public concerns when stores stopped pricing items and started using scanners may have been an influence.
If I'm not misremembering (and my memory is very vague on this), public retailers are required to: a) post prices for merchandise (which is where Amazon can weasle around, because posting was expected to be *public*, not privately tailored), and b) charge no more than the posted price for merchandise.
If there are any legal experts who can refute or verify any such laws (preferably with links), I'd certainly like to know.
Umm....if you have a sound card and can play RealAuido .rm files, you can hear it any time you like at: the link from the originally referenced page -- which goes to The Connection's archive of it (at Boston University).
We'd be better off without love, hate and other emotions? What would have motivated humans to create so many ingenious things that have no direct use towards immediate survival if *not* emotions?? If nothing else, think of how many scientific advances were made in the pursuit of better war machines. Do you suggest such advances are not a result of hate for an enemy or love of one's (war-threatened) family?
Further, consider that genetic selection KEPT humans who could 'Love' as a way to ensure parents stayed together at least long enough to raise their offspring. Or look at how it seems to be a genetic advantage to love your kinsmen and friends -- so that when one is threatened, social bonds lead the rest to assist ... and thereby ensure more chances for your gene pools to reproduce.
You may think that this is outdated and no longer relevant to our species, but consider: humans still try to *achieve*. Why? Because it is a means of gaining social rank ... which gives access to better mates (and a stronger tribe) to forward their genes. Achievement is as an indirect product of the strongest emotions. It is from our desire for emotional fulfillment that the side effect of advancing science occurs.
I doubt we would we bother to achieve anything without emotional drives.