The fine gentleman from Texas displays his outstanding grasp of statistics and engineering stating that 1 failure in ever 62.5 flights is NOT acceptable.
You demonstrate your own ignorance of the issue by interpreting his comment as a statistical statement. It is not (unless your issue is the 1 in 62.5 statistic). Because the value of a human life and the value of the shuttle's missions are not unanimously quantifiable, his is a judgement, outside the realm of statistics. He is saying that he doesn't think a catastrophic failure 1.6% of the time is acceptable. You're ridiculing him by implying such a rate of catastrophic failure IS acceptable. Given the loss of life, I'd say YOU'RE the one with the <sarcasm>outstanding grasp</sarcasm> of things here.
Well, Cohen is trying to have the $65M ruling against him overturned. If you were him, would you consider $65M a waste of time ? And if you were the party owed that 65M, would you consider it a waste of time ?
He had another musician play some notes - it wasn't a sample from a copyrighted work. Surely there is a difference.
And what if I have person A type code that happens to be identical to person B's code , while specifically telling them exactly how and what should be typed ? Should we consider the "new" code to be different from the "original" code ? And if so, does all copyrighted - and copylefted code lose any and all protection ?
to ensure the information remains in the public domain
IANAL, but this is not how I read the article. Specifically, a representative of the BC cancer agency (the party applying for the patent) talks about generating royalties and revenues, and even about how the revenues are going to be allocated. How can they generate revenues if the information is "in the public domain" ?
All they really talk about is making sure no one group monopolizes access to the information. But maybe that's just good press, and far from a substantive pledge. Who knows what it will mean if they are granted the patent. In any case, it seems clear they're ready and willing to reap royalties and licensing fees.
Not quite. I don't know where you're getting this information,
The first time, I got the information from a telemarketer. In this case, I didn't hear anyone on the other end, I thought my cell phone had dropped the other party so I put the phone down thinking I was disconnected. When I picked it up 25 minutes later to make a call I could hear her singing and laughing to herself. She explained to me how happy she was that I had left her on the line, and proceeded to explain how she is graded by talk-time. Since then, i sometimes ask the telemarketer how they get compensated.
Maybe $500 won't hurt the telemarketeer but I bet 1 million people all suing for the $500 will...
And how much will 1 million x (costs of conducting a trial) hurt our legal system ? Are there even 1 million lawsuits filed in the entire U.S. each year ?
"Hold On, Please..." Saying this, while putting down your phone and walking off (instead of hanging-up immediately)
Actually, the *people* (as opposed to the companies) who make the telemarketing calls often *love* when people do this. It gets their talk time up; it shows their superiors that they're can keep someone on the phone for a long time, presumably talking about their product. I'd even bet the telemarketing companies (assuming they're hired by whoever is selling the product) like it too. The only party who doesn't like this is the company paying for telemarketing, but the telemarketers themselves often love it.
I forgot: many digital voice recorders will let you play your recordings back at double speed, but at normal pitch - a great help when scanning recordings. This feature is not in most MP3 recorders I'm familiar with.
If you want to record, get yourself a digital voice recorder. There's plenty of models out there, including ones by Sony and Olympus, and some of the come bundled with Dragon or ViaVoice dictation software.
Advantages (vs typical MP3 recorders): - You're not limited by the memory of your little MP3 recorder as you can (at least with Sony models) just pop in a new memory stick. - most models have VOR capabilities so you only record when there's *something* to record. I would guess most MP3 recorders, since they're designed to record music, won't have this. - most models allow you to set the mic sensitivity which widens the range of environments the thing will be useful in. - many models allow you to do things you probably can't do with an MP3 recorder (like split tracks in half, or timestamp files). - you don't need an external mic (though you can use one if you want). Having to tote an external mic to record *sucks*. - you don't need external headphones since they have built-in speakers. I can't imagine most MP3 recorders have a built-in speaker. - they record in mono which is all you need for capturing lectures.
If typical MP3 recorders did all of the above, I'd have bought one instead of my digital voice recorder. I just wish the model I bought could record to MP3. But the digital voice recorder is *designed* to capture voice, so all the right design decisions are there.
After all they can happily tell those Linux people "You're unsupported. But try WineX!" When it fails, they simply say "You're unsupported!"
Let me guess... you were a former Win-OS/2 user, and you thought OS/2's great support for Win 3.1 apps was a *good* thing, didn't you ? I think we met at an OS/2 support group once.
the burden of deciding wether a person/company intended for a network to be open shouldn't be placed on the individual, but rather, on the person who set up the network.
Do you also think the burdens should similarly be placed for computer systems ? How am I supposed to know whether you do or don't want people to be able to access your computer/shared files/whatever ?
The games that didn't work had varying degrees of success, all just short of actually being able to play the game
Only a die-hard WineX advocate would count ONLY getting installer to run as some degree of success. Everyone else would count such cases as complete failures - one notch above utter and complete failures (when the installer won't run). Actually, if the game itself won't run I'd probably rather have the installer fail.
That said, if you were sitting on a jury for the trial of someone who killed a spammer, would you vote for conviction?
Not only that, but I would seriously think about convicting the website proprietor who posted the spammer's personal information (assuming this was pivotal in the incident).
Your argument does *not* make any sense, unless you believe ALL statistics are useless unless they make a prediction with 100% certainty. Are statistics relating smoking behavior and cancer rates useless, because there *are* exceptions ?
Sure it's funny to imagine that these spammers are themselves getting deluged with spam. But what happens if some nutcase firebombs their house, abducts their children, or murders their wife, as a direct result of seeing of the spammers' "outing" ?
Why not ? I'm more interested in poker than, say, anime (what the heck does "Spirited away" have to do with technology ?).
The thrill of figuring out how to win in poker, or to beat the casinos by counting cards, seems in many ways very close to the spirit so many attribute to "hackers".
If you're interested in that sort of scheme, "The Eudaemonic Pie" is a must-read. It's about a bunch of grad students at UCSC (several of whom end up being big players in the fields of chaos theory/non-linear dynamics) who develop sophisticated models to predict where certain off-kilter roulette weels will stop. As I recall, it involved shoes which allowed one person to tap in certain parameters of a given wheel spin (when it passes a set point); predictions were sent via RF to another shoe computer which somehow told its wearer what quadrant to bet on.
They were making major cash but somehow got caught.
Not everyone wants to roll up their sleeves and start coding just to use "desktop" software. There *are* people out there who just need to write documents/work on spreadsheets/balance their checkbook, and not all of them share the Open Source agenda: do you really think they all ought to participate in Open Source, instead of just switching to some OS they feel suits them better ?
Why the hell should the parent story be modded as flamebait ? And how the hell did the post *I* replied to get modded up ?
The author of the post I'm replying to might think it is obvious to the whole world that Linux needs no more work to compete for the desktop market, that it is ready to do so right now, but there are many, many Linux users who believe that there is still substantial room for improvement before it poses a serious *desktop* threat to Windows or Mac OS/OS X.
Forget targeting MacOS and Linux, and let's assume doing either or both is viable. But AmigaOS ? That's a business plan gone seriously awry and I have to conclude this company is doomed to failure. And I write this as a guy who is looking at a working Amiga 1000 on his dining room table right now...
The fact that the VC took on Napster's legal liabilities: Napster's whole business model is BASED on an illegal activity, and I think individual investors who put money into a company knowing this OUGHT to be liable. I also happen to think if a VC invested money in a concern whose business model relied on giving people cancer, it ought to be liable too. If I invest in a narcostics dealing corporation down the street, I ought to be liable there too.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Cohen is trying to have the $65M ruling against him overturned. If you were him, would you consider $65M a waste of time ? And if you were the party owed that 65M, would you consider it a waste of time ?
He had another musician play some notes - it wasn't a sample from a copyrighted work. Surely there is a difference.
And what if I have person A type code that happens to be identical to person B's code , while specifically telling them exactly how and what should be typed ? Should we consider the "new" code to be different from the "original" code ? And if so, does all copyrighted - and copylefted code lose any and all protection ?
the name of a gay porn movie.
to ensure the information remains in the public domain
IANAL, but this is not how I read the article. Specifically, a representative of the BC cancer agency (the party applying for the patent) talks about generating royalties and revenues, and even about how the revenues are going to be allocated. How can they generate revenues if the information is "in the public domain" ?
All they really talk about is making sure no one group monopolizes access to the information. But maybe that's just good press, and far from a substantive pledge. Who knows what it will mean if they are granted the patent. In any case, it seems clear they're ready and willing to reap royalties and licensing fees.
Not quite. I don't know where you're getting this information,
The first time, I got the information from a telemarketer. In this case, I didn't hear anyone on the other end, I thought my cell phone had dropped the other party so I put the phone down thinking I was disconnected. When I picked it up 25 minutes later to make a call I could hear her singing and laughing to herself. She explained to me how happy she was that I had left her on the line, and proceeded to explain how she is graded by talk-time. Since then, i sometimes ask the telemarketer how they get compensated.
Maybe $500 won't hurt the telemarketeer but I bet 1 million people all suing for the $500 will...
And how much will 1 million x (costs of conducting a trial) hurt our legal system ? Are there even 1 million lawsuits filed in the entire U.S. each year ?
"Hold On, Please..." Saying this, while putting down your phone and walking off (instead of hanging-up immediately)
Actually, the *people* (as opposed to the companies) who make the telemarketing calls often *love* when people do this. It gets their talk time up; it shows their superiors that they're can keep someone on the phone for a long time, presumably talking about their product. I'd even bet the telemarketing companies (assuming they're hired by whoever is selling the product) like it too. The only party who doesn't like this is the company paying for telemarketing, but the telemarketers themselves often love it.
I forgot: many digital voice recorders will let you play your recordings back at double speed, but at normal pitch - a great help when scanning recordings. This feature is not in most MP3 recorders I'm familiar with.
If you want to record, get yourself a digital voice recorder. There's plenty of models out there, including ones by Sony and Olympus, and some of the come bundled with Dragon or ViaVoice dictation software.
Advantages (vs typical MP3 recorders):
- You're not limited by the memory of your little MP3 recorder as you can (at least with Sony models) just pop in a new memory stick.
- most models have VOR capabilities so you only record when there's *something* to record. I would guess most MP3 recorders, since they're designed to record music, won't have this.
- most models allow you to set the mic sensitivity which widens the range of environments the thing will be useful in.
- many models allow you to do things you probably can't do with an MP3 recorder (like split tracks in half, or timestamp files).
- you don't need an external mic (though you can use one if you want). Having to tote an external mic to record *sucks*.
- you don't need external headphones since they have built-in speakers. I can't imagine most MP3 recorders have a built-in speaker.
- they record in mono which is all you need for capturing lectures.
If typical MP3 recorders did all of the above, I'd have bought one instead of my digital voice recorder. I just wish the model I bought could record to MP3. But the digital voice recorder is *designed* to capture voice, so all the right design decisions are there.
Your argument is well made; however we must reject it because it does not support the thesis that RIAA is evil.
After all they can happily tell those Linux people "You're unsupported. But try WineX!" When it fails, they simply say "You're unsupported!"
... you were a former Win-OS/2 user, and you thought OS/2's great support for Win 3.1 apps was a *good* thing, didn't you ? I think we met at an OS/2 support group once.
Let me guess
the burden of deciding wether a person/company intended for a network to be open shouldn't be placed on the individual, but rather, on the person who set up the network.
Do you also think the burdens should similarly be placed for computer systems ? How am I supposed to know whether you do or don't want people to be able to access your computer/shared files/whatever ?
The games that didn't work had varying degrees of success, all just short of actually being able to play the game
Only a die-hard WineX advocate would count ONLY getting installer to run as some degree of success. Everyone else would count such cases as complete failures - one notch above utter and complete failures (when the installer won't run). Actually, if the game itself won't run I'd probably rather have the installer fail.
That said, if you were sitting on a jury for the trial of someone who killed a spammer, would you vote for conviction?
Not only that, but I would seriously think about convicting the website proprietor who posted the spammer's personal information (assuming this was pivotal in the incident).
Your argument does *not* make any sense, unless you believe ALL statistics are useless unless they make a prediction with 100% certainty. Are statistics relating smoking behavior and cancer rates useless, because there *are* exceptions ?
Sure it's funny to imagine that these spammers are themselves getting deluged with spam. But what happens if some nutcase firebombs their house, abducts their children, or murders their wife, as a direct result of seeing of the spammers' "outing" ?
Would it be funny or just then ?
I wonder what the hue and cry would sound like if someone was proposing bounties for "proof" that one of their fellow citizens was a terrorist.
Why not ? I'm more interested in poker than, say, anime (what the heck does "Spirited away" have to do with technology ?).
The thrill of figuring out how to win in poker, or to beat the casinos by counting cards, seems in many ways very close to the spirit so many attribute to "hackers".
If you're interested in that sort of scheme, "The Eudaemonic Pie" is a must-read. It's about a bunch of grad students at UCSC (several of whom end up being big players in the fields of chaos theory/non-linear dynamics) who develop sophisticated models to predict where certain off-kilter roulette weels will stop. As I recall, it involved shoes which allowed one person to tap in certain parameters of a given wheel spin (when it passes a set point); predictions were sent via RF to another shoe computer which somehow told its wearer what quadrant to bet on.
They were making major cash but somehow got caught.
Not everyone wants to roll up their sleeves and start coding just to use "desktop" software. There *are* people out there who just need to write documents/work on spreadsheets/balance their checkbook, and not all of them share the Open Source agenda: do you really think they all ought to participate in Open Source, instead of just switching to some OS they feel suits them better ?
Why the hell should the parent story be modded as flamebait ? And how the hell did the post *I* replied to get modded up ?
The author of the post I'm replying to might think it is obvious to the whole world that Linux needs no more work to compete for the desktop market, that it is ready to do so right now, but there are many, many Linux users who believe that there is still substantial room for improvement before it poses a serious *desktop* threat to Windows or Mac OS/OS X.
noone will have to worry about any potential conflicts between de Raadt's political beliefs and his taking of the DARPA money !
Forget targeting MacOS and Linux, and let's assume doing either or both is viable. But AmigaOS ? That's a business plan gone seriously awry and I have to conclude this company is doomed to failure. And I write this as a guy who is looking at a working Amiga 1000 on his dining room table right now...
The fact that the VC took on Napster's legal liabilities: Napster's whole business model is BASED on an illegal activity, and I think individual investors who put money into a company knowing this OUGHT to be liable. I also happen to think if a VC invested money in a concern whose business model relied on giving people cancer, it ought to be liable too. If I invest in a narcostics dealing corporation down the street, I ought to be liable there too.