Ogg is on our list of things to do. The reason MP3 was chosen was because its much wider public acceptance and digital audio devices overwhelmingly play MP3.
We used iTunes as the initial encoder, and later downsampled the files using LAME. Since iTunes is licensed, the encoding side is covered. As far as the players, 99% of our audience will be using licensed encoders anyways. This gets back to the issue of MP3 acceptance v. Ogg acceptance.
The naming convention is partly due to the fact that we are using Cocoon as a content system and it's easier to use the names as they are for any number of reasons that would bore anyone here.
However, when you click the link, the code responsible for sending the MP3 will attempt to set a Content-disposition field so that while the name is argument.mp3, the "Save As" dialog boxes will suggest something more descriptive.
Let me know if this doesn't work for you. I know some browsers don't support it, but I thought we had tested on the major ones.
Bush v. Gore is online as SMIL. The MP3s released here are only a small subset of the complete Oyez collection. We're working to release them all, but I'm essentially a single man show here with the MP3's, so it may take some time. If you want to see a particular audio file released, send us a message via our feedback form.
In the meantime, visit Bush v. Gore. The audio is under the "Audio" link, and requires the latest version of Real Player.
As soon as I am able to figure out how to place these audio files as BitTorrents, we'll have it from Oyez.org. In the meantime, if you want to do it yourself, go ahead.:-)
I'm the technical lead on Oyez. I didn't imagine that this would make Slashdot quite so fast... Egads... Though it explains the dead server this morning.:-) It's fine now, though if the heavy traffic volume message comes up again, mail me using the link on that page.
This release is a bit premature. We are working with Creative Commons to license this audio so that others can download and share and create non-commercial derivative works of the audio. If you would like to do me a huge favor, please download the cases you like and place them on your favorite peer-to-peer network. We're looking to make these audio files as widely available as possible, while showing that there are substantial non-piracy uses for P2P networks. (It'll be harder for the RIAA to argue next time to shut down these networks when they are used to distribute Supreme Court audio to citizens.:-])
In any case, look for a press release soon. I just posted that URL so that Oyez users would download the audio and start sharing. I didn't imagine that it would get this publicity so quick.
Anyways, I'll be monitoring this thread, so if you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please let us know. We're a very user-centric site.:-)
I spent the last school year working on a thesis project with BWK and all I can say about his efforts teaching are that I can't think of a better way to teach these types of things. I took a course of his beforehand, and he's by far one of the best teachers at Princeton. He's probably one of the most enthusiastic and available to student teachers on campus. (He was an awesome thesis advisor.)
The thing that he is trying to teach these students is how computer technology is not this mysterious art and that it's not really as complicated as everyone likes to think. I have lots of friends who went through his course without knowing a thing about computers and coming out with a real good idea of how things worked. Granted, they were not going to build a new computer or write an operating system any time soon -- but they knew how to write a program, set up web pages, and how lots of seemingly disconnected things all had a common base and an idea of how it all worked.
He deserves all the praise he gets for his efforts. He's a hell of a teacher.
Wrong. Microsoft was recently investigated by the SEC for understating its revenues. They understated how much money that they were making in order to save it for bad quarters. If that's not making a company look less wealthy, I don't know what is. It's essentially the inverse of what Enron / Worldcom did.
There's currently an article on kuro5hin that is working its way out of the queue that describes what 'you never hear about'.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
(Emphasis mine.)
An alternative interpretation would say that respect means that Congress cannot pass a law that favors one religion over another.
As for prohibiting free exercise -- it is true that Congress cannot pass a law that dictates your beliefs. However, should religious protections be extended so far that religions should do whatever they wish, and be immune from prosecution? What if -- I have my own religion that says my god wants human sacrifices. So I must kill. Should my ability to kill (since done in a religioud sense) trump another's right to life? You get the picture.
I think the current interpretation is that I may believe that my religion (sacrifices -- good) is correct and the government cannot come in and dictate that I must believe something else, but it may regulate the practices having to do with my religion. (exercise v. practices) This came from a polygamy case sometimes in the 1800's I believe.
He could, but is prevented by the Constitution by a thing called the "Republican Government" clause that basically mandates that federal and state gov't must have some sort of popular representation (that's why there are no dictator-driven states).:-]
In theory, he could murder the legislature, but it would be unconstitutional. (There must be something else besides the "republican gov't" clause that would prevent the president from murdering the legislature.)
I would not be opposed to this if the system went both ways. Ok, let Europeans vote for Pres. Let Americans vote for European positions. The catch is that the Europeans cannot come back whining because someone contary to the socialist ideals of Europe is elected and does away with all those nice welfare programs in favor of deregulation and free markets.
I have no problem opening our system as soon as you are willing to do the same. You don't like the idea of the money-driven Americans turning your country into another infection of Walmarts and McDonalds, then quit bitching.
(Plus, looking it from a population position, I think you have a losing position and we would overtake you that way. *insert evil laugh*)
Posted below, but I thought I would take this opportunity to expoit Slashdot to get this higher...
Ok, a few things...
1. By not casting a ballot, you are by default sending a message that you approve of the outcome of the election, whatever that may be.
2. I don't see why people bitch about how things are so damn bad, then don't cast a ballot. By planning to not casting a ballot, you are not doing a damn thing to change the situation that you are bitching about.
3. There are more things on the ballot then just a presidential election. While you may think that the current two parties' national platforms are pure bullshit, there is a lot going on at the local level that your vote will influence. To be perfectly honest, your vote is more powerful as you vote for the more local elections. There's more going on this year than the stiff vs. the fratboy.
4. Politicians look at the preferences of the people who vote. They will say that it is unfortunate that 75% don't vote, but they only pay heed to the 25% that do. If I were running for election, why would I waste the resources I have to get elected on the people who don't vote anyways. It doesn't make sense.
If you're really fed up with the system, you still should cast a ballot. Vote for the local people who have some impact on your life. Leave the Gore v. Bush section blank. A statistic that says something like 70% of the voters submitted a ballot and declined to vote for something like a president will is a hell of a lot stronger than a statistic that says 70% of the voters did not even get out to vote. The first one is a clear showing of disapproval of the current state of things, and the latter is simply a show of apathy.
Jon Katz, if you do read this, think a bit more about what you are doing. If you don't go out and vote, you have negelected to have your voice heard, and have no room for bitching. As I have outlined above, there is a better way to express your disapproval than just be a whiny, lazy fool who stays home on election day.
1. By not casting a ballot, you are by default sending a message that you approve of the outcome of the election, whatever that may be.
2. I don't see why people bitch about how things are so damn bad, then don't cast a ballot. By planning to not casting a ballot, you are not doing a damn thing to change the situation that you are bitching about.
3. There are more things on the ballot then just a presidential election. While you may think that the current two parties' national platforms are pure bullshit, there is a lot going on at the local level that your vote will influence. To be perfectly honest, your vote is more powerful as you vote for the more local elections. There's more going on this year than the stiff vs. the fratboy.
4. Politicians look at the preferences of the people who vote. They will say that it is unfortunate that 75% don't vote, but they only pay heed to the 25% that do. If I were running for election, why would I waste the resources I have to get elected on the people who don't vote anyways. It doesn't make sense.
If you're really fed up with the system, you still should cast a ballot. Vote for the local people who have some impact on your life. Leave the Gore v. Bush section blank. A statistic that says something like 70% of the voters submitted a ballot and declined to vote for something like a president will is a hell of a lot stronger than a statistic that says 70% of the voters did not even get out to vote. The first one is a clear showing of disapproval of the current state of things, and the latter is simply a show of apathy.
Jon Katz, if you do read this, think a bit more about what you are doing. If you don't go out and vote, you have negelected to have your voice heard, and have no room for bitching. As I have outlined above, there is a better way to express your disapproval than just be a whiny, lazy fool who stays home on election day.
To go off on a thread. I liked the view put forth by Heinlein (or however you spell) in Starship Troopers that only veterans would be able to vote and serve in the government.
His reasoning was that only the veterans could serve because they had put their lives on the line for country and because of this, were less apt to make decisions that would hurt the country that they had risked their lives to protect.
He said it much better, but I can't find a link. Food for thought.
A friend and I were talking about this before, and came to the conclusion that world governments were swell, until you arrived at the implementation of such a beast.
Personally, I think that such a government is doomed bacause of the presence of small issues of local importance -- building schools, where to put that park, etc. To have such a structure that could support such decisions would be extremely top-heavy and inefficient. Shoot, look what's going on with ICANN and imagine an entire world governed by such a beast. *shudder*
I think that this is one area in which the American government has gotten things right. By granting powers to the states that the federal structure cannot touch, states are more capable and more efficient in taking care of all of those pesky local issues.
I only lament the trend that's taking place right now where everyone thinks that the federal government should take care of everything. I would worry about a world government, but don't see it going anywhere soon.:-)
Trying to find out where a candidate stands on an issue anymore is extremely difficult, given the current poll-worship and fear of saying anything concrete. For example, take a look at Gore's technology statement and Bush's technology statement (linked to above). Other than the differences in style, they are virtually identical. Basically along the lines of more technology in classrooms, tax cuts for R&D, etc. Other than Bush having a bit of more content, I don't see too many differences between these two candidates. Nader goes off on corporate responsibility, and looking at Buchanan, he doesn't seem to have a clue about technology.
Yawn!
I think that no matter how you vote for President in this election, the outcome in technology will likely be the same as if you had voted for the opposite candidate. I think that this is because the presidential candidates have so little to say about technology and how they are going to promote it. They have bigger things to worry about (Social Security debate and capturing the AARP's vote). The people who have been making the decisions about technology have been typically a little bit down the governing ladder. (Senate committees, FTC, FCC, etc.)
So, if you're planning on passing your geek vote, close your eyes and pick. The result will be the same.
Personally, I do believe that it is a bit foolish and (if I may) Katz-ian to base your whole vote on how a candidate may stand with respect to "geek issues". Vote for the candidate who you think will best represent you interests and whose philosophy you agree with. Chances are that if your philosophies are compatible, you'll be voting for a leader who, when presented with a "geek issue", will make a decision that you would agree with.
Personally, I think that there are bigger issues at stake here than the "geek issues" and will place my vote accordingly. For the curious, I am interested voting for a candidate who will advocate greater personal responsibility on the part of the citizens, government, and business and will stem the growing philosophy of "nothing's my fault, i'm f-ed up because i'm [oppressed/poor/intellectually challenged] and i need the government to take care of me". But I digress.
Some of the projects have HTML reports -- let your students read those and see what others have done and it will probably spawn a few ideas for stuff to do.
An alternate solution is to browse through a few CS pages and see what's going on in the introductory CS classes. For quite a few good ideas, check out the assignments for Princeton's infamous COS126 assignments.
Slashdot Mirror
Books - http://books.aetherial.net
Though it is MacOS X 10.3 only. Apple's development tools make it pretty easy to write nice useful software on that platform.
-Chris
... books for nerds. Reviews that matter.
Is money that tight over there?
-Chris
Ogg is on our list of things to do. The reason MP3 was chosen was because its much wider public acceptance and digital audio devices overwhelmingly play MP3.
We used iTunes as the initial encoder, and later downsampled the files using LAME. Since iTunes is licensed, the encoding side is covered. As far as the players, 99% of our audience will be using licensed encoders anyways. This gets back to the issue of MP3 acceptance v. Ogg acceptance.
-Chris
No transcript links, but the facts of the cases now accompany the links.
-Chris
The naming convention is partly due to the fact that we are using Cocoon as a content system and it's easier to use the names as they are for any number of reasons that would bore anyone here.
However, when you click the link, the code responsible for sending the MP3 will attempt to set a Content-disposition field so that while the name is argument.mp3, the "Save As" dialog boxes will suggest something more descriptive.
Let me know if this doesn't work for you. I know some browsers don't support it, but I thought we had tested on the major ones.
-Chris
Bush v. Gore is online as SMIL. The MP3s released here are only a small subset of the complete Oyez collection. We're working to release them all, but I'm essentially a single man show here with the MP3's, so it may take some time. If you want to see a particular audio file released, send us a message via our feedback form.
In the meantime, visit Bush v. Gore. The audio is under the "Audio" link, and requires the latest version of Real Player.
-Chris, Oyez Technical Lead
As soon as I am able to figure out how to place these audio files as BitTorrents, we'll have it from Oyez.org. In the meantime, if you want to do it yourself, go ahead. :-)
-Chris, Oyez Technical Lead
I'm the technical lead on Oyez. I didn't imagine that this would make Slashdot quite so fast... Egads... Though it explains the dead server this morning. :-) It's fine now, though if the heavy traffic volume message comes up again, mail me using the link on that page.
:-])
:-)
This release is a bit premature. We are working with Creative Commons to license this audio so that others can download and share and create non-commercial derivative works of the audio. If you would like to do me a huge favor, please download the cases you like and place them on your favorite peer-to-peer network. We're looking to make these audio files as widely available as possible, while showing that there are substantial non-piracy uses for P2P networks. (It'll be harder for the RIAA to argue next time to shut down these networks when they are used to distribute Supreme Court audio to citizens.
In any case, look for a press release soon. I just posted that URL so that Oyez users would download the audio and start sharing. I didn't imagine that it would get this publicity so quick.
Anyways, I'll be monitoring this thread, so if you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please let us know. We're a very user-centric site.
-Chris Karr, Oyez Technical Lead
I spent the last school year working on a thesis project with BWK and all I can say about his efforts teaching are that I can't think of a better way to teach these types of things. I took a course of his beforehand, and he's by far one of the best teachers at Princeton. He's probably one of the most enthusiastic and available to student teachers on campus. (He was an awesome thesis advisor.)
The thing that he is trying to teach these students is how computer technology is not this mysterious art and that it's not really as complicated as everyone likes to think. I have lots of friends who went through his course without knowing a thing about computers and coming out with a real good idea of how things worked. Granted, they were not going to build a new computer or write an operating system any time soon -- but they knew how to write a program, set up web pages, and how lots of seemingly disconnected things all had a common base and an idea of how it all worked.
He deserves all the praise he gets for his efforts. He's a hell of a teacher.
-Chris
Wrong. Microsoft was recently investigated by the SEC for understating its revenues. They understated how much money that they were making in order to save it for bad quarters. If that's not making a company look less wealthy, I don't know what is. It's essentially the inverse of what Enron / Worldcom did.
There's currently an article on kuro5hin that is working its way out of the queue that describes what 'you never hear about'.
-Chris
grillion == 10^42?
-ck
Don't use this motherboard with Crucial / Micron memory - it's terribly unstable. Other stuff works well tho.
-Chris
Ok, what is a better one then?
-Chris
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
(Emphasis mine.)
An alternative interpretation would say that respect means that Congress cannot pass a law that favors one religion over another.
As for prohibiting free exercise -- it is true that Congress cannot pass a law that dictates your beliefs. However, should religious protections be extended so far that religions should do whatever they wish, and be immune from prosecution? What if -- I have my own religion that says my god wants human sacrifices. So I must kill. Should my ability to kill (since done in a religioud sense) trump another's right to life? You get the picture.
I think the current interpretation is that I may believe that my religion (sacrifices -- good) is correct and the government cannot come in and dictate that I must believe something else, but it may regulate the practices having to do with my religion. (exercise v. practices) This came from a polygamy case sometimes in the 1800's I believe.
He could, but is prevented by the Constitution by a thing called the "Republican Government" clause that basically mandates that federal and state gov't must have some sort of popular representation (that's why there are no dictator-driven states). :-]
In theory, he could murder the legislature, but it would be unconstitutional. (There must be something else besides the "republican gov't" clause that would prevent the president from murdering the legislature.)
Here's the deal...
I would not be opposed to this if the system went both ways. Ok, let Europeans vote for Pres. Let Americans vote for European positions. The catch is that the Europeans cannot come back whining because someone contary to the socialist ideals of Europe is elected and does away with all those nice welfare programs in favor of deregulation and free markets.
I have no problem opening our system as soon as you are willing to do the same. You don't like the idea of the money-driven Americans turning your country into another infection of Walmarts and McDonalds, then quit bitching.
(Plus, looking it from a population position, I think you have a losing position and we would overtake you that way. *insert evil laugh*)
-Chris
Posted below, but I thought I would take this opportunity to expoit Slashdot to get this higher...
Ok, a few things...
1. By not casting a ballot, you are by default sending a message that you approve of the outcome of the election, whatever that may be.
2. I don't see why people bitch about how things are so damn bad, then don't cast a ballot. By planning to not casting a ballot, you are not doing a damn thing to change the situation that you are bitching about.
3. There are more things on the ballot then just a presidential election. While you may think that the current two parties' national platforms are pure bullshit, there is a lot going on at the local level that your vote will influence. To be perfectly honest, your vote is more powerful as you vote for the more local elections. There's more going on this year than the stiff vs. the fratboy.
4. Politicians look at the preferences of the people who vote. They will say that it is unfortunate that 75% don't vote, but they only pay heed to the 25% that do. If I were running for election, why would I waste the resources I have to get elected on the people who don't vote anyways. It doesn't make sense.
If you're really fed up with the system, you still should cast a ballot. Vote for the local people who have some impact on your life. Leave the Gore v. Bush section blank. A statistic that says something like 70% of the voters submitted a ballot and declined to vote for something like a president will is a hell of a lot stronger than a statistic that says 70% of the voters did not even get out to vote. The first one is a clear showing of disapproval of the current state of things, and the latter is simply a show of apathy.
Jon Katz, if you do read this, think a bit more about what you are doing. If you don't go out and vote, you have negelected to have your voice heard, and have no room for bitching. As I have outlined above, there is a better way to express your disapproval than just be a whiny, lazy fool who stays home on election day.
-Chris
Ok, a few things...
1. By not casting a ballot, you are by default sending a message that you approve of the outcome of the election, whatever that may be.
2. I don't see why people bitch about how things are so damn bad, then don't cast a ballot. By planning to not casting a ballot, you are not doing a damn thing to change the situation that you are bitching about.
3. There are more things on the ballot then just a presidential election. While you may think that the current two parties' national platforms are pure bullshit, there is a lot going on at the local level that your vote will influence. To be perfectly honest, your vote is more powerful as you vote for the more local elections. There's more going on this year than the stiff vs. the fratboy.
4. Politicians look at the preferences of the people who vote. They will say that it is unfortunate that 75% don't vote, but they only pay heed to the 25% that do. If I were running for election, why would I waste the resources I have to get elected on the people who don't vote anyways. It doesn't make sense.
If you're really fed up with the system, you still should cast a ballot. Vote for the local people who have some impact on your life. Leave the Gore v. Bush section blank. A statistic that says something like 70% of the voters submitted a ballot and declined to vote for something like a president will is a hell of a lot stronger than a statistic that says 70% of the voters did not even get out to vote. The first one is a clear showing of disapproval of the current state of things, and the latter is simply a show of apathy.
Jon Katz, if you do read this, think a bit more about what you are doing. If you don't go out and vote, you have negelected to have your voice heard, and have no room for bitching. As I have outlined above, there is a better way to express your disapproval than just be a whiny, lazy fool who stays home on election day.
-Chris
Jugular Wine -- hands down, the worst horror film ever made. Not even influential enough to get people to watch through the first twenty minutes.
-Chris
Looking at the ruling, the following line sticks out:
In this case, I don't even think that any such media exists. So doesn't this render this whole judgement null?
What about my copy of DeCSS for my digital VIDEO disks?
</smartass>Seriously though, I've not had a copy of the DeCSS source code put up -- time to mirror.
-ChrisTo go off on a thread. I liked the view put forth by Heinlein (or however you spell) in Starship Troopers that only veterans would be able to vote and serve in the government.
His reasoning was that only the veterans could serve because they had put their lives on the line for country and because of this, were less apt to make decisions that would hurt the country that they had risked their lives to protect.
He said it much better, but I can't find a link. Food for thought.
-Chris
Anyway to apply Gnutella to this effort?
:-)
-Chris
A friend and I were talking about this before, and came to the conclusion that world governments were swell, until you arrived at the implementation of such a beast.
:-)
Personally, I think that such a government is doomed bacause of the presence of small issues of local importance -- building schools, where to put that park, etc. To have such a structure that could support such decisions would be extremely top-heavy and inefficient. Shoot, look what's going on with ICANN and imagine an entire world governed by such a beast. *shudder*
I think that this is one area in which the American government has gotten things right. By granting powers to the states that the federal structure cannot touch, states are more capable and more efficient in taking care of all of those pesky local issues.
I only lament the trend that's taking place right now where everyone thinks that the federal government should take care of everything. I would worry about a world government, but don't see it going anywhere soon.
-Chris
Trying to find out where a candidate stands on an issue anymore is extremely difficult, given the current poll-worship and fear of saying anything concrete. For example, take a look at Gore's technology statement and Bush's technology statement (linked to above). Other than the differences in style, they are virtually identical. Basically along the lines of more technology in classrooms, tax cuts for R&D, etc. Other than Bush having a bit of more content, I don't see too many differences between these two candidates. Nader goes off on corporate responsibility, and looking at Buchanan, he doesn't seem to have a clue about technology.
Yawn!
I think that no matter how you vote for President in this election, the outcome in technology will likely be the same as if you had voted for the opposite candidate. I think that this is because the presidential candidates have so little to say about technology and how they are going to promote it. They have bigger things to worry about (Social Security debate and capturing the AARP's vote). The people who have been making the decisions about technology have been typically a little bit down the governing ladder. (Senate committees, FTC, FCC, etc.)
So, if you're planning on passing your geek vote, close your eyes and pick. The result will be the same.
Personally, I do believe that it is a bit foolish and (if I may) Katz-ian to base your whole vote on how a candidate may stand with respect to "geek issues". Vote for the candidate who you think will best represent you interests and whose philosophy you agree with. Chances are that if your philosophies are compatible, you'll be voting for a leader who, when presented with a "geek issue", will make a decision that you would agree with. Personally, I think that there are bigger issues at stake here than the "geek issues" and will place my vote accordingly. For the curious, I am interested voting for a candidate who will advocate greater personal responsibility on the part of the citizens, government, and business and will stem the growing philosophy of "nothing's my fault, i'm f-ed up because i'm [oppressed/poor/intellectually challenged] and i need the government to take care of me". But I digress.
-Chris
Wow, someone who remembers the Challenge...
Disclaimer: I'm the goofy wonk who wrote the original crypto code project some time ago...
A good place to look for information about potential projects for your class is the prior years' archive. http://www.challenge.nm.org/Archive/
Some of the projects have HTML reports -- let your students read those and see what others have done and it will probably spawn a few ideas for stuff to do.
An alternate solution is to browse through a few CS pages and see what's going on in the introductory CS classes. For quite a few good ideas, check out the assignments for Princeton's infamous COS126 assignments.
-Chris