Thanks, I didn't miss that, as he says in parentheses
(literally, the URL is her name)
What I may have missed is the nature of the content of the site. I assumed it was "Jane Smith is an xxxx and likes to yyyy"*, i.e. defamatory content and libel about her. On re-reading it could be that the site pretends to be her presenting defamatory content about others which I presume is your take. It's not perfectly clear.
* Which would make it informational and my point was that the ex was then not trading. Informational sites are well-established on the internet and there is no chance of anyone mistaking this type of site as being her own work in contrast to, say, the ex producing Jane Smith's Arsenic-Laden Chocolate Bar.
I think the point is that open source claims to allow many contributors but the (made up) statistics don't bear it out. Closed source makes roughly the opposite claim - that better products result from a small number of tightly-controlled contributors - so your line does not really work as a counterpoint.
There's a lot of people suggesting this however my amateur opinion is that the trademark is irrelevant. The ex is not trading under her name but providing information on the subject of her. This may contravene privacy or libel laws but I doubt she can use trademark regulation for this any more than Disney can stop Wikipedia because they don't like the mention of parodies.
The only potential is that.com is theoretically considered commerical however in practice it has never been the case.
The thing is there are many types of intelligence; emotional, practical, musical, and then there's actual intelligence, which is what we're talking about here.
It's amazing how little you know of your own language until you try to learn another. Australia seems particularly bad due to our geographical isolation. Kids (myself included) come out of school knowing only noun/verb/adjective/adverb.
You are correct but the slippery slope argument is useful in a practical sense. I.e. if marijuana really did act as a gateway drug to meth then society may be better off maintaining its illegal status even if its use is harmless in itself.
Pragmatism usually stands in contrast to idealism but ironically it may be more practical to take an ideological position. This is especially true for freedom of speech and I see many complaints from Americans in recent years about the government encroaching on civil liberties. If you maintain a pure position that all speech should be free then you don't create a slope for your government, and whichever interest groups, to abuse by rolling down the speech of their opponents.
While I appreciate iiNet's business ethics there is a clear profit link here. As an ISP they benefit greatly by having a world that allows their customers to download as much as possible, legitimately or otherwise.
As usual the summary is deliberately misleading. Their stated reasons are for not participating are;
* they don't want to absorb the cost
* they don't want a scheme that requires them to store information on their customers (bad PR)
* they don't want to be seen as the enforcer (bad PR)
Actually it's the other way around. Well-adjusted people have learned society's code of conduct which says that sex is mostly private, and they feel social pressure (embarrassment) when they violate this.
Since all societies that I know of tend this way it is possibly 'natural'. Indeed we tend to hide our weaknesses as a matter of course, or survival. Mating is certainly one of the times when we are at our most vulnerable. The same goes for revealing our sexual tendencies.
The problem with sexual content is that humans turn virtually every phrase into a euphemism for it. You can see how that presents an algorithmic problem - it makes language less precise.
There may be some risk-minimisation motivation but really since sex is generally considered more private than non-sexual activities I imagine many of their users are happy to have it more clearly defined as to when they will receive sexual search results.
The GP is simply demonstrating that legal actions can be outrages, not suggesting the outrage of tax avoidance is equivalent to the outrage of genocide.
Note that Godwin's law does not claim that mentioning Hitler invalidates an argument, just that somebody will eventually mention him.
isn't this really an issue that is intrinsic to all installed applications?
Yes, even assembly can still be considered source code. That's why a lot of software is moving to a client-server architecture, especially commonly-pirated items like games.
Have to agree, also whenever I search for programs and turn up paid software amongst the usal FOSS stuff it feels wrong, and this is the crux of the problem (for you and I); Canonical's focus is on making Ubuntu a non-technical OS with things that are nice for non-technical users, like a free i-Device.
There's nothing wrong with that, but because it's based on Linux many of the existing users are technically inclined and are increasingly being disenfranchised as Canonical moves closer to their target demographic. I'm starting to see the writing on the wall personally.
There's something libre about gratis. This is why I use Linux in the first place - there's a sense of peace in knowing that the software was developed with nothing in mind save solving the problem. As soon as money is introduced trust goes out the window. I don't want to have to watch my OS to catch it herding me into purchases.
What has changed with Lindt? It's certainly not the most gourmet chocolate available but I haven't noticed a change over the years. No other gourmet brand is widely available in supermarkets where I'm from so it remains a staple. I tend to grab Camille Bloch from European importers when passing by.
Having tried Lindt in Switzerland I noticed no real difference (although not an A/B). On the other hand many English friends claim Cadbury in Australia is quite different (inferior of course) due to changes they make for the climate difference.
In Australia most milk is this third kind, "pasteurised", which as you say is treated with heat for less time than UHT. UHT is sold in supermarkets but less common, used for camping etc.
In fact it is illegal to sell raw milk in Australia. If you want to get it you have to find a dairy farmer. This makes me wonder if chocolate manufacturers use raw milk.
Pasteurised milk has an expiry of 1 to 2 weeks. In my experience opening it rarely shortens this life - you need to close the top quickly to minimise bacteria. Interestingly the west deregulated the dairy industry a few years ago and as a result a lot of milk is transported from the east. Somehow the average expiry went from 1 week to the 1 to 2 weeks, perhaps they have a slightly longer heat treatment.
Recently there was a permeate scare when the local tabloid current affairs 'exposed' the practice of re-adding milk permeate (a by product of filtration that contains whitish water, fat and vitamins) to milk. Most milk now advertises itself as permeate-free.
Well said. Facebook has no context which is why reactions to a political post may be amplified. In real life you may be at a dinner party where the conversation has moved in the right direction. On Facebook you just throw it out there and hit stressed parents, people who have just lost a loved one, hungover friends, etc. etc. Lots of people who just don't care for your opinion right now and may actively dislike the fact that they saw it. That's why most Facebook posts tend to be of the lowest common denominator.
Nobody with half a brain would want some cracker tampered copy vs an original DRM free version.
I agree, but the people who don't want to pay for it can't just download it for free from GoG. They would have to pay through GoG's checkout, find a friend who did so, or find the GoG version on a torrent site. The latter option is just as untrustworthy as the DRM-cracked version unless GoG provides an official checksum on their site.
If there was an official drm free version available that would be FAR more desirable in general to people looking to actually play the pirated game.
I agree again but this is nothing to do with your original point. You implied the fact that far more people bought the DRM version and that it was cracked somehow showed how pointless DRM was.
I think you may have been ignoring the numbers and your argument was actually "the fact that DRM-free existed, yet the DRM was cracked anyway shows how trivial it is to bypass and therefore how pointless DRM is".
You cannot ignore the sales numbers. Either the DRM version is radically more attractive to paying customers (running counter to the usual argument that sales would actually go up without DRM) or GoG is less well-known and their distribution reach is far less.
I think the latter argument is more sensible, which means the DRM-cracked version probably appeared because the crackers weren't aware of the DRM-free version. That makes it amusing that the crackers did the work for no reason, it doesn't underscore how pointless DRM is any more than any other cracked game.
2.Happening in the opposite way to what is expected, thus typically causing wry amusement.
Yep, "words expressing something other than their literal intention" sounds like a pun. Is calling that a pun then a pun in itself?
I would guess that if most people were asked if the DRM-included version or the DRM-free version would be the most pirated, they would have said the DRM-free. That is the expectation. The opposite happened.
I know you're talking about the irony, but back on topic I'll comment that it's a massive leap from this to "took on the pirates and won".
Pirate: You can't stop me. Whatever your DRM scheme I will crack it eventually and play the game for free!
GoG: We don't use DRM
Pirate: Curses, foiled again!
Also the implication is that pirates only crack games for the challenge and therefore targetted the DRM version for distribution. The more likely explanation is that they weren't aware GoG were releasing it DRM-free.
They seem to be conflating piracy and cracking. Good on them (from a consumer perspective) for shunning DRM, but it hardly follows that releasing games without DRM will eliminate unauthorised distribution.
1. Christianity is defined more by belief than behaviour. While that belief may encourage certain behaviour individuals do not necessarily take on all encouraged behaviours.
2. "Do not judge" is referring to the absolute sense (of salvation). Christianity is/was a mix of moral standards (i.e. judging, "expel the immoral brother"), tolerance and passificism. I'd imagine (but don't know) homosexuality, for example, would not be tolerated by the early church. The circumstances today are quite different of course, where democracy and freedom-of-speech give everyone a voice.
3. I agree that the True Scotsman doesn't apply as Christianity has a less nebulous definition. You can see, though, why it is being brought up; being a Scotsman is not defined as being a citizen of Scotland but of having a certain set of idealised character traits.
And how is an outsider to distinguish between a Christian and someone just calling themselves one?
A good question and one that almost invites the No True Scotsman fallacy. On the other hand self-identification is also problematic.
From an individual perspective you, even as an outsider, could base it on your own understanding of Christianity, and similarly for Islam. Both have holy texts that are generally considered authorative. Because interpretations differ you have to supply your own standard, otherwise the definitions become so broad as to be meaningless.
I think "understand" makes sense in this context. You are arguing that spelling, or perhaps definition, is simply memorisation. In this reductive sense everything, like the rules of physics, is simply memorised rather than understood. Grammar, though, requires a deeper knowledge of language concepts (in this case subject and object pronouns) and context than spelling or noun definition.
You are probably correct about "whom" disappearing - it's almost unused in common language already. English seems to be very good at losing its distinctions over time (thou, thee etc.), perhaps because of it's readiness to adopt foreign words. From a nerd point of view it seems sad to lose precision.
That's true of the basics. It depends on the sub-genre but a lot of metal uses dissonant intervals as part of the aggressive feel, like thumping on a piano. The common dissonant intervals - minor second, tritone, minor sixth and major seventh - are all used extensively (compared to pop and rock), and also as notes in riffs or roots of chord progressions (where the chord itself is still a harmonious fifth).
I've read various explanations for Zero Tolerance. The difficulty is that it is radically different from his body of work both before and after, even his attempts at free jazz. Possibly it makes sense in the reactionary theory of music but I don't think that's what he was trying to achieve. The problem is that, as a piece of music, it doesn't stand alone from it's artist's statement, much like a simple black square on a white canvas. I feel bad for saying it but it barely works as entertainment and only has interest because of Metheny's stature.
While he had a high concept in mind when producing it I think it is too personal or individual to express to listeners. This is in contrast to Schoenberg where the outworkings of his radical theory were apparent. Perhaps Zero Tolerance requires recreating Metheny's mood at the time to understand it. Unfortunately most of my listening is done at work where there is little mental silence. I should try once again at home.
I've been fortunate enough to see Metheny play once. If I could somehow see Jim Hall I could die happy:)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, I didn't miss that, as he says in parentheses
(literally, the URL is her name)
What I may have missed is the nature of the content of the site. I assumed it was "Jane Smith is an xxxx and likes to yyyy"*, i.e. defamatory content and libel about her. On re-reading it could be that the site pretends to be her presenting defamatory content about others which I presume is your take. It's not perfectly clear.
* Which would make it informational and my point was that the ex was then not trading. Informational sites are well-established on the internet and there is no chance of anyone mistaking this type of site as being her own work in contrast to, say, the ex producing Jane Smith's Arsenic-Laden Chocolate Bar.
I think the point is that open source claims to allow many contributors but the (made up) statistics don't bear it out. Closed source makes roughly the opposite claim - that better products result from a small number of tightly-controlled contributors - so your line does not really work as a counterpoint.
There's a lot of people suggesting this however my amateur opinion is that the trademark is irrelevant. The ex is not trading under her name but providing information on the subject of her. This may contravene privacy or libel laws but I doubt she can use trademark regulation for this any more than Disney can stop Wikipedia because they don't like the mention of parodies.
The only potential is that .com is theoretically considered commerical however in practice it has never been the case.
The thing is there are many types of intelligence; emotional, practical, musical, and then there's actual intelligence, which is what we're talking about here.
There are a good series of books for this situation, e.g. English Grammer for Students of German.
It's amazing how little you know of your own language until you try to learn another. Australia seems particularly bad due to our geographical isolation. Kids (myself included) come out of school knowing only noun/verb/adjective/adverb.
Were I on the jury I'd let you off. Repaying extreme insensitivity with mass murder classifies you as insane.
You are correct but the slippery slope argument is useful in a practical sense. I.e. if marijuana really did act as a gateway drug to meth then society may be better off maintaining its illegal status even if its use is harmless in itself.
Pragmatism usually stands in contrast to idealism but ironically it may be more practical to take an ideological position. This is especially true for freedom of speech and I see many complaints from Americans in recent years about the government encroaching on civil liberties. If you maintain a pure position that all speech should be free then you don't create a slope for your government, and whichever interest groups, to abuse by rolling down the speech of their opponents.
While I appreciate iiNet's business ethics there is a clear profit link here. As an ISP they benefit greatly by having a world that allows their customers to download as much as possible, legitimately or otherwise.
As usual the summary is deliberately misleading. Their stated reasons are for not participating are;
* they don't want to absorb the cost
* they don't want a scheme that requires them to store information on their customers (bad PR)
* they don't want to be seen as the enforcer (bad PR)
All financial reasons in my opinion.
Actually it's the other way around. Well-adjusted people have learned society's code of conduct which says that sex is mostly private, and they feel social pressure (embarrassment) when they violate this.
Since all societies that I know of tend this way it is possibly 'natural'. Indeed we tend to hide our weaknesses as a matter of course, or survival. Mating is certainly one of the times when we are at our most vulnerable. The same goes for revealing our sexual tendencies.
The problem with sexual content is that humans turn virtually every phrase into a euphemism for it. You can see how that presents an algorithmic problem - it makes language less precise.
There may be some risk-minimisation motivation but really since sex is generally considered more private than non-sexual activities I imagine many of their users are happy to have it more clearly defined as to when they will receive sexual search results.
The GP is simply demonstrating that legal actions can be outrages, not suggesting the outrage of tax avoidance is equivalent to the outrage of genocide.
Note that Godwin's law does not claim that mentioning Hitler invalidates an argument, just that somebody will eventually mention him.
Yes, you're both right, I meant raw binaries.
isn't this really an issue that is intrinsic to all installed applications?
Yes, even assembly can still be considered source code. That's why a lot of software is moving to a client-server architecture, especially commonly-pirated items like games.
Have to agree, also whenever I search for programs and turn up paid software amongst the usal FOSS stuff it feels wrong, and this is the crux of the problem (for you and I); Canonical's focus is on making Ubuntu a non-technical OS with things that are nice for non-technical users, like a free i-Device.
There's nothing wrong with that, but because it's based on Linux many of the existing users are technically inclined and are increasingly being disenfranchised as Canonical moves closer to their target demographic. I'm starting to see the writing on the wall personally.
There's something libre about gratis. This is why I use Linux in the first place - there's a sense of peace in knowing that the software was developed with nothing in mind save solving the problem. As soon as money is introduced trust goes out the window. I don't want to have to watch my OS to catch it herding me into purchases.
This seems standard protocol, consider the previous Prime Minister of Australia eating his own ear wax during question time.
What has changed with Lindt? It's certainly not the most gourmet chocolate available but I haven't noticed a change over the years. No other gourmet brand is widely available in supermarkets where I'm from so it remains a staple. I tend to grab Camille Bloch from European importers when passing by.
Having tried Lindt in Switzerland I noticed no real difference (although not an A/B). On the other hand many English friends claim Cadbury in Australia is quite different (inferior of course) due to changes they make for the climate difference.
In Australia most milk is this third kind, "pasteurised", which as you say is treated with heat for less time than UHT. UHT is sold in supermarkets but less common, used for camping etc.
In fact it is illegal to sell raw milk in Australia. If you want to get it you have to find a dairy farmer. This makes me wonder if chocolate manufacturers use raw milk.
Pasteurised milk has an expiry of 1 to 2 weeks. In my experience opening it rarely shortens this life - you need to close the top quickly to minimise bacteria. Interestingly the west deregulated the dairy industry a few years ago and as a result a lot of milk is transported from the east. Somehow the average expiry went from 1 week to the 1 to 2 weeks, perhaps they have a slightly longer heat treatment.
Recently there was a permeate scare when the local tabloid current affairs 'exposed' the practice of re-adding milk permeate (a by product of filtration that contains whitish water, fat and vitamins) to milk. Most milk now advertises itself as permeate-free.
Well said. Facebook has no context which is why reactions to a political post may be amplified. In real life you may be at a dinner party where the conversation has moved in the right direction. On Facebook you just throw it out there and hit stressed parents, people who have just lost a loved one, hungover friends, etc. etc. Lots of people who just don't care for your opinion right now and may actively dislike the fact that they saw it. That's why most Facebook posts tend to be of the lowest common denominator.
Nobody with half a brain would want some cracker tampered copy vs an original DRM free version.
I agree, but the people who don't want to pay for it can't just download it for free from GoG. They would have to pay through GoG's checkout, find a friend who did so, or find the GoG version on a torrent site. The latter option is just as untrustworthy as the DRM-cracked version unless GoG provides an official checksum on their site.
If there was an official drm free version available that would be FAR more desirable in general to people looking to actually play the pirated game.
I agree again but this is nothing to do with your original point. You implied the fact that far more people bought the DRM version and that it was cracked somehow showed how pointless DRM was.
I think you may have been ignoring the numbers and your argument was actually "the fact that DRM-free existed, yet the DRM was cracked anyway shows how trivial it is to bypass and therefore how pointless DRM is".
You cannot ignore the sales numbers. Either the DRM version is radically more attractive to paying customers (running counter to the usual argument that sales would actually go up without DRM) or GoG is less well-known and their distribution reach is far less.
I think the latter argument is more sensible, which means the DRM-cracked version probably appeared because the crackers weren't aware of the DRM-free version. That makes it amusing that the crackers did the work for no reason, it doesn't underscore how pointless DRM is any more than any other cracked game.
2.Happening in the opposite way to what is expected, thus typically causing wry amusement.
Yep, "words expressing something other than their literal intention" sounds like a pun. Is calling that a pun then a pun in itself?
I would guess that if most people were asked if the DRM-included version or the DRM-free version would be the most pirated, they would have said the DRM-free. That is the expectation. The opposite happened.
I know you're talking about the irony, but back on topic I'll comment that it's a massive leap from this to "took on the pirates and won".
Pirate: You can't stop me. Whatever your DRM scheme I will crack it eventually and play the game for free!
GoG: We don't use DRM
Pirate: Curses, foiled again!
Also the implication is that pirates only crack games for the challenge and therefore targetted the DRM version for distribution. The more likely explanation is that they weren't aware GoG were releasing it DRM-free.
They seem to be conflating piracy and cracking. Good on them (from a consumer perspective) for shunning DRM, but it hardly follows that releasing games without DRM will eliminate unauthorised distribution.
A couple of things;
1. Christianity is defined more by belief than behaviour. While that belief may encourage certain behaviour individuals do not necessarily take on all encouraged behaviours.
2. "Do not judge" is referring to the absolute sense (of salvation). Christianity is/was a mix of moral standards (i.e. judging, "expel the immoral brother"), tolerance and passificism. I'd imagine (but don't know) homosexuality, for example, would not be tolerated by the early church. The circumstances today are quite different of course, where democracy and freedom-of-speech give everyone a voice.
3. I agree that the True Scotsman doesn't apply as Christianity has a less nebulous definition. You can see, though, why it is being brought up; being a Scotsman is not defined as being a citizen of Scotland but of having a certain set of idealised character traits.
And how is an outsider to distinguish between a Christian and someone just calling themselves one?
A good question and one that almost invites the No True Scotsman fallacy. On the other hand self-identification is also problematic.
From an individual perspective you, even as an outsider, could base it on your own understanding of Christianity, and similarly for Islam. Both have holy texts that are generally considered authorative. Because interpretations differ you have to supply your own standard, otherwise the definitions become so broad as to be meaningless.
I think "understand" makes sense in this context. You are arguing that spelling, or perhaps definition, is simply memorisation. In this reductive sense everything, like the rules of physics, is simply memorised rather than understood. Grammar, though, requires a deeper knowledge of language concepts (in this case subject and object pronouns) and context than spelling or noun definition.
You are probably correct about "whom" disappearing - it's almost unused in common language already. English seems to be very good at losing its distinctions over time (thou, thee etc.), perhaps because of it's readiness to adopt foreign words. From a nerd point of view it seems sad to lose precision.
That's true of the basics. It depends on the sub-genre but a lot of metal uses dissonant intervals as part of the aggressive feel, like thumping on a piano. The common dissonant intervals - minor second, tritone, minor sixth and major seventh - are all used extensively (compared to pop and rock), and also as notes in riffs or roots of chord progressions (where the chord itself is still a harmonious fifth).
I've read various explanations for Zero Tolerance. The difficulty is that it is radically different from his body of work both before and after, even his attempts at free jazz. Possibly it makes sense in the reactionary theory of music but I don't think that's what he was trying to achieve. The problem is that, as a piece of music, it doesn't stand alone from it's artist's statement, much like a simple black square on a white canvas. I feel bad for saying it but it barely works as entertainment and only has interest because of Metheny's stature.
While he had a high concept in mind when producing it I think it is too personal or individual to express to listeners. This is in contrast to Schoenberg where the outworkings of his radical theory were apparent. Perhaps Zero Tolerance requires recreating Metheny's mood at the time to understand it. Unfortunately most of my listening is done at work where there is little mental silence. I should try once again at home.
I've been fortunate enough to see Metheny play once. If I could somehow see Jim Hall I could die happy :)