Back in 2003 or so I gave up on my Hotmail account because if I didn't clear out the spam every 3 days, it would fill up my mailbox and delete all my older (read: personal and legitimate) email messages. This was when a free account only included 2MB of storage. After losing all my email a couple times over a period of several months, I gave up on it. I think I maxed out the number of custom filters you could have with attempts to delete junk automatically, which gave me maybe one more day.
I switched to Yahoo and eventually Gmail, and on the latter I receive one or two junk messages per day. False positives are rare, and spam NEVER gets to my inbox. Of course, the same day I signed up for Gmail, I started getting spam, before I ever even used the address anywhere.
Not sure about America, you have funny looking power sockets so I'm not sure about the rest of it but in Oz, your house is hooked up to the mains grid via a transformer, it's a single point of presence, that is metered and that number is how you get charged. So the OP's plan is not only stupid and dangerous, it wont work as you'll be moving the socket from one circuit to a completely different one.
No, that's how it works here in the USA. On a single-family home, you can go out and watch the meter recording your usage. Even in the apartments I've lived in (in Chicago), each unit has its own meter, and you're billed directly by the power company.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I don't see it discussed in TFAs, but all 10 could be from the same case, or Apple could have lost the cases for some other reason, such as when filing the paperwork with the court, on the place on the form that says "do not write in this space," they wroke "okay."
Well, if it's libel or slander, than it's against the law for being libel or slander (neither of which are considered a form of expression to which anyone has a right), whether it's hateful or not. The reason libel and slander are against the law is because they attempt to defame someone with statements that are untrue, and ultimately attack their livelihood, not because they're hateful.
Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?
As an aside, is there such a thing as polite and respectful libel or slander?
The only book of this series I ever had was "Teach yourself DirectX 7 in 24 Hours" and they quite explicitly stated in the book (I think on the cover even) that it's not intended to teach you the subject matter in 24 consecutive hours from start to finish, but in 24 lessons of approximately one hour.
I only got partway through that particular book, but I learned enough from the few chapters I read completely, with selective reading of others, to go from zero knowledge about DirectX programming to writing a 3D gravity simulator with textures, dynamic lighting, etc. I found it an effective introduction to the topic, but as others have indicated, it was a starting point, not a comprehensive guide.
This is an excellent question - the flipside of this particular problem is that since Content ID flags EVERY video, even when I know there's no infringement, how could I possibly know when it's flagged a video that actually HAS infringed? This particular system has caused itself to be useless - it doesn't serve its purpose, and has become "just another box to click."
If it's this cartoon, it's in the public domain in the United States since it was published before 1923. If the music on your video was published before 1923 as well, whether with the cartoon or otherwise, then it's also PD in the US regardless of the author's date of death.
If the video you uploaded is the same as the one at the Library of Congress, the claim against your video is completely bogus (I believe the works available online from LOC are all PD - anyone know otherwise?).
Lately, every video I upload to YouTube (of myself playing classical music e.g. Bach) gets flagged by content ID, supposedly matching content owned by some "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society". If you Google it, it seems to be an umbrella term from YouTube saying your content matched something that someone, somewhere in the world, said they own the rights to. I believe the system is fully automatic, using sophisticated "finger-print" matching to identify infringing works. My theory is that their matching system has to be coarse enough to catch transcoded video & audio, and this coarseness allows original performances such as mine to "match" copyrighted recordings. I guess that's a compliment.
This isn't exactly DMCA abuse - in that I don't think anyone views the content and files a claim. It seems to be automatic. I always just check the box that says Content ID has misidentified the work - which it has since my own recording is not copyrighted by anyone else, obviously. But still, it's a nuisance because every time I upload I have to wait a day or two for content ID to do its thing, and then respond so it won't show ads. This and the fact that they down-sampled all my older recordings to crappy quality has left me very unsatisfied with the service lately.
Well, THIS religious nutbar subscribes to the theory that gravity is really just the love felt between particles: just as absence makes the heart grow fonder, distance increases this attractive force, resulting in increased orbital velocities of stars.
No, Microsoft's is a new and novel invention, specifically a software system stored on a computer-readable medium to do that thing you described. See?? Totally different!
Spent a good 4-5 weeks playing a song before I realized the first note was a third higher than I had thought.
I've had this happen. Even worse is when I re-learn a piece that I had originally learned years previously, only to discover that for years I had been playing the wrong note, and now the right note sounds wrong!
It would be interesting to see a study comparing sight-reading in musicians to reading words, because I'm at the point now in music where I see larger shapes (chords, short melodic sequences) at once rather than reading every individual note, and I bet it's the same brain function that processes the glyphs. Furthermore, I use the same part of the brain for speaking as well as playing music: for me it's tightly related to vocal expression, evidenced by the fact that I physically can't speak while playing the piano.
That's hilarious - when I was younger, my mother was well aware of a similar effect. I'd be focused on some task when she'd ask me a question. Naturally I hadn't payed attention, so I'd immediately reply "huh?", at which point she'd say "replay the tape..." and wait 5 seconds for me to process what she had said and then respond.
Re the topic, I've been telling people for a long time that I read by word shape. I can scan sentences with long words quite fast, but many small words together really slow me down.
Perhaps I'm not reading the right internet, but you touch on the third side of the debate that I never seem to hear. The other two sides are: 1) The Climate is Changing! We're all going to die! 2) The Climate is not Changing! Everything's fine!
The side I'd like to listen to is the one that says: 3) The Climate is always changing, sometimes dramatically; we need to learn to adapt whilst making sure we're not causing levels of pollution unreasonably harmful to us or too many other forms of life.
I've noticed that every technological advance has its downside, and one of the unfortunate side-effects of the technological revolution of the last 200 years has been significant damage to the environment (in fact, every technological advance of man seems to have a harmful side-effect when you start looking at it).
That being said, I don't think there's anything particularly special about the current set of species (except for one) and climate parameters - these have been radically different in the past and are changed by natural forces with a power far beyond any we have. I don't believe we currently even have the ability to permanently (meaning: permanently) alter the climate. Our responsibility now is not to be stupid about our stewardship of the resources we have been given.
The perpendicular line in the first animation represents the asteroid's position relative to the Earth, as the Earth moves. So, although it's traveling at approximately a 45-degree angle relative to Earth's movement as it passes, it's going enough faster than the Earth that its angular velocity along the direction of Earth's orbit is about the same as the Earth's, so from an Earth perspective it passes perpendicular to our orbit.
Try this experiment: take a pen in each hand, and hold your left hand stationary while you drive a vertical line going up with your right hand, from the bottom of the paper to the top. You'll have a dot and a straight line - that will look like the animated image where the Earth doesn't move. Now have someone pull the paper to the right while you do this (or move both hands to the left in unison), and you'll get a horizontal line for your left hand, and a diagonal line for your right, which will represent a small portion of the second image centered around where the asteroid crosses the Earth's orbit.
Relative orbits are a fascinating subject (for some people). One of my pet projects is a simple gravity simulator, to which I added the ability to render relative orbits, so you can see those weird kidney bean shapes around Lagrange Points. See Earth coorbital asteroid 2002 AA29 and Near-Earth asteroid 3753 Cruithne for some interesting examples.
My understanding is that pawn shops are allowed to use cash because they're already legally required to keep detailed records about the individuals with whom they deal, and this law is all about making it hard for criminals to sell stolen goods without a paper trail.
But this seems like a case of legislatively throwing the baby out with the bath water: "I'll sell you this book of mine for $5, but you'll have to write me a check because I sold someone an old XBox game last week for cash." Or are small private transactions not regulated by the law (I haven't read the text of the bill, obv.)?
If not, this seems outrageous, and I'm all about the outrage!
I tend to agree. When customers have no incentive to shop around, or it's not feasible to do so, providers have no incentive to price competitively.
I would argue that the waste and abuse get transferred to a corporation where any profitability in such waste and abuse require that waste and abuse.
The assumption is that in a free market, competition would reward corporations that avoid waste, and consumers purchasing responsibly would reward corporations that avoid abuse.
The other issue is personal liberty - if I have the right to refuse treatment, shouldn't I also have the right to refuse to buy insurance for that treatment? I don't think "it's good for you, you have to do it" is what was meant by "promote the general welfare," although that's a hotly debated idea these days.
Slashdot Mirror
According to at least one newspaper, Facebook has drastically cut the CIA's domestic intelligence gathering costs.
(The Onion wins again)
Back in 2003 or so I gave up on my Hotmail account because if I didn't clear out the spam every 3 days, it would fill up my mailbox and delete all my older (read: personal and legitimate) email messages. This was when a free account only included 2MB of storage. After losing all my email a couple times over a period of several months, I gave up on it. I think I maxed out the number of custom filters you could have with attempts to delete junk automatically, which gave me maybe one more day.
I switched to Yahoo and eventually Gmail, and on the latter I receive one or two junk messages per day. False positives are rare, and spam NEVER gets to my inbox. Of course, the same day I signed up for Gmail, I started getting spam, before I ever even used the address anywhere.
Not sure about America, you have funny looking power sockets so I'm not sure about the rest of it but in Oz, your house is hooked up to the mains grid via a transformer, it's a single point of presence, that is metered and that number is how you get charged. So the OP's plan is not only stupid and dangerous, it wont work as you'll be moving the socket from one circuit to a completely different one.
No, that's how it works here in the USA. On a single-family home, you can go out and watch the meter recording your usage. Even in the apartments I've lived in (in Chicago), each unit has its own meter, and you're billed directly by the power company.
What a great game!
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I don't see it discussed in TFAs, but all 10 could be from the same case, or Apple could have lost the cases for some other reason, such as when filing the paperwork with the court, on the place on the form that says "do not write in this space," they wroke "okay."
Well, if it's libel or slander, than it's against the law for being libel or slander (neither of which are considered a form of expression to which anyone has a right), whether it's hateful or not. The reason libel and slander are against the law is because they attempt to defame someone with statements that are untrue, and ultimately attack their livelihood, not because they're hateful.
Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?
As an aside, is there such a thing as polite and respectful libel or slander?
That's a pretty fast Fourier transform.
The only book of this series I ever had was "Teach yourself DirectX 7 in 24 Hours" and they quite explicitly stated in the book (I think on the cover even) that it's not intended to teach you the subject matter in 24 consecutive hours from start to finish, but in 24 lessons of approximately one hour.
I only got partway through that particular book, but I learned enough from the few chapters I read completely, with selective reading of others, to go from zero knowledge about DirectX programming to writing a 3D gravity simulator with textures, dynamic lighting, etc. I found it an effective introduction to the topic, but as others have indicated, it was a starting point, not a comprehensive guide.
Well, it works for Forza 3 & 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96LKRtJvIQw. You're right that they need a good controller.
... nuclear reactors reengineer your lifespan!
This is an excellent question - the flipside of this particular problem is that since Content ID flags EVERY video, even when I know there's no infringement, how could I possibly know when it's flagged a video that actually HAS infringed? This particular system has caused itself to be useless - it doesn't serve its purpose, and has become "just another box to click."
If it's this cartoon, it's in the public domain in the United States since it was published before 1923. If the music on your video was published before 1923 as well, whether with the cartoon or otherwise, then it's also PD in the US regardless of the author's date of death.
If the video you uploaded is the same as the one at the Library of Congress, the claim against your video is completely bogus (I believe the works available online from LOC are all PD - anyone know otherwise?).
Lately, every video I upload to YouTube (of myself playing classical music e.g. Bach) gets flagged by content ID, supposedly matching content owned by some "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society". If you Google it, it seems to be an umbrella term from YouTube saying your content matched something that someone, somewhere in the world, said they own the rights to. I believe the system is fully automatic, using sophisticated "finger-print" matching to identify infringing works. My theory is that their matching system has to be coarse enough to catch transcoded video & audio, and this coarseness allows original performances such as mine to "match" copyrighted recordings. I guess that's a compliment.
This isn't exactly DMCA abuse - in that I don't think anyone views the content and files a claim. It seems to be automatic. I always just check the box that says Content ID has misidentified the work - which it has since my own recording is not copyrighted by anyone else, obviously. But still, it's a nuisance because every time I upload I have to wait a day or two for content ID to do its thing, and then respond so it won't show ads. This and the fact that they down-sampled all my older recordings to crappy quality has left me very unsatisfied with the service lately.
I want my money back! ;)
Well, THIS religious nutbar subscribes to the theory that gravity is really just the love felt between particles: just as absence makes the heart grow fonder, distance increases this attractive force, resulting in increased orbital velocities of stars.
Love makes the galaxy go 'round.
No, Microsoft's is a new and novel invention, specifically a software system stored on a computer-readable medium to do that thing you described. See?? Totally different!
Spent a good 4-5 weeks playing a song before I realized the first note was a third higher than I had thought.
I've had this happen. Even worse is when I re-learn a piece that I had originally learned years previously, only to discover that for years I had been playing the wrong note, and now the right note sounds wrong!
It would be interesting to see a study comparing sight-reading in musicians to reading words, because I'm at the point now in music where I see larger shapes (chords, short melodic sequences) at once rather than reading every individual note, and I bet it's the same brain function that processes the glyphs. Furthermore, I use the same part of the brain for speaking as well as playing music: for me it's tightly related to vocal expression, evidenced by the fact that I physically can't speak while playing the piano.
That's hilarious - when I was younger, my mother was well aware of a similar effect. I'd be focused on some task when she'd ask me a question. Naturally I hadn't payed attention, so I'd immediately reply "huh?", at which point she'd say "replay the tape..." and wait 5 seconds for me to process what she had said and then respond.
Re the topic, I've been telling people for a long time that I read by word shape. I can scan sentences with long words quite fast, but many small words together really slow me down.
Are you putting WW2 fighter engines in your SUVs now or what?
No, just our compact cars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxqq22sD67A
Perhaps I'm not reading the right internet, but you touch on the third side of the debate that I never seem to hear. The other two sides are:
1) The Climate is Changing! We're all going to die!
2) The Climate is not Changing! Everything's fine!
The side I'd like to listen to is the one that says: 3) The Climate is always changing, sometimes dramatically; we need to learn to adapt whilst making sure we're not causing levels of pollution unreasonably harmful to us or too many other forms of life.
I've noticed that every technological advance has its downside, and one of the unfortunate side-effects of the technological revolution of the last 200 years has been significant damage to the environment (in fact, every technological advance of man seems to have a harmful side-effect when you start looking at it).
That being said, I don't think there's anything particularly special about the current set of species (except for one) and climate parameters - these have been radically different in the past and are changed by natural forces with a power far beyond any we have. I don't believe we currently even have the ability to permanently (meaning: permanently) alter the climate. Our responsibility now is not to be stupid about our stewardship of the resources we have been given.
Also known as the Zeno's Paradox of political action. But surely there's also a Political Planck Length?
The perpendicular line in the first animation represents the asteroid's position relative to the Earth, as the Earth moves. So, although it's traveling at approximately a 45-degree angle relative to Earth's movement as it passes, it's going enough faster than the Earth that its angular velocity along the direction of Earth's orbit is about the same as the Earth's, so from an Earth perspective it passes perpendicular to our orbit.
Try this experiment: take a pen in each hand, and hold your left hand stationary while you drive a vertical line going up with your right hand, from the bottom of the paper to the top. You'll have a dot and a straight line - that will look like the animated image where the Earth doesn't move. Now have someone pull the paper to the right while you do this (or move both hands to the left in unison), and you'll get a horizontal line for your left hand, and a diagonal line for your right, which will represent a small portion of the second image centered around where the asteroid crosses the Earth's orbit.
Relative orbits are a fascinating subject (for some people). One of my pet projects is a simple gravity simulator, to which I added the ability to render relative orbits, so you can see those weird kidney bean shapes around Lagrange Points. See Earth coorbital asteroid 2002 AA29 and Near-Earth asteroid 3753 Cruithne for some interesting examples.
My understanding is that pawn shops are allowed to use cash because they're already legally required to keep detailed records about the individuals with whom they deal, and this law is all about making it hard for criminals to sell stolen goods without a paper trail.
But this seems like a case of legislatively throwing the baby out with the bath water: "I'll sell you this book of mine for $5, but you'll have to write me a check because I sold someone an old XBox game last week for cash." Or are small private transactions not regulated by the law (I haven't read the text of the bill, obv.)?
If not, this seems outrageous, and I'm all about the outrage!
#define NEVER_FORGET "Dennis Ritchie "
void main() //but not forgotten...
{
char* greatness = new char[70];
sprintf(greatness, "1941-2011 ");
printf(NEVER_FORGET);
printf(greatness);
printf("RIP");
return;
}
"fandroid"
Haven't heard that before - good one! Would that make anyone who excitedly repeats Apple's hype over and over a "fapple?"
I tend to agree. When customers have no incentive to shop around, or it's not feasible to do so, providers have no incentive to price competitively.
I would argue that the waste and abuse get transferred to a corporation where any profitability in such waste and abuse require that waste and abuse.
The assumption is that in a free market, competition would reward corporations that avoid waste, and consumers purchasing responsibly would reward corporations that avoid abuse.
The other issue is personal liberty - if I have the right to refuse treatment, shouldn't I also have the right to refuse to buy insurance for that treatment? I don't think "it's good for you, you have to do it" is what was meant by "promote the general welfare," although that's a hotly debated idea these days.