You mean the version of iChat that was introduced yesterday? Having to worry about drivers with OS X is a huge anomaly, but it is to be expected when you're using software on the very day it's introduced.
I'm a geek. I search for "ant" on
MSN, it talks about insects, but the first category mentioned, and the 4th link on
Google is for the java build tool. I search for "ruby" on
MSN I get precious stones, I search on
Google and both the 1st category and the 1st search result are the programming language. I search for "lint" and
MSN's search results are mostly about the stuff that you find in your belly button;
Google's results are mostly about program validation.
I don't know which one is "better" but the results from Google match what I'm looking for. The ones on MSN don't.
I'm a bit of a racing fan so let me use a few observations from that. ABS helps if you're braking in a straight line, but no form of gas/brake traction-control system helps when your tires lose traction sideways. Once the wheels start to slip to the side they're gone and only counter-steering can help.
The tightest corners can be made when you're not braking or accelerating. You want the car to be completely balanced so that the load is balanced equally between the front and rear tires. Too little downforce on the front and you understeer. Too little downforce on the rear and you oversteer and potentially skid out. While it's true that you can "corner faster" in degrees per second when you're going slower, it's much more difficult to corner well under heavy braking than it is to corner when you're neither braking nor accelerating.
When you're taught "defensive driving" techniques for avoiding an accident, they always teach you to brake, then take your foot off the brake to swerve so you don't end up skidding. The problem I see here is that to do this kind of maneuver well takes coordination. You have to take your foot off the brake as you make the swerve, but if someone/something else is controlling the brake, can you do this well? Even if the system monitors your steering wheel input, will you be expecting whatever it does to the brake once it starts using it?
That's right folks, it's a knock-em-down, drag-em-out battle for the best driver. In this corner, weighing in at 250 pounds, chock full o' twinkies, we have Joe "The Human" Blow. And in this corner, weighing in at 2 grams, in its beautiful version 1.0 glory, we have 0xDEAD "The Computer" 0xBEEF
Fred: This looks like it's going to be a real match Bob, what do the stats say?
Bob: Well Fred, each contender has some real things going for them. Let's start with "The Human". "The Human" has quite the sensory system. Using his peripheral vision alone, he can see about 150 degrees, side to side, and about 90 degrees up and down and at an incredibly high level of detail.
Fred: Wow, that's impressive, and "The Computer" is going to have a hard time matching that?
Bob: That's right, the computer is going to have tunnel vision by comparison. He's going to have to do a lot of guessing to determine what's actually out there. No matter how clever his trainers are, "The Computer" is going to have a real disadvantage when it comes to raw sensory input.
Fred: But "The Computer" has some advantages of his own, doesn't he?
Bob: Of course! Speed. "The Human" has reaction speed measured in milliseconds. The Computer can react in microseconds. Sometimes that reaction time is incredibly important.
Fred: But "The Human" is the vet here. He's got years of experience. Won't experience give "The Human" an edge?
Bob: That's really the question, isn't it? "The Human" has lots of experience, but how much of that experience is useful? Unless he's been in a near-accident before, his experience might be useless. On the other hand, that's exactly what "The Computer" has been training for all this time. He's pretty single-minded about it, but he knows his stuff.
Fred: So in the end, it comes down to this. "The Human" is the wily, adaptable veteran, he's a little slow, but he's been at this for years. He's also got a whole lot of ring-sense. On the other hand, "The Computer" has been training really hard. He might not have the experience, but his reactions are superb. I have no doubt "The Computer" is the champ of the future -- but is he ready for primetime yet? We'll soon find out!
How far are you going? I can't think of any role for the scooter that my bike doesn't cover. If it replaced a car, that's great, but that seems unlikely to me. I can't even really see it replacing a motorcycle, but maybe it replaces a scooter?
Yeah, but more to the point, it serves no necessary or even particularly useful function. When I look at a product, what makes me want to buy it is saying "Wow, I'd like to use that to _____". I can't think of any way in which I'd want to use this thing.
This thing fills the same niche as a bike. It is good for short range in good weather. But unlike a bike it is really expensive and much harder to find a place to park. Maybe if I was lazy and didn't enjoy biking it would fill the niche my bike does, but as it stands, I look at this thing and have no interest in having one.
I'm sure you have a well thought out post there, but I read it and just see "it's ignition temperature..." and "for this service as there data needs..." and "drive by porn d/l sight..." and "so whats the point?"
Obviously you can do better if you try, ("drivers leave their trucks running") so I wish you would. Just because it's online, informal, and to a very technical audience doesn't mean that [sic]speling, gramur and punkshewashin dont count.
Sure, Linux benefits from copyright laws -- but if you read the GNU Manifesto, etc. you'll see that the FSF want those laws abolished. The reason they created the GPL was to have a license that could make code act more like it would in a world where there were no copyright laws. If they released everything into the public domain or under a BSD style license then it would benefit organizations that use copyright to hide their source, so instead they use the GPL to force those companies to essentially act as if copyright didn't exist.
As for music, do you honestly think that only rich people could listen to music before? Do you think that if you were poor you never heard music? That's laughable. People used to actually *play* music, rather than just listen to it on their headphones. Music was played in the house among a family, played in a local pub, etc. Sure if you wanted huge orchestral music, opera, etc. then you had to be rich, but so what?
Finally, your argument that somehow it's copyright that has resulted in more inventions and more music is pretty weak. Do you think that whoever invented the wheel, fire, plumbing, etc. only did so because he/she could patent the invention? Progress is progress and it will happen whether or not people can make money from their ideas. Does the current culture of super-strong IP laws incourage innovation? I don't think so. Sure, it allows huge companies to protect their ideas be they big (public key encryption) or small (1-click ordering). On the other hand, your average Joe probably is less inclined to invent something. He migh have a great idea, but unless he can come up with a lot of money, getting the idea patented is really tough. So instead, he sits on the idea, waiting until he can scrape together enough money to patent it and make sure no huge company steals it. If IP laws didn't exist, or were much weaker, he might just decide that he can't make money at it, so he should give away his idea for the common good and for the public kudos.
It may be that the pace of "progress" has been sped up by IP laws, but that's a far cry from saying that people's lives are better because of those laws -- and really, in the end, isn't that what's important?
Yeah, because nobody would *ever* make something good and useful unless they could get strong copyright and patent protection on it, would they? *Cough*Linux*Cough*.
There's no doubt the business models would have to change. But really, is the 2003 model of a car really so much better than the 2002 model, or the 2000 model, or the 1990 model? There might not be as much incentive to spend time to develop new models when the old one is "good enough". On the other hand, if enough people have enough need for a new "X" they'll either make it themselves or pay someone to make it for them. Sure, they'll have to live with other people having it as well, but so what?
I think the incredible success of Open Source / Free software has proved that people can and will design and build amazing things even if they can't sell the design or the end product for much if anything. If the physical world of car manufacturing were similar we'd probably end up with some pretty funky looking cars, and a lot of cars might have some really odd UI "features" and some odd bugs, but so what? I, for one, would not cry if Ford had to close down because there was no margin in designing the newest Mega-SUV.
As for music and other artistic processes, there was music before copyright, and there would be music afterwards. There might not be an N'Sync because the margins just wouldn't be there, but there would probably be just as many, if not more, local bands. To make money, musicians would have to play gigs. Guess what? Most of them do that anyhow, and many of them really enjoy it.
I say, why fear change? Sure there's a downside to getting rid of IP laws, but it's pretty obvious there's a huge downside to keeping them in place as well.
I was thinking of doing a Comp. Sci. master's degree and the places I was interested in all seemed to need a Comp. Sci. GRE. As an undergrad I did Engineering Physics with an Electrical Engineering option. Although I had a tiny bit of exposure to programming in C++ and assembly in school I didn't cover almost any of the stuff the GRE tests on. Without going back to get a Comp. Sci. undergrad degree, is there any hope of my doing ok on the Comp. Sci. GRE?
Oh, we hear you, and you piss us off, but mostly we're too polite to say anything, or we figure the evil glares we throw your direction will clue you in... but I guess not.
So do I, and if you think about it, why not? What kind of social interaction do you have with people anyhow, you don't talk to other people during the movie, unless you're a complete ass. You don't even make eye contact because your eyes are on the movie screen.
Interacting with friends before or immediately after the movie is nice, but the actual viewing of the movie with friends vs. alone isn't very different.
"Friend, you raise an interesting point there. Nobody can deny the significance of plaigarism. In some ways modern technology is making it easier and easier to plaigarise. In fact, due to plaigarism concerns, a significant college admissions exam was cancelled recently. Often the same technologies that make plaigarism easy make copyright violation easy. A search engine can be used to find essays just as easily as it can be used to find copyrighted music. Now artists worked hard to produce that music, and pirates just want to have it for free. While plaigarism affects the original artist's reputation, copyright violation can affect the artist's bottom line. And if the artist can't afford to make new music, wouldn't that be a shame? Next question please!"
The RIAA is on fairly solid legal ground when they try to stop people from passing around MP3s of copyrighted songs when they represent the copyright holder. Lyrics and tabs are another story entirely.
95% of the time, lyrics aren't supplied with the original song, and instead someone takes the time to listen to the song and try to guess what was said. Sometimes it's just a guess. Take the famous "Scuse me while I kiss the sky / kiss this guy" lyric by Jimi Hendrix. I remember hearing an interview where somebody who knew him said he intentionally said it so that it could be interpreted both ways. Writing down lyrics or tabs based on listening to the song and trying to figure out what was said or what was played is essentially reverse-engineering the song. Having said that, it has to be the easiest reverse-engineering task there could ever be. The output you're attempting to duplicate is a 1:1 mapping of the process used to create it. In other words, to get the words you hear, all you have to do is recreate the words that the artist was singing.
Now if this exceedingly simple "reverse-engineering" is illegal when there is absolutely no form of encryption or copy-protection, then no form of reverse-engineering can be legal. The MPA might have a case if someone were releasing lyrics for unreleased songs, where the "copy protection" is the lock and key under which the unreleased songs are kept, but once something is played on the radio, how can they pretend it's not ok to try to transcribe the song?
So sure, go after the people who copy lyrics out of jacket liners. Go after the people who release lyrics for unreleased songs. But if a judge decides that it's ok to go after someone who just tries to transcribe a song he/she heard, it means the end of "trying to figure out how something works". Say that bed you bought at Ikea, the one you lost the instructions for. If you figure out how to put it together and put up the instructions on the Internet in case someone else loses their instructions... you'll get busted. If you figure out how the levers work in the
Hungry Hungry Hippos
game and post an explanation, you're going to prison. If you figure out how the magician managed to saw his assistant in half by watching carefully, remember not to bend over in the prison shower.
Ok, but... so what? I happened to catch the early moments of the 9/11 attacks on TV and there wasn't much "news" there. There were live pictures, wild speculations, but that's it. The only way I can think of that instant visuals had any impact was that people called their relatives on one of the planes, who then crashed it. But while the 9/11 pictures were amazing, it doesn't seem to me that they did a whole lot of good to anybody.
First of all, $.99 a song, when the song is burdened with DRM? That's just too much. That's virtually the same price as buying a CD, but with none of the distribution costs of a CD. A CD also (normally) doesn't get burdened with DRM. If the price was $0.10 or less, then I'd be excited. That would be a reasonable price, but this $1 a song crap is just too much. I'll stick with file sharing and MP3s, thank you.
As for the new iPod, I'm not terribly impressed. It's an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one. What's the big deal about including USB 2.0, especially with these caveats: USB 2.0 connection is for Windows PCs only; dock connector to USB 2.0 cable sold separately. USB 2.0 requires Internet download available in June. I wonder if this means I can get a good deal on the old iPods...
I have never voted, and never intend to. Doing so would be tacitly endorsing a system that I think is broken and can't be fixed.
I don't think that my one vote will ever make a significant difference in any electoral process. "But what about Florida?" some will say. What about it? Had Al Gore become the president the world would indeed be different, there probably wouldn't have been a war in Iraq for one thing. But fundamentally nothing would have changed. There would still be special interest groups with far too much influence. There would still be millions spent on campaigns instead of on something tangible. Elections have some minor effect on the policy of a country, but not on the fundamental structure of the system.
Electronic voting instead of punch-card voting makes about the same difference as renaming French Fries to Freedom Fries does to your heart. Eat either one and your arteries are going to get clogged.
One of the many problems with elections is that all the candidates are politicians. They all accept the framework they're working in. While some talk a bit about changing the system in insignificant ways, the ones who have a good chance of winning don't want to change the system -- it might prevent them from winning.
Think about this: who is most likely to win an election: someone who is really good at campaigning (kissing babies and shaking hands) but doesn't know or care how to govern, or someone who is really good at governing but lacks charisma? The whole democratic system is set up to select good campaigners, but the job that they're being chosen for doesn't have much to do with those skills.
My impression is that voter apathy isn't because punch cards are too hard. It's not because people don't care. It's not because they don't have time. It's that a lot of people have come to accept that elections are the new opiate of the masses. Those with real power have convinced the masses that they can make a difference by checking a box every 4 years. So rather than march in the streets or take up arms, the masses march to the polling station and dutifully check a box, thinking they are making a difference. The apathetic voters are the ones who have discovered that voting doesn't change much, but don't know what else to do.
Re:Just for comparison's sake...
on
Genome Surprise
·
· Score: 1
I don't have a car.;)
But regarding cars, that was the oversimplified example. It seems obvious that cars are the colours they are because people choose them that way. This could probably be quickly confirmed by a marketing survey. The fact remains that the distribution of colours among sports cars is different from the distribution of colours among family cars.
What if we look at the race of top executives. They may be more white than black. Is this also because CEOs can "choose the colour of their executives"? Maybe, just maybe, there is something else at work here. Maybe it's a sense of comfort with someone who has a similar background. Maybe it's something more sinister, who knows, but it is worth studying.
Re:Just for comparison's sake...
on
Genome Surprise
·
· Score: 1
Maybe, maybe not. But I sure wish someone had the opportunity to study that without being labelled a racist.
Re:Just for comparison's sake...
on
Genome Surprise
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That may be, but race is still interesting.
Race is not much more than a way of classifying people based on appearance. It might also hint at a shared cultural background, but not always. But it is still potentially useful.
Nobody would say that the colour of a car should have anything to do with its handling. It's just paint, and has nothing to do with the insides. On the other hand, there are far more red sportscars than there are powder-blue ones.
If people are willing to accept that, maybe they'd be willing to look at other factors that happen to coincide with light skin tones or different-looking eyes. Unfortunately, any researcher wanting to look at this might as well put on a hood and join the KKK because people are so overly sensitive when it comes to race. If the environments different races evolved in were different enough to cause the obvious physical differences, wouldn't it be surprising if the differences stopped there? Even if the differences within a race are far greater than the differences between races, it would be interesting to see if there are tendencies towards something based on race.
Slashdot Mirror
This either deserves a +5 informative or -1 "untrue". Do you have a URL reference?
You mean the version of iChat that was introduced yesterday? Having to worry about drivers with OS X is a huge anomaly, but it is to be expected when you're using software on the very day it's introduced.
I'm a geek. I search for "ant" on MSN, it talks about insects, but the first category mentioned, and the 4th link on Google is for the java build tool. I search for "ruby" on MSN I get precious stones, I search on Google and both the 1st category and the 1st search result are the programming language. I search for "lint" and MSN's search results are mostly about the stuff that you find in your belly button; Google's results are mostly about program validation.
I don't know which one is "better" but the results from Google match what I'm looking for. The ones on MSN don't.
I'm a bit of a racing fan so let me use a few observations from that. ABS helps if you're braking in a straight line, but no form of gas/brake traction-control system helps when your tires lose traction sideways. Once the wheels start to slip to the side they're gone and only counter-steering can help.
The tightest corners can be made when you're not braking or accelerating. You want the car to be completely balanced so that the load is balanced equally between the front and rear tires. Too little downforce on the front and you understeer. Too little downforce on the rear and you oversteer and potentially skid out. While it's true that you can "corner faster" in degrees per second when you're going slower, it's much more difficult to corner well under heavy braking than it is to corner when you're neither braking nor accelerating.
When you're taught "defensive driving" techniques for avoiding an accident, they always teach you to brake, then take your foot off the brake to swerve so you don't end up skidding. The problem I see here is that to do this kind of maneuver well takes coordination. You have to take your foot off the brake as you make the swerve, but if someone/something else is controlling the brake, can you do this well? Even if the system monitors your steering wheel input, will you be expecting whatever it does to the brake once it starts using it?
That's right folks, it's a knock-em-down, drag-em-out battle for the best driver. In this corner, weighing in at 250 pounds, chock full o' twinkies, we have Joe "The Human" Blow. And in this corner, weighing in at 2 grams, in its beautiful version 1.0 glory, we have 0xDEAD "The Computer" 0xBEEF
Fred: This looks like it's going to be a real match Bob, what do the stats say?
Bob: Well Fred, each contender has some real things going for them. Let's start with "The Human". "The Human" has quite the sensory system. Using his peripheral vision alone, he can see about 150 degrees, side to side, and about 90 degrees up and down and at an incredibly high level of detail.
Fred: Wow, that's impressive, and "The Computer" is going to have a hard time matching that?
Bob: That's right, the computer is going to have tunnel vision by comparison. He's going to have to do a lot of guessing to determine what's actually out there. No matter how clever his trainers are, "The Computer" is going to have a real disadvantage when it comes to raw sensory input.
Fred: But "The Computer" has some advantages of his own, doesn't he?
Bob: Of course! Speed. "The Human" has reaction speed measured in milliseconds. The Computer can react in microseconds. Sometimes that reaction time is incredibly important.
Fred: But "The Human" is the vet here. He's got years of experience. Won't experience give "The Human" an edge?
Bob: That's really the question, isn't it? "The Human" has lots of experience, but how much of that experience is useful? Unless he's been in a near-accident before, his experience might be useless. On the other hand, that's exactly what "The Computer" has been training for all this time. He's pretty single-minded about it, but he knows his stuff.
Fred: So in the end, it comes down to this. "The Human" is the wily, adaptable veteran, he's a little slow, but he's been at this for years. He's also got a whole lot of ring-sense. On the other hand, "The Computer" has been training really hard. He might not have the experience, but his reactions are superb. I have no doubt "The Computer" is the champ of the future -- but is he ready for primetime yet? We'll soon find out!
Speach huh? That's pretty Alanis-ironic.
How far are you going? I can't think of any role for the scooter that my bike doesn't cover. If it replaced a car, that's great, but that seems unlikely to me. I can't even really see it replacing a motorcycle, but maybe it replaces a scooter?
Yeah, but more to the point, it serves no necessary or even particularly useful function. When I look at a product, what makes me want to buy it is saying "Wow, I'd like to use that to _____". I can't think of any way in which I'd want to use this thing.
This thing fills the same niche as a bike. It is good for short range in good weather. But unlike a bike it is really expensive and much harder to find a place to park. Maybe if I was lazy and didn't enjoy biking it would fill the niche my bike does, but as it stands, I look at this thing and have no interest in having one.
I'm sure you have a well thought out post there, but I read it and just see "it's ignition temperature..." and "for this service as there data needs..." and "drive by porn d/l sight..." and "so whats the point?"
Obviously you can do better if you try, ("drivers leave their trucks running") so I wish you would. Just because it's online, informal, and to a very technical audience doesn't mean that [sic]speling, gramur and punkshewashin dont count.
Sure, Linux benefits from copyright laws -- but if you read the GNU Manifesto, etc. you'll see that the FSF want those laws abolished. The reason they created the GPL was to have a license that could make code act more like it would in a world where there were no copyright laws. If they released everything into the public domain or under a BSD style license then it would benefit organizations that use copyright to hide their source, so instead they use the GPL to force those companies to essentially act as if copyright didn't exist.
As for music, do you honestly think that only rich people could listen to music before? Do you think that if you were poor you never heard music? That's laughable. People used to actually *play* music, rather than just listen to it on their headphones. Music was played in the house among a family, played in a local pub, etc. Sure if you wanted huge orchestral music, opera, etc. then you had to be rich, but so what?
Finally, your argument that somehow it's copyright that has resulted in more inventions and more music is pretty weak. Do you think that whoever invented the wheel, fire, plumbing, etc. only did so because he/she could patent the invention? Progress is progress and it will happen whether or not people can make money from their ideas. Does the current culture of super-strong IP laws incourage innovation? I don't think so. Sure, it allows huge companies to protect their ideas be they big (public key encryption) or small (1-click ordering). On the other hand, your average Joe probably is less inclined to invent something. He migh have a great idea, but unless he can come up with a lot of money, getting the idea patented is really tough. So instead, he sits on the idea, waiting until he can scrape together enough money to patent it and make sure no huge company steals it. If IP laws didn't exist, or were much weaker, he might just decide that he can't make money at it, so he should give away his idea for the common good and for the public kudos.
It may be that the pace of "progress" has been sped up by IP laws, but that's a far cry from saying that people's lives are better because of those laws -- and really, in the end, isn't that what's important?
Yeah, because nobody would *ever* make something good and useful unless they could get strong copyright and patent protection on it, would they? *Cough*Linux*Cough*.
There's no doubt the business models would have to change. But really, is the 2003 model of a car really so much better than the 2002 model, or the 2000 model, or the 1990 model? There might not be as much incentive to spend time to develop new models when the old one is "good enough". On the other hand, if enough people have enough need for a new "X" they'll either make it themselves or pay someone to make it for them. Sure, they'll have to live with other people having it as well, but so what?
I think the incredible success of Open Source / Free software has proved that people can and will design and build amazing things even if they can't sell the design or the end product for much if anything. If the physical world of car manufacturing were similar we'd probably end up with some pretty funky looking cars, and a lot of cars might have some really odd UI "features" and some odd bugs, but so what? I, for one, would not cry if Ford had to close down because there was no margin in designing the newest Mega-SUV.
As for music and other artistic processes, there was music before copyright, and there would be music afterwards. There might not be an N'Sync because the margins just wouldn't be there, but there would probably be just as many, if not more, local bands. To make money, musicians would have to play gigs. Guess what? Most of them do that anyhow, and many of them really enjoy it.
I say, why fear change? Sure there's a downside to getting rid of IP laws, but it's pretty obvious there's a huge downside to keeping them in place as well.
The sand where you live must be huge. The antennas are on the order of 5cm.
I was thinking of doing a Comp. Sci. master's degree and the places I was interested in all seemed to need a Comp. Sci. GRE. As an undergrad I did Engineering Physics with an Electrical Engineering option. Although I had a tiny bit of exposure to programming in C++ and assembly in school I didn't cover almost any of the stuff the GRE tests on. Without going back to get a Comp. Sci. undergrad degree, is there any hope of my doing ok on the Comp. Sci. GRE?
Oh, we hear you, and you piss us off, but mostly we're too polite to say anything, or we figure the evil glares we throw your direction will clue you in... but I guess not.
So do I, and if you think about it, why not? What kind of social interaction do you have with people anyhow, you don't talk to other people during the movie, unless you're a complete ass. You don't even make eye contact because your eyes are on the movie screen.
Interacting with friends before or immediately after the movie is nice, but the actual viewing of the movie with friends vs. alone isn't very different.
"Friend, you raise an interesting point there. Nobody can deny the significance of plaigarism. In some ways modern technology is making it easier and easier to plaigarise. In fact, due to plaigarism concerns, a significant college admissions exam was cancelled recently. Often the same technologies that make plaigarism easy make copyright violation easy. A search engine can be used to find essays just as easily as it can be used to find copyrighted music. Now artists worked hard to produce that music, and pirates just want to have it for free. While plaigarism affects the original artist's reputation, copyright violation can affect the artist's bottom line. And if the artist can't afford to make new music, wouldn't that be a shame? Next question please!"
The RIAA is on fairly solid legal ground when they try to stop people from passing around MP3s of copyrighted songs when they represent the copyright holder. Lyrics and tabs are another story entirely.
95% of the time, lyrics aren't supplied with the original song, and instead someone takes the time to listen to the song and try to guess what was said. Sometimes it's just a guess. Take the famous "Scuse me while I kiss the sky / kiss this guy" lyric by Jimi Hendrix. I remember hearing an interview where somebody who knew him said he intentionally said it so that it could be interpreted both ways. Writing down lyrics or tabs based on listening to the song and trying to figure out what was said or what was played is essentially reverse-engineering the song. Having said that, it has to be the easiest reverse-engineering task there could ever be. The output you're attempting to duplicate is a 1:1 mapping of the process used to create it. In other words, to get the words you hear, all you have to do is recreate the words that the artist was singing.
Now if this exceedingly simple "reverse-engineering" is illegal when there is absolutely no form of encryption or copy-protection, then no form of reverse-engineering can be legal. The MPA might have a case if someone were releasing lyrics for unreleased songs, where the "copy protection" is the lock and key under which the unreleased songs are kept, but once something is played on the radio, how can they pretend it's not ok to try to transcribe the song?
So sure, go after the people who copy lyrics out of jacket liners. Go after the people who release lyrics for unreleased songs. But if a judge decides that it's ok to go after someone who just tries to transcribe a song he/she heard, it means the end of "trying to figure out how something works". Say that bed you bought at Ikea, the one you lost the instructions for. If you figure out how to put it together and put up the instructions on the Internet in case someone else loses their instructions... you'll get busted. If you figure out how the levers work in the Hungry Hungry Hippos game and post an explanation, you're going to prison. If you figure out how the magician managed to saw his assistant in half by watching carefully, remember not to bend over in the prison shower.
Actually, I've heard that Jimi Hendrix intentionally slurred the words a bit so that it could be interpreted both ways.
Ok, but... so what? I happened to catch the early moments of the 9/11 attacks on TV and there wasn't much "news" there. There were live pictures, wild speculations, but that's it. The only way I can think of that instant visuals had any impact was that people called their relatives on one of the planes, who then crashed it. But while the 9/11 pictures were amazing, it doesn't seem to me that they did a whole lot of good to anybody.
It might help if you added links to backup your assertions. *shrug*
First of all, $.99 a song, when the song is burdened with DRM? That's just too much. That's virtually the same price as buying a CD, but with none of the distribution costs of a CD. A CD also (normally) doesn't get burdened with DRM. If the price was $0.10 or less, then I'd be excited. That would be a reasonable price, but this $1 a song crap is just too much. I'll stick with file sharing and MP3s, thank you.
As for the new iPod, I'm not terribly impressed. It's an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary one. What's the big deal about including USB 2.0, especially with these caveats: USB 2.0 connection is for Windows PCs only; dock connector to USB 2.0 cable sold separately. USB 2.0 requires Internet download available in June. I wonder if this means I can get a good deal on the old iPods...
I have never voted, and never intend to. Doing so would be tacitly endorsing a system that I think is broken and can't be fixed.
I don't think that my one vote will ever make a significant difference in any electoral process. "But what about Florida?" some will say. What about it? Had Al Gore become the president the world would indeed be different, there probably wouldn't have been a war in Iraq for one thing. But fundamentally nothing would have changed. There would still be special interest groups with far too much influence. There would still be millions spent on campaigns instead of on something tangible. Elections have some minor effect on the policy of a country, but not on the fundamental structure of the system.
Electronic voting instead of punch-card voting makes about the same difference as renaming French Fries to Freedom Fries does to your heart. Eat either one and your arteries are going to get clogged.
One of the many problems with elections is that all the candidates are politicians. They all accept the framework they're working in. While some talk a bit about changing the system in insignificant ways, the ones who have a good chance of winning don't want to change the system -- it might prevent them from winning.
Think about this: who is most likely to win an election: someone who is really good at campaigning (kissing babies and shaking hands) but doesn't know or care how to govern, or someone who is really good at governing but lacks charisma? The whole democratic system is set up to select good campaigners, but the job that they're being chosen for doesn't have much to do with those skills.
My impression is that voter apathy isn't because punch cards are too hard. It's not because people don't care. It's not because they don't have time. It's that a lot of people have come to accept that elections are the new opiate of the masses. Those with real power have convinced the masses that they can make a difference by checking a box every 4 years. So rather than march in the streets or take up arms, the masses march to the polling station and dutifully check a box, thinking they are making a difference. The apathetic voters are the ones who have discovered that voting doesn't change much, but don't know what else to do.
I don't have a car. ;)
But regarding cars, that was the oversimplified example. It seems obvious that cars are the colours they are because people choose them that way. This could probably be quickly confirmed by a marketing survey. The fact remains that the distribution of colours among sports cars is different from the distribution of colours among family cars.
What if we look at the race of top executives. They may be more white than black. Is this also because CEOs can "choose the colour of their executives"? Maybe, just maybe, there is something else at work here. Maybe it's a sense of comfort with someone who has a similar background. Maybe it's something more sinister, who knows, but it is worth studying.
Maybe, maybe not. But I sure wish someone had the opportunity to study that without being labelled a racist.
That may be, but race is still interesting.
Race is not much more than a way of classifying people based on appearance. It might also hint at a shared cultural background, but not always. But it is still potentially useful.
Nobody would say that the colour of a car should have anything to do with its handling. It's just paint, and has nothing to do with the insides. On the other hand, there are far more red sportscars than there are powder-blue ones.
If people are willing to accept that, maybe they'd be willing to look at other factors that happen to coincide with light skin tones or different-looking eyes. Unfortunately, any researcher wanting to look at this might as well put on a hood and join the KKK because people are so overly sensitive when it comes to race. If the environments different races evolved in were different enough to cause the obvious physical differences, wouldn't it be surprising if the differences stopped there? Even if the differences within a race are far greater than the differences between races, it would be interesting to see if there are tendencies towards something based on race.