Yeah, it's pretty scary. I didn't notice the +5 moderation as FUNNY until you replied to me.
Thing is, I didn't even mean for it to be funny. The parent post from the AC was moderately funny, but mine got the Funny mod, even though it was a niggling math correction
Go figure. Just goes to show that it makes a difference to post as a logged-in user, I guess.
It doesn't matter. The original joke claims that you will never reach $0, no matter how many years you've been married. Thus, any amount that he's withdrawn has to be less than the amount deposited in the first year. Since the poster mentioned returning $500 to the pot, it means that he racked up >= $500 of sex in the first year, no matter how many years he's been married.
(I can't believe I just made an argument making a mathematical equivalence between sex and money. Shoot me now!)
DRM and such aside, iTunes Store has pretty much the opposite business model from the one you're enjoying. The biggest difference is that the iTunes Store doesn't have a monthy fee. It's done on a track-by-track basis. This business model caters more to impulse buyers, a completely different set of people than those who are willing to pay a monthy fee.
Not to pan your service. Just saying that it's a different animal than the iTunes Store.
I would certainly hope that any music moderation system would be more advanced and flexible than slashdot's. Taco would be one of the first to tell you that/.'s moderation system has shortcomings.
Music would need many axes of moderation. Britney and Christina would certainly get moderated highly, as they are very popular. But only in their respective category.
Different genres should have different moderation "tracks". I should be able to ask something like "What's the most highly moderated Celtic music this week?" or "People who liked Phish's latest album bought a number of other albums. What ones were the most popular?"
If a moderation/rating system had that level of control, we'd have a effective and useful way of separating the wheat from the chaff, at a personal level.
After using many, many different tools for this type of thing (including IM, netPBM, GD, and my own tools), PIL has by far become my favorite for image processing.
If on the other hand you download the actual contents of the top 20 pages then given how slow your connection is supposed to be, I don't see how you could do that in "only a few minutes".
You download a compressed version of the contents of the results of the search. HTML pages compress very, very well, so I'd hazard a guess that it's pretty efficient.
Man, I'm glad I have you listed as a friend/fan. I wouldn't have seen this otherwise.
Nice post.
Re:the make replacement is (drumroll please): sh
on
Make Out with SCons
·
· Score: 1
I'm a bit surprised you aren't more of a make fan. Since make is, by default, based on sh, you should be able to use the power of a general purpose computing language inside the timestamp and rule framework of make.
Not that I'm a big fan of either, but the combination of two really makes a powerful system.
Even if some of the global warming taking place today can be blamed on cosmic rays (or better the absence of them), so what? Should we just close our eyes, telling ourselves "hey its fate. its cosmic. I am just a puny earthling and I can do nothing about it." and lay waste to our planet with a clean conscience? hell, why not blame Canada?
The "so what" is "so we shouldn't look to curbing greenhouse emissions to supress global warming." Making regulatory controls to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions have very serious economic costs. Ones that can be seen at a national economy scale.
The point of determining other causes of climate change is not one of fatality. It's realism.
Technically, you have a blanket license to make home copies of music. And you're paying the artists when you do so. Check out this pdf, entitled: The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992: A Digital Dead Duck, or Finally Coming Home to Roost?
While I have not read the document in its entirety, I would like to draw your attention to a particular portion:
In order to establish some way to compensate copyright owners for digital home copying of their recordings and musical compositions, Congress created a compulsory licensing scheme. It is compulsory because the copyright owners must permit some digital (and unlimited analog) home copying of their works. It is a license because permission to make the copies is given through the manufacturers of the blank media and recording devices. Since it would be impractical to attempt to directly license millions of individuals, the license is a blanket license that lets all individuals make copies of all musical recordings (and the recorded musical compositions) within the limits of the Act. The Supreme Court recognized the market efficiencies of blanket licenses in the music industry in Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. in that case the court referred to the blanket licenses for public performance rights. The Court noted that the blanket license developed out of the practical situation in the marketplace: thousands of users, thousands of copyright owners, and millions of compositions. Most users want unplanned, rapid, and indemnified access to any and all of the repertory of the compositions and the owners want a reliable method of collecting for the use of their copyrights. Since the fees collected from the manufacturers and importers are disbursed to the rights owners and authors, those fees for the license are royalties, i.e., payments to the owners of rights for permission to use those rights, and not taxes, i.e., monetary charges imposed by the government to yield public revenue. Those opposed to the system often incorrectly referred to the payments as taxes, perhaps in an effort to frame them in a negative light.
I have yet to find an analysis of what works are covered under this Act. However, it would appear that all works whose creators are compensated by this fund are eligible for home copying. It truly is a royalty that you pay when you buy "Audio" CD-Rs.
We're talking about a matter of breaking the law here. When it comes to breaking the law, lawyers and judges ery much care about the specifics of word definitions. And it has nothing to do with whatever you are calling "nerdy".
You shouldn't steal music. It's illegal. It deprives the RIAA their rightful profits.
True. True. And False.
I really do expect that a large amount of illegal copyright infringement comes from people who would not buy a copy of the music in any form. Consequently, there are no profits to be made in these cases. Not to say that these cases are any less illegal. Just that the argument of "copyright infringement --> lost profits" is not a hard and fast one.
The article seems to say that Linkin Park did not pull their music from the Apple store completely, but just removed the option of being able to buy single tracks. A quick jump over the Apple Music store, however, shows almost nothing available from them.
One quote that I found interesting in the article:
Instead of divvying the spoils of a $12-$18 CD sale, labels, artists and songwriters are vying for nickels and dimes from 99 cent downloads.
The article implies that this is a bad thing. I disagree. Economics argues that CDs should not be priced at $12-$18 per disk. A cartel of music distribution companies is driving up the price to levels above that which people would pay in a competitive market.
The Apple store, as a new distribution mechanism, means that the market can be more efficient. I claim that single track downloads only help this efficiency, providing consumers exactly what they're interested in listening to, rather than having to purchase product that they care little about. This type of efficiency will reward artists that consistently produce quality music and will penalize those that do not. This is the way the music industry should work.
Mod parent up! This link to the US Code is very useful in this context.
Heck, it's so useful that I'm going to quote some of it here:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > Sec. 512. Prev | Next
Sec. 512. - Limitations on liability relating to material online
(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. -
A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if -
(1)
the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
(2)
the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
(3)
the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
(4)
no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
(5)
the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.
(b) System Caching. -
(1) Limitation on liability. -
A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the intermediate and temporary storage of material on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider in a case in which -
(A)
the material is made available online by a person other than the service provider;
(B)
the material is transmitted from the person described in subparagraph (A) through the system or network to a person other than the person described in subparagraph (A) at the direction of that other person; and
(C)
the storage is carried out through an automatic technical process for the purpose of making the material available to users of the system or network who, after the material is transmitted as described in subparagraph (B), request access to the material from the person described in subparagraph (A),
if the conditions set forth in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) Conditions. -
The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are that -
(A)
the material described in paragraph (1) is transmitted to the subsequent users described in paragraph (1)(C) without modification to its content from the manner in which the material was transmitted from the person described in paragraph (1)(A);
(B)
the service provider described in paragraph (1) complies with rules concerning the refreshing, reloading, or other updating of the material when specified by the person making the material available online in accordance with a generally accepted industry standard data communications protocol for the system or network through which that person makes the material available, except that this subparagraph applies only if those rules are not used by the person described in paragraph (1)(A) to prevent or unreasonably impair the intermediate storage to which this subsection applies;
Don't delete those messages. Tell your filter to reclassify them as spam. See, the routing and the sender are things that you really don't look at, but your filter does.
I noticed recently that my bayesian filter was blocking very minimalist messages. When I asked it what it was donig, it told me that the headers clued it in to its spam origins. I think the same guy had sent me something before.
So the long and the short of it is: trust your filter. It'll keep getting it right...
Except for the part about managing change: requiring changes to his article to be released under the same license.
I'm guessing that modification of the article is not permitted, especially since it says "Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire article" (emphasis mine).
Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa@fileshare
Now that's a clever one! Yes, I did miss it, because I used "grep -i -v kazaa" for my filter.
Not quite. 117 of 124 do. Here are the other 7 of them that don't:
- Ariel167@fileshare
- Ashley@Grokster
- Carolyn@fileshare
- d-dubb@Grokster
- flowerpower0818@fileshare
- ktgurl13@Grokster
- madkirk@fileshare
grep(1) is your friend.Yeah, it's pretty scary. I didn't notice the +5 moderation as FUNNY until you replied to me.
Thing is, I didn't even mean for it to be funny. The parent post from the AC was moderately funny, but mine got the Funny mod, even though it was a niggling math correction
Go figure. Just goes to show that it makes a difference to post as a logged-in user, I guess.
It doesn't matter. The original joke claims that you will never reach $0, no matter how many years you've been married. Thus, any amount that he's withdrawn has to be less than the amount deposited in the first year. Since the poster mentioned returning $500 to the pot, it means that he racked up >= $500 of sex in the first year, no matter how many years he's been married.
(I can't believe I just made an argument making a mathematical equivalence between sex and money. Shoot me now!)
There is also wxPython, letting you use wxWindows in Python.
This is not an advantage for wxWindows, as Qt has PyQt, letting you use Qt in Python.
You're off by a power of 10.
:-)
$500 in pennies = 50,000 pennies.
Divide by 365.25 ~= 137 times per day.
Still, I'm surprised he survived, too!
DRM and such aside, iTunes Store has pretty much the opposite business model from the one you're enjoying. The biggest difference is that the iTunes Store doesn't have a monthy fee. It's done on a track-by-track basis. This business model caters more to impulse buyers, a completely different set of people than those who are willing to pay a monthy fee.
Not to pan your service. Just saying that it's a different animal than the iTunes Store.
I would certainly hope that any music moderation system would be more advanced and flexible than slashdot's. Taco would be one of the first to tell you that /.'s moderation system has shortcomings.
Music would need many axes of moderation. Britney and Christina would certainly get moderated highly, as they are very popular. But only in their respective category.
Different genres should have different moderation "tracks". I should be able to ask something like "What's the most highly moderated Celtic music this week?" or "People who liked Phish's latest album bought a number of other albums. What ones were the most popular?"
If a moderation/rating system had that level of control, we'd have a effective and useful way of separating the wheat from the chaff, at a personal level.
Mod -1: Factually Incorrect
For those of you who use python, you might want to check out the Python Imaging Library, or PIL for short.
After using many, many different tools for this type of thing (including IM, netPBM, GD, and my own tools), PIL has by far become my favorite for image processing.
Check out this simple tutorial for some examples of what you can do.
If on the other hand you download the actual contents of the top 20 pages then given how slow your connection is supposed to be, I don't see how you could do that in "only a few minutes".
You download a compressed version of the contents of the results of the search. HTML pages compress very, very well, so I'd hazard a guess that it's pretty efficient.
Go read the article. It explains a lot.
Man, I'm glad I have you listed as a friend/fan. I wouldn't have seen this otherwise.
Nice post.
I'm a bit surprised you aren't more of a make fan. Since make is, by default, based on sh, you should be able to use the power of a general purpose computing language inside the timestamp and rule framework of make.
Not that I'm a big fan of either, but the combination of two really makes a powerful system.
Even if some of the global warming taking place today can be blamed on cosmic rays (or better the absence of them), so what? Should we just close our eyes, telling ourselves "hey its fate. its cosmic. I am just a puny earthling and I can do nothing about it." and lay waste to our planet with a clean conscience? hell, why not blame Canada?
The "so what" is "so we shouldn't look to curbing greenhouse emissions to supress global warming." Making regulatory controls to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions have very serious economic costs. Ones that can be seen at a national economy scale.
The point of determining other causes of climate change is not one of fatality. It's realism.
Yeah, but Fox News lies in their articles.
Wasn't it CNN who reported that the space shuttle Columbia broke apart while flying at 25 times the speed of light?
Could a news agency, in fact, possibly ever be wrong?
While I have not read the document in its entirety, I would like to draw your attention to a particular portion:I have yet to find an analysis of what works are covered under this Act. However, it would appear that all works whose creators are compensated by this fund are eligible for home copying. It truly is a royalty that you pay when you buy "Audio" CD-Rs.
True. True. And False.
I really do expect that a large amount of illegal copyright infringement comes from people who would not buy a copy of the music in any form. Consequently, there are no profits to be made in these cases. Not to say that these cases are any less illegal. Just that the argument of "copyright infringement --> lost profits" is not a hard and fast one.
Google news found me an article that discusses this whole issue.
The article seems to say that Linkin Park did not pull their music from the Apple store completely, but just removed the option of being able to buy single tracks. A quick jump over the Apple Music store, however, shows almost nothing available from them.
One quote that I found interesting in the article:The article implies that this is a bad thing. I disagree. Economics argues that CDs should not be priced at $12-$18 per disk. A cartel of music distribution companies is driving up the price to levels above that which people would pay in a competitive market.
The Apple store, as a new distribution mechanism, means that the market can be more efficient. I claim that single track downloads only help this efficiency, providing consumers exactly what they're interested in listening to, rather than having to purchase product that they care little about. This type of efficiency will reward artists that consistently produce quality music and will penalize those that do not. This is the way the music industry should work.
And here's the Linux one.
(I hope no session keys are embedded in that URL...)
Yeah, and it sucks. More frequently clogged nozzles, incorrect color casts... I'm never buying generic ink for my Epson again.
Heck, it's so useful that I'm going to quote some of it here:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > Sec. 512. Prev | Next
Sec. 512. - Limitations on liability relating to material online
(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. -
(b) System Caching. -
Okay, I'm asking you about "loom".
Don't delete those messages. Tell your filter to reclassify them as spam. See, the routing and the sender are things that you really don't look at, but your filter does.
I noticed recently that my bayesian filter was blocking very minimalist messages. When I asked it what it was donig, it told me that the headers clued it in to its spam origins. I think the same guy had sent me something before.
So the long and the short of it is: trust your filter. It'll keep getting it right...
I was thinking more along the lines of people deleting things and redistributing it. Great way to take statements out of context.
he basically mini-gpl'd the article.
Except for the part about managing change: requiring changes to his article to be released under the same license.
I'm guessing that modification of the article is not permitted, especially since it says "Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire article" (emphasis mine).