If you're publishing, even if you're just verifying other's results, you're doing science. If you're keeping it to yourself, even if you're breaking new ground, you're doing research.
It's a subtle distinction, but the two don't necessarily go hand in hand. And in the end, ten people doing published science benefits us more than a thousand doing independent - therefore probably redundant - research.
NSA screening would deny access to some people based on the probability of them being or becoming hostile. What criteria would the NSA use to determine whether to label each student "potential terrorist"? Would that be open to scrutiny or appeal?
Seems pretty limiting to me, at least in principle, and that's the position under discussion.
Spurious example. That would be more like them saying "The gun was made from Bob's Fixings part #3645", without mentioning that part number 3645 is intended to be used as water pipe and not gun barrels.
And I do expect journalists to give both sides of a story, at least until the verdict is in. Perhaps I'm old fashioned that way.
Funnies aside, I'll bet you half a bunch of grapes that there's at least one patent on something that arguable descibes this, just waiting for someone to implement it so that they can sick the lawyers on them. Them being you. I hope not, but I really wouldn't be surprised.
According to this article, DeCSS is for "DVD-copying". It is "software that can be used to copy DVDs". It "allows encrypted DVDs to be descrambled". It "injuriously [affects] the motion picture and computer industries in California.".
Now, all this is true (or debatable, for the last claim), but nowhere in this article does it even hint that DeCSS can be used simply to watch DVD's that you own, which (gasp!) is what I actually use it for. That's a worrying omission, and one which I hope doesn't signal a trend.
Cry me a river. I live in Scotland, where fuel is currently GBP £0.749/litre, or over USD $5 per US gallon, in a nation that's a net oil exporter. You'd think all that tax would go into transport, or alternative fuel research, wouldn't you? Think again.
Fair enough, but perhaps your post could have been better worded. You said "The article fails to say why they would do this.", when it said so very clearly.
However, I'm in complete agreement that what it said makes no sense. There's no benefit to the taxpayers of Oregon. The winners appear to be Big Oil and John Ashcroft, and I hope Oregon's legislature are called out on this before they implement this vile scheme.
This tax pays for roads, thus the mention of higher tax for studded tires. But while a fuel tax to some extent measures likely road wear, a per-mile tax per vehicle is useless for those purposes. What's the incentive to drive a small, light vehicle, when you get taxed the same per mile as someone in their 7700lbs Ford Monstrosity? There's a rather confusing (or confused) suggestion that the current Oregon gasoline tax will be retained as well, and that this tax will be an either/or, but that's hard to believe, as all that would achieve would be to introduce extra administration fees for no extra tax revenue.
The suggestion that real time tracking will be "illegal" is simply laughable. The first time law enforcement has a cause celebre (kidnapped Aryan child?), they'll demand access, and they'll be given it. The only question is whether it will be used routinely by the like of Ashcrofts Federal Illumatus Agency to identify suspicious behaviour. I rather suspect that this will depend entirely on how affordable this turns out to be, not on any question of privacy.
While it's always tempting to see conspiracy theories everywhere, in this case it's very hard to see what else it could be. Who's this going to be good for? Big Oil. Ashcroft's Watchmen. Pretty much nobody else, and certainly not the citizens of the State of Oregon.
Try actually reading the article. It mentions the falling revenue from gas(oline) taxation due to better fuel economy (really? When half of new vehicles are SUV's?) and more hybrid vehicles (but why not just tax other fuels?).
It does explain why they're doing this, it just doesn't make sense.
Thanks for the clarification. For context, consider that in the UK, most mail order companies are strict about matching card numbers to addresses. Right now, I'm trying to convince a vendor to send goods to my home address (which they've verified) but they're complaining because I don't have a land line that they can use to further verify the address. I've never met a company quite so reluctant to take my money, but while it's extremely annoying, it's also rather reassuring.
Re:These types of stories need MORE publicity
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Isn't it James Parker's actions that put him and his family (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) at risk?
What you are suggesting is - effectively - that those with power and influence must be protected from the consequences of their own actions. Does anything strike you as wrong with that?
Hey, I know a guy that bought - sorry, I mean licensed - a bunch of eBooks. Then he bought a new handheld, and found out that he couldn't transfer the license, so he'd effectively paid for a bunch of scrambled bits. For those who don't know, that's how eBooks work, they're licensed per machine. If you upgrade devices (or your device breaks), you lose the right to read.
Believe me, he won't be buying - sorry, licensing - any more, even with this thing available.
Runs fine using wine. I dunno if it works, but it runs. Better if we had the source though, given that the author describes himself as "lazy" in the usage.;-)
First rule of journalistic whoring: don't piss off the people who support your crack habit.
By panning previous generations of games developers, they probably even endear themselves to the current crop, and incidentally (or otherwise) avoid the wrath of anyone liable to sue them. It's win-win... from the point of view of a spineless pussy just filling column space.
It's just a shame that Slashdot gave them this free publicity; it's not even as though it's a decent troll.
I think they should charge a published fee that requires opt-in rather than an obfuscated opt-out, and that that should be for access to Microsoft's game servers, not to any sort of multiplayer content. Funnily enough, I thought that this would actually help to sell XBoxen, but what do I know, I'm not one of the guys that tried to bring us Microsoft Bob.
Let's see... it's OK that it's not obvious how to cancel XBox Live, because nobody will want to. Now that you explain it like that, fine with it.
</sarcasm>, I'm referring to Microsoft's erratic customer service with XBoxen. Nintendo appear to replace Gamecubes irrespective of whether they are in warranty or not. Sony seem to be a bit more self delusional, offering rebates and vouchers and whatnot to make repairs effectively free. Microsoft, outside of the pathetic 90 day warranty, and sometimes inside it, appear to be saying "Screw you, pay us money to fix the console you licensed - sorry, I mean "bought" - from us, so that you can continue to pay us money for the games." I don't deny that there are good stories about XBox customer service, but there seem to be a lot more bad ones, and a lot more than for PS2 and Gamecube.
They just don't get that it's about building brand image and satisfaction. It seems that they'd rather spend hundreds of millions on marketing, rather than replace a few units with a smile and a cheery wave, and that's why I find it astonishing that anyone would hand them a blank check - or rather, a blank checkbook. And the issue isn't just the cancelling, it's the cost. How much are they going to charge? What do they consider a reasonable sum? $25 a year? $50? $100? $200? $500? $1,000? You tell me, because they won't.
If you could care less, why are you bothering to talk about it?
Or perhaps you couldn't care less, but you're too lazy and ignorant to think about what you're typing, in which case why should we care about whatever you've got to say?
150,000 people gave Microsoft their credit card number and agreed to be billed a to-be-decided amount indefinitely, until they figure out how to cancel it (which might not be a piece of cake, considering that MS do not seem to understand that with consoles, unlike software or one-off hardware sales, you have to keep the customer happy).
Does this worry anybody else? It worries me, because it confirms Microsoft's long held belief that the retail market is ready for software-as-a-service, and that people really are dumb enough to pay upfront for the device, and pay ongoing amounts for the functionality.
You know those friends you have who tease you because you spend $X a month on computer bits that you don't really need? Well, they're about to enter your world, only they don't even get to build a collection of little anti-static bags as a bonus.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're publishing, even if you're just verifying other's results, you're doing science. If you're keeping it to yourself, even if you're breaking new ground, you're doing research.
It's a subtle distinction, but the two don't necessarily go hand in hand. And in the end, ten people doing published science benefits us more than a thousand doing independent - therefore probably redundant - research.
restrict: To keep or confine within limits.
Limit, not absolutely prohibit.
NSA screening would deny access to some people based on the probability of them being or becoming hostile. What criteria would the NSA use to determine whether to label each student "potential terrorist"? Would that be open to scrutiny or appeal?
Seems pretty limiting to me, at least in principle, and that's the position under discussion.
Spurious example. That would be more like them saying "The gun was made from Bob's Fixings part #3645", without mentioning that part number 3645 is intended to be used as water pipe and not gun barrels.
And I do expect journalists to give both sides of a story, at least until the verdict is in. Perhaps I'm old fashioned that way.
unique: Being the only one of its kind.
*really* unique: c.f. redundancy
That Amazon doesn't have a patent on this?
Funnies aside, I'll bet you half a bunch of grapes that there's at least one patent on something that arguable descibes this, just waiting for someone to implement it so that they can sick the lawyers on them. Them being you. I hope not, but I really wouldn't be surprised.
According to this article, DeCSS is for "DVD-copying". It is "software that can be used to copy DVDs". It "allows encrypted DVDs to be descrambled". It "injuriously [affects] the motion picture and computer industries in California.".
Now, all this is true (or debatable, for the last claim), but nowhere in this article does it even hint that DeCSS can be used simply to watch DVD's that you own, which (gasp!) is what I actually use it for. That's a worrying omission, and one which I hope doesn't signal a trend.
I thought CC was cruiser, command, CA being cruiser, armoured and CL cruiser, light. But that's the SFB geek in me talking.
Cry me a river. I live in Scotland, where fuel is currently GBP £0.749/litre, or over USD $5 per US gallon, in a nation that's a net oil exporter. You'd think all that tax would go into transport, or alternative fuel research, wouldn't you? Think again.
Fair enough, but perhaps your post could have been better worded. You said "The article fails to say why they would do this.", when it said so very clearly.
However, I'm in complete agreement that what it said makes no sense. There's no benefit to the taxpayers of Oregon. The winners appear to be Big Oil and John Ashcroft, and I hope Oregon's legislature are called out on this before they implement this vile scheme.
This tax pays for roads, thus the mention of higher tax for studded tires. But while a fuel tax to some extent measures likely road wear, a per-mile tax per vehicle is useless for those purposes. What's the incentive to drive a small, light vehicle, when you get taxed the same per mile as someone in their 7700lbs Ford Monstrosity? There's a rather confusing (or confused) suggestion that the current Oregon gasoline tax will be retained as well, and that this tax will be an either/or, but that's hard to believe, as all that would achieve would be to introduce extra administration fees for no extra tax revenue.
The suggestion that real time tracking will be "illegal" is simply laughable. The first time law enforcement has a cause celebre (kidnapped Aryan child?), they'll demand access, and they'll be given it. The only question is whether it will be used routinely by the like of Ashcrofts Federal Illumatus Agency to identify suspicious behaviour. I rather suspect that this will depend entirely on how affordable this turns out to be, not on any question of privacy.
While it's always tempting to see conspiracy theories everywhere, in this case it's very hard to see what else it could be. Who's this going to be good for? Big Oil. Ashcroft's Watchmen. Pretty much nobody else, and certainly not the citizens of the State of Oregon.
Try actually reading the article. It mentions the falling revenue from gas(oline) taxation due to better fuel economy (really? When half of new vehicles are SUV's?) and more hybrid vehicles (but why not just tax other fuels?).
It does explain why they're doing this, it just doesn't make sense.
Thanks for the clarification. For context, consider that in the UK, most mail order companies are strict about matching card numbers to addresses. Right now, I'm trying to convince a vendor to send goods to my home address (which they've verified) but they're complaining because I don't have a land line that they can use to further verify the address. I've never met a company quite so reluctant to take my money, but while it's extremely annoying, it's also rather reassuring.
Isn't it James Parker's actions that put him and his family (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) at risk?
What you are suggesting is - effectively - that those with power and influence must be protected from the consequences of their own actions. Does anything strike you as wrong with that?
Uh, and you know that your number was lifted from your trash beeeecause....?
Hey, I know a guy that bought - sorry, I mean licensed - a bunch of eBooks. Then he bought a new handheld, and found out that he couldn't transfer the license, so he'd effectively paid for a bunch of scrambled bits. For those who don't know, that's how eBooks work, they're licensed per machine. If you upgrade devices (or your device breaks), you lose the right to read.
Believe me, he won't be buying - sorry, licensing - any more, even with this thing available.
Runs fine using wine. I dunno if it works, but it runs. Better if we had the source though, given that the author describes himself as "lazy" in the usage. ;-)
Good job we're not blah paying the supposed editors blah to do anything like actual editing blah blah blah.
Do you understand the difference between "could" and "couldn't"? Do you know what "opposite" means?
We really need some Sesame Street level remedial language classes here.
First rule of journalistic whoring: don't piss off the people who support your crack habit.
By panning previous generations of games developers, they probably even endear themselves to the current crop, and incidentally (or otherwise) avoid the wrath of anyone liable to sue them. It's win-win... from the point of view of a spineless pussy just filling column space.
It's just a shame that Slashdot gave them this free publicity; it's not even as though it's a decent troll.
I think they should charge a published fee that requires opt-in rather than an obfuscated opt-out, and that that should be for access to Microsoft's game servers, not to any sort of multiplayer content. Funnily enough, I thought that this would actually help to sell XBoxen, but what do I know, I'm not one of the guys that tried to bring us Microsoft Bob.
According to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, copyright duration for literary works in the UK expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, and J. R. R. Tolkien died in 1973.
Let's see... it's OK that it's not obvious how to cancel XBox Live, because nobody will want to. Now that you explain it like that, fine with it.
</sarcasm>, I'm referring to Microsoft's erratic customer service with XBoxen. Nintendo appear to replace Gamecubes irrespective of whether they are in warranty or not. Sony seem to be a bit more self delusional, offering rebates and vouchers and whatnot to make repairs effectively free. Microsoft, outside of the pathetic 90 day warranty, and sometimes inside it, appear to be saying "Screw you, pay us money to fix the console you licensed - sorry, I mean "bought" - from us, so that you can continue to pay us money for the games." I don't deny that there are good stories about XBox customer service, but there seem to be a lot more bad ones, and a lot more than for PS2 and Gamecube.
They just don't get that it's about building brand image and satisfaction. It seems that they'd rather spend hundreds of millions on marketing, rather than replace a few units with a smile and a cheery wave, and that's why I find it astonishing that anyone would hand them a blank check - or rather, a blank checkbook. And the issue isn't just the cancelling, it's the cost. How much are they going to charge? What do they consider a reasonable sum? $25 a year? $50? $100? $200? $500? $1,000? You tell me, because they won't.
Old, old, old story. JQuake is dead. Long live Frag Island!. Well, back in 1997 anyway.
If you could care less, why are you bothering to talk about it?
Or perhaps you couldn't care less, but you're too lazy and ignorant to think about what you're typing, in which case why should we care about whatever you've got to say?
150,000 people gave Microsoft their credit card number and agreed to be billed a to-be-decided amount indefinitely, until they figure out how to cancel it (which might not be a piece of cake, considering that MS do not seem to understand that with consoles, unlike software or one-off hardware sales, you have to keep the customer happy).
Does this worry anybody else? It worries me, because it confirms Microsoft's long held belief that the retail market is ready for software-as-a-service, and that people really are dumb enough to pay upfront for the device, and pay ongoing amounts for the functionality.
You know those friends you have who tease you because you spend $X a month on computer bits that you don't really need? Well, they're about to enter your world, only they don't even get to build a collection of little anti-static bags as a bonus.