I'm glad that copyright is working for you, but in the case of the music industry it is out of control, and is actually harmful to individual artists. If we returned to the original definition of copyright, where it belonged to the artist only, I'd support it.
But in the current situation, artists often can't play or distribute songs they wrote, receive little to nothing of copyright-related revenues, and often lose control of future work before they write it.
Internet radio is struggling heavily because the RIAA spinoff SoundExchange has been named the sole arbiter of webcast revenue collection, and are collecting fees on every song played, regardless of who owns the copyright.
If you go to http://www.soundexchange.com/ and follow their "Unregistered List" they have an 84-page list of artists they have collected revenue for but have not been paid. These are mostly indepent labels and artist who more often than not would prefer that their music play for free to generate publicity, rather than receive their 50% share of the $10.38 collected on their behalf. It's a fairly transparent attempt to choke out independent labels and artists by making it prohibitively difficult and expensive to use the otherwise easy and free webcasts to promote themselves.
I think you're right that McCain's site isn't suggesting they copy and paste the comments. The issue here is the rewards system, and perhaps the blog-targetting (specific blogs are listed for users to comment in). The WP article has some good feedback from politicos on the problems with this approach and possible solutions. In particular that the bloggers should be advised to use full disclosure ("I am a McCain action alert participant") and make sure their posts are relevant to the conversation.
Good point about the flip-flopping. It seems important they use some form of version control for the talking points, to make sure they don't undercut the current positions. Wonder if the bloggers are up to the challenge.
Going back to the original story, maybe this script to identify blogs speaking from the script could be modified to identify which version they're using...
What's interesting to me is the response in the article from the various authorities: the anti-virus companies want him to stop and some have sworn not to hire his students, and the government's apathy about what he's doing.
It's good to get an opinion from the police viewpoint. My guess is camera-smashing is a learned behavior, and specific to particular precincts. It certainly happens, but it's good to hear it there are places that it doesn't.
Cops starting out are lucky to make $20k/yr. Competent people can and will take other jobs, so recruiters aren't left with much choice. Base pay should go up a lot. Keep the pay up for awhile and competent people will push out the incompetent, and corruption will go down because it will become a job worth keeping.
Police advance and are rewarded for the number of tickets they write and "criminals" they catch. This encourages a predatory relationship with the public, abuse, and corruption. The rewards are much greater for catching someone committing a crime than for discouraging a crime. IMHO I'd like to see the word "criminal" banned as hate speech. How is a person who committed a crime supposed to consider a law-abiding lifestyle when they have been permamently branded as a crime-committer. How is society supposed to seriously support their rehabilitation when they've been given this core identity?
Down here in San Diego County an off-duty cop shot a mother and her 8yr old son in a road rage incident. Every piece of dirt on this mother was leaked to the press, she's been charged with child endangerment, and the cop who has been on leave is just now being charged with rather minor crimes. We need real accountability. The incident was recorded. Recording the police is a great start, but doesn't do much good if prosecutors ignore it. I should say my impression of the SDPD has been fairly positive, especially in the city. I've seen them provoked and they were pretty good about de-escalating the situation. Still think all of the above applies.
In Colorado the police can charge you with a DUI if you are caught BIKING while intoxicated. Happens in Boulder all of the time, usually to some poor schlub who crashes their bike and is too drunk or hurt to ride away. What's odd is this only revokes your Automobile driving rights, there's no biking license to revoke.
While American Pediatrics is opposed to co-sleeping, this is in direct contradiction of all evidence. The explanation is straightforward: the infant will follow the breathing/sleep patterns of the parents, and is kept from falling into the extremely deep sleep at which SIDS occurred. Also the parents are right there to notice as soon as anything is wrong.
And what does that statistic represent? It sounds like they mean that there is a 1/113billion chance that if the suspect were picked at random and the sample as well, they would match. i.e. the chance of two randomly picked people matching on the chosen DNA sequences is 1/113billion. But the sample is not random, and the more relevant question might be,"What is the probability that a person chosen at random matches this particular sequence?". It should be a conditional probability. In that case I don't see how the odds could be worse than 1/population of the earth. Then there's the question of what sample space they're drawing their hypothetical samples from: the planet's, the United States, the national database, or just that state's database.
I don't get the big deal about contact information privacy. Most of the time I'm trying publicize that information, both for business and social purposes. I figure if I ever get famous enough to not handle the attention, I'll be able to afford a personal secretary. I want businesses to try and sell me things I want, when I want it. When I'm looking for work, it should come to me. Legislators should just read my mind and enact the laws I support. I'm happy for the world to track my movements and hustle to give me what I want before I know I want it.
I see what you'e saying here, but I still think the definition of g0 is problematic. It's either not strict enough and will mess up later results(ex. blowing up the integral on page 38), or it's too strict and fails to address cases that are relevant.
What are you talking about? [0,Inf) isn't compact, but any contiguous open set like (0, Inf) is. So a function which is non-zero everywhere on (0,Inf) has compact support. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CompactSupport.html
Ah well, not quite right. But let g0(x)=x works, because there's no integrability condition. Thm 8.6 then falls apart because h0 is no longer in L^2(C), or V(h) is not an operator, take your pick.
page 4 for equations 3.2-3.4 he assumes g0 can be bounded because it has compact support on (0, Inf). This is false, a function that is continuous on all of (0, Inf) also has compact support on (0, Inf). That sort of thing is why functions with compact support are only interesting on a bounded domain.
If you let g0(x)=1/x, then the integral at the bottom of page 38 blows up to Inf.
I don't see a way to fix that, Theorem 8.6 is pretty important to this proof, and probably false. Those bits represent Li's major contribution to the problem, the rest of it is restating previous results.
Drug, weight, genetic, credit and background checks are all barriers which will end up hurting businesses by impeding their ability to hire the best qualified. Look at Microsoft which recently opened a branch in Vancouver because it was too difficult to get visas for some of the foreign workers they wanted. I've worked in the defense industry where projects failed under the guidance of employees whose chief qualification was an existing security clearance. This was the main reason Einstein was kept out of the Manhattan Project; just the fear that he would not qualify. Passing laws like this drives business away and gives other nations and regions a competetive advantage. Free trade seeks to strengthen markets by removing barriers to trade. Economists and policy-makers should consider the benefits of free employment, and strengthen the market by removing barriers to whom they employ.
Slashdot Mirror
So what's the site? You're missing out on a good opportunity for self-promotion.
I'm glad that copyright is working for you, but in the case of the music industry it is out of control, and is actually harmful to individual artists. If we returned to the original definition of copyright, where it belonged to the artist only, I'd support it.
But in the current situation, artists often can't play or distribute songs they wrote, receive little to nothing of copyright-related revenues, and often lose control of future work before they write it.
Internet radio is struggling heavily because the RIAA spinoff SoundExchange has been named the sole arbiter of webcast revenue collection, and are collecting fees on every song played, regardless of who owns the copyright.
If you go to http://www.soundexchange.com/ and follow their "Unregistered List" they have an 84-page list of artists they have collected revenue for but have not been paid. These are mostly indepent labels and artist who more often than not would prefer that their music play for free to generate publicity, rather than receive their 50% share of the $10.38 collected on their behalf. It's a fairly transparent attempt to choke out independent labels and artists by making it prohibitively difficult and expensive to use the otherwise easy and free webcasts to promote themselves.
Ya, I've forgotten what the story was too. But this one is much funnier.
I think you're right that McCain's site isn't suggesting they copy and paste the comments. The issue here is the rewards system, and perhaps the blog-targetting (specific blogs are listed for users to comment in).
The WP article has some good feedback from politicos on the problems with this approach and possible solutions. In particular that the bloggers should be advised to use full disclosure ("I am a McCain action alert participant") and make sure their posts are relevant to the conversation.
It's post like this that lead to canned scripts. At least provide a link to your supposed, "Gravitas" ;-)
Good point about the flip-flopping. It seems important they use some form of version control for the talking points, to make sure they don't undercut the current positions. Wonder if the bloggers are up to the challenge.
Going back to the original story, maybe this script to identify blogs speaking from the script could be modified to identify which version they're using...
What's interesting to me is the response in the article from the various authorities: the anti-virus companies want him to stop and some have sworn not to hire his students, and the government's apathy about what he's doing.
It's just a matter of time. This almost always happens faster than the designer imagined it would take.
It's good to get an opinion from the police viewpoint.
My guess is camera-smashing is a learned behavior, and specific to particular precincts. It certainly happens, but it's good to hear it there are places that it doesn't.
Cops starting out are lucky to make $20k/yr. Competent people can and will take other jobs, so recruiters aren't left with much choice. Base pay should go up a lot. Keep the pay up for awhile and competent people will push out the incompetent, and corruption will go down because it will become a job worth keeping.
Police advance and are rewarded for the number of tickets they write and "criminals" they catch. This encourages a predatory relationship with the public, abuse, and corruption. The rewards are much greater for catching someone committing a crime than for discouraging a crime.
IMHO I'd like to see the word "criminal" banned as hate speech. How is a person who committed a crime supposed to consider a law-abiding lifestyle when they have been permamently branded as a crime-committer. How is society supposed to seriously support their rehabilitation when they've been given this core identity?
Down here in San Diego County an off-duty cop shot a mother and her 8yr old son in a road rage incident. Every piece of dirt on this mother was leaked to the press, she's been charged with child endangerment, and the cop who has been on leave is just now being charged with rather minor crimes. We need real accountability. The incident was recorded. Recording the police is a great start, but doesn't do much good if prosecutors ignore it.
I should say my impression of the SDPD has been fairly positive, especially in the city. I've seen them provoked and they were pretty good about de-escalating the situation. Still think all of the above applies.
In Colorado the police can charge you with a DUI if you are caught BIKING while intoxicated. Happens in Boulder all of the time, usually to some poor schlub who crashes their bike and is too drunk or hurt to ride away. What's odd is this only revokes your Automobile driving rights, there's no biking license to revoke.
That's pretty cool, thanks for the link.
In Soviet Russia Neural Impulse Actuator controls you! ...ya, I guess that was kinda obvious.
While American Pediatrics is opposed to co-sleeping, this is in direct contradiction of all evidence. The explanation is straightforward: the infant will follow the breathing/sleep patterns of the parents, and is kept from falling into the extremely deep sleep at which SIDS occurred. Also the parents are right there to notice as soon as anything is wrong.
http://www.babyreference.com/Cosleeping&SIDSFactSheet.htm
(subscription required)
Why babies should never sleep alone: A review of the co-sleeping controversy in relation to SIDS, bedsharing and breast feeding .
Paediatric Respiratory Reviews , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Pages 134 - 152
J . McKenna , T . McDade
And what does that statistic represent? It sounds like they mean that there is a 1/113billion chance that if the suspect were picked at random and the sample as well, they would match. i.e. the chance of two randomly picked people matching on the chosen DNA sequences is 1/113billion. But the sample is not random, and the more relevant question might be,"What is the probability that a person chosen at random matches this particular sequence?". It should be a conditional probability. In that case I don't see how the odds could be worse than 1/population of the earth.
Then there's the question of what sample space they're drawing their hypothetical samples from: the planet's, the United States, the national database, or just that state's database.
And I've little tolerance for those who cannot own their actions.
I don't get the big deal about contact information privacy. Most of the time I'm trying publicize that information, both for business and social purposes. I figure if I ever get famous enough to not handle the attention, I'll be able to afford a personal secretary.
I want businesses to try and sell me things I want, when I want it. When I'm looking for work, it should come to me. Legislators should just read my mind and enact the laws I support. I'm happy for the world to track my movements and hustle to give me what I want before I know I want it.
I see what you'e saying here, but I still think the definition of g0 is problematic. It's either not strict enough and will mess up later results(ex. blowing up the integral on page 38), or it's too strict and fails to address cases that are relevant.
Nevermind, I'm quite off there.
What are you talking about? [0,Inf) isn't compact, but any contiguous open set like (0, Inf) is. So a function which is non-zero everywhere on (0,Inf) has compact support.
See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CompactSupport.html
Ah well, not quite right. But let g0(x)=x works, because there's no integrability condition. Thm 8.6 then falls apart because h0 is no longer in L^2(C), or V(h) is not an operator, take your pick.
If you let g0(x)=1/x, then the integral at the bottom of page 38 blows up to Inf.
I don't see a way to fix that, Theorem 8.6 is pretty important to this proof, and probably false. Those bits represent Li's major contribution to the problem, the rest of it is restating previous results.
Perhaps you're thinking of serendipity? Schadenfreude only applies to sadists.
First, I am not sure that email is really by Gates --
Ya, no way this was written by BG, the author is pathetic, dumb and rambling. Gates has better things to do with his time. This is a red herring.Can I mod down the story itself? Flamebait
Drug, weight, genetic, credit and background checks are all barriers which will end up hurting businesses by impeding their ability to hire the best qualified. Look at Microsoft which recently opened a branch in Vancouver because it was too difficult to get visas for some of the foreign workers they wanted. I've worked in the defense industry where projects failed under the guidance of employees whose chief qualification was an existing security clearance. This was the main reason Einstein was kept out of the Manhattan Project; just the fear that he would not qualify. Passing laws like this drives business away and gives other nations and regions a competetive advantage.
Free trade seeks to strengthen markets by removing barriers to trade. Economists and policy-makers should consider the benefits of free employment, and strengthen the market by removing barriers to whom they employ.