What do we do about this? Wrong idea. Each one of us does something about it individually. You think for yourself; you vet things yourself; you don't worry about the rest of the "crowd" and how they might be deceived. Evolution only has you socially rigged up to truly affect about 150 people, max, anyway.
But, if everyone carries out that solemn responsibility, things will be fine. Problem is, because of a lingering reliance on big media, most people don't. And it was a serious problem back in the days before crowdsourcing too, because the "gatekeepers" have told some whoppers over the last century or so. This was especially true around the time of Goebbels and WW II, and it has never recovered since, despite all the best intentions of journalistic integrity. The journalists did their best to hold the lie machines at bay, but that time has long since passed. A few decades ago, by my reckoning.
So, the horse has been out of the barn for at least that long, and we are talking about shutting the gate? Now? What the hell, folks? Mass media is a lie machine, and it functions because it is a lie machine, and all we've done is given the keys to the lie machine to everyone, instead of only the "gatekeepers." That, by my yardstick, is a profoundly good thing, although it will take a period of adjustment to become used to it.
Personal responsibility and a ready supply of grains of salt is all we have left. Don't believe everything you read. Since CGI advances, don't believe everything you see either. Welcome to the Brave New World. IMHO, it's a "good thing," but you have to be careful what you choose to believe these days.
Now, under the new rules, every wave of Space Invaders involves you taking the last, overmatched invader prisoner, and giving him cookies at your base.
Gandhi did his work in homespun cloth to protest colonial British industry. Despite the fact that he could have chosen otherwise, he forsook all the benefits of his wealthy pedigree.
It most certainly does change the validity of their complaints, from the context you've provided, if they continue to reap the "benefits" of the system they purport to oppose while they protest.
Nothing is wrong with that. I'm just pointing out that none of them are capable musicians, as the GP indicated, and that they're for the most part business people, and generally not artists with principles. Wanna borrow my "Owl City" album?
Pain in all the diodes behind my Retina display
on
Siri Protocol Cracked
·
· Score: 1
I am shocked anybody wants a "plastic pal that's fun to be with" in the first place. I mean, sh!t, did anybody notice that GPPs are made by Sirius Cybernetics in his books? Douglas Adams is probably suing Steve Jobs in ghost court right now.
It's still a bit scammy, but I would guess they're using early adopters as a massive beta test before rolling it out to iLife in general, so rather than depriving anyone, they're being cautious and scaling up usage slowly. Think "Apple Newton," and it's reasonable to suspect the company may still be a little gun shy with this kind of tech. Even if it is running "in the cloud" instead of on the device, there's a whole lot that could go wrong with Siri. (Page is for entertainment purposes only. Not to be construed as actual examples. I am a non-attorney spokesperson.)
More than that, availability matters here, and they want the initial adopters to have a premium experience before they roll it out to the hoi polloi, and everything goes pear shape when they run into the usual scaling issues. You know, like the ones AT&T ran into with the first iPhones.
So basically, what we're saying here is that the U.S. Supreme Court failed the Turing test? Really? Please tell me, at the least, that they are Turing complete.
The music industry consists of fit, attractive dancers whose voices autotune well and they won't deal with Google unless they have to, which they will because they only care about the money and fame.
Any bets that a Time Cube forms and starts tearing up Bibles?
Humans are wiser at birth than after fully educated – for they are taught negativistic anti-life ONEism that does not exist on opposite + & - pole Earth.
Everyone knows the magnetic shift is caused by TIME CUBE!
Seriously, we have no idea what's down there. Sounds like a fun experiment.
Retask it as the Department of Inverse Causality and Kabuki (DICK). Their motto can be "preventing yesterday's threats tomorrow." Anyone care to take a stab at translating that into Latin?
Figure 4 reveals that 85% of people have three or more items pinned to the taskbar compared to a mere 23% who have the same number pinned to the Start menu.
Guess what the default configuration of Windows 7 is? Three items pinned to the taskbar, nothing pinned to the Start Menu.
So most people running with the default configuration is indicative of a trend?
Wow. I don't mind the idea of a "start page" one bit, but I do think this is some of the worst data analysis I have seen in a long, long time.
They probably just can't remove the start button from the taskbar because then it would essentially be a dock, and Apple would come a-suing.
How much you wanna bet, after all disc customers have been diverted to Quikster, that the new announcement on Quikster will be a late fee system? After all, the email says:
There are no pricing changes (we’re done with that!).
But it doesn't mention the possibility of introducing fees and penalties, in addition to the pricing tiers.
Because that would be in line with the level of haplessly delivered bad news. Neflix has a PR problem like Darth Vader: We are altering the agreement, pray we don't alter it any further.
Unlike Lando, people can just go someplace else. When you can crush someone's throat with a thought, you have power, when you are Netflix, you have problems.
I wonder if this move has more to do with the current problems at the U.S. Postal Service, and the possibility that Quikster (nee: Netflix) isn't going to be able to run their business off of some version of book/media rate, and may be paying actual market costs for their shipping. Book rates are supposed to be without ads, so I'm not sure they even get that rate, but if they had a special hybrid contract or agreement of that sort of rate, this could well be indemnification against changes at the USPS.
The original Netflix relies upon cheap, fast mailing. Cheap and/or fast are now in question at USPS. The streaming Netflix business relies upon unmetered internet, paid for by the customer. But most customers are starting to see broadband caps, concurrent with the rise of streaming video. In both cases, the business model depends upon trivial delivery costs to Netflix, with the bulk of the real costs defrayed to some third party or the customer. That is: Netflix itself pays a fraction of the full value of that premium speed delivery service. Faced with actual market rate transmission/shipping costs, Netflix could become a lot harder to run profitably. I suspect they're already starting to see some of those costs return to them in the mailing business.
But in the case of the breakup, "unlimited internet" is not threatened (or the caps are currently large enough), so the new Netflix still has a business model. In the case of Quikster, who may not even be able to use the USPS after the next shake up, things may have gotten a good deal more interesting. They may not be a sustainable business in the near future.
This is a terrible submission. There is a link to a 96 page transcript. I'm guessing it's a deposition, as there is allusion to consequential perjury charges if the interviewees are found to be lying. No summary of the bulk of its contents is given. It is being used as material evidence for some lame jokes at the expense of the Interior Department.
It's a classic fishing expedition. But it clearly demonstrates that Monnett's counsel willingly let them go on that fishing expedition, and I'm left wondering why. One of the lawyers present on this transcript says this on p. 83:
We've been at this for an 1 hour and 45 minutes, and I'm curious, are we going to get to the allegations of scientific misconduct or, uh, have – is that what we've been doing?
He's on Monnett's side, supposedly. The Agents clearly identified themselves as criminal investigators. That strikes me as a good deal worse than asking (rephrased) "11% of what number is 7" without a calculator on hand. 63.63 repeating doesn't exactly leap to the brain. It's like he wanted this to be a fiasco, and he let it happen.
And then guess who the source is that claims that "the IG is being investigated?" Same guy that complained at 1:45. Jeff Ruch, the Executive Director of PEER. The only source claiming an "investigation" is PEER. For all we know, the investigation ended 15 minutes after PEER made a complaint to the proper office. There is no mention if this is an ongoing investigation.
Point of fact: All that is present in TFA is an unconfirmed allegation of an investigation. The only person claiming any "muzzling" is PEER, who represents the person being "muzzled." Any journalist worth a damn would investigate that allegation further before proudly proclaiming "Inspector General Investigated For Muzzling Inconvenient Science."
Sure. By whom? Which Inspector General, the current (acting) one, Mary L. Kendall? Is the investigation current? Is it backed by any sort of suit, law, evidence, or legal authority? Near as this summary and the links show, none of those facts are present. Fox News does better hit jobs.
And to be completely fair to the IG, Monnett did actually lose his position over this. That's what "BOEM immediately issued a stop-work order for the study and put Dr. Monnett on administrative leave" means. He was reinstated, but not in his original position. So he lost his job. It's not just IG monkey business, if there is any at all, it's Monnett's own administration at BOEM "muzzling" him, and his own attorneys who let "criminal investigators" go on a fishing expedition for nearly 2 hours before demanding the charges. Effectively providing fodder for years of investigation of, and vulnerability to, perjury charges.
None of this is the IG's problem. An investigation, especially one as unfocused as the transcript implies, doesn't have to mean forcibly interrupting the study and switching the good doctor to a new position after a period mandatory leave. It just does at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The combination of sheepish counsel and cowardly administration is what brought this man down.
Point of fact 2: The links aren't as advertised. The first purports to be "documents released by PEER" but instead links to a PEER press release, a press release is not documentation of this purported investigation. The second purports to show that "the IG handling of this case is itself under investigation " but that's only a claim by Jeff Ruch, in paraphrase, in the summation paragraph of an article about the investigation of Monnett. It does not link to an article that has any facts to support the link text.
Yikes. If you take up the methods of your enemy, you become the enemy, guys. This is a sleazy, bad submission.
launch IE from the "Desktop" and you get good old IE 10
Thank you, traveler, for this post from the future. I am reassured that "good old IE 10" will have been running Flash. What's IE 11 going to have been like?
You can buy original printed circuit boards, no cabinets necessary. Then you identify the particular set on them. Then you can download that particular ROM set, or dump them yourself. And only for yourself.
And that's a gray area. Nobody in the industry has bothered to bring suit against such a person because they're afraid they might lose, and therefore set a precedent. You have an electronic copy of what's on a PCB you lawfully own, and nobody's likely to do anything about it.
In such a situation, you may be "called" a pirate for such actions, but there is no final determination, and you are unlikely to go to court.
Welcome to the nation of laws. We're more like a nation of legal avoidance.
There is no copyright abandonment. It is simply the right to make a copy. Losing one's master copy doesn't invalidate that right.
The copyright "owner" is not an owner at all. They are a "rights holder." The rights can even be split up (selling the "film distribution rights," etc.) amongst various holders. Such transfers of rights are contractual, and so they must have consideration in return. That is, the original rights holder gets paid when he transfers rights. It's at this "money for nothing" point where it often gets confused with physical property.
Most importantly, though, you are the only owner in your example. You actually own the medium. Everyone else holds rights and claims upon what you have legally recorded onto that medium, and therefore what you might do with the contents, but they don't own squat if you own the tape containing the last remaining copy. You can make them pay for it, in fact.
This is the time honored example of how copyright might do the opposite of what was intended in the U.S. Constitution (I,8,8) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Arguably, the best way to "promote" such a copy, in our digital age, is to copy that content like crazy so it is distributed across the globe, and cannot be lost in some single tape library.
You can bet that law will never be passed, though.
Slashdot Mirror
What do we do about this? Wrong idea. Each one of us does something about it individually. You think for yourself; you vet things yourself; you don't worry about the rest of the "crowd" and how they might be deceived. Evolution only has you socially rigged up to truly affect about 150 people, max, anyway.
But, if everyone carries out that solemn responsibility, things will be fine. Problem is, because of a lingering reliance on big media, most people don't. And it was a serious problem back in the days before crowdsourcing too, because the "gatekeepers" have told some whoppers over the last century or so. This was especially true around the time of Goebbels and WW II, and it has never recovered since, despite all the best intentions of journalistic integrity. The journalists did their best to hold the lie machines at bay, but that time has long since passed. A few decades ago, by my reckoning.
So, the horse has been out of the barn for at least that long, and we are talking about shutting the gate? Now? What the hell, folks? Mass media is a lie machine, and it functions because it is a lie machine, and all we've done is given the keys to the lie machine to everyone, instead of only the "gatekeepers." That, by my yardstick, is a profoundly good thing, although it will take a period of adjustment to become used to it.
Personal responsibility and a ready supply of grains of salt is all we have left. Don't believe everything you read. Since CGI advances, don't believe everything you see either. Welcome to the Brave New World. IMHO, it's a "good thing," but you have to be careful what you choose to believe these days.
Now, under the new rules, every wave of Space Invaders involves you taking the last, overmatched invader prisoner, and giving him cookies at your base.
He's still just as hard to catch, though.
Gandhi did his work in homespun cloth to protest colonial British industry. Despite the fact that he could have chosen otherwise, he forsook all the benefits of his wealthy pedigree.
It most certainly does change the validity of their complaints, from the context you've provided, if they continue to reap the "benefits" of the system they purport to oppose while they protest.
In short: Gandhi they ain't.
Nothing is wrong with that. I'm just pointing out that none of them are capable musicians, as the GP indicated, and that they're for the most part business people, and generally not artists with principles. Wanna borrow my "Owl City" album?
I am shocked anybody wants a "plastic pal that's fun to be with" in the first place. I mean, sh!t, did anybody notice that GPPs are made by Sirius Cybernetics in his books? Douglas Adams is probably suing Steve Jobs in ghost court right now.
It's still a bit scammy, but I would guess they're using early adopters as a massive beta test before rolling it out to iLife in general, so rather than depriving anyone, they're being cautious and scaling up usage slowly. Think "Apple Newton," and it's reasonable to suspect the company may still be a little gun shy with this kind of tech. Even if it is running "in the cloud" instead of on the device, there's a whole lot that could go wrong with Siri. (Page is for entertainment purposes only. Not to be construed as actual examples. I am a non-attorney spokesperson.)
More than that, availability matters here, and they want the initial adopters to have a premium experience before they roll it out to the hoi polloi, and everything goes pear shape when they run into the usual scaling issues. You know, like the ones AT&T ran into with the first iPhones.
So basically, what we're saying here is that the U.S. Supreme Court failed the Turing test? Really? Please tell me, at the least, that they are Turing complete.
The music industry consists of fit, attractive dancers whose voices autotune well and they won't deal with Google unless they have to, which they will because they only care about the money and fame.
FTFY.
Any bets that a Time Cube forms and starts tearing up Bibles?
Humans are wiser at birth than after fully educated – for they are taught negativistic anti-life ONEism that does not exist on opposite + & - pole Earth.
Everyone knows the magnetic shift is caused by TIME CUBE!
Seriously, we have no idea what's down there. Sounds like a fun experiment.
Retask it as the Department of Inverse Causality and Kabuki (DICK). Their motto can be "preventing yesterday's threats tomorrow." Anyone care to take a stab at translating that into Latin?
ELY (n.)
The first, tiniest inkling you get that something, somewhere, has gone terribly wrong.
From "The Meaning of Liff" by Douglas Adams and John Lloyd.
Do you have rights to make a derivative work? What is the license on this interview, anyway?
Also makes "Hey Dad, I'm in Jail!" by Was (not Was) your ring tone. I like it here!
Now this matters. Goodbye and well done.
I cried. I also bought the film rights.
Paraphrase: "We had (have) severe operational problems. Kweku Adoboli is a scapegoat. We can't explicitly say that because of liability issues."
Figure 4 reveals that 85% of people have three or more items pinned to the taskbar compared to a mere 23% who have the same number pinned to the Start menu.
Guess what the default configuration of Windows 7 is? Three items pinned to the taskbar, nothing pinned to the Start Menu.
So most people running with the default configuration is indicative of a trend?
Wow. I don't mind the idea of a "start page" one bit, but I do think this is some of the worst data analysis I have seen in a long, long time.
They probably just can't remove the start button from the taskbar because then it would essentially be a dock, and Apple would come a-suing.
How much you wanna bet, after all disc customers have been diverted to Quikster, that the new announcement on Quikster will be a late fee system? After all, the email says:
There are no pricing changes (we’re done with that!).
But it doesn't mention the possibility of introducing fees and penalties, in addition to the pricing tiers.
Because that would be in line with the level of haplessly delivered bad news. Neflix has a PR problem like Darth Vader: We are altering the agreement, pray we don't alter it any further.
Unlike Lando, people can just go someplace else. When you can crush someone's throat with a thought, you have power, when you are Netflix, you have problems.
I wonder if this move has more to do with the current problems at the U.S. Postal Service, and the possibility that Quikster (nee: Netflix) isn't going to be able to run their business off of some version of book/media rate, and may be paying actual market costs for their shipping. Book rates are supposed to be without ads, so I'm not sure they even get that rate, but if they had a special hybrid contract or agreement of that sort of rate, this could well be indemnification against changes at the USPS.
The original Netflix relies upon cheap, fast mailing. Cheap and/or fast are now in question at USPS. The streaming Netflix business relies upon unmetered internet, paid for by the customer. But most customers are starting to see broadband caps, concurrent with the rise of streaming video. In both cases, the business model depends upon trivial delivery costs to Netflix, with the bulk of the real costs defrayed to some third party or the customer. That is: Netflix itself pays a fraction of the full value of that premium speed delivery service. Faced with actual market rate transmission/shipping costs, Netflix could become a lot harder to run profitably. I suspect they're already starting to see some of those costs return to them in the mailing business.
But in the case of the breakup, "unlimited internet" is not threatened (or the caps are currently large enough), so the new Netflix still has a business model. In the case of Quikster, who may not even be able to use the USPS after the next shake up, things may have gotten a good deal more interesting. They may not be a sustainable business in the near future.
This is a terrible submission. There is a link to a 96 page transcript. I'm guessing it's a deposition, as there is allusion to consequential perjury charges if the interviewees are found to be lying. No summary of the bulk of its contents is given. It is being used as material evidence for some lame jokes at the expense of the Interior Department.
It's a classic fishing expedition. But it clearly demonstrates that Monnett's counsel willingly let them go on that fishing expedition, and I'm left wondering why. One of the lawyers present on this transcript says this on p. 83:
We've been at this for an 1 hour and 45 minutes, and I'm curious, are we going to get to the allegations of scientific misconduct or, uh, have – is that what we've been doing?
He's on Monnett's side, supposedly. The Agents clearly identified themselves as criminal investigators. That strikes me as a good deal worse than asking (rephrased) "11% of what number is 7" without a calculator on hand. 63.63 repeating doesn't exactly leap to the brain. It's like he wanted this to be a fiasco, and he let it happen.
And then guess who the source is that claims that "the IG is being investigated?" Same guy that complained at 1:45. Jeff Ruch, the Executive Director of PEER. The only source claiming an "investigation" is PEER. For all we know, the investigation ended 15 minutes after PEER made a complaint to the proper office. There is no mention if this is an ongoing investigation.
Point of fact: All that is present in TFA is an unconfirmed allegation of an investigation. The only person claiming any "muzzling" is PEER, who represents the person being "muzzled." Any journalist worth a damn would investigate that allegation further before proudly proclaiming "Inspector General Investigated For Muzzling Inconvenient Science."
Sure. By whom? Which Inspector General, the current (acting) one, Mary L. Kendall? Is the investigation current? Is it backed by any sort of suit, law, evidence, or legal authority? Near as this summary and the links show, none of those facts are present. Fox News does better hit jobs.
And to be completely fair to the IG, Monnett did actually lose his position over this. That's what "BOEM immediately issued a stop-work order for the study and put Dr. Monnett on administrative leave" means. He was reinstated, but not in his original position. So he lost his job. It's not just IG monkey business, if there is any at all, it's Monnett's own administration at BOEM "muzzling" him, and his own attorneys who let "criminal investigators" go on a fishing expedition for nearly 2 hours before demanding the charges. Effectively providing fodder for years of investigation of, and vulnerability to, perjury charges.
None of this is the IG's problem. An investigation, especially one as unfocused as the transcript implies, doesn't have to mean forcibly interrupting the study and switching the good doctor to a new position after a period mandatory leave. It just does at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The combination of sheepish counsel and cowardly administration is what brought this man down.
Point of fact 2: The links aren't as advertised. The first purports to be "documents released by PEER" but instead links to a PEER press release, a press release is not documentation of this purported investigation. The second purports to show that "the IG handling of this case is itself under investigation " but that's only a claim by Jeff Ruch, in paraphrase, in the summation paragraph of an article about the investigation of Monnett. It does not link to an article that has any facts to support the link text.
Yikes. If you take up the methods of your enemy, you become the enemy, guys. This is a sleazy, bad submission.
launch IE from the "Desktop" and you get good old IE 10
Thank you, traveler, for this post from the future. I am reassured that "good old IE 10" will have been running Flash. What's IE 11 going to have been like?
Hope I got my time-travel grammar right there. ;^)
(Otherwise, spot on, as many have pointed out.)
You can buy original printed circuit boards, no cabinets necessary. Then you identify the particular set on them. Then you can download that particular ROM set, or dump them yourself. And only for yourself.
And that's a gray area. Nobody in the industry has bothered to bring suit against such a person because they're afraid they might lose, and therefore set a precedent. You have an electronic copy of what's on a PCB you lawfully own, and nobody's likely to do anything about it.
In such a situation, you may be "called" a pirate for such actions, but there is no final determination, and you are unlikely to go to court.
Welcome to the nation of laws. We're more like a nation of legal avoidance.
There is no copyright abandonment. It is simply the right to make a copy. Losing one's master copy doesn't invalidate that right.
The copyright "owner" is not an owner at all. They are a "rights holder." The rights can even be split up (selling the "film distribution rights," etc.) amongst various holders. Such transfers of rights are contractual, and so they must have consideration in return. That is, the original rights holder gets paid when he transfers rights. It's at this "money for nothing" point where it often gets confused with physical property.
Most importantly, though, you are the only owner in your example. You actually own the medium. Everyone else holds rights and claims upon what you have legally recorded onto that medium, and therefore what you might do with the contents, but they don't own squat if you own the tape containing the last remaining copy. You can make them pay for it, in fact.
This is the time honored example of how copyright might do the opposite of what was intended in the U.S. Constitution (I,8,8) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Arguably, the best way to "promote" such a copy, in our digital age, is to copy that content like crazy so it is distributed across the globe, and cannot be lost in some single tape library.
You can bet that law will never be passed, though.
Only the ones holding them up to their *right* ear.
If you had invented the Wii remote, you would have invented the Wii remote.
Interesting read.