Depending on the situation, they might not legally be able to admit it. If your work was Classified, you might be prohibited by law from admitting to it.
Not saying that is true or even likely in this case, but it is possible. I wouldn't want to run afoul of a government NDA.
But, the barrier to entry is massive. You'd need to lay new cable everywhere to run in parallel to them. That's a huge expense, and would basically need to dig up miles and miles of stuff to do.
Unfortunately, cable companies are essentially a monopoly since it would be almost impossible for a newcomer to build the infrastructure needed and hook it up to people's houses.
This is why they don't have competition in many places. It's also why they don't need to give a rat's ass about their customers.
Grierson's principles of documentary were that cinema's potential for observing life could be exploited in a new art form; that the "original" actor and "original" scene are better guides than their fiction counterparts to interpreting the modern world; and that materials "thus taken from the raw" can be more real than the acted article. In this regard, Grierson's views align with Vertov's contempt for dramatic fiction as "bourgeois excess", though with considerably more subtlety. Grierson's definition of documentary as "creative treatment of actuality" has gained some acceptance, though it presents philosophical questions about documentaries containing stagings and reenactments.
In his essays, Dziga Vertov argued for presenting "life as it is" (that is, life filmed surreptitiously) and "life caught unawares" (life provoked or surprised by the camera).
Pare Lorentz defines a documentary film as "a factual film which is dramatic."[2] Others further state that a documentary stands out from the other types of non-fiction films for providing an opinion, and a specific message, along with the facts it presents.[3]
Michael Moore is unabashedly presenting a viewpoint, and providing political commentary.
There is no single definition of "documentary" that precludes what Moore does. Most forms of documentary provide an opinion.
That'd be the "Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art" standard for obviousness. Of course, that standard is applied to a POSITA at the time of invention (i.e. 1999) rather than a POSITA today.
So, in 1995 I had a shell script which ran grep recursively over a file structure and listed the matching files and highlighted the term.
I'm pretty sure you don't need to look very far for other things that could "search and highlight" a term across multiple documents.
The worst part came at the end, when the enormous cracked-in-half bones were taken out of the boiling pot and given to each of the diners. Waiters showed up with plastic straws. I stood horrified as each of the diners stuck the straw into the broken end of the bone and slurped out the by-now-almost-liquified marrow.
Marrow is eaten in almost all cultures... it's full of fat and things that people find tasty.
Examples include Ossubuco (which you can probably find pretty readily), roasted bones with the marrow still in 'em, and probably more (OK, those two examples are probably close to the same thing).
Back when people didn't have the luxury of only buying the pretty bits at the supermarket, people basically ate the whole animal. I know loads of people who will feast out on tendon or pig ears -- it's not for me (I don't eat meat), but it's not really surprising that people eat it. Asia and some food-revivalists seem to be the last bastions of eating all of the obscure bits of an animal. The sheer number of foodies nowadays probably makes some of this stuff even more common.
I figure if you're gonna eat animals, embrace the horror, and try all of the parts. Who knows, you could find something you can't live without.
The users are not free to modify or study the applications, and lacking access to the actual program files, they certainly cannot redistribute the applications to others...
And, I think more importantly, the TOS of almost all cloud systems more or less say that they have a right to use your data as they see fit.
When you put your important data into someone else's servers, you lose control over it. It could easily end up in a country where they can use it in ways that would have been illegal where it originated.
Here in Canada, most Government data simply cannot be legally put into something like this because the US basically passed a law that said they can force anybody to hand over data they want. So, if we hosted with Amazon, we lose control over our data -- much of which is covered by privacy legislation.
Your cognitive-dissonance circuits must be working lots of overtime.
*laugh* Not hardly. I don't believe that anybody has operated in a "free" market or that one can even exist. I don't believe that it would work like those who worship at its feet claim it would.
It's a skewed an imbalanced system from the get go -- I merely explained it using its own terms of reference. Here's the rest of the sentence you chose not to include...
it isn't really about customer choice and value -- it's about maximizing profits and giving you the least amount of service they can get away with.
No cognitive dissonance needed. The "free" market is a myth (see them fancy quotes around "free", they imply sarcasm and using a word ironically).
You think calling that a documentary doesn't hide that he's pushing an agenda???
No, as a matter of fact, I explicitly stated that "I don't think Moore has ever denied that he has an agenda, and that he's telling the story his way.". Quite the opposite of what you say.
Michael Moore has never said that he is presenting unbiased neutral facts. He has explicitly been on record as saying that other people get to have their agendas, and that he has his. He's highlighting the things he thinks are wrong or broken, not giving some dry academic presentation of neutral facts for people to decide as they see fit. He wants to persuade you, and freely admits it.
Sarah Palin has an agenda too -- it's hardly unbiased, or neutral (and in some cases, not even factual). Bush had an agenda, Rumsfeld had an agenda. McCarthy had an agenda. People on both sides of the climate change debate have an agenda. Hell, Obama and the Dalai Lama have agendas.
Very few sources of information say anything without having some form of agenda -- is this news to you? Or are you holding Moore to a different standard than every politician or corporate-shill "think tank" that releases studies and position papers to support their agenda?
Shhh... you're trying to use a rational argument. Nobody wants to hear that -- this has to fall on party lines or people will need to think for themselves.
My problem with him on a personal level is he doesn't let the evidence speak for itself...he seems to find it imperitive to make sure that you know that he's the one saying it.
Moore is a counterpoint to places like Fox News and CNN which screech really loudly their views. They sure as hell aren't letting the evidence speak for itself -- they speak for it, and sometimes, in lieu of it.
I don't think Moore has ever denied that he has an agenda, and that he's telling the story his way.
Like I said, I absolutely support and love the work he does, but the man's need for attention pisses me off.
Well, Sarah Palin is no different, really... just with a different set of biases. Same goes for most of the talking heads on CNN.
Heck, I remember watching some guy on CNN several years ago saying that the crash of 2008 was coming because of all of the crap credit out there. He basically got shouted down by a bunch of arch-conservative guys who believed that it could never happen.
quite different from a (well-functioning) Free Market
Cite me one example of a "well functioning" free market that has existed without externalities, regulation, protectionism, network effects, AND which operates with consumers with perfect knowledge making rational choices. Oh, it also has to solve the problems that everybody says it will eventually solve without being forced to.
This free market you talk of is a pink unicorn -- it's a hypothetical thing, but it has never existed. Oh, sure, people have painted ponies pink and stuck a fake horn on them; but it's still not what they claim it is.
I have yet to be convinced that what you describe ever has or even could exist. And, if it did, it would last about a week before the players decided to start taking shortcuts and gaming the system. At which point it would need to have checks and balances, and immediately cease to exist.
I'm afraid that in the 20 years I've been pondering such things, I have come to the conclusion that what you describe is myth.
FWIW, I support nuclear power and always point out to Greens that this particular accident was due to human error and faulty design, a level of risk that modern reactors don't run.
Have we done away with human error and faulty design, then?
I agree that, in theory, nuclear can be good, and has at least got lower emissions. But, when it goes wrong, it's pretty spectacular.
That, and we simply have no idea what to do with the spent fuel. Burying it and sweeping it under the rug don't work so well... so it's not like we've solved all of the problems with it. And, really, is the lowest bidder to a government contract the ones you want building the storage and containment for something so dangerous?
I think if we can solve some of these problems, nuclear might be a possible solution.. but, let's not pretend we've solved these issues.
How will net neutrality force Comcast to buy more bandwidth and uncongest their links?
In theory, by disallowing them to charge content-providers extra to deliver the content in a timely manner, and forcing them to address the root problem of simply not having enough capacity compared to what they sell.
This strikes me as the type of problem meant for States' Attorney Generals and not Net Neutrality.
This will never happen in America... once they make the argument that spending their profits to improve service without getting any more money is tantamount to communism, then they'll continue with the way things are now.
From their perspective, if they actually had to have the service they advertise, they'd be losing money. This is a shell game that relies on overselling what you have (by several times) in order to make as much money as possible. End-user satisfaction would just eat into profits -- never mind the fact that they basically have a monopoly paid for by the tax payers in terms of right of way and the ability to lay cables that only they can use.
But I also deliberately chose to go with cable internet for the first time because I wanted my own real experience to back up my suspicions instead of just angry posts by random people on forums.
Sounds kinda like smacking yourself in the face with a frying pan to confirm it hurts.:-P
I don't understand this sentence : "Keeping their links full may ensure that content providers must pay to colocate within Comcast's network" I don't know how Comcast's service works
They're double dipping -- they charge you to deliver the bandwidth to you, and they charge the content providers to co-lo with them so that their users have a faster service experience.
So, the gouge you for shoddy service, and they gouge the content providers extortion-style so their content arrives in a timely manner.
Does Comcast simply not care about their customer satisfaction ratings, or are they on a quest to consciously plunge their ratings into the gutter?
Well, in the past, lots of people have pointed out that Comcast is essentially a monopoly in places, so, it's not like they're competing with anybody.
They simply have no incentive to spend money. They've got all of these customers now, and spending money on infrastructure isn't going to make them any more money, so why do it? Upgrading is just straight cost, and without a benefit to them, why do it?
The very cynical answer is that until they're more or less forced to upgrade, they have no incentive to. They make money by overselling a service -- the closer to maxed out the service is, the more money they make. They don't really care about you, they care about their profits -- they're not gonna spend profits just so some people have a faster connection.
And, they're not going to give up on the revenue of having people co-locate with them, so they're doubly uninterested in fixing their capacity issues.
Welcome to the "free" market, it isn't really about customer choice and value -- it's abut maximizing profits and giving you the least amount of service they can get away with. This is a perfectly logical situation when you look at it from their point of view.
"If it's the latter, at the very least, you should have expected a wedgie or a swirlie."
You don't see much of that after you get out of high school.
*laugh* Well, that part was a joke. But, I've long since given up on trying to correct non-technical people on some of these nuances -- it rarely serves any purpose, and sometimes gets really bad reactions.
And besides, if they piss me off, who's going to fix their computers and show them how to use them? *laugh* I more or less told my parents when they got their first computer, that they were on their own for that. I live too far away to try to do such things remotely. Generally, I try to dissuade people from using me for tech support.:-P
Well, without wading into the specific issues, I believe it goes something like this...
Someone sponsors a bill in Congress. People vote on it. Senate ratifies it. The president can veto it. The law has to be consistent with other laws and the constitution, and can be challenged in court. Failure to match up with previous laws invalidates it. At least, that's the very broad strokes.
I believe most places have this kind of balance. You could not, for example, pass a law in most countries allowing slavery. There would be no basis for the law to be legal or valid, so a court challenge can overturn it, even if you managed to get enough people to vote for it.
Some laws are just so egregious as to not be able to fit into the legal framework of a country. I this case, the judge decided that they feds had overstepped their legal authority. I make no comment on that part.
I also tried to explian that "hacking" was modifying a piece of hardware to do what it wasn't designed for (my favorite all time hack was the O2 scrubbers on the Apollo 13 mission, that was some excellent thinking) or to write a quick and dirty program to solve a one-time problem, but by then they were all ignoring me and watching the football game on TV.
Dude, be honest.... are you even slightly surprised that a bunch of people in a bar didn't care?
I honestly can't tell if that's brilliantly crafted metaphor, or if you really did try to explain this to a bunch of people in a bar.
If it's the latter, at the very least, you should have expected a wedgie or a swirlie.:-P
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the situation, they might not legally be able to admit it. If your work was Classified, you might be prohibited by law from admitting to it.
Not saying that is true or even likely in this case, but it is possible. I wouldn't want to run afoul of a government NDA.
MS tribe keeps communicating with vapor signals.
I've got a "vapor signal" for them. :-P
And it falls out of favor after 6 months only to re-emerge as the new hotness after another 10 years. :-P
It's never really lived up to what people claimed it would be -- it's always been a hokey gimmick with no real staying power.
I for one will not deal with the eye-strain and headache of 3D that I've had the last two times I've tried to watch it.
It's a nice theory.
But, the barrier to entry is massive. You'd need to lay new cable everywhere to run in parallel to them. That's a huge expense, and would basically need to dig up miles and miles of stuff to do.
Unfortunately, cable companies are essentially a monopoly since it would be almost impossible for a newcomer to build the infrastructure needed and hook it up to people's houses.
This is why they don't have competition in many places. It's also why they don't need to give a rat's ass about their customers.
I think you'll find there isn't a single definition of "documentary".
From wikipdia:
Michael Moore is unabashedly presenting a viewpoint, and providing political commentary.
There is no single definition of "documentary" that precludes what Moore does. Most forms of documentary provide an opinion.
So, in 1995 I had a shell script which ran grep recursively over a file structure and listed the matching files and highlighted the term.
I'm pretty sure you don't need to look very far for other things that could "search and highlight" a term across multiple documents.
Am I missing something?
Marrow is eaten in almost all cultures ... it's full of fat and things that people find tasty.
Examples include Ossubuco (which you can probably find pretty readily), roasted bones with the marrow still in 'em, and probably more (OK, those two examples are probably close to the same thing).
Back when people didn't have the luxury of only buying the pretty bits at the supermarket, people basically ate the whole animal. I know loads of people who will feast out on tendon or pig ears -- it's not for me (I don't eat meat), but it's not really surprising that people eat it. Asia and some food-revivalists seem to be the last bastions of eating all of the obscure bits of an animal. The sheer number of foodies nowadays probably makes some of this stuff even more common.
I figure if you're gonna eat animals, embrace the horror, and try all of the parts. Who knows, you could find something you can't live without.
But, surely you're aware that making soup and stock often includes bones to simmer off the last of the meat or things like the marrow, right?
I mean, the turkey carcass after thanksgiving often goes into a pot as the basis for a soup. Same thing.
And, I think more importantly, the TOS of almost all cloud systems more or less say that they have a right to use your data as they see fit.
When you put your important data into someone else's servers, you lose control over it. It could easily end up in a country where they can use it in ways that would have been illegal where it originated.
Here in Canada, most Government data simply cannot be legally put into something like this because the US basically passed a law that said they can force anybody to hand over data they want. So, if we hosted with Amazon, we lose control over our data -- much of which is covered by privacy legislation.
*laugh* Not hardly. I don't believe that anybody has operated in a "free" market or that one can even exist. I don't believe that it would work like those who worship at its feet claim it would.
It's a skewed an imbalanced system from the get go -- I merely explained it using its own terms of reference. Here's the rest of the sentence you chose not to include ...
No cognitive dissonance needed. The "free" market is a myth (see them fancy quotes around "free", they imply sarcasm and using a word ironically).
In fact, I've seen almost all of them.
No, as a matter of fact, I explicitly stated that "I don't think Moore has ever denied that he has an agenda, and that he's telling the story his way.". Quite the opposite of what you say.
Michael Moore has never said that he is presenting unbiased neutral facts. He has explicitly been on record as saying that other people get to have their agendas, and that he has his. He's highlighting the things he thinks are wrong or broken, not giving some dry academic presentation of neutral facts for people to decide as they see fit. He wants to persuade you, and freely admits it.
Sarah Palin has an agenda too -- it's hardly unbiased, or neutral (and in some cases, not even factual). Bush had an agenda, Rumsfeld had an agenda. McCarthy had an agenda. People on both sides of the climate change debate have an agenda. Hell, Obama and the Dalai Lama have agendas.
Very few sources of information say anything without having some form of agenda -- is this news to you? Or are you holding Moore to a different standard than every politician or corporate-shill "think tank" that releases studies and position papers to support their agenda?
Shhh ... you're trying to use a rational argument. Nobody wants to hear that -- this has to fall on party lines or people will need to think for themselves.
Moore is a counterpoint to places like Fox News and CNN which screech really loudly their views. They sure as hell aren't letting the evidence speak for itself -- they speak for it, and sometimes, in lieu of it.
I don't think Moore has ever denied that he has an agenda, and that he's telling the story his way.
Well, Sarah Palin is no different, really ... just with a different set of biases. Same goes for most of the talking heads on CNN.
Heck, I remember watching some guy on CNN several years ago saying that the crash of 2008 was coming because of all of the crap credit out there. He basically got shouted down by a bunch of arch-conservative guys who believed that it could never happen.
Cite me one example of a "well functioning" free market that has existed without externalities, regulation, protectionism, network effects, AND which operates with consumers with perfect knowledge making rational choices. Oh, it also has to solve the problems that everybody says it will eventually solve without being forced to.
This free market you talk of is a pink unicorn -- it's a hypothetical thing, but it has never existed. Oh, sure, people have painted ponies pink and stuck a fake horn on them; but it's still not what they claim it is.
I have yet to be convinced that what you describe ever has or even could exist. And, if it did, it would last about a week before the players decided to start taking shortcuts and gaming the system. At which point it would need to have checks and balances, and immediately cease to exist.
I'm afraid that in the 20 years I've been pondering such things, I have come to the conclusion that what you describe is myth.
Have we done away with human error and faulty design, then?
I agree that, in theory, nuclear can be good, and has at least got lower emissions. But, when it goes wrong, it's pretty spectacular.
That, and we simply have no idea what to do with the spent fuel. Burying it and sweeping it under the rug don't work so well ... so it's not like we've solved all of the problems with it. And, really, is the lowest bidder to a government contract the ones you want building the storage and containment for something so dangerous?
I think if we can solve some of these problems, nuclear might be a possible solution .. but, let's not pretend we've solved these issues.
And, more to the point ... now that I've looked a a little closer to a link I've already cited ... it's Voyager 6.
We only ever sent 1 and 2, so we're OK. We must be in the alternate timeline from the recent Trek where Vulcan gets destroyed or something. ;-)
I believe you'd be talking a couple of hundred years in the future ... according to this, it will happen in 2271. :-P
There's time yet.
Indeed, no, based on your supporting reasons I won't disagree with you.
I'm just not sure I'd subject myself to worse internet service than I already had to gain some better empirical knowledge.
I applaud you for doing it though.
Cheers
In theory, by disallowing them to charge content-providers extra to deliver the content in a timely manner, and forcing them to address the root problem of simply not having enough capacity compared to what they sell.
This will never happen in America ... once they make the argument that spending their profits to improve service without getting any more money is tantamount to communism, then they'll continue with the way things are now.
From their perspective, if they actually had to have the service they advertise, they'd be losing money. This is a shell game that relies on overselling what you have (by several times) in order to make as much money as possible. End-user satisfaction would just eat into profits -- never mind the fact that they basically have a monopoly paid for by the tax payers in terms of right of way and the ability to lay cables that only they can use.
Sounds kinda like smacking yourself in the face with a frying pan to confirm it hurts. :-P
They're double dipping -- they charge you to deliver the bandwidth to you, and they charge the content providers to co-lo with them so that their users have a faster service experience.
So, the gouge you for shoddy service, and they gouge the content providers extortion-style so their content arrives in a timely manner.
Well, in the past, lots of people have pointed out that Comcast is essentially a monopoly in places, so, it's not like they're competing with anybody.
They simply have no incentive to spend money. They've got all of these customers now, and spending money on infrastructure isn't going to make them any more money, so why do it? Upgrading is just straight cost, and without a benefit to them, why do it?
The very cynical answer is that until they're more or less forced to upgrade, they have no incentive to. They make money by overselling a service -- the closer to maxed out the service is, the more money they make. They don't really care about you, they care about their profits -- they're not gonna spend profits just so some people have a faster connection.
And, they're not going to give up on the revenue of having people co-locate with them, so they're doubly uninterested in fixing their capacity issues.
Welcome to the "free" market, it isn't really about customer choice and value -- it's abut maximizing profits and giving you the least amount of service they can get away with. This is a perfectly logical situation when you look at it from their point of view.
OK, just checking. ;-)
*laugh* Well, that part was a joke. But, I've long since given up on trying to correct non-technical people on some of these nuances -- it rarely serves any purpose, and sometimes gets really bad reactions.
Well, without wading into the specific issues, I believe it goes something like this ...
Someone sponsors a bill in Congress. People vote on it. Senate ratifies it. The president can veto it. The law has to be consistent with other laws and the constitution, and can be challenged in court. Failure to match up with previous laws invalidates it. At least, that's the very broad strokes.
I believe most places have this kind of balance. You could not, for example, pass a law in most countries allowing slavery. There would be no basis for the law to be legal or valid, so a court challenge can overturn it, even if you managed to get enough people to vote for it.
Some laws are just so egregious as to not be able to fit into the legal framework of a country. I this case, the judge decided that they feds had overstepped their legal authority. I make no comment on that part.
Dude, be honest .... are you even slightly surprised that a bunch of people in a bar didn't care?
I honestly can't tell if that's brilliantly crafted metaphor, or if you really did try to explain this to a bunch of people in a bar.
If it's the latter, at the very least, you should have expected a wedgie or a swirlie. :-P