Control what? Control the actual fiber, cables and microwave links? Well the USA doesn't control those. Those are owned mostly by private companies generally subject to the laws and regulations of most every nation in the world. However the physical infrastructure isn't exactly The Internet. The internet is merely a bunch of networks passing traffic back and forth. The US DoC was smart enough to see that for this sort of thing to work there needs to be some point of coordination to allocate addresses and manage DNS servers. Guess what, you don't have to abide by the United States of America's rules on this. Feel free to use any DNS servers you want. Use any network addresses you desire. Just don't be shocked if nobody wants to talk to you once you start talking in -- what is effectively -- your own made up language. Why do you think you have the right to insist that everyone conforms to your preference of coordinating body?
And yes you absolutely can turn that argument exactly around and I completely agree with it. 100%. The United States has no right to insist that other counties follow the our rules. But so what. We put our network out there and it turns out that most everyone wanted to be on it. When whatever agency or country you have an affection for is as culturally and economically significant as the Unites States of America, then they'll be able to call the dance.
When you buy a piece a software (or "license it", if you will), you buy it as is, defects and all - typically with no warranty or merchantability for any particular purpose.
I'm usually on the side of commercial software houses in discussions on this site, but in this case I'm thinking adobe is a bit of an ass. And as far as any company goes, I'd love to see them come into court saying that their software has no "fitness for a particular purpose" after spending tens of thousands of dollars trying to convince people to buy their product for a particular purpose.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that no one is trying to make conservatives distrustful of science. When you ask questions like this:
The question is why so much money is being funneled into groups like Cato, The Heartland Institute, and others in a deliberate attempt to make conservatives distrustful of science? Why is there not just as much time and effort and money being spent in making liberals distrustful of science?
Your are basing the question upon false assumptions and incorrect facts. To simplify my point this is what you are asking: "Why is so much money being on activity X." There is not activity X, no one is spending money as you describe. The recent paper that triggered the recent wave among liberal bloggers and media of accusing conservatives of distrusting science was completely misunderstood by those making such accusations. Conservatives don't distrust science. They distrust political activists who use positions in scientific institutions to advance their politics.
And then there is:
The question "Is it working" would be interesting if it wasn't already obvious - conservatives are, far and away, more likely to use words like "hoax" against actual science (as in peer review, studies, hypotheses, testing hypotheses, development of theories from tested hypotheses, etc),
You are just factually incorrect. There is no widespread calling the actual acts of peer review, or making and testing hypotheses, the scientific method, etc. as hoaxes. What skeptics are pointing out is that a lot of the "science" used to justify political crusades is not science by any objective criteria.
Here's a simple study for you to carry out. Go to your local university and conduct a survey to determine the political leanings of various professors and instructors. You'll find that the majority of conservatives are going to be in business, science, engineering and mathematics. The reconsider your assumptions about what conservatives believe.
One thing I'd like to know is this: for the last few decades there's been a concerted campaign to make conservatives distrustful of science.
That's your problem right there. Assuming you're referencing the recent study, you've accepted statements of the media blindly without actually looking into background of their statements. The study says nothing about trust in science. It's about trust in scientific institutions, colleges and government agencies and the like. The question used for this analysis was:
The GSS asked respondents the following question: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?”
The question has nothing to do with actual beliefs and trust in science. Hell, it'd be like saying prefer to have sex with teenagers because they answered "Selena Gomez" when asked "Of these three women which would you have sex with if you had to have sex with one of them: Rosanne Barr, Betty White, Selena Gomez?"
Well, jpeg files have a structure that will generate detectable errors if it's damaged. So simply opening them with something as simple as djpeg from the IJG and piping the output to/dev/null should give you a pretty good start on damaged images. Something like this perhaps:
find . -name "*jpg" -o -name "*jpeg" -o -name "*JPG" -o -name "*JPEG" | while read filename; do if djpeg "$filename" >/dev/null 2> then:; else echo "$filename" is toast; fi; done
You could probably do something similar with mpg123 and mplayer for.mp3 and movies.
Can you explain why they have exactly one license for all users and uses of their service? One person may well want to make a document public but another may not. Why does the person who has no desire or intent to to make whatever they store on Google Drive public have to agree to a perpetual, unrestricted, republishing license of their content to Google? Don't you think it would make a lot more sense to have a "we'll keep your shit private" agreement and then if you choose to use them as a publishing service have a completely different agreement that provides for that use of the service?
Thing is that you can have your browser up and running and you're logged into your web mail service. Or perhaps you saved the password in your browser. Then you log into facebook and click on some dumb link or perhaps you go to some malicious website. Some errant javacript loads up your hotmail account in an iframe, your browser helpfully provides the credentials or a valid cookie and the script then proceeds to propagate itself to all your contacts.
Doesn't that include 0 liters? So they're possibly creating exactly what every rock, stick, and insect in the desert already does?
In case it's not clear, this whole business of "up to x whatevers" is ambiguous. Why don't they just tell us the the criteria involved. Like what different conditions can be expected to supply.
Rather than saying they have different release cycles you should be saying they have different release methodologies or software life cycles. Apple apparently supports two releases back (searches for "apple software life cycle" only result in forum posts asking the same question), while Microsoft has defined support periods that are generally quite long. Microsoft's approach is important for people who intend to incorporate Microsoft's products into their business processes. Apple's approach is (marginally) acceptable for consumer products.
Apple releases new versions that don't have substantial backward compatibility guarantees about as often as Microsoft releases service packs that do make an emphasis on backward compatibility.
As far as comparing between the two -- in my experience having two macs, a first gen apple tv, an ipod, a couple of iphones and an ipad and five windows boxes running XP, Vista and 7 -- windows service packs frequently deliver not only rolled up bug fixes, but new functionality similar to the kinds of new functionality that you'd find in Apple OS X releases.
Fundamentally Microsoft does a much better job of supporting prior generation platforms than Apple does by far. Hell, Apple, as near as I can tell, obsoletes products just because.
It's been pointed out that insulin pumps don't hold a month's supply of insulin, so no need to worry about that particular hobgoblin. You are aware that you can tell when your blood sugar is plummeting? It's not like you're walking along all hunky-dory and suddenly you drop dead because half an hour ago you dot an over dose of insulin.
Due to the criminal malfeasance of one Dr. Gleick we know that one of the main groups that was frequently identified as driving the "Deniers" -- the Heartland Institute -- has a tiny budget.
Um. No that's not the idea at all. It simply mean that you use your product. The phrase "eat your own dog food" has been around for years, since the 1980's at least, and in use in other industries entirely.
Um. Yes? Is this supposed to be a trick question? If the agreed upon value of a copy of the Lord of the Rings DVD set is $40, then yes. Of course you have greatly simplified the situation and ignored supply and demand. But based on your criteria your argument is solid.
I know you are trying to make some point about cost to reproduce the media or possibly what is means to have, effectively, no scarcity. But all that shows is that you are either ignoring or don't understand some fairly foundational principles of economics.
Suppose you have a third friend who doesn't have the DVD set nor has he seen the movies. Instead of him going out and buying or renting the DVDs you let him log into your ftp server and he pulls the files across onto his hard drive. It cost him $0. Can we conclude then that the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is of no value to him? No we cannot. Your friend sits down and spends 9 hours watching the movies. Now your friend could have spent those 9 hours mowing lawns at $5/hour so we know that the value of watching the movies was at least $45 to him. Therefore you haven't made the movies valueless, you've only transferred the value to your friend and away from Peter Jackson and his merry band of Kiwis.
That's why I said "almost", because there are things that can be done with an original disc that cannot be done with your downloaded ISO. That doesn't mean it has utility. For most people the utility of a movie is the entertainment value of watching a movie. Among those who buy a movie, resale value is not typically an attribute they consider in their purchase. For everyone else there is the option of renting from redbox or netflix, or streaming from any numerous services.
The argument that you cannot resell your digital copy therefore it has no value is exceptionally weak. There are literally hundreds or thousands of transactions that people engage in every day that cannot be resold. Take a haircut, you cannot resell a haircut, does that mean that it has no value and you should not have to pay for the skill and time of the barber?
Dollars actually have a value -- just as every state controlled currency has a value -- they are required for you to pay your taxes. You cannot send a bushel of corn to the IRS on tax day. This means that the corn producer needs dollar bills. So people who need corn need to have dollar bills. And so on.
I don't think he did miss the point. A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream. On the other hand a photocopied/scanned/printed copy of a dollar bill has zero value. Not even the people who are pushing this idea believe the equivalency proposed. If they did they would be perfectly happy with receiving photocopied cash as pay for their day jobs. Or they would be willing to receive 4 gigabyte streams of random bits in lieu of actual copies of movies, as long as the titles of the files were correct. Neither of these are true, so this whole thing is bunk.
Seeing as you're an AC I doubt that this is even useful, but you should answer the question asked, not the question you wish you were asked.
The truth is that the best way to reward the creators of content is to have the consumers pay for the content they consume. There is no other method that even comes close to being as good.
Slashdot Mirror
Control what? Control the actual fiber, cables and microwave links? Well the USA doesn't control those. Those are owned mostly by private companies generally subject to the laws and regulations of most every nation in the world. However the physical infrastructure isn't exactly The Internet. The internet is merely a bunch of networks passing traffic back and forth. The US DoC was smart enough to see that for this sort of thing to work there needs to be some point of coordination to allocate addresses and manage DNS servers. Guess what, you don't have to abide by the United States of America's rules on this. Feel free to use any DNS servers you want. Use any network addresses you desire. Just don't be shocked if nobody wants to talk to you once you start talking in -- what is effectively -- your own made up language. Why do you think you have the right to insist that everyone conforms to your preference of coordinating body?
And yes you absolutely can turn that argument exactly around and I completely agree with it. 100%. The United States has no right to insist that other counties follow the our rules. But so what. We put our network out there and it turns out that most everyone wanted to be on it. When whatever agency or country you have an affection for is as culturally and economically significant as the Unites States of America, then they'll be able to call the dance.
I'm usually on the side of commercial software houses in discussions on this site, but in this case I'm thinking adobe is a bit of an ass. And as far as any company goes, I'd love to see them come into court saying that their software has no "fitness for a particular purpose" after spending tens of thousands of dollars trying to convince people to buy their product for a particular purpose.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that no one is trying to make conservatives distrustful of science. When you ask questions like this:
Your are basing the question upon false assumptions and incorrect facts. To simplify my point this is what you are asking: "Why is so much money being on activity X." There is not activity X, no one is spending money as you describe. The recent paper that triggered the recent wave among liberal bloggers and media of accusing conservatives of distrusting science was completely misunderstood by those making such accusations. Conservatives don't distrust science. They distrust political activists who use positions in scientific institutions to advance their politics.
And then there is:
You are just factually incorrect. There is no widespread calling the actual acts of peer review, or making and testing hypotheses, the scientific method, etc. as hoaxes. What skeptics are pointing out is that a lot of the "science" used to justify political crusades is not science by any objective criteria.
Here's a simple study for you to carry out. Go to your local university and conduct a survey to determine the political leanings of various professors and instructors. You'll find that the majority of conservatives are going to be in business, science, engineering and mathematics. The reconsider your assumptions about what conservatives believe.
That's your problem right there. Assuming you're referencing the recent study, you've accepted statements of the media blindly without actually looking into background of their statements. The study says nothing about trust in science. It's about trust in scientific institutions, colleges and government agencies and the like. The question used for this analysis was:
The question has nothing to do with actual beliefs and trust in science. Hell, it'd be like saying prefer to have sex with teenagers because they answered "Selena Gomez" when asked "Of these three women which would you have sex with if you had to have sex with one of them: Rosanne Barr, Betty White, Selena Gomez?"
There ought to be an &1 after the 2>.
Well, jpeg files have a structure that will generate detectable errors if it's damaged. So simply opening them with something as simple as djpeg from the IJG and piping the output to /dev/null should give you a pretty good start on damaged images. Something like this perhaps:
find . -name "*jpg" -o -name "*jpeg" -o -name "*JPG" -o -name "*JPEG" | while read filename; do if djpeg "$filename" > /dev/null 2> then :; else echo "$filename" is toast; fi; done
You could probably do something similar with mpg123 and mplayer for .mp3 and movies.
Can you explain why they have exactly one license for all users and uses of their service? One person may well want to make a document public but another may not. Why does the person who has no desire or intent to to make whatever they store on Google Drive public have to agree to a perpetual, unrestricted, republishing license of their content to Google? Don't you think it would make a lot more sense to have a "we'll keep your shit private" agreement and then if you choose to use them as a publishing service have a completely different agreement that provides for that use of the service?
Seems trivial and obvious to me.
So you click on a link in an email you received from a friend on hotmail....
Thing is that you can have your browser up and running and you're logged into your web mail service. Or perhaps you saved the password in your browser. Then you log into facebook and click on some dumb link or perhaps you go to some malicious website. Some errant javacript loads up your hotmail account in an iframe, your browser helpfully provides the credentials or a valid cookie and the script then proceeds to propagate itself to all your contacts.
This does not seem hotmail specific at all.
Doesn't that include 0 liters? So they're possibly creating exactly what every rock, stick, and insect in the desert already does?
In case it's not clear, this whole business of "up to x whatevers" is ambiguous. Why don't they just tell us the the criteria involved. Like what different conditions can be expected to supply.
Rather than saying they have different release cycles you should be saying they have different release methodologies or software life cycles. Apple apparently supports two releases back (searches for "apple software life cycle" only result in forum posts asking the same question), while Microsoft has defined support periods that are generally quite long. Microsoft's approach is important for people who intend to incorporate Microsoft's products into their business processes. Apple's approach is (marginally) acceptable for consumer products.
Apple releases new versions that don't have substantial backward compatibility guarantees about as often as Microsoft releases service packs that do make an emphasis on backward compatibility.
As far as comparing between the two -- in my experience having two macs, a first gen apple tv, an ipod, a couple of iphones and an ipad and five windows boxes running XP, Vista and 7 -- windows service packs frequently deliver not only rolled up bug fixes, but new functionality similar to the kinds of new functionality that you'd find in Apple OS X releases.
Fundamentally Microsoft does a much better job of supporting prior generation platforms than Apple does by far. Hell, Apple, as near as I can tell, obsoletes products just because.
Yes, their paper is a tautology. Shorter paper: "We created a simulation of our rules. Then the simulation proved our rules."
It's been pointed out that insulin pumps don't hold a month's supply of insulin, so no need to worry about that particular hobgoblin. You are aware that you can tell when your blood sugar is plummeting? It's not like you're walking along all hunky-dory and suddenly you drop dead because half an hour ago you dot an over dose of insulin.
Eating a twinkie is too hard?
The senate never going into recess started with Harry Reid under the Bush White House.
Due to the criminal malfeasance of one Dr. Gleick we know that one of the main groups that was frequently identified as driving the "Deniers" -- the Heartland Institute -- has a tiny budget.
Yes. It's a kind of bread you can smoke.
Um. No that's not the idea at all. It simply mean that you use your product. The phrase "eat your own dog food" has been around for years, since the 1980's at least, and in use in other industries entirely.
Your argument about an imaginary dollar in your imaginary world makes great sense. Now come back to the real world and talk with the rest of us.
Um. Yes? Is this supposed to be a trick question? If the agreed upon value of a copy of the Lord of the Rings DVD set is $40, then yes. Of course you have greatly simplified the situation and ignored supply and demand. But based on your criteria your argument is solid.
I know you are trying to make some point about cost to reproduce the media or possibly what is means to have, effectively, no scarcity. But all that shows is that you are either ignoring or don't understand some fairly foundational principles of economics.
Suppose you have a third friend who doesn't have the DVD set nor has he seen the movies. Instead of him going out and buying or renting the DVDs you let him log into your ftp server and he pulls the files across onto his hard drive. It cost him $0. Can we conclude then that the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is of no value to him? No we cannot. Your friend sits down and spends 9 hours watching the movies. Now your friend could have spent those 9 hours mowing lawns at $5/hour so we know that the value of watching the movies was at least $45 to him. Therefore you haven't made the movies valueless, you've only transferred the value to your friend and away from Peter Jackson and his merry band of Kiwis.
That's why I said "almost", because there are things that can be done with an original disc that cannot be done with your downloaded ISO. That doesn't mean it has utility. For most people the utility of a movie is the entertainment value of watching a movie. Among those who buy a movie, resale value is not typically an attribute they consider in their purchase. For everyone else there is the option of renting from redbox or netflix, or streaming from any numerous services.
The argument that you cannot resell your digital copy therefore it has no value is exceptionally weak. There are literally hundreds or thousands of transactions that people engage in every day that cannot be resold. Take a haircut, you cannot resell a haircut, does that mean that it has no value and you should not have to pay for the skill and time of the barber?
Dollars actually have a value -- just as every state controlled currency has a value -- they are required for you to pay your taxes. You cannot send a bushel of corn to the IRS on tax day. This means that the corn producer needs dollar bills. So people who need corn need to have dollar bills. And so on.
I don't think he did miss the point. A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream. On the other hand a photocopied/scanned/printed copy of a dollar bill has zero value. Not even the people who are pushing this idea believe the equivalency proposed. If they did they would be perfectly happy with receiving photocopied cash as pay for their day jobs. Or they would be willing to receive 4 gigabyte streams of random bits in lieu of actual copies of movies, as long as the titles of the files were correct. Neither of these are true, so this whole thing is bunk.
Seeing as you're an AC I doubt that this is even useful, but you should answer the question asked, not the question you wish you were asked.
The truth is that the best way to reward the creators of content is to have the consumers pay for the content they consume. There is no other method that even comes close to being as good.
Welcome to the 1980s.