the lighting projects tend to get started but never finish
Amen to the that. Might change "lighting projects" to just "many of my electronics projects...";-). The only audio-related project I've done is an arduino controlled magnetically-levitated record playing with a friend of mine as a gift for his sister's wedding, but it didn't come out all that great. Overly-complex combined with lack of knowledge, funds, and time. Shoulda kept it simple (stupid).
I have a bunch of network connected lighting experiments that I'm interested in doing and having a $9 board with this much going on (and that many GPIO pins!) sounds amazing. I was thinking I would get a beaglebone black but just couldn't get psyched to spend the money. I'm definitely going to pick up a few of these boards.
Out of curiosity, what projects are you thinking you'll do that need reasonable audio quality?
I think it's has a bunch of GPIO pins, but not the built in usb, hdmi, etc. The built in wifi is nice too. Let's hope it works better than the wifi dongle I bought for my RPi. I second the argument that after you buy a case, power adapter, and anything else just about, the price is never going to be only $9.
itd be nice if it booted and auto joined your wifi network. Then you could ssh and really only NEED to buy a power adapter. We'll see what they come up with.
This board is perfect for a few projects I've been kicking around and the $9 price point is better than having to drop $50 on a beaglebone black or $40 on a Pi.
I doubt they think this is the most important part, but would it not be a serious problem if it didn't float? It'd indicate some serious problems in the supposedly space-going capsule!
I see what you did there, but I think they were implying that (1) there isn't really that much grant money to be had (which there isn't, written from inside of academia and looking to get out) and (2) it's not like scientists are actually earning much money from those grants if they can be gotten. There's certainly nothing to drastically gain from the bountiful teat of grant funding (sarcasm) for most scientists, however there is a lot to be gained from politicians and corporations looking for scientific signatures on dubious studies cobbled together by those corporations' exceedingly deep pockets and politicians inside of them.
I honestly think scientists as politicians wouldn't be so bad.
Almost all of us would be so sick of the bullshit after a term or two would wouldn't try to get reelected. We'd actually like to return to a field where you can get something done and make forward progress.
It's all the assholes who spend 90% of the time in office pandering to their voter base and just trying to undo what the other guys did that are causing half of our problems.
If you were to hold a hearing on Police Abuse and its effect on the minority community, which you feel compelled to invite the Police to speak?
... Yes? Of course? Why in the hell would you not? Does an accused criminal not have the chance to defend themselves? Do you not want to fully understand the situation? (These days scientists are practically treated as criminals by some politicians).
Also invited to your party would the the minority community, experts in the field (sociologists, public health officials, other people who study this type of phenomenon) and anyone who would help provide a complete and thorough picture of the situation. Of course, I highly doubt that many of our politicians are intelligent enough to really hear all of these different facts and opinions, ignore their own biases, and make an informed decision for the good of the population, but that's a different issue.
If I've misunderstood what you were saying, what were you going for?
I think you're definitely right that there's a little bit of elitism in Linux use. A part of me loves that I had to patch a kernel to get Linux running on my laptop, but I think there's also more at play too.
Part of the challenge is that the people using Linux and developing Linux don't need the handholding with computing and software that would make a desktop appealing to the mass market. In fact, I often find that sort of thing getting in the way when I have to use other systems. I think we've all experienced this. Thus, we probably won't ever foresee all of the stuff that grandma wants on her computer the way that people who are specifically trying to sell grandma a computer would (e.g. Steve Jobs). Honestly, I don't really want any of that stuff on my desktop machine anymore since we have so many devices that do that stuff so well but can't offer the flexibility of raw computational power of a desktop or a server. Thunderbird is a even a little overwrought to me...
Yeah, there are douchebags in this community, and there are also good people, just like every community. Don't forget that there are a lot of things that brought this community into existence that make it awesome too. It'll change, grow, fork, fragment just like the rest 'em.
And the assholes can screw off. Spend your energy on the folks that care and are willing to make a positive contribution.
I completely agree... but what defines a scholarly work? It's a for profit biography published by a for-profit company. Is that research or is that roughly the same as trying to copyright (and ultimately profit from) your relatives account of horrific acts against humanity?
The author even promised the estate 1% of the profits but backed out at the last second when the estate tried to claim that. Sounds to me like the "free speech" part is a misdirection.
Question that is to somewhat be annoying: but other's can publish biographies and make movies about their crimes? Seems like all movies that profit off of heinous acts should have to go to repay the victims of their crimes. I know that's not practical but if we're going to draw a line, seems kinda arbitrary to me. I'm not a legal expert though (no legal qualifications at all whatsoever actually. hah!)
Just because you own the diary, does not mean you own the contents. It is pretty clear what happens to the assets of criminals, especially with regard to crimes against humanity and especially when those assets have value derived from the commitment of those crimes. The content is public domain and any attempt to derive individual profit by claiming ownership of the content tend to place the person claiming that as also sharing the liability for how the value was derived for that content.
So if that's the case, then this ALSO seems pretty cut and dry. Have there been court cases where this was established?
Part of the issue here (and where I disagree with the "right to control research" statement) is that random house is a for profit venture, and whether or not the author is a historian, it's being published as a for-profit book/biography. That's not purely research. In that sense as well, someone is trying to profit off of retelling all of the horrible things this person did. Is that so much different than claiming copyright over a work?
Heck, the History Channel wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Hitler! Talk about profiting off of crimes against humanity...
This article would make more sense to me if that were the case. I'm deeply confused about what issue there is with this if someone clearly holds the copyright and random house is trying to publish a work that contains excerpts they don't have permission to use...
FTA: the diaries "remain in copyright until the end of 2015. Copies are in public libraries."
Just wait a year and then there REALLY won't be an issue. There isn't a clause in the legal code about whether or not a horrible human being can or can't get a copyright, so until there's a court decision (which seems like flirting with what can and can't be said... Which seems like free speech) this case seems extra baseless. The comment that this has implications on research seems misplaced to me. Am I missing something?
Slashdot Mirror
the lighting projects tend to get started but never finish
Amen to the that. Might change "lighting projects" to just "many of my electronics projects..." ;-). The only audio-related project I've done is an arduino controlled magnetically-levitated record playing with a friend of mine as a gift for his sister's wedding, but it didn't come out all that great. Overly-complex combined with lack of knowledge, funds, and time. Shoulda kept it simple (stupid).
I have a bunch of network connected lighting experiments that I'm interested in doing and having a $9 board with this much going on (and that many GPIO pins!) sounds amazing. I was thinking I would get a beaglebone black but just couldn't get psyched to spend the money. I'm definitely going to pick up a few of these boards.
Out of curiosity, what projects are you thinking you'll do that need reasonable audio quality?
I think it's has a bunch of GPIO pins, but not the built in usb, hdmi, etc. The built in wifi is nice too. Let's hope it works better than the wifi dongle I bought for my RPi. I second the argument that after you buy a case, power adapter, and anything else just about, the price is never going to be only $9.
itd be nice if it booted and auto joined your wifi network. Then you could ssh and really only NEED to buy a power adapter. We'll see what they come up with.
This board is perfect for a few projects I've been kicking around and the $9 price point is better than having to drop $50 on a beaglebone black or $40 on a Pi.
I doubt they think this is the most important part, but would it not be a serious problem if it didn't float? It'd indicate some serious problems in the supposedly space-going capsule!
True, but at least a scientist (or most/many) can admit when they are wrong and/or don't know something.
Fair enough. I'm a scientist. I've never been invited to one. ;-)
Eh, I'll bite.
I see what you did there, but I think they were implying that (1) there isn't really that much grant money to be had (which there isn't, written from inside of academia and looking to get out) and (2) it's not like scientists are actually earning much money from those grants if they can be gotten. There's certainly nothing to drastically gain from the bountiful teat of grant funding (sarcasm) for most scientists, however there is a lot to be gained from politicians and corporations looking for scientific signatures on dubious studies cobbled together by those corporations' exceedingly deep pockets and politicians inside of them.
Now back to not feeding the trolls....
I honestly think scientists as politicians wouldn't be so bad.
Almost all of us would be so sick of the bullshit after a term or two would wouldn't try to get reelected. We'd actually like to return to a field where you can get something done and make forward progress.
It's all the assholes who spend 90% of the time in office pandering to their voter base and just trying to undo what the other guys did that are causing half of our problems.
Actually, it makes sense.
If you were to hold a hearing on Police Abuse and its effect on the minority community, which you feel compelled to invite the Police to speak?
... Yes? Of course? Why in the hell would you not? Does an accused criminal not have the chance to defend themselves? Do you not want to fully understand the situation? (These days scientists are practically treated as criminals by some politicians).
Also invited to your party would the the minority community, experts in the field (sociologists, public health officials, other people who study this type of phenomenon) and anyone who would help provide a complete and thorough picture of the situation. Of course, I highly doubt that many of our politicians are intelligent enough to really hear all of these different facts and opinions, ignore their own biases, and make an informed decision for the good of the population, but that's a different issue.
If I've misunderstood what you were saying, what were you going for?
I think you're definitely right that there's a little bit of elitism in Linux use. A part of me loves that I had to patch a kernel to get Linux running on my laptop, but I think there's also more at play too.
Part of the challenge is that the people using Linux and developing Linux don't need the handholding with computing and software that would make a desktop appealing to the mass market. In fact, I often find that sort of thing getting in the way when I have to use other systems. I think we've all experienced this. Thus, we probably won't ever foresee all of the stuff that grandma wants on her computer the way that people who are specifically trying to sell grandma a computer would (e.g. Steve Jobs). Honestly, I don't really want any of that stuff on my desktop machine anymore since we have so many devices that do that stuff so well but can't offer the flexibility of raw computational power of a desktop or a server. Thunderbird is a even a little overwrought to me...
Yeah, there are douchebags in this community, and there are also good people, just like every community. Don't forget that there are a lot of things that brought this community into existence that make it awesome too. It'll change, grow, fork, fragment just like the rest 'em.
And the assholes can screw off. Spend your energy on the folks that care and are willing to make a positive contribution.
Haha. Fair enough.
Although I'm not sure how well you'd fair with the line "hey baby. Wanna go back to my place and place strip poker with my super computer?"
Well, they could win, but it'd be disappointing for everyone.
Things are so much easier now that scientists invented magic!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Although a couple of docking procedures could help with international relations...
http://threewordphrase.com/mis... NSFW (although not really that bad... just weird...)
In which case the heartbreak wouldn't exist either... so... success? ;-)
I completely agree... but what defines a scholarly work? It's a for profit biography published by a for-profit company. Is that research or is that roughly the same as trying to copyright (and ultimately profit from) your relatives account of horrific acts against humanity?
The author even promised the estate 1% of the profits but backed out at the last second when the estate tried to claim that. Sounds to me like the "free speech" part is a misdirection.
Out of mod points, but I'd give you a bump otherwise. Author sounds like a dick, then is claiming that this is a free speech issue to misdirect.
Seconded. I'm out of mod points (and I've commented on this thread a ton already) but otherwise you'd get one!
The lawsuits sounds like it's either being filed in Germany or the UK, so US laws are less relevant.
Question that is to somewhat be annoying: but other's can publish biographies and make movies about their crimes? Seems like all movies that profit off of heinous acts should have to go to repay the victims of their crimes. I know that's not practical but if we're going to draw a line, seems kinda arbitrary to me. I'm not a legal expert though (no legal qualifications at all whatsoever actually. hah!)
Just because you own the diary, does not mean you own the contents. It is pretty clear what happens to the assets of criminals, especially with regard to crimes against humanity and especially when those assets have value derived from the commitment of those crimes. The content is public domain and any attempt to derive individual profit by claiming ownership of the content tend to place the person claiming that as also sharing the liability for how the value was derived for that content.
So if that's the case, then this ALSO seems pretty cut and dry. Have there been court cases where this was established?
Part of the issue here (and where I disagree with the "right to control research" statement) is that random house is a for profit venture, and whether or not the author is a historian, it's being published as a for-profit book/biography. That's not purely research. In that sense as well, someone is trying to profit off of retelling all of the horrible things this person did. Is that so much different than claiming copyright over a work?
Heck, the History Channel wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Hitler! Talk about profiting off of crimes against humanity...
Honest questions: what would be a situation where they would be considered fair use?
This article would make more sense to me if that were the case. I'm deeply confused about what issue there is with this if someone clearly holds the copyright and random house is trying to publish a work that contains excerpts they don't have permission to use...
FTA: the diaries "remain in copyright until the end of 2015. Copies are in public libraries."
Just wait a year and then there REALLY won't be an issue. There isn't a clause in the legal code about whether or not a horrible human being can or can't get a copyright, so until there's a court decision (which seems like flirting with what can and can't be said... Which seems like free speech) this case seems extra baseless. The comment that this has implications on research seems misplaced to me. Am I missing something?