The story says "allow one copy" of a recording you already own.
We already have this right in Canada. I think most Americans take it as a God given right.
Can someone compare the NZ recording industry gross proceeds vs Canada/USA (maybe normalize for population)?
Can someone compare the NZ-RIA "claims" of copyright violations per year vs the R/C-RIA "claims" of copyright violations per year (and normalize for population)?
Their claims are just idiotic. Reminds me of the kind of utter illogic and delusion you get from listening to Iraqi Tribesmen and Mullah's (no offense, but really!) If only we could get the XX-RIA orgs and Labels to listen to themselves:
"OMG OMG OMG OMG if people can listen to their CDs through non CD-players, THE FUCKING SKY WILL FALL AND ALL OUR BASE WILL BELONG TO THEM"
Hee hee, yeah, that's right, keep screwing around with "the laws" and focusing on "p2p" as the great evil enemy instead of focusing on delivering PRODUCTS that people CARE ABOUT or WANT (other than teeny boppers I mean).
According to our relentless pace of technological progress, in 10-15 years I'll be able to walk over to my friends place with something in the palm of my hand, and give him a copy of every single audio recording ever made - and it'll cost us next to NOTHING.
Right now if someone were to walk over to their neighbours place, you'd have to carry the device in a plastic bag and it could only contain 50,000 songs and would take a few days and $200 of receiving hardware to copy.
Notice something? I didn't use the Internet or p2p, not even ONCE! So when will "the hammer drop"? When all the *average* schmucks like my Mom and non-techie friends figure out that they can do this, and actually start asking their friends "can I come over with my portable storage device"?
This isn't an unknown. This is something that economics professors teaching first year econ courses in University *do* point out. That adjustments and changes in our economic system "leave some people out in the cold", and considering the nature of the world (random chance and the vast number of people etc etc), it does mean some people could get "left out in the cold" *repeatedly*.
But we haven't yet figured out how to add in something like a "guaranteed minimum income" without creating an even bigger problem of people trying to "game" any social safety net that is quite that expansive and all ecompassing.
There are some things that just *do not* go away. Retail sales, entrepreneurs opening their own businesses, sales in general. I know they may not be "what interests you the most", but they might give you the best shot at not getting screwed over by fate a 3rd time. Know what I mean?
Oh - important and I know I don't have the experience to say that I've done this myself - don't let "fate's cards" get you down, don't take it personally. It probably sucks hearing that, I know....
It'll be 100 years (if ever) that we get things sorted out down here to the point where we can try something a bit closer to "pure socialism" and prevent what's happened to you from happening to *anyone*.
I wonder what things are like in places like Sweden, where they have an even stronger social safety net? There's the thing, what people think is "normal" and "the way things should be" has more to do with the belief system they were raised into rather than a conscious decision by 10 to 300 million people to "change". There's no way in hell we'll suddenly decide to "go swedish" with an entire society the size of ours. It's always little tiny steps. And unfortuately in the USA you've just got right wing pro-business governments too often to make any real headway wrt a good social safety net.
Now-days most patents are used for "protection" and "extortion" by large corporations in nearly the most literal sense.
There is more than adquate reason to question whether or not "more patents" with no qualification on the type or worthiness of said patents - is a good thing or not.
A ton of us are Canadian, let's go picket their homes and businesses (the security company they run), and visit all their neighbours and their security company's clients and hand out flyers.
Maybe first we should get a friend in law enforcement to check the gun registry first, just to make sure that they don't have a stack of guns inside their front porch. And a criminal background check too, to make sure they're not the type that's "quick to anger and resort to violence".
Shoot, I'd put in $100 to put a **big-ass** ad in the area paper with their pictures saying "SPAMMERS WHO LIVE IN KITCHENER" along with links to relevant documentation and excerpts. (I'd want to be sure that any such act was adequately *solid* - ala "the truth" is the best defence against defamation and the like...)
Yup, we *all* sat it out. We had nothing in place to react as quickly as something like that requires, and the people at the UN (and in the Canadian government) utterly ignored the Canadian general who was screaming at the top of his lungs.
However I've heard that NATO's "rapid reaction force" was specifically created in order to respond to things like Rawanda. So maybe next time it'll be different.
((goes away and does some digging))
uh oh - it looks like organizing that rapid reaction forced didn't go so well. And I quote:
The move reflects frustration at the inability of the EU to realise its original aim of setting up a rapid reaction force of 60,000 troops, and the failure of European countries to modernise their armed forces and save money by sharing equipment - failures which have been having a serious impact on Nato, as most EU members are also members of the US-led military alliance.
And the "new UK/French/German" force isn't going to be ready until 2007, and it's going to be under UN auspices - and the UN isn't quick to do *anything* it seems.
Jeezus, what's so damn hard about keeping a few thousand tonnes of military equipment in hangers ready to go and keeping a few thousand troops trained to use it? AFAIAC given enough aircraft, you should be able to quickly put 3000 troops anywhere on the planet pretty quickly.
Like I said to someone else, I don't think a lot of the mom-and-pop computer hardware stores actually collect the fee. Only the big chains.
I agree though, considering the fact that CDRs are used for so many other things in the world... Thank *GOD* they didn't put a tariff on the DVDR/RWs. Can you imagine them "scaling up" the charge proportionally due to size?
And the originally proposed charge for things like iPod would have added $200 to the retail price, it was nuts. Thank God it was all mostly shot down.
In fact, considering the prices some of the "local shops" charge for a spindle of 100 CDRs, they've just *gotta* be not charging the fee.
I wonder who, if anyone, is responsible for "enforcement"... considering how few people we have in the world with the time to investigate fraud (small companies defrauding people, people defauding other people, etc), I'm guessing that there is no enforcement...
I'm not certain that all products have their levies collected at the retail point of sale, I just know that stores like Radio Shack and Future Shop make a point of adding the levy at the till and telling the consumer about it - they have notices below all the relevant product shelves saying "at the register the following levy will be added, please go here to join in complaining about these levies", etc etc.
Another interesting thing is the obvious loophole - sell your device without the "unremovable storage" and have the consumer buy their own CF/mini-HDD, and voila no levy.
Actually, it isnt just CDR's that get this tax in Canada... its almost all storage devices. DVD, mp3 players
NOT TRUE.
They *were* considering it for flash memory and PORTABLE hard drives (no one was proposing it for hard drives in general) as well as vastly increased levies for everything else, but those got shot down as they decided that "there is no evidence that music distribution is happening via these mediums" - aka simply the fact that people are listening to their own collections of music on their own CF/micro-HDD are NOT sufficient to incur a levy - the standard is "are people putting music on it and sharing those with friends". As well there are tons of "non infringing uses" of things like CF which probably also weighed on their minds.
So there is now a levy on portable devices with non-removable storage, but it's no where near as much as the industry wanted.
21 cents per CDR/CDRW 29 cents per cassette tape over 40 minutes portable music devices with less than 1 GB NON REMOVABLE memory - $2 portable music devices with less than 10 GB NON REMOVABLE memory - $15 portable music devices with more than 10 GB NON REMOVABLE memory - $25
EVERYTHING ELSE - NO LEVY (that includes DVD R/RWs, removable CF/HDDs, and devices that don't include built in persistent memory).
The retailers are the ones who collect and submit the levies, I don't think the manufacturers have to do anything. So there won't be lawsuits like this here - besides, no-one has as screwy laws and lawsuits as do the French:-)
Maybe you should claim that you are the author of some (benign) sub-component of the Virus, and as such you'll be able to send them a DMCA request for the identity of the user.
Betcha the tech who saw that would get a laugh, and probably put it through!!
What's really strange is that the actual text of the link you've quoted is written from the perspective of the conspiracy theorists *themselves*.
AKA, the "suppression of the truth" is presented from the perspective of the conspiracy theorist themselves! This is actually a guide for conspiracy theorists on how to defend their conspiracies from "those who would suppress them".
Yet it's clear that the site it's hosted on is anti-conspiracy-theorist oriented.
*NO ENTITY* may own more than ONE SINGLE broadcast entity or content source (aka show), except though minority common stock ownership. Break up EVERY SINGLE conglomerate into individual competing parts.
Seriously, the idea of corporations is one thing, but conglomerates composed of LITERALLY hundreds of corporations - maybe we should ban those.
How's that for promoting competition and the marketplace.;-)
All of this whining about "it's only 20/5" sounds just like the type of squealing that came out of people's mouths when the original iPod was released.
So a product doesn't suit "your personal immaculate demanding needs", big deal. That doesn't mean it won't meet the needs and price point of a bajillion other people in the market where it's being sold.
Note that what I'm denegrating is not their personal opinion that the service isn't something that they'd buy, but their inferrence that anyone who would buy the service would have to be an idiot and that they wouldn't be getting their money's worth.
Heh, now I sound like one of the people on Usenet flaming the people that flame other people for trying to sell something that isn't anything less than a "super duper ultimate steal of a deal".
But they used to have limits, Sympatico's limit used to be 10 GB (5 up and 5 down), a lot of other DSL providers followed suit, while many tried to compete by providing "unlimited". Sympatico (which is a subsidiary of a company that owns the biggest backbones in the country) eventually decided to drop down to "unlimited".
But that's DSL. I'm guessing that this wireless thing is like cable - whatever you do affects other people on your shared bandwidth - I can't imagine you getting your own frequency allocation.
Considering those two things, I consider 20/5 a very reasonable limit. I only have one friend in 30 that uses more than that, and he's got an 8x80 600 GB raid-5 array (two PCI controllers each with 4 drives). I've got almost as much in a JABOD and I on average could easily live within 20/5 (occasionaly I hit 45 total, but there are other months where I barely make 10).
> Though Mr. Glenn's arguments are sound, they fail to take into account one of the most pressing reasons for a permanent moon base - China intends to build one in the next 12 years. Though it smacks of the Cold War...
Exactly!!! This is a perfect opportunity to do to the Chinese Communists what we did to the Russian Communists. Run their economy ragged in a technological race that they can not beat us at.
No war, no fuss, no muss - just 1.5 billion chinese peasants pissed at their communist overlords for wasting money on a moon base instead of letting them spend their money on consumer goods.
Bye bye Chinese Communists.
> could the president really allow a (communist) foreign power unlimited access to the moon?
The surrounding fluid within which the atoms being forced together is cold. The palladium rods which "contained" and "violently forced together" the atoms in "cold fusion" was cold.
In both cases the atoms being forced together were effectively (on the microscopic scale), hot. That doesn't stop us from calling both "cold fusion", to distinguish it from very large scale macroscopic super-heated environments.
Neither process has two COLD helium atoms merging together solely* due to macroscopic conditions.
I say "solely" as I think there may be a way of doing this using other atomic and subatomic particles. ex: merging a helium and it's anti-matter twin would be *REAL* cold fusion. I think there's a way of doing it with two normal-matter atoms using some other kind of "not found in earthly matter" particle, muons or something.
I'm not saying it's not a restatement of the gamblers fallacy, but I'm not certain that it is either.
Yeah, me neither really. I mean I strongly suspect it is, but at the same time it's definitely got some kind of "common sense" appeal that pulls deeply enough to make me wonder. I'd love to see a real statistics prof look at this.
You know, it often comes down to a matter of precisely phrasing the assumptions/question, and language can often be tricky that way. I think I can *firmly* re-state our quandry thusly (not d above, I think you may be right with d):
- No matter what*, if the odds favour you*, it's to your advantage to continue. - No matter what*, if the odds do not favour you*, it's to your advantage to quit right now. - But, if the odds are perfectly even.....?
Oh crikey, but.... arhhhh. I quit. If I start adjusting the magnitude of the *'d parameters, things get complicated quickly. I'd imagine that examining the logic as those magnitudes become extreme may be illuminating in pointing out fallacies, but I don't want to spend my time doing it!
I mean, the "results" have to form a continuity of solutions right? There can't be any blatant discontinuities as those magnitudes are adjusted, know what I mean?
Please elaborate, I don't care how "imperfect" you think your description is... Perhaps just give us an actual example or three, I'm sure the rest of us will spot the trend, especially considering your own suggestion of the "root cause".
OT to your point - I do realize that what I threw out could be *quite* ambitious, especially for an "average" class of kids. I've only done a few years of TA'ing 1st year university labs while in grad school, no High School experience. But I also know that human beings don't really shine unless they are given a SOLID daunting challenge that forces them to overcome it. But you're right, I could see a lot of unexpected negative spin-offs that might be a bit to handle....
Ahhh, I don't know. It's really hard to tell what might happen until someone actually tries something!!! (And you can take that statement as liberally and as generically as you like).
I had to read your post thrice over. You don't think he is repeating the fallacy, and you certainly don't think you are, but I in fact still think you both are repeating the fallacy.
Let me put it this way - the fact that you are suggesting that someone has a different likelyhood of a happy NET outcome in the future depending on whether they are ahead or behind and that they should change their behaviour accordingly, suggests that you are still in some obscure way repeating the gambler's fallacy, just in reverse.
People with standard gambler's fallacy: a) we're behind but odds say it'll even out, so we should keep playing, b) we're ahead and odds say it'll even out, so we should quit.
Your reverse version of the gambler's fallacy: a) we're behind, but odds don't say that it'll even out so we should quit, b) we're ahead, and odds don't say we'll necessarily regress, so we might as well keep playing.
You're closer to the truth in that you seem to state the actual truth (that whatever has happened to you in the past doesn't affect what is about to happen), but none-the-less you change your behaviour depending on what HAS happened. That clearly indicates that you are still following some form of the fallacy.
Your argument presumes that whether you stop or continue now will somehow affect the likelyhood of a happy outcome overall in life. Which simply cannot be the case.
The question of whether the coin is biased then boils down to whether the set of values that cause the coin to land same side up is greater than the set that cause it to land same side down.
You call that boiling it down? I consider this idiotic, how the hell do they from first principles come up with a statistical distribution of the starting "set of parameters" for human coin flipping that in any way is defensible?
I've got an MSc in Physics, and I can barely believe that they've done something worthwhile or haven't overlooked something basely simple that would otherwise utterly discredit their results.
Hmmm, on second thought I'd give better odds that their experiment *in actual reality* (and by their own description) has a constrained focus such that it fundamentally does not apply to human coin flipping, but rather a constrained subset of "coin flipping" which has been totally lost in the translation to an article for the unwashed masses.
I think I know what they did with the apes that came back from the early spaceflights.
They put them in charge of NASA TV programming.
I mean, J.H.C, when the "big spacewalk" was happening a week or two ago I tuned into NASA TV, and what did I get to watch?
**NOTHING**
Well, not quite nothing, a grainy image of the command center with an even grainer occasional camera view of a bigscreen projection of their track, which was 100 times worse than simply going to J-Track. Do you seriously mean to tell me that NASA controllers did not have a video feed of or from their own astronauts outside the station, and that all they had was nearly unintelligable acryonym laced audio? Or is it that they simply can't afford a $5 video splitter?
( During the hubble repairs a few years ago at one point they showed nothing but a video feed of an inanimate obscure connector between the shuttle and the telescope. Apparently the shuttle didn't have enough downlink bandwidth, and they needed them all for the job at hand. )
In any case if NASA and the administrationis so concerned about public image and if they really want people to get enthused about spaceflight, how about simply spending an extra $5000 for a single extra camera on the station to provide a view of the interesting things going on?
Throw in another camera to give us a LIVE view of the earth on another channel - 24/7. How many of you wouldn't LOVE to see a 400 mile wide live video feed from space of the earth, and follow it along with J-Track, a recent GOES image, and your atlas / globe, dynamic topographic and/or terraserver reference feed?
Isn't this supposed to be the information age?
Can you imagine how utterly amazing it would be for science teachers to be able to plan a science/geography class around an hour of that each couple weeks with a few groups of kids around 5 PCs all watching the different feeds and trying to match them to the live feed? Add in a few kids using google groups and google news to provide live socio/political/weather commentary, etc etc.
> "...I don't see how you can claim it is superiour to quicktime"
*Anything* is superior to a product that subverts control of my system's file-assocations without asking me and refuses to relinquish them. I'll never install quicktime again in my life.
I don't even bother downloading quicktime movies any more, and I'm *fricking stunned* that the CC people would post this stuff using quicktime!!
Slashdot Mirror
The story says "allow one copy" of a recording you already own.
We already have this right in Canada. I think most Americans take it as a God given right.
Can someone compare the NZ recording industry gross proceeds vs Canada/USA (maybe normalize for population)?
Can someone compare the NZ-RIA "claims" of copyright violations per year vs the R/C-RIA "claims" of copyright violations per year (and normalize for population)?
Their claims are just idiotic. Reminds me of the kind of utter illogic and delusion you get from listening to Iraqi Tribesmen and Mullah's (no offense, but really!) If only we could get the XX-RIA orgs and Labels to listen to themselves:
"OMG OMG OMG OMG if people can listen to their CDs through non CD-players, THE FUCKING SKY WILL FALL AND ALL OUR BASE WILL BELONG TO THEM"
Hee hee, yeah, that's right, keep screwing around with "the laws" and focusing on "p2p" as the great evil enemy instead of focusing on delivering PRODUCTS that people CARE ABOUT or WANT (other than teeny boppers I mean).
According to our relentless pace of technological progress, in 10-15 years I'll be able to walk over to my friends place with something in the palm of my hand, and give him a copy of every single audio recording ever made - and it'll cost us next to NOTHING.
Right now if someone were to walk over to their neighbours place, you'd have to carry the device in a plastic bag and it could only contain 50,000 songs and would take a few days and $200 of receiving hardware to copy.
Notice something? I didn't use the Internet or p2p, not even ONCE! So when will "the hammer drop"? When all the *average* schmucks like my Mom and non-techie friends figure out that they can do this, and actually start asking their friends "can I come over with my portable storage device"?
"You have no chance, make your time"
This isn't an unknown. This is something that economics professors teaching first year econ courses in University *do* point out. That adjustments and changes in our economic system "leave some people out in the cold", and considering the nature of the world (random chance and the vast number of people etc etc), it does mean some people could get "left out in the cold" *repeatedly*.
But we haven't yet figured out how to add in something like a "guaranteed minimum income" without creating an even bigger problem of people trying to "game" any social safety net that is quite that expansive and all ecompassing.
There are some things that just *do not* go away. Retail sales, entrepreneurs opening their own businesses, sales in general. I know they may not be "what interests you the most", but they might give you the best shot at not getting screwed over by fate a 3rd time. Know what I mean?
Oh - important and I know I don't have the experience to say that I've done this myself - don't let "fate's cards" get you down, don't take it personally. It probably sucks hearing that, I know....
It'll be 100 years (if ever) that we get things sorted out down here to the point where we can try something a bit closer to "pure socialism" and prevent what's happened to you from happening to *anyone*.
I wonder what things are like in places like Sweden, where they have an even stronger social safety net? There's the thing, what people think is "normal" and "the way things should be" has more to do with the belief system they were raised into rather than a conscious decision by 10 to 300 million people to "change". There's no way in hell we'll suddenly decide to "go swedish" with an entire society the size of ours. It's always little tiny steps. And unfortuately in the USA you've just got right wing pro-business governments too often to make any real headway wrt a good social safety net.
Marketable product?
Now-days most patents are used for "protection" and "extortion" by large corporations in nearly the most literal sense.
There is more than adquate reason to question whether or not "more patents" with no qualification on the type or worthiness of said patents - is a good thing or not.
A ton of us are Canadian, let's go picket their homes and businesses (the security company they run), and visit all their neighbours and their security company's clients and hand out flyers.
Maybe first we should get a friend in law enforcement to check the gun registry first, just to make sure that they don't have a stack of guns inside their front porch. And a criminal background check too, to make sure they're not the type that's "quick to anger and resort to violence".
Shoot, I'd put in $100 to put a **big-ass** ad in the area paper with their pictures saying "SPAMMERS WHO LIVE IN KITCHENER" along with links to relevant documentation and excerpts. (I'd want to be sure that any such act was adequately *solid* - ala "the truth" is the best defence against defamation and the like...)
Who is this guy really? Thats not what IP is for - foolproof delivery of packets is handled by connection-orientated protocols like TCP.
e nd/endtoend.pdf
NO KIDDING.
They need to read "End to End Arguments in System Design".
http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endto
Yup, we *all* sat it out. We had nothing in place to react as quickly as something like that requires, and the people at the UN (and in the Canadian government) utterly ignored the Canadian general who was screaming at the top of his lungs.
However I've heard that NATO's "rapid reaction force" was specifically created in order to respond to things like Rawanda. So maybe next time it'll be different.
((goes away and does some digging))
uh oh - it looks like organizing that rapid reaction forced didn't go so well. And I quote:
The move reflects frustration at the inability of the EU to realise its original aim of setting up a rapid reaction force of 60,000 troops, and the failure of European countries to modernise their armed forces and save money by sharing equipment - failures which have been having a serious impact on Nato, as most EU members are also members of the US-led military alliance.
And the "new UK/French/German" force isn't going to be ready until 2007, and it's going to be under UN auspices - and the UN isn't quick to do *anything* it seems.
Jeezus, what's so damn hard about keeping a few thousand tonnes of military equipment in hangers ready to go and keeping a few thousand troops trained to use it? AFAIAC given enough aircraft, you should be able to quickly put 3000 troops anywhere on the planet pretty quickly.
Bah, bloody beaurocratic junk.
Like I said to someone else, I don't think a lot of the mom-and-pop computer hardware stores actually collect the fee. Only the big chains.
I agree though, considering the fact that CDRs are used for so many other things in the world... Thank *GOD* they didn't put a tariff on the DVDR/RWs. Can you imagine them "scaling up" the charge proportionally due to size?
And the originally proposed charge for things like iPod would have added $200 to the retail price, it was nuts. Thank God it was all mostly shot down.
Good question, not a clue.
In fact, considering the prices some of the "local shops" charge for a spindle of 100 CDRs, they've just *gotta* be not charging the fee.
I wonder who, if anyone, is responsible for "enforcement"... considering how few people we have in the world with the time to investigate fraud (small companies defrauding people, people defauding other people, etc), I'm guessing that there is no enforcement...
I'm not certain that all products have their levies collected at the retail point of sale, I just know that stores like Radio Shack and Future Shop make a point of adding the levy at the till and telling the consumer about it - they have notices below all the relevant product shelves saying "at the register the following levy will be added, please go here to join in complaining about these levies", etc etc.
Another interesting thing is the obvious loophole - sell your device without the "unremovable storage" and have the consumer buy their own CF/mini-HDD, and voila no levy.
Actually, it isnt just CDR's that get this tax in Canada... its almost all storage devices. DVD, mp3 players
:-)
NOT TRUE.
They *were* considering it for flash memory and PORTABLE hard drives (no one was proposing it for hard drives in general) as well as vastly increased levies for everything else, but those got shot down as they decided that "there is no evidence that music distribution is happening via these mediums" - aka simply the fact that people are listening to their own collections of music on their own CF/micro-HDD are NOT sufficient to incur a levy - the standard is "are people putting music on it and sharing those with friends". As well there are tons of "non infringing uses" of things like CF which probably also weighed on their minds.
So there is now a levy on portable devices with non-removable storage, but it's no where near as much as the industry wanted.
Following is the *complete* list of tarrifs, taken from http://www.sycorp.com/levy/index.htm, all numbers below in Canadian currency:
21 cents per CDR/CDRW
29 cents per cassette tape over 40 minutes
portable music devices with less than 1 GB NON REMOVABLE memory - $2
portable music devices with less than 10 GB NON REMOVABLE memory - $15
portable music devices with more than 10 GB NON REMOVABLE memory - $25
EVERYTHING ELSE - NO LEVY (that includes DVD R/RWs, removable CF/HDDs, and devices that don't include built in persistent memory).
The retailers are the ones who collect and submit the levies, I don't think the manufacturers have to do anything. So there won't be lawsuits like this here - besides, no-one has as screwy laws and lawsuits as do the French
Maybe you should claim that you are the author of some (benign) sub-component of the Virus, and as such you'll be able to send them a DMCA request for the identity of the user.
Betcha the tech who saw that would get a laugh, and probably put it through!!
What's really strange is that the actual text of the link you've quoted is written from the perspective of the conspiracy theorists *themselves*.
AKA, the "suppression of the truth" is presented from the perspective of the conspiracy theorist themselves! This is actually a guide for conspiracy theorists on how to defend their conspiracies from "those who would suppress them".
Yet it's clear that the site it's hosted on is anti-conspiracy-theorist oriented.
Maybe we should pass a law.
;-)
*NO ENTITY* may own more than ONE SINGLE broadcast entity or content source (aka show), except though minority common stock ownership. Break up EVERY SINGLE conglomerate into individual competing parts.
Seriously, the idea of corporations is one thing, but conglomerates composed of LITERALLY hundreds of corporations - maybe we should ban those.
How's that for promoting competition and the marketplace.
No kidding.
All of this whining about "it's only 20/5" sounds just like the type of squealing that came out of people's mouths when the original iPod was released.
So a product doesn't suit "your personal immaculate demanding needs", big deal. That doesn't mean it won't meet the needs and price point of a bajillion other people in the market where it's being sold.
Note that what I'm denegrating is not their personal opinion that the service isn't something that they'd buy, but their inferrence that anyone who would buy the service would have to be an idiot and that they wouldn't be getting their money's worth.
Heh, now I sound like one of the people on Usenet flaming the people that flame other people for trying to sell something that isn't anything less than a "super duper ultimate steal of a deal".
Know what I mean?
But they used to have limits, Sympatico's limit used to be 10 GB (5 up and 5 down), a lot of other DSL providers followed suit, while many tried to compete by providing "unlimited". Sympatico (which is a subsidiary of a company that owns the biggest backbones in the country) eventually decided to drop down to "unlimited".
But that's DSL. I'm guessing that this wireless thing is like cable - whatever you do affects other people on your shared bandwidth - I can't imagine you getting your own frequency allocation.
Considering those two things, I consider 20/5 a very reasonable limit. I only have one friend in 30 that uses more than that, and he's got an 8x80 600 GB raid-5 array (two PCI controllers each with 4 drives). I've got almost as much in a JABOD and I on average could easily live within 20/5 (occasionaly I hit 45 total, but there are other months where I barely make 10).
> Though Mr. Glenn's arguments are sound, they fail to take into account one of the most pressing reasons for a permanent moon base - China intends to build one in the next 12 years. Though it smacks of the Cold War...
Exactly!!! This is a perfect opportunity to do to the Chinese Communists what we did to the Russian Communists. Run their economy ragged in a technological race that they can not beat us at.
No war, no fuss, no muss - just 1.5 billion chinese peasants pissed at their communist overlords for wasting money on a moon base instead of letting them spend their money on consumer goods.
Bye bye Chinese Communists.
> could the president really allow a (communist) foreign power unlimited access to the moon?
What's that going to get them?
SERIOUSLY.., - what's that going to get them?
Please note that this is *NOT* cold fusion.
Yes it is.
The surrounding fluid within which the atoms being forced together is cold. The palladium rods which "contained" and "violently forced together" the atoms in "cold fusion" was cold.
In both cases the atoms being forced together were effectively (on the microscopic scale), hot. That doesn't stop us from calling both "cold fusion", to distinguish it from very large scale macroscopic super-heated environments.
Neither process has two COLD helium atoms merging together solely* due to macroscopic conditions.
I say "solely" as I think there may be a way of doing this using other atomic and subatomic particles. ex: merging a helium and it's anti-matter twin would be *REAL* cold fusion. I think there's a way of doing it with two normal-matter atoms using some other kind of "not found in earthly matter" particle, muons or something.
Wow - I see what you mean.
: |
Consider me truly disappointed.
I'm not saying it's not a restatement of the gamblers fallacy, but I'm not certain that it is either.
Yeah, me neither really. I mean I strongly suspect it is, but at the same time it's definitely got some kind of "common sense" appeal that pulls deeply enough to make me wonder. I'd love to see a real statistics prof look at this.
You know, it often comes down to a matter of precisely phrasing the assumptions/question, and language can often be tricky that way. I think I can *firmly* re-state our quandry thusly (not d above, I think you may be right with d):
- No matter what*, if the odds favour you*, it's to your advantage to continue.
- No matter what*, if the odds do not favour you*, it's to your advantage to quit right now.
- But, if the odds are perfectly even.....?
Oh crikey, but.... arhhhh. I quit. If I start adjusting the magnitude of the *'d parameters, things get complicated quickly. I'd imagine that examining the logic as those magnitudes become extreme may be illuminating in pointing out fallacies, but I don't want to spend my time doing it!
I mean, the "results" have to form a continuity of solutions right? There can't be any blatant discontinuities as those magnitudes are adjusted, know what I mean?
Very interesting...
Please elaborate, I don't care how "imperfect" you think your description is... Perhaps just give us an actual example or three, I'm sure the rest of us will spot the trend, especially considering your own suggestion of the "root cause".
OT to your point - I do realize that what I threw out could be *quite* ambitious, especially for an "average" class of kids. I've only done a few years of TA'ing 1st year university labs while in grad school, no High School experience. But I also know that human beings don't really shine unless they are given a SOLID daunting challenge that forces them to overcome it. But you're right, I could see a lot of unexpected negative spin-offs that might be a bit to handle....
Ahhh, I don't know. It's really hard to tell what might happen until someone actually tries something!!! (And you can take that statement as liberally and as generically as you like).
I had to read your post thrice over. You don't think he is repeating the fallacy, and you certainly don't think you are, but I in fact still think you both are repeating the fallacy.
Let me put it this way - the fact that you are suggesting that someone has a different likelyhood of a happy NET outcome in the future depending on whether they are ahead or behind and that they should change their behaviour accordingly, suggests that you are still in some obscure way repeating the gambler's fallacy, just in reverse.
People with standard gambler's fallacy: a) we're behind but odds say it'll even out, so we should keep playing, b) we're ahead and odds say it'll even out, so we should quit.
Your reverse version of the gambler's fallacy: a) we're behind, but odds don't say that it'll even out so we should quit, b) we're ahead, and odds don't say we'll necessarily regress, so we might as well keep playing.
You're closer to the truth in that you seem to state the actual truth (that whatever has happened to you in the past doesn't affect what is about to happen), but none-the-less you change your behaviour depending on what HAS happened. That clearly indicates that you are still following some form of the fallacy.
Your argument presumes that whether you stop or continue now will somehow affect the likelyhood of a happy outcome overall in life. Which simply cannot be the case.
This violates the number one most fundamental aspect of statistics and probability.
Sorry, you utterly fail Math 103.
The question of whether the coin is biased then boils down to whether the set of values that cause the coin to land same side up is greater than the set that cause it to land same side down.
You call that boiling it down? I consider this idiotic, how the hell do they from first principles come up with a statistical distribution of the starting "set of parameters" for human coin flipping that in any way is defensible?
I've got an MSc in Physics, and I can barely believe that they've done something worthwhile or haven't overlooked something basely simple that would otherwise utterly discredit their results.
Hmmm, on second thought I'd give better odds that their experiment *in actual reality* (and by their own description) has a constrained focus such that it fundamentally does not apply to human coin flipping, but rather a constrained subset of "coin flipping" which has been totally lost in the translation to an article for the unwashed masses.
I think I know what they did with the apes that came back from the early spaceflights.
They put them in charge of NASA TV programming.
I mean, J.H.C, when the "big spacewalk" was happening a week or two ago I tuned into NASA TV, and what did I get to watch?
**NOTHING**
Well, not quite nothing, a grainy image of the command center with an even grainer occasional camera view of a bigscreen projection of their track, which was 100 times worse than simply going to J-Track. Do you seriously mean to tell me that NASA controllers did not have a video feed of or from their own astronauts outside the station, and that all they had was nearly unintelligable acryonym laced audio? Or is it that they simply can't afford a $5 video splitter?
( During the hubble repairs a few years ago at one point they showed nothing but a video feed of an inanimate obscure connector between the shuttle and the telescope. Apparently the shuttle didn't have enough downlink bandwidth, and they needed them all for the job at hand. )
In any case if NASA and the administrationis so concerned about public image and if they really want people to get enthused about spaceflight, how about simply spending an extra $5000 for a single extra camera on the station to provide a view of the interesting things going on?
Throw in another camera to give us a LIVE view of the earth on another channel - 24/7. How many of you wouldn't LOVE to see a 400 mile wide live video feed from space of the earth, and follow it along with J-Track, a recent GOES image, and your atlas / globe, dynamic topographic and/or terraserver reference feed?
Isn't this supposed to be the information age?
Can you imagine how utterly amazing it would be for science teachers to be able to plan a science/geography class around an hour of that each couple weeks with a few groups of kids around 5 PCs all watching the different feeds and trying to match them to the live feed? Add in a few kids using google groups and google news to provide live socio/political/weather commentary, etc etc.
> "...I don't see how you can claim it is superiour to quicktime"
*Anything* is superior to a product that subverts control of my system's
file-assocations without asking me and refuses to relinquish them. I'll
never install quicktime again in my life.
I don't even bother downloading quicktime movies any more, and
I'm *fricking stunned* that the CC people would post
this stuff using quicktime!!
Oh, I don't know. This guy seems to be making good use of his:
"Fish using a bicycle"