DRM gives us strictly less than plain old copyright. If the choices from the content-distributor's perspective are: (1) don't distribute; (2) distribute under plain old copyright; (3) distribute under DRM, they will always choose the latter. But if the choices are only 1 or 2, we think very few will choose 2. What, you think Disney's just going to stop making movies? They didn't do so when VHS was all there was.
We think a world in which choice 3 doesn't exist is strictly better for media users. In such a world, we can design and develop devices with the features we choose.
So, DbD is alerting media users to their own interest.
I don't think this is true. First, stair climbing wheelchairs are a recent invention -- AFAICT, they still don't work. Second, there are plenty of people who can walk or crutch but can't easily climb stairs. Third, elevators aren't the only thing needed for wheelchair accessibility. Hallways need to be wide enough, bathrooms need to be large enough, etc. There's no silver bullet.
Now, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be better to have accessibility hooks in the OS and toolkits than to have to retrofit screen readers. But most toolkits do have those hooks, and most programmers never use them. I know that I should, but I don't. I've never learned how, and if I had, I wouldn't be able to test them, since I don't have screen reader software. As far as I know, there is no Free Software for general screen reading.
Also, I was at the MA hearing for ODF, and the disabled people there really did care about being able to use the software. It wasn't corporate shills, it was MA employees. It's pretty hard to get a job if you're disabled -- even if you're perfectly able to do the work. A whole lot of disabled people work for the state, which is much less discriminatory than most private employers.
Anyway, I do think that screen reading is an area where free software could improve. Sure, it will take a bunch of work -- but no more than any other set of features (and maybe less, since it could be just some disabled programmer scraching an itch).
Reviewer comment: Yes, [Nature reviewer unclear here] in using the language of individual-level fitness and selection; but this was also a shortcoming of Hamilton's original formulation. Thus to say `They all carry the same genes...' (para 1) is misleading because what matters is not the totality of genes shared but the probability that relatives share a specific gene (strictly allele), in this case the one coding for the altruistic trait. By the same token, `individual fitness' is a proxy for allele fitness, again, in this case, specifically the allele for the altruistic trait. Kin selection is THE paradigm of the gene selection argument; it actually makes no sense when couched at the level of individual fitness. The problem cascades through the piece, thus: Par2, lines 4-5 - should be `A parent has a probability of 0.5 (or a half ) of sharing any given gene (again actually allele) with each progeny...' and last line - should be `...because it increases the probability of transmission of the parental gene for caring.'
Britannica response: There is no inaccuracy here. We stand by our author, Francisco Ayala, who insists that the reviewer is wrong through and through: the altruistic behavior is favored by natural selection because relatives share (in fractions depending on the degree of relatedness) all their genes.
I can't see the original article (Britannica attacks Nature for not making their data available, but they're guilty of the same thing).
But it sounds like the reviewer was saying that the Britannica article conflates individual fitness with allele fitness.
Example: imagine a species S. A grenade is thrown at five individuals of species S. If one of them jumps on it, she will die but the other four will live. Else, each will die with probabilty 0.5. Should she do it? If we are looking at things from her individual point of view, she should not do it *no matter her relation to the other individuals*. Nobody's individual survival is benefitted by dying. But if we are looking at things from the point of view of her alleles, then her relation to the other four do make sense. If they are her clones, then the allele has a 0% chance of dying off at this moment if she does it, and a 1 in 32 chance if she doesn't. The average numbers of survivors is also higher: 4 vs 2.5.
It's true that the presence of altruistic individuals increases everyone's survival odds -- nonetheless, altruism is not justified on an individual level -- if it were, it wouldn't be altruism.
Ayala is wrong that altruistic behavior is favored by natural selection. Genes coding for altruistic behavior are favored; the behavior itself is not favored.
The thing is, I'm pretty sure Ayala understands this. Ayala thinks he's saying the right thing: in his brain, "altruistic behavior" is a shorthand for "genes coding for altruistic behavior", because he's an expert in kin selection and thinks about this all day. He just forgot that he was writing for a general encyclopedia. At least, that's the only theory I can come up with for why he insists that he's right..
Of course, if I later read the Britannica article and discover that it is correct, I'll be glad to retract this. Also, I'm not a geneticist -- I just like to think I understand some of genetics because I've read a bit about it; and this bit is basically game theory anyway. Perhaps a real geneticist will tell me that Ayala is using terms in the standard way, so the criticism fails on those grounds. If so, I'll accept that correction too.
Actually, you raise a good point. I've just been researching this issue for my final writeup (based on the letter I sent to Scribus), and it's a little more complex than I first thought. Basically, there's (effectively) a circuit split, although the opinion (effectively) supporting font face copyright (a) claims not to and (b) is unpublished. Also, the copyright office reportedly disagrees with itself, but (of course) none of the rules are online from the office itself; they're buried in federal archives which are only available on dead trees.
I'm not in a position to offer a final analysis yet, but that's what I've learned so far.
Anyway, that only applies to the US; plus there are design patents to contend with.
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France
Well, let's say it's a very large fly, with a profile of 1 cm^2. And let's assume it represents 1 IP. Then the fly swatter would only have to be 18 m^2. This is roughly 140,000 times smaller than a square mile sheet.
Maybe. I'm not an expert in wiretap law, so I try to avoid making comments about it. Still, a quick flip through ECPA shows section 2511(2)(d), which seems to say that so long as at least one of the parties gives permission, it's OK. I don't know how that (and 2511(3)) have been interpreted in cases.
I dunno. It can't be that hard to find the AIM addresses of famous people. You must be able to get some pretty good blackmail material out of it. OK, so maybe not. But appraisal of competitor's plans is probably worth something. I'm sure some Sony execs (or whatever) use AIM. Just a week's extra notice about a lawsuit could let AOL fire first, getting a better venue and better PR. What about selling access to foreign governments to spy on dissidents in their countries?
Ok, so you have to index it. The point is that 50TB/year just isn't that much data anymore. Sure, you can't really do it for 80k/year, but it won't be much more than 300k, with admininstration costs.
AOL could easily afford to store hundreds of gigs per day. If they're sticking it on SATA HDs, they can store 200 GB/day for about $40k/year. Call it twice that for redundancy. That's nothing in AOL terms.
Wow, Thomson is totally innumerate. He's asked about a percentage, and he replies with raw numbers about one game... without giving a total number of games sold! Maybe he's right about the percentage, but he hasn't shown it. Oh, wait, he's wrong about that
Actually, it seems a bit more likely that he's just dishonest.
The federal government found that in the school year 2003, there were 48 school killings. The year before that there were 16, and the year before that 17. Something is going on. I submit that the video game generation is coming of age. That doesn't match the numbers I've seen. Plus, there's the causation problem. It could just as well be that kids are influenced by the Iraq war.
Not a single law on the books to stop the sale of murder simulators to kids
Sure, because every time they get put on the books, they get struck down (follow the link to the opionion for more cases).
When I was there in September, SSHing to my shell account worked just fine. Tunnel through that, and you'll be fine.
If you're going to do human rights work there, that it's probably best to do one illegal thing at a time. So, don't look at porn when your issue is Falun Gong. And likewise, don't look at Falun Gong sites if your issue is porn.
If you're just on vacation, consider spending your time seeing the sites rather than surfing the net. It'll be there when you get home.
Ignore all the idiots on this site who tell you to obey unjust laws.
Your last line is a fairly controversial claim, except in reference to certain mathematical claims which are uninteresting to linguists. It's a minority view in the linguistic community, and one I don't share.
I'm baffled by your resistance to using disjunctions in noun-phrases. Descriptively, I can find plenty of examples of this on Google. And if plenty of people use it, it's correct.
Slashdot Mirror
I found my free software job on Idealist.
Yep, it's a bitmap of the same image as the GIF.
DRM gives us strictly less than plain old copyright. If the choices from the content-distributor's perspective are: (1) don't distribute; (2) distribute under plain old copyright; (3) distribute under DRM, they will always choose the latter. But if the choices are only 1 or 2, we think very few will choose 2. What, you think Disney's just going to stop making movies? They didn't do so when VHS was all there was.
We think a world in which choice 3 doesn't exist is strictly better for media users. In such a world, we can design and develop devices with the features we choose.
So, DbD is alerting media users to their own interest.
Bottom line: it's still private property even if you really really really don't like that idea.
Not in California. See this case.
I don't think this is true. First, stair climbing wheelchairs are a recent invention -- AFAICT, they still don't work. Second, there are plenty of people who can walk or crutch but can't easily climb stairs. Third, elevators aren't the only thing needed for wheelchair accessibility. Hallways need to be wide enough, bathrooms need to be large enough, etc. There's no silver bullet.
Now, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be better to have accessibility hooks in the OS and toolkits than to have to retrofit screen readers. But most toolkits do have those hooks, and most programmers never use them. I know that I should, but I don't. I've never learned how, and if I had, I wouldn't be able to test them, since I don't have screen reader software. As far as I know, there is no Free Software for general screen reading.
Also, I was at the MA hearing for ODF, and the disabled people there really did care about being able to use the software. It wasn't corporate shills, it was MA employees. It's pretty hard to get a job if you're disabled -- even if you're perfectly able to do the work. A whole lot of disabled people work for the state, which is much less discriminatory than most private employers.
Anyway, I do think that screen reading is an area where free software could improve. Sure, it will take a bunch of work -- but no more than any other set of features (and maybe less, since it could be just some disabled programmer scraching an itch).
Shorter Bong Dizon:
Most people don't care about freedom, therefore freedom doesn't exist.
Reviewer comment: Yes, [Nature reviewer unclear here] in using the language of individual-level fitness and selection; but this was also a shortcoming of Hamilton's original formulation. Thus to say `They all carry the same genes...' (para 1) is misleading because what matters is not the totality of genes shared but the probability that relatives share a specific gene (strictly allele), in this case the one coding for the altruistic trait. By the same token, `individual fitness' is a proxy for allele fitness, again, in this case, specifically the allele for the altruistic trait. Kin selection is THE paradigm of the gene selection argument; it actually makes no sense when couched at the level of individual fitness. The problem cascades through the piece, thus: Par2, lines 4-5 - should be `A parent has a probability of 0.5 (or a half ) of sharing any given gene (again actually allele) with each progeny ...' and last line - should be `...because it increases the probability of transmission of the parental gene for caring.'
Britannica response: There is no inaccuracy here. We stand by our author, Francisco Ayala, who insists that the reviewer is wrong through and through: the altruistic behavior is favored by natural selection because relatives share (in fractions depending on the degree of relatedness) all their genes.
I can't see the original article (Britannica attacks Nature for not making their data available, but they're guilty of the same thing).
But it sounds like the reviewer was saying that the Britannica article conflates individual fitness with allele fitness.
Example: imagine a species S. A grenade is thrown at five individuals of species S. If one of them jumps on it, she will die but the other four will live. Else, each will die with probabilty 0.5. Should she do it? If we are looking at things from her individual point of view, she should not do it *no matter her relation to the other individuals*. Nobody's individual survival is benefitted by dying. But if we are looking at things from the point of view of her alleles, then her relation to the other four do make sense. If they are her clones, then the allele has a 0% chance of dying off at this moment if she does it, and a 1 in 32 chance if she doesn't. The average numbers of survivors is also higher: 4 vs 2.5.
It's true that the presence of altruistic individuals increases everyone's survival odds -- nonetheless, altruism is not justified on an individual level -- if it were, it wouldn't be altruism.
Ayala is wrong that altruistic behavior is favored by natural selection. Genes coding for altruistic behavior are favored; the behavior itself is not favored.
The thing is, I'm pretty sure Ayala understands this. Ayala thinks he's saying the right thing: in his brain, "altruistic behavior" is a shorthand for "genes coding for altruistic behavior", because he's an expert in kin selection and thinks about this all day. He just forgot that he was writing for a general encyclopedia. At least, that's the only theory I can come up with for why he insists that he's right..
Of course, if I later read the Britannica article and discover that it is correct, I'll be glad to retract this. Also, I'm not a geneticist -- I just like to think I understand some of genetics because I've read a bit about it; and this bit is basically game theory anyway. Perhaps a real geneticist will tell me that Ayala is using terms in the standard way, so the criticism fails on those grounds. If so, I'll accept that correction too.
Actually, you raise a good point. I've just been researching this issue for my final writeup (based on the letter I sent to Scribus), and it's a little more complex than I first thought. Basically, there's (effectively) a circuit split, although the opinion (effectively) supporting font face copyright (a) claims not to and (b) is unpublished. Also, the copyright office reportedly disagrees with itself, but (of course) none of the rules are online from the office itself; they're buried in federal archives which are only available on dead trees.
I'm not in a position to offer a final analysis yet, but that's what I've learned so far.
Anyway, that only applies to the US; plus there are design patents to contend with.
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France
In _It Must Have Been Something I Ate_, food writer Jeffrey Steingarten measured temperatures higher than that in pizza ovens in New York City. Here's an online source referencing Steingarten's book.
Well, let's say it's a very large fly, with a profile of 1 cm^2. And let's assume it represents 1 IP. Then the fly swatter would only have to be 18 m^2. This is roughly 140,000 times smaller than a square mile sheet.
Maybe. I'm not an expert in wiretap law, so I try to avoid making comments about it. Still, a quick flip through ECPA shows section 2511(2)(d), which seems to say that so long as at least one of the parties gives permission, it's OK. I don't know how that (and 2511(3)) have been interpreted in cases.
Morrison and Foerster, a major law firm?
I dunno. It can't be that hard to find the AIM addresses of famous people. You must be able to get some pretty good blackmail material out of it. OK, so maybe not. But appraisal of competitor's plans is probably worth something. I'm sure some Sony execs (or whatever) use AIM. Just a week's extra notice about a lawsuit could let AOL fire first, getting a better venue and better PR. What about selling access to foreign governments to spy on dissidents in their countries?
Ok, so you have to index it. The point is that 50TB/year just isn't that much data anymore. Sure, you can't really do it for 80k/year, but it won't be much more than 300k, with admininstration costs.
AOL could easily afford to store hundreds of gigs per day. If they're sticking it on SATA HDs, they can store 200 GB/day for about $40k/year. Call it twice that for redundancy. That's nothing in AOL terms.
Wow, Thomson is totally innumerate. He's asked about a percentage, and he replies with raw numbers about one game ... without giving a total number of games sold! Maybe he's right about the percentage, but he hasn't shown it. Oh, wait, he's wrong about that
Actually, it seems a bit more likely that he's just dishonest.
The federal government found that in the school year 2003, there were 48 school killings. The year before that there were 16, and the year before that 17. Something is going on. I submit that the video game generation is coming of age.
That doesn't match the numbers I've seen. Plus, there's the causation problem. It could just as well be that kids are influenced by the Iraq war.
Not a single law on the books to stop the sale of murder simulators to kids
Sure, because every time they get put on the books, they get struck down (follow the link to the opionion for more cases).
Toy Story, IIRC, was 10^16 flops.
Crandall claims that A Bug's Life was about ten times that.
Not much, as compared to other causes.
Er, I should s/linguistics/language/.
In linguistics it is.
You might as well say that popularity isn't subject to a democratic vote.
Sure, but this guy wants to do things that are illegal there anyway.
Unless you mean archeological sites.
But I'll admit that it was a typo -- when I was there, I mostly did mountains and temples.
When I was there in September, SSHing to my shell account worked just fine. Tunnel through that, and you'll be fine.
If you're going to do human rights work there, that it's probably best to do one illegal thing at a time. So, don't look at porn when your issue is Falun Gong. And likewise, don't look at Falun Gong sites if your issue is porn.
If you're just on vacation, consider spending your time seeing the sites rather than surfing the net. It'll be there when you get home.
Ignore all the idiots on this site who tell you to obey unjust laws.
Your last line is a fairly controversial claim, except in reference to certain mathematical claims which are uninteresting to linguists. It's a minority view in the linguistic community, and one I don't share.
I'm baffled by your resistance to using disjunctions in noun-phrases. Descriptively, I can find plenty of examples of this on Google. And if plenty of people use it, it's correct.