Data mining isn't persecution. It can easily be a tool of persecution.
In the world we live in, we all have secrets that we may want to keep, even though we may lead blameless, productive lives today. Homosexuality, abortions, pornography, a history of sexual or drug experimentation, being HIV positive, on and on. In the right circumstances, you don't even have to have participated. Downloaded the Anarchist's Cookbook because of curiosity? Gotcha!
There are many ways to pressure good people, if a bad person has access to their private life.
And America's leaders are handing out the tools of persecution like candy at Halloween.
> don't kid yourselves; for all the hype, iTunes sells a tiny fraction of all music bought. It's not mainstream
Apple claims to be the fourth largest retailer of music of all kinds. Hardly a tiny fraction. There are only three outlets that sell more, and they're brick-and-mortars selling CDs.
Apple's original ads gave the impression that the iPod would play for 8 hours for the life of the iPod, thus misrepresenting the life of the batteries. There was a class-action suit (of course) as a result.
Apple has proposed a settlement for the class-action suit. More info here.
Apple's decision to forego the battery door, while it makes it a pain to open, also makes the whole device seamless, which is part of its charm. It's a design compromise, but it's not unique to Apple. My PDA also has an integral battery, for example, and PDAs are a very similar product category.
Personally, I would prefer an easily replaceable battery, but I have some design experience, and I really like the way the lack of doors and flaps gives iPods the feel of being organically complete.
Well, of course, but only if Alice, Bob, and Charlie want the same file. Hence the comment that it only works well for popular content. I can see that people being stuck with incomplete pieces of unusual files might be quite common.
Royalties are only one type of payment. There are no royalties due upon redistribution of the icons. There is a fee, but it isn't a royalty.
Most art, including music, photography, and graphic art, is licensed to you with additional fees--royalties--due for each copy you sell yourself. However, you can buy a license to distribute these icons for a one-time fee; therefore, they are royalty-free.
Only those blinded by their biases can't see the problem with the positive feedback loop that exists in the science funding world. If your stated purpose isn't to advance a popular notion you don't get funded. Then when the unpopular views have no science to back them this is used to call the matter settled and deny any future funding.
Okay. That's a common misleading argument. I'll suggest that it's convincing because it is close to the truth.
Yes, you can get funding much more easily for popular notions. However, can you guess why they're "popular?" It's simply because we need to know the answers. It's because we're looking at answers that could be crucial to our lives.
And it doesn't make any difference to the studies and experiments that they concern popular questions. Science is nothing but an applied way of having others independently verify your answers. That's all it is. You can't fake the answers, whether they're popular or not.
There's nothing "heretical" about being wrong. Scientists disprove each others' ideas all the time. That's just science. But a scientist who keeps coming up with ideas that are proven wrong, or insists that that the majority of the research in a field is wrong--that everyone else is wrong--will have a hard time getting funding, yes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I find it very sad, by the way, that one of the tactics you used is the old Red Scare. You portray university scientists as "left/socialists/progressives/whatever they call themselves this week." Isn't it obvious to you that "they" aren't calling themselves anything?
You're generalizing about a very mixed group, which you'd know if you took the time to learn more. About the only thing scientists can agree on is that they are impatient for answers, and the funding they need to get them.
But politics is necessary in science. Because the funding goes to the biggest questions, much of scientific debate goes into fighting over just which questions those are.
Most scientists don't think they have all the answers--or they wouldn't be scientists--but the overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is happening and it is important.
One thing you are conveniently overlooking, very conveniently, since it was in the article, is that when journalists try to balance between mainstream science and fringe scientific views surviving on industry money, they mislead the public. Journalists are not doing a good job of separating political views from scientific views.
Scientists tell us that we need to change how we live in order to avoid changing the climate of the planet. That is correct according to the current scientific consensus.
George Bush tells us that our jobs are more important than the environment, that the changes required to reduce our effect on the environment are too expensive to support. That is correct according to the current political consensus.
Scientists are telling us that we've made some big mistakes, and we may spend our lives and fortunes trying to dig out from under them. However, this idea will be a hard sell, and the President has other plans.
But Bush also needs some scientific credibility, so he supports the fringe scientists and ignores the mainstream science. The scientific community finds this apalling. Perhaps that make them socialists in your eyes. I'm sure it at least makes for many democrats.
It's not the fault of our political leaders that we like our comfortable lives and don't want to believe in catastrophe. We don't really understand the issues yet, as a country, and as a people.
We aren't well-informed. Pointing out why that is was what the article was all about. That's all.
Copyright provides architects, as authors of architectural works, protection for their designs, and grants to third parties the affirmative right to photograph publicly accessible buildings and to freely distribute and display those photographs. The free exchange of ideas, and the freedom to borrow and expand on those ideas, are integral to the design process; copyright protection tailored to the particular nature of architectural design benefits the public and advances cultural development.
In contrast, however, in trade mark law, architectural works are properly protected where the design is the "signature" style of the architect. Copyright law permits individuals to photograph architectural designs, but trade mark law preempts the right freely to use a trade marked architectural creation. Some buildings in the U.S.A. currently under trade mark include the Chrysler Building and Guggenheim Museum in New York, the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco, the Wrigley Building and Citicorp Center in Chicago, and The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. Trade mark protection for buildings is limited, however, as it precludes another party from designing a building in the same shape.
So there are some IP protections available to real property developers. =)
IIRC, the section of the Copyright Act that explicitly allows photography of publicly accessible buildings--120--was written in response to a lawsuit against a photographer by the Guggenheim in New York.
And don't forget MacInTouch! Not only a well-moderated forum discussing all kinds of Mac issues and solutions, but if you remember the whole Mac-users-are-smarter article from a few weeks back, it was the MacInTouch forums that provided the Macintosh writing level source text.
After you highlight text in Cocoa apps, in order to drag, you must click-and-hold in the highlighted text for at least a half second before moving the mouse. If you immediately drag as you click, you just highlight a different section of text.
It sounds annoying, but it actually gives you two options in one action: click-and-highlight, or click-pause-and-drag. You end up using the pause to find your drag target, and soon you don't have to think about it.
If you can't see the desktop, hit the F11 key after you start your drag to uncover the desktop (Exposé!) so you can do your drop; hit F11 again to bring your foreground window back.
Once you open a can of lawyers, it's hard to get them back in the can.
It's only a matter of time until anyone who puts up more than a few cracked games will be sued--probably by the Software Publishers Association--on behalf of Hasbro, Time Warner, Sony, Atari, Microsoft, etc.
I'm sure some of the epic developers like cracks and some hate them and some don't care. But they aren't the ones making the decision to sue.
The suits in the production studio--who put up the money for the game to be developed, and who publish and distribute it--are working very hard to stop copies being made.
If it didn't matter to the studio if you made copies, there wouldn't BE any protection to crack.
As a downloader, you're probably too small to go after, especially if you're just leeching. But if you share a bunch of cracked games, you're painting a target on your computer.
If you get hit with a suit (bad pun intended), the developers in epic may feel sorry for you, but it won't help you at all.
(SD: based on listening to lawyers and watching suits in action, if that's the right word. And no wisecracks about cracks....)
I used to hate it when my dad would shut off the TV on Saturday morning and throw us outside. I used to take a book outside and walk around the yard in circles while I read. Wow, I was a weird little kid. If I'd had a computer, I'd definitely have been a wired little kid.
Now I've got my wireless laptop, and yeah, a dsl line, so I can go outside and read....
But the no recess thing is happening, too. You knew that, right?
No recess There's a Wisk billboard around here that claims that 45% of schools have eliminated recess.
Mrs. Carson's fifth-grade Reading class: "Okay, class, today we're going to visit slashdot again. Oh look, everyone, Jimmy has moderation points. Good for you, Jimmy!"
A comma follows the first of two independent clauses separated by any conjunction, including the word 'and.' The comma is not used for conjunctions joining compound subjects or compound predicates.
<joke> And I use a mac, so I'm smarter than you. </joke>
Burning AAC to CD doesn't lose data. The original AAC generation is of course lossy, and any re-compression after the creation of the new CD file also loses data.
But iTunes' burning AAC files to CD should be considered lossless--the resulting CD audio file is identical to the waveform generated when the AAC is decompressed and played.
That's not lossless--the re-rip to AAC adds a second generation of loss.
Bzzt.
Thanks for playing.
You could, of course, re-rip it to Apple Lossless, at the cost of using a lot more disk space. Than you'd at least have the quality of the 128-bit AAC you purchased.
Slashdot Mirror
Data mining isn't persecution. It can easily be a tool of persecution.
In the world we live in, we all have secrets that we may want to keep, even though we may lead blameless, productive lives today. Homosexuality, abortions, pornography, a history of sexual or drug experimentation, being HIV positive, on and on. In the right circumstances, you don't even have to have participated. Downloaded the Anarchist's Cookbook because of curiosity? Gotcha!
There are many ways to pressure good people, if a bad person has access to their private life.
And America's leaders are handing out the tools of persecution like candy at Halloween.
Then he wouldn't have "quoted" the word free to indicate he was being sarcastic.
And, of course, when you rtfa, it turns out you can upgrade the songs you purchased with FairPlay for less than the difference in the price.
.99 = .31; upgrade for .30. If you really want to buy a lot of songs, it's cheaper to buy the DRMed files and upgrade them.
1.30 -
This is another sea change for the industry. Not having to repurchase your library is awesome.
> don't kid yourselves; for all the hype, iTunes sells a tiny fraction of all music bought. It's not mainstream
Apple claims to be the fourth largest retailer of music of all kinds. Hardly a tiny fraction. There are only three outlets that sell more, and they're brick-and-mortars selling CDs.
Apple's original ads gave the impression that the iPod would play for 8 hours for the life of the iPod, thus misrepresenting the life of the batteries. There was a class-action suit (of course) as a result.
Apple has proposed a settlement for the class-action suit. More info here.
Apple's decision to forego the battery door, while it makes it a pain to open, also makes the whole device seamless, which is part of its charm. It's a design compromise, but it's not unique to Apple. My PDA also has an integral battery, for example, and PDAs are a very similar product category.
Personally, I would prefer an easily replaceable battery, but I have some design experience, and I really like the way the lack of doors and flaps gives iPods the feel of being organically complete.
--Mike
Hey, Tom's going to be slashdotted. I hope he gets some business from this....
Sweet Marias Coffee is the best place to look for green beans.
Google and you'll find more. But if you're really interested in coffee, alt.coffee is the best source of information and conversation.
-- Mike
And Bob's your uncle.
Perhaps he's bright enough.
Royalties are only one type of payment. There are no royalties due upon redistribution of the icons. There is a fee, but it isn't a royalty.
Most art, including music, photography, and graphic art, is licensed to you with additional fees--royalties--due for each copy you sell yourself. However, you can buy a license to distribute these icons for a one-time fee; therefore, they are royalty-free.
Yes, you can get funding much more easily for popular notions. However, can you guess why they're "popular?" It's simply because we need to know the answers. It's because we're looking at answers that could be crucial to our lives.
And it doesn't make any difference to the studies and experiments that they concern popular questions. Science is nothing but an applied way of having others independently verify your answers. That's all it is. You can't fake the answers, whether they're popular or not.
There's nothing "heretical" about being wrong. Scientists disprove each others' ideas all the time. That's just science. But a scientist who keeps coming up with ideas that are proven wrong, or insists that that the majority of the research in a field is wrong--that everyone else is wrong--will have a hard time getting funding, yes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I find it very sad, by the way, that one of the tactics you used is the old Red Scare. You portray university scientists as "left/socialists/progressives/whatever they call themselves this week." Isn't it obvious to you that "they" aren't calling themselves anything?
You're generalizing about a very mixed group, which you'd know if you took the time to learn more. About the only thing scientists can agree on is that they are impatient for answers, and the funding they need to get them.
But politics is necessary in science. Because the funding goes to the biggest questions, much of scientific debate goes into fighting over just which questions those are.
Most scientists don't think they have all the answers--or they wouldn't be scientists--but the overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is happening and it is important.
One thing you are conveniently overlooking, very conveniently, since it was in the article, is that when journalists try to balance between mainstream science and fringe scientific views surviving on industry money, they mislead the public. Journalists are not doing a good job of separating political views from scientific views.
Scientists tell us that we need to change how we live in order to avoid changing the climate of the planet. That is correct according to the current scientific consensus.
George Bush tells us that our jobs are more important than the environment, that the changes required to reduce our effect on the environment are too expensive to support. That is correct according to the current political consensus.
Scientists are telling us that we've made some big mistakes, and we may spend our lives and fortunes trying to dig out from under them. However, this idea will be a hard sell, and the President has other plans.
But Bush also needs some scientific credibility, so he supports the fringe scientists and ignores the mainstream science. The scientific community finds this apalling. Perhaps that make them socialists in your eyes. I'm sure it at least makes for many democrats.
It's not the fault of our political leaders that we like our comfortable lives and don't want to believe in catastrophe. We don't really understand the issues yet, as a country, and as a people.
We aren't well-informed. Pointing out why that is was what the article was all about. That's all.
So there are some IP protections available to real property developers. =)
Quotation from this Word file.
IIRC, the section of the Copyright Act that explicitly allows photography of publicly accessible buildings--120--was written in response to a lawsuit against a photographer by the Guggenheim in New York.
Air is a poor heat conductor, yet it's used constantly for that purpose by system designers.
You take what you can get.
After you highlight text in Cocoa apps, in order to drag, you must click-and-hold in the highlighted text for at least a half second before moving the mouse. If you immediately drag as you click, you just highlight a different section of text.
It sounds annoying, but it actually gives you two options in one action: click-and-highlight, or click-pause-and-drag. You end up using the pause to find your drag target, and soon you don't have to think about it.
If you can't see the desktop, hit the F11 key after you start your drag to uncover the desktop (Exposé!) so you can do your drop; hit F11 again to bring your foreground window back.
Once you open a can of lawyers, it's hard to get them back in the can.
It's only a matter of time until anyone who puts up more than a few cracked games will be sued--probably by the Software Publishers Association--on behalf of Hasbro, Time Warner, Sony, Atari, Microsoft, etc.
I'm sure some of the epic developers like cracks and some hate them and some don't care. But they aren't the ones making the decision to sue.
The suits in the production studio--who put up the money for the game to be developed, and who publish and distribute it--are working very hard to stop copies being made.
If it didn't matter to the studio if you made copies, there wouldn't BE any protection to crack.
As a downloader, you're probably too small to go after, especially if you're just leeching. But if you share a bunch of cracked games, you're painting a target on your computer.
If you get hit with a suit (bad pun intended), the developers in epic may feel sorry for you, but it won't help you at all.
(SD: based on listening to lawyers and watching suits in action, if that's the right word. And no wisecracks about cracks....)
I used to hate it when my dad would shut off the TV on Saturday morning and throw us outside. I used to take a book outside and walk around the yard in circles while I read. Wow, I was a weird little kid. If I'd had a computer, I'd definitely have been a wired little kid.
Now I've got my wireless laptop, and yeah, a dsl line, so I can go outside and read....
But the no recess thing is happening, too. You knew that, right? No recess There's a Wisk billboard around here that claims that 45% of schools have eliminated recess.
It's DARPA's, not Darpa's--since this whole discussion is pathetically pedantic.
And Wired has it wrong, but they wrote one of the earliest and best authoritative style manuals for the Internet, so it makes sense to hear them out.
I'm sorry, but the idea of a cow's teat, full of frappacino, growing out of my chest, doesn't seem like that good an idea....
Those slashdot indices explain a lot.
Mrs. Carson's fifth-grade Reading class: "Okay, class, today we're going to visit slashdot again. Oh look, everyone, Jimmy has moderation points. Good for you, Jimmy!"
Nah. It's just that smart people don't do things the hard way.
But if you have to ask....
A comma follows the first of two independent clauses separated by any conjunction, including the word 'and.' The comma is not used for conjunctions joining compound subjects or compound predicates.
<joke> And I use a mac, so I'm smarter than you. </joke>
Burning AAC to CD doesn't lose data. The original AAC generation is of course lossy, and any re-compression after the creation of the new CD file also loses data.
But iTunes' burning AAC files to CD should be considered lossless--the resulting CD audio file is identical to the waveform generated when the AAC is decompressed and played.
That's not lossless--the re-rip to AAC adds a second generation of loss.
Bzzt.
Thanks for playing.
You could, of course, re-rip it to Apple Lossless, at the cost of using a lot more disk space. Than you'd at least have the quality of the 128-bit AAC you purchased.