Makes you wonder. I heard that Walmart stores were selling out of them in about 3 days. If so, and if they really do sell faster online, then they must be moving a *lot* of them online!
Obviously they confused "market share" with "desktop share" and might not know what a server even is...(queue joke regarding the newbie who thought MS made a server OS).
Most people who own computers have higher than HDTV resolution. Yet HDTV isn't a non-starter. Obviously it isn't for every venue, but I've seen people quite surprised at the resolution a decent 700 MB xvid compressed video will attain. Likewise, the fact that a lot of people own nice stereos (and more people own nice stereos than HDTV) doesn't mean MP3s are a non-starter...
"Actionscript 3 is also not that bad a language. It's pretty much java without threads."
JavaScript and Flash ActionScript share a syntactical core - ECMAScript edition 2. Don't get me wrong, I like JavaScript; especially considering when JavaScript was released, it was an early glimpse of the next generation. It isn't Java, though.
As soon as you could buy just the music you wanted, the "album market" was dead. There won't be any more "dents" in that dead horse. Movies make sense, but not at even 4.1GB. We need a return to xvid and/or divx compression and cool VCDs, which would be download-able.
Java is a decent language. The library support is fantastic. With Sun opening up Java, its time to reconsider the use of a VM to draw our desktops. Certainly Java is preferred to Mono;-)
Still, there is a certain amount of Java-biased derision echoing about slashdot. Perhaps those issues need to be addressed before advocating the embracing of Java. Yet it is a decent language, one of the best of the curly bracket languages:-)
No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in
an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built-
in interpreter(s).
...is not mutually exclusive to:
After studying Apple's newly released SDK docs for 24 hours, Sun decided it was feasible to develop a JVM, based on Java Micro Edition, for both the iPhone and the iTouch.
...which fact is attributed Eric Klein, vice president of Java marketing at Sun, in TFA:
Sun came to the conclusion it could make a JVM work on the iPhone after taking 24 hours to look at information on Apple's SDK. Sun saw nothing in the public statements preventing the JVM from being one of the applications enabled on the iPhone, said Klein.
I don't "think" I was granted access to it, I *was* granted access to it. That is my point. You can't "prove" I knew I had no right to look at a billboard posted in Times Square exactly because it is ridiculous on the face of it to suggest anything publicly posted was ever meant to be selectively viewed. If I go to times square because someone told me about the billboard there, and I knew the copyright owners wanted to pretend to a right to make 90% of the street crowd look away from their sign, I'd still have every right to go look at it. And I probably would. Just to laugh at such a stupid circumstance.
If they paid a radio station to broadcast their music, could they use copyright to force "non-members" to not listen to the station while their song played?
An illegally obtained list of private information, or kiddie porn, or any other sort of illegal material would be accorded special status due to the nature of the content. In order to fit the metaphor to the article, one must assume that legal material was viewable. The question then becomes, if I put up a billboard in Times Square, can I require that only paid registered pedestrians can *look* at the content? Seems like that has to require a resounding, "hell, no!"
Really, I'd replace you 2nd question with a more central one:
Does the content provider have the right to "unaurhorize" someone from accessing a public, unsecured URL.
I'd argue that intent to "unauthorize" and the right to "unauthorize" are two independent factors. This latter must preexist in order for it to make sense to ask, "Did a given individual have prior knowledge that their access was unauthorized (by the content provider)?"
From my point of view, it seems there is no tenable argument that concludes the content provider has any right to limit access. Therefor their "intent" to do so is not relevant.
Actually it would be more like going to a city park and leaving a lot of food on a picnic table every day. The "front door" analogy implies you have walls and an entrance through the walls. The point to compare and contrast is exactly the right to access. I'd say the real question is did they realize that everyone *would* be entitled to access the URL by implementing their site in this specific method? Obviously their intention and what they actually did build are in conflict, but in the final analysis it is what they build, and not what they intended to build that really matters.
I'd suggest that your analogy could be extended thus:
A private, authenticated access system would be like having a dog show in a private venue. An open, public URL is like taking your dogs for a walk in Balboa Park. Everyone has the right to go there, and no one can stop you from looking at the other people and stuff there, too.
Is it more like walking into a library w/o a card and browsing the stacks and reading in the library, or like talking a book home?
The later makes the book unavailable. This would be akin to hacking their servers and deleting a file. The former (browsing the available library material) would be more like (browsing) the shows. The stream is still available. The real question is, do you have the right to walk into the "library" in the first place? If they have an authentication system in place, I'd say that cracking that would be a form of Breaking and Entering. If it is a public URL, then any intention to keep the URL secret is doomed to eventual failure, and wouldn't seem to me to matter legally or ethically.
Except that their method of distribution is more akin to building an open gym at a public park. Personal trainers here in San Diego do build businesses using state beach (and county and city) park areas. No problem. It works. But in terms of right to access, they have no more claim on the area than anyone else. If they wanted that, they'd have to build their own private club. Which is doable for Sprint, they just didn't ever actually do it, and now they want to pretend like they own rights they'd have had had they done so. If a broadcast TV station decieded they wanted to go cable, and pretended they had, and wanted to charge membership rates, they could do that. But by broadcasting on an open air-wave *anyone* can watch. Period. Pay-service model not relevant.
The question of whether history is "true" is germane to this discussion. When looking at evidence, one can say that it is true that the evidence is exactly what it is, no more or less. The implications inherent in compiling pieces of evidence imply conjecture and may or may not be true. The logic could be correct but information is missing, for instance.
I think my objection to the "person is dead but we can't know they are dead", and your objection to my objection is getting us closer, too. In terms of any search for truth, one relies on methodologies. Your presupposing the truth is cheating. What we have to do is observe and test and determine what we've observed and what the results of our tests are. This is the data we have, from which information is derived. To presume a fact not in evidence as part of an argument that evidence must therefor for be less than a perfect method appears to be less than a valid argument.
In terms of the names associated with things, the fact that we could reassign the symbol used to denote a physical fact doesn't change the fact, just the method of referencing the fact. Again, appears to be less than a valid argument.
Where I lose you totally is here:
Spirituality and philosophical natures of people can be totally different but still correct and true. And to a point of importance, that truth carries the same weight as some obscure piece of knowledge that know one will use unless they go into a very specific and narrow field of work. It is this reason that I think you can have two truths.
Let me try to paraphrase, because this is what I am understanding you to say:
Belief systems can conflict and still be correct and true. The "truth" that conflicting statements of fact can both be true is more important than any other fact. It is because conflicting statements of fact can both be true that I think you can have two truths.
Let me lay my cards on the table, we might save time. Evolution is an observed empirical fact. You can't deny repeated experiments that measure the rate of change. However, the Theory of Natural Selection tries to use these observed facts to posit an explanation of historical events which can't be measured directly in any sort of double blind experiment. The "story" of this history is useful for making predictions, but it can never be elevated to the authority of observed fact unless we can develop a time machine. Oh well. Good luck with that. This doesn't mean that evolution isn't occurring, because said evolution is easily measured.
This is actually a problem that many Physicists have not only with the Theory of Evolution, but also with cosmological theories, although at least telescopes and the speed of light give Astronomers the chance to peak backwards. Still, First Causes are problematic. Always have been, and to my limited intellectual capacity it appears they perhaps will always be problematic.
Now onward to the real meat of my dispute, which is that when dealing with any search for the truth, we need to employ methodologies and actively seek out the truth. I support the scientific method because I know of no better way to actively probe reality. The establishment of facts is essential. The development of theory and models is based on the ability to extend known facts to precisely predict outcomes which can be tested. However, and this is a bone I pick with fellow fans of science on occasion, at the point that you beleive the model, you have quit doing science and are entering the domain of belief systems. Rather, models are *useful* rather than "true". Newtonian Mechanics is useful, even though Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have very different explanations for what is really going on. But engineers can build perfectly fine bridges using Newtonian Mechanics. The differences between models (the level of conflict) decreases so long as certain parameters remain small, so the "lie" doesn't matter in that the
The more appropriate way to discuss the cause of this difference is Gravitational Time Dilation, which is "the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the higher the local distortion of space-time due to gravity, the slower time passes". Thus the frequency changes due to the change in time rate. The time rate change is just a matter of the differences in potential, so the time rate change would be the same for blue light as for yellow light, or for human beings, for that matter.
We can measure this time dilation using atomic clocks and changes in potential of Earth's gravity well. We can also bounce signals off of Venus that pass close to the Sun, where we see a delay in the signal resulting from the different time rates of the regions the signal must pass through. "The effect is significant enough that the Global Positioning System needs to correct for its effect on clocks aboard artificial satellites, providing a further experimental confirmation of the effect."
if it acted based on the energy of the light, the amount of redshift would vary depending on the wavelength http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
The change in wavelength is dependent of the delta potential due to the gravity field. The shift is independent of where you start, it is a change in energy. Using money as an example, if your delta cash is $5, then it doesn't matter if you start at $100 or $1000, you get $5 *less*. It makes no sense to suggest that a $5 debt would subtract more from $1000 than from a $100. You get $995 and $95, respectively. You *don't* shift the grand by more or less than the $5.
Likewise, to say "someone died at a location but we have no proof" is to assert a fact that can't be in evidence, which also has no place in science. However, to say "we have no evidence that this person died" means just that, we don't know if they are dead or just hiding. Only by putting the horse before the cart can you pretend there is an issue here.
Also note: the use of defined terms is not just integral to science but communication in general. You seem to suggest that having a specific definition is narrowing. Well, yes it is, and that is a good thing. Ambiguity leads to misunderstanding and confusion and should be avoided.
In terms of equating the damage that sustained willful ignorance does to one's children to a preference for the color red or blue, this perfectly illustrates the critical danger of delusional thinking. You can't use preferences to determine physical reality. When light has the frequency of red, for instance, it is bizarre to prefer to perceive it as blue, and truly sick to be able to actually learn to see blue when looking at red. You mistake truth for preference. As a specific example of the difference in question here, you might prefer gold to silver, but the associated atomic weights and densities of these elements are measured quantities, *not* preferences.
I would suggest that your conclusion really states: there are proven facts that I'd rather remain ignorant of, since they conflict with my preferred world view. I can get along just find so long as I don't have to look too closely at these facts, as could other people; indeed if only everyone ignored these facts it would be easier for me to do so as well.
There are times to refine a model, and times to extend it. Tearing it down is exciting. Think Quantum Mechanics, or Relativity. Both turned Physics upside down and inside out (as likewise did Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for the field of Mathematics).
Slashdot Mirror
Cool trick!
Agreed that the alleged "troll" was politely pointing out FUD. The score won't last.
Makes you wonder. I heard that Walmart stores were selling out of them in about 3 days. If so, and if they really do sell faster online, then they must be moving a *lot* of them online!
Obviously they confused "market share" with "desktop share" and might not know what a server even is...(queue joke regarding the newbie who thought MS made a server OS).
But does that $278 "with Vista Home Basic" include a free upgrade to WinXP? If not, what does the upgrade cost?
Most people who own computers have higher than HDTV resolution. Yet HDTV isn't a non-starter. Obviously it isn't for every venue, but I've seen people quite surprised at the resolution a decent 700 MB xvid compressed video will attain. Likewise, the fact that a lot of people own nice stereos (and more people own nice stereos than HDTV) doesn't mean MP3s are a non-starter...
"Actionscript 3 is also not that bad a language. It's pretty much java without threads."
JavaScript and Flash ActionScript share a syntactical core - ECMAScript edition 2. Don't get me wrong, I like JavaScript; especially considering when JavaScript was released, it was an early glimpse of the next generation. It isn't Java, though.
As soon as you could buy just the music you wanted, the "album market" was dead. There won't be any more "dents" in that dead horse. Movies make sense, but not at even 4.1GB. We need a return to xvid and/or divx compression and cool VCDs, which would be download-able.
I'd rather download a 700MB xvid or divx than a DVD iso. Time is significant. The quality is acceptable. Maybe its time to bring back XVCD?
Agreed that Java is preferred to Flash.
;-)
:-)
Java is a decent language. The library support is fantastic. With Sun opening up Java, its time to reconsider the use of a VM to draw our desktops. Certainly Java is preferred to Mono
Still, there is a certain amount of Java-biased derision echoing about slashdot. Perhaps those issues need to be addressed before advocating the embracing of Java. Yet it is a decent language, one of the best of the curly bracket languages
I don't "think" I was granted access to it, I *was* granted access to it. That is my point. You can't "prove" I knew I had no right to look at a billboard posted in Times Square exactly because it is ridiculous on the face of it to suggest anything publicly posted was ever meant to be selectively viewed. If I go to times square because someone told me about the billboard there, and I knew the copyright owners wanted to pretend to a right to make 90% of the street crowd look away from their sign, I'd still have every right to go look at it. And I probably would. Just to laugh at such a stupid circumstance.
If they paid a radio station to broadcast their music, could they use copyright to force "non-members" to not listen to the station while their song played?
Actually the Sabbath is on Saturday.
An illegally obtained list of private information, or kiddie porn, or any other sort of illegal material would be accorded special status due to the nature of the content. In order to fit the metaphor to the article, one must assume that legal material was viewable. The question then becomes, if I put up a billboard in Times Square, can I require that only paid registered pedestrians can *look* at the content? Seems like that has to require a resounding, "hell, no!"
I'd argue that intent to "unauthorize" and the right to "unauthorize" are two independent factors. This latter must preexist in order for it to make sense to ask, "Did a given individual have prior knowledge that their access was unauthorized (by the content provider)?"
From my point of view, it seems there is no tenable argument that concludes the content provider has any right to limit access. Therefor their "intent" to do so is not relevant.
Actually it would be more like going to a city park and leaving a lot of food on a picnic table every day. The "front door" analogy implies you have walls and an entrance through the walls. The point to compare and contrast is exactly the right to access. I'd say the real question is did they realize that everyone *would* be entitled to access the URL by implementing their site in this specific method? Obviously their intention and what they actually did build are in conflict, but in the final analysis it is what they build, and not what they intended to build that really matters.
I'd suggest that your analogy could be extended thus:
A private, authenticated access system would be like having a dog show in a private venue. An open, public URL is like taking your dogs for a walk in Balboa Park. Everyone has the right to go there, and no one can stop you from looking at the other people and stuff there, too.
Is it more like walking into a library w/o a card and browsing the stacks and reading in the library, or like talking a book home? The later makes the book unavailable. This would be akin to hacking their servers and deleting a file. The former (browsing the available library material) would be more like (browsing) the shows. The stream is still available. The real question is, do you have the right to walk into the "library" in the first place? If they have an authentication system in place, I'd say that cracking that would be a form of Breaking and Entering. If it is a public URL, then any intention to keep the URL secret is doomed to eventual failure, and wouldn't seem to me to matter legally or ethically.
Except that their method of distribution is more akin to building an open gym at a public park. Personal trainers here in San Diego do build businesses using state beach (and county and city) park areas. No problem. It works. But in terms of right to access, they have no more claim on the area than anyone else. If they wanted that, they'd have to build their own private club. Which is doable for Sprint, they just didn't ever actually do it, and now they want to pretend like they own rights they'd have had had they done so. If a broadcast TV station decieded they wanted to go cable, and pretended they had, and wanted to charge membership rates, they could do that. But by broadcasting on an open air-wave *anyone* can watch. Period. Pay-service model not relevant.
I think my objection to the "person is dead but we can't know they are dead", and your objection to my objection is getting us closer, too. In terms of any search for truth, one relies on methodologies. Your presupposing the truth is cheating. What we have to do is observe and test and determine what we've observed and what the results of our tests are. This is the data we have, from which information is derived. To presume a fact not in evidence as part of an argument that evidence must therefor for be less than a perfect method appears to be less than a valid argument.
In terms of the names associated with things, the fact that we could reassign the symbol used to denote a physical fact doesn't change the fact, just the method of referencing the fact. Again, appears to be less than a valid argument.
Where I lose you totally is here:
Let me try to paraphrase, because this is what I am understanding you to say:
Belief systems can conflict and still be correct and true. The "truth" that conflicting statements of fact can both be true is more important than any other fact. It is because conflicting statements of fact can both be true that I think you can have two truths.
Let me lay my cards on the table, we might save time. Evolution is an observed empirical fact. You can't deny repeated experiments that measure the rate of change. However, the Theory of Natural Selection tries to use these observed facts to posit an explanation of historical events which can't be measured directly in any sort of double blind experiment. The "story" of this history is useful for making predictions, but it can never be elevated to the authority of observed fact unless we can develop a time machine. Oh well. Good luck with that. This doesn't mean that evolution isn't occurring, because said evolution is easily measured.
This is actually a problem that many Physicists have not only with the Theory of Evolution, but also with cosmological theories, although at least telescopes and the speed of light give Astronomers the chance to peak backwards. Still, First Causes are problematic. Always have been, and to my limited intellectual capacity it appears they perhaps will always be problematic.
Now onward to the real meat of my dispute, which is that when dealing with any search for the truth, we need to employ methodologies and actively seek out the truth. I support the scientific method because I know of no better way to actively probe reality. The establishment of facts is essential. The development of theory and models is based on the ability to extend known facts to precisely predict outcomes which can be tested. However, and this is a bone I pick with fellow fans of science on occasion, at the point that you beleive the model, you have quit doing science and are entering the domain of belief systems. Rather, models are *useful* rather than "true". Newtonian Mechanics is useful, even though Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have very different explanations for what is really going on. But engineers can build perfectly fine bridges using Newtonian Mechanics. The differences between models (the level of conflict) decreases so long as certain parameters remain small, so the "lie" doesn't matter in that the
The more appropriate way to discuss the cause of this difference is Gravitational Time Dilation, which is "the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the higher the local distortion of space-time due to gravity, the slower time passes". Thus the frequency changes due to the change in time rate. The time rate change is just a matter of the differences in potential, so the time rate change would be the same for blue light as for yellow light, or for human beings, for that matter.
We can measure this time dilation using atomic clocks and changes in potential of Earth's gravity well. We can also bounce signals off of Venus that pass close to the Sun, where we see a delay in the signal resulting from the different time rates of the regions the signal must pass through. "The effect is significant enough that the Global Positioning System needs to correct for its effect on clocks aboard artificial satellites, providing a further experimental confirmation of the effect."
if it acted based on the energy of the light, the amount of redshift would vary depending on the wavelength
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
The change in wavelength is dependent of the delta potential due to the gravity field. The shift is independent of where you start, it is a change in energy. Using money as an example, if your delta cash is $5, then it doesn't matter if you start at $100 or $1000, you get $5 *less*. It makes no sense to suggest that a $5 debt would subtract more from $1000 than from a $100. You get $995 and $95, respectively. You *don't* shift the grand by more or less than the $5.
Note: history is not a science.
Likewise, to say "someone died at a location but we have no proof" is to assert a fact that can't be in evidence, which also has no place in science. However, to say "we have no evidence that this person died" means just that, we don't know if they are dead or just hiding. Only by putting the horse before the cart can you pretend there is an issue here.
Also note: the use of defined terms is not just integral to science but communication in general. You seem to suggest that having a specific definition is narrowing. Well, yes it is, and that is a good thing. Ambiguity leads to misunderstanding and confusion and should be avoided.
In terms of equating the damage that sustained willful ignorance does to one's children to a preference for the color red or blue, this perfectly illustrates the critical danger of delusional thinking. You can't use preferences to determine physical reality. When light has the frequency of red, for instance, it is bizarre to prefer to perceive it as blue, and truly sick to be able to actually learn to see blue when looking at red. You mistake truth for preference. As a specific example of the difference in question here, you might prefer gold to silver, but the associated atomic weights and densities of these elements are measured quantities, *not* preferences.
I would suggest that your conclusion really states: there are proven facts that I'd rather remain ignorant of, since they conflict with my preferred world view. I can get along just find so long as I don't have to look too closely at these facts, as could other people; indeed if only everyone ignored these facts it would be easier for me to do so as well.
There are times to refine a model, and times to extend it. Tearing it down is exciting. Think Quantum Mechanics, or Relativity. Both turned Physics upside down and inside out (as likewise did Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for the field of Mathematics).