No. You and everyone else saying things that amount to this are wrong. Copyright applies to things that may be copied, which performances are not. You cannot hold a copyright on a performance. You can hold a copyright on a recording. You can take legal and/or technological steps to ensure nobody records your performance that doesn't assign you the copyright to that recording. But the performance and the recording of it are different things, and the performance cannot be copyrighted because it cannot be copied.
The words to a song can also be copied, and can be copyrighted. There are two copyrights possibly at play here, and Prince owns neither of them.
And maybe it wasn't really Prince, but Elvis, back from the grave, so the copyright really rests with the aliens who resurrected him!
How about we restrict our analysis to the facts as best we know them, rather than making up whatever unsupported hypothetical situation it takes to make your post make sense. (Not that one could actually file a take down notice even under the situation you describe, but that's beside the point.) I see no reason to believe the facts or legal situation are anything other than what the reporter who actually researched the story presents them to be. The idea that Prince filed a takedown notice despite not having any right to do so is both perfectly possible, and sadly consistent with his history.
True of the OS and all 6 of the 8 programs I have open whose language I know. Argue features and syntax all day if you like, in the end, the successful languages are the ones that produce the programs people run.
Some people like to use languages other than C++ because they're doing something quick and simple, which is reasonable. Some people like to use languages other than C++ because they think C++ is too hard; I don't think other languages will solve their problem. Some people like to use C instead of C++ because they think their code will be faster; they're wrong. There are probably some smart, reasonable people who want to use something other than C++ just out of personal preference; Not everyone can have good taste.
He understands why Kevin Bacon was chosen. If you don't understand why the thinks Erdos Numbers are a better choice, you're not enough of a geek. The calculation of Erdos Numbers is a dorky meme predating both the World Wide Web and the professional career of Kevin Bacon.
My point was to agree with what I thought you were saying - that "proof" of the sort that exists in Mathematics does not exist in any Science - but to point out that it wasn't relevant here, because Astronomy is on as firm footing as any Science.
Perhaps I did not understand your original point correctly, as I certainly haven't a clue what you're on about now. Knowledge of Astrophysics isn't as sound because you can't build stuff with it? Evolution hasn't given us tangible things (besides half of modern medicine)?
Thank you mister Philosophy. This is Physics, where we do not generally speak of "proving" things. But when laymen do use that word, we don't interpret it in the strict philosophical sense which can only be true in Mathematics. Rather we interpret such statements as they were obviously intended, e.g. "Oh, look at these stupid astronomers, just making up stuff; they don't really know anything". When trying to explain to someone making such a statement that they are wrong, (and an idiot), it's kind of annoying to have pedants popping up saying, "well, if you take his statement out of context, and interpret it in a way he obviously didn't mean, it's technically true." And it's downright unhelpful to the world in general to have them leave out the context and say "That statement is true."
Nobody has ever thought dark matter explained anything at all that this discovery explains instead. "Perfectly normal" matter does not explain anything that dark matter explains, assuming by "perfectly normal" you mean "baryonic". That is, in essence, the only thing we actually know about dark matter at all: There are things about the universe that cannot be explained by "perfectly normal" matter. If perfectly normal matter sufficed to explain these things, we wouldn't think there was dark matter in the first place.
To which the answer is: NO, this is not the dark matter. This does not explain the dark matter. This is unrelated to dark matter.
Which is perfectly clear if you RTFA before posting. Or even payed close attention when reading the summary. I realize this are a bit much to ask. But when you post in ignorance, and someone says, "No, RTFA"... At that point, before you argue with them, for the love of God, RTFA!
"in the US today....$100K a year does NOT make you rich" If that's the whole household, you're in the top 15%. I'd call that "rich"
"I saw another post that said the US median income was only $35K.." They're slightly wrong. Median Household income is about 50K. Per Capita income is about 25K.
"I don't see how people make ends meet, unless they live in a very rural area." Half of the country is below that median, and most of them live in very urban areas.
"If they want some luxuries, as most of us do..." I suspect you have an entirely different concept of what constitutes "luxuries" than most people.
Do note that I'm not slamming you; by my own calculations, I'm rich. But I work with demographics extensively, and find it interesting that pretty much everyone thinks they are "scraping by". Anytime someone assures you that it's impossible to live in their area for less than X dollars, it's a safe bet X is at least twice the median for that area.
I'm breaking my usual rule by replying to an AC, but it's exciting that someone somewhere jumped to the same connection as me:
"Hydras are clearly better than Dragons. They have the same skill factor and a better power factor. They recruit in more places that are easier to get to. Their terrain specialties are about a wash. The only thing really going for Dragons is that they can recruit Colossus."
Sure, toe-to-toe in battle Hydras are marginally better than Dragons, but you neglect the advantage of flying, which has got to be worth at least 1 power.
If you pursue a strictly focussed development goal, getting them is not that much different, baring interference, so it really depends on the aggressiveness of your opponents. You could call the terrain bonuses a wash, but being able to live in the Volcano is just cool.
But really, being able to recruit Colossus (Colossi?) is the main thing, but that's huge. Essential if you really want to build the uber-stack.
Seriously. If our sales guys had the clients name, we'd eat his lunch.
He seems to think 2-8 GB is a big database. If the customer wants some custom report, he thinks emailing someone who writes custom SQL and sends them an excel spreadsheet the next day is a process that "ticks along happily". If your customer is asking for direct SQL access so they can bypass you and do stuff themselves, your process is not ticking along happily.
My point is, the question isn't "Is someone able to develop a workable exploit?", but rather "Was someone able to develop a workable exploit?" And the answer is: we don't know.
Well, I'm not saying I think his standard is at all complete, or the end-all-be-all of defining what is valuable life. I'm just saying, if you point out that it says an adult chimpanzee deserves more protection than a single cell that happens to contain human DNA... don't expect me to take your observation as an objection. Obviously the chimp deserves more protection; what sort of monster would say otherwise?
Basic cryptographic services have been compromised for a year and your analysis is to assume on faith that it's open source so it will be fixed, so no problem?
If someone stole your crypto keys and has had them for a year...
How thoroughly might they have compromised your system by now? How many passwords might they have stolen that you use on other systems? What else might they have done that will give them access in the future even after you fix this?
Just regenerate your keys and no problem? The problem that guessable keys are generated will undoubtably be fixed asap, if not already. The problem that this has been the case for the last year will not be, and is a big worry.
"'I understand this is the argument, but I think it's false.' It is not false. It is very true right now. "
Um, maybe I don't understand the argument then. The argument I thought I was replying to was that manned missions get funded more than robotic ones because the public and congress like them more. So if we cut manned missions, NASA as a whole would get less money, and we'd get less science. My intuition is that unmanned missions get so much more science done, and manned missions take so much more money, that the total output would be greater, even though I agree politics would lead to less total funding. This is all wildly speculative, which is why I say "I think", and "My intuition is". If you can tell me "It is not false. It is very true right now." you don't understand what I'm talking about, which is the entirely hypothetical results of a policy shift that isn't going to happen anyway.
"I suggest you look a little more closely at the science that has been done on earth."
I entirely support having humans do things on earth. Humans are very smart and resourceful and good at lots of things. When a team of humans on earth needs a remote manipulator and sensor platform off of Earth, I don't think that's a good job for a human.
"Doing something on paper is one thing, seeing that it works out is another. It would not have been the first time the 'paper' was wrong, or that something unexpected happened."
Sure, but if the question is "do boomerangs work in zero-G?" it's pretty unlikely anything unexpected is going to happen; the physics involved is wonderfully well understood. Additionally, zero-G environments suitable for trying this are available much much cheaper than the ISS. And finally, who the hell could possibly care if boomerangs work in zero G?!?
"but there are other benefits for humans. Ones that robots can't do."
That's what I'm disagreeing with. If you've got a robot there, and there is something it can't do that a human could, you can research, design, build, and launch another robot that can do it. You can do that something like a hundred times for the same time and money to get the human there. I submit that a hundred generations of robots will do absolutely every last thing the the first human would, and a heck of a lot more besides.
"Manned missions, on the other hand, get you more buck for your buck."
I understand this is the argument, but I think it's false. If they dropped manned exploration, I predict that NASA as a whole would get considerably less money total, robotic space exploration would get considerably more money, and the world would get far more useful science.
NASA has cut a heck of a lot of really solid science in favor of the ISS and idle speculation about other manned missions.
"Just being in orbit isn't cool anymore." So why do we do it? Let's try my test a different way, and try to think of scientific discoveries by either team. Let's see, the rovers have given us a totally new understanding of Martian geology. And the ISS guys? All that I can come up with is that boomerangs work in zero G. Can anyone come up with something an undergrad couldn't have calculated the answer to right here on earth?
"That's why missions like the one in this story are important."
Missions like the one in the story are not going to happen. We're going to waste a heck of a lot of money on them just to get to the point where we can accurately state with confidence that we don't wish to spend anything close to the money it would take. But we'll trash all manner of useful unmanned stuff in the course of souring the public on space exploration as a ridiculous boondoggle that doesn't ultimately go anywhere.
Design a robot that can flip over the rock and send that. Repeat a hundred times, and you're still spending less money and doing it in less time than sending one human.
Humans are very resourceful, I agree. But that includes the ones that build robots, and they have don't have to make return trips, don't care much if some probes crash, don't have to take any life support, etc. etc.
I tend to think the greater versatility of humans is overrated. Yeah, they could decide to walk over to that ridge and see what's there all on their own, but they're not going to without consulting mission control anyway. The robotic planners spend a whole day deciding because they can - the robot isn't using up his oxygen.
While the first human is doing whatever versatile thing you imagine before lunchtime, the hundreth robot will be doing something far more specifically useful, with more appropriate equiptment. Robots aren't just vastly cheaper, they're vastly faster, because we can send them when we're only reasonably sure they'll arive in one piece. Which is why we've got robots there doing stuff on Mars now, while human space exploration is idly talking about going there some day, though personally I wouldn't bet on it this century.
Compare what a human will do not to what the next several robots will, but to every robot until the human gets there, even if we assume a rosier projection than mine of when that is. I think the robots win. Now, if the robots had the humans budget... No contest.
"But when you combine that with the human desire to explore and to expand, the hypothetical survival imperative for leaving earth,"
I argue these are better served by robots. I'm dubious about the prospects for establishing self-sufficient colonies off earth in any case, but if we're ever going to get there we need a heck of a lot more knowledge first, and robots acquire it more efficiently.
"...plus the tangential benefits..."
Tangential benefits aren't a reason to do things a specific way. You get jobs, technologies and understanding you haven't though of, etc. whether you do spend the money on human space exploration or some other enterprise with better direct results.
Slashdot Mirror
"Prince owns the performance he gave"
No. You and everyone else saying things that amount to this are wrong. Copyright applies to things that may be copied, which performances are not. You cannot hold a copyright on a performance. You can hold a copyright on a recording. You can take legal and/or technological steps to ensure nobody records your performance that doesn't assign you the copyright to that recording. But the performance and the recording of it are different things, and the performance cannot be copyrighted because it cannot be copied.
The words to a song can also be copied, and can be copyrighted. There are two copyrights possibly at play here, and Prince owns neither of them.
And maybe it wasn't really Prince, but Elvis, back from the grave, so the copyright really rests with the aliens who resurrected him!
How about we restrict our analysis to the facts as best we know them, rather than making up whatever unsupported hypothetical situation it takes to make your post make sense. (Not that one could actually file a take down notice even under the situation you describe, but that's beside the point.) I see no reason to believe the facts or legal situation are anything other than what the reporter who actually researched the story presents them to be. The idea that Prince filed a takedown notice despite not having any right to do so is both perfectly possible, and sadly consistent with his history.
True of the OS and all 6 of the 8 programs I have open whose language I know. Argue features and syntax all day if you like, in the end, the successful languages are the ones that produce the programs people run.
Some people like to use languages other than C++ because they're doing something quick and simple, which is reasonable. Some people like to use languages other than C++ because they think C++ is too hard; I don't think other languages will solve their problem. Some people like to use C instead of C++ because they think their code will be faster; they're wrong. There are probably some smart, reasonable people who want to use something other than C++ just out of personal preference; Not everyone can have good taste.
He understands why Kevin Bacon was chosen.
If you don't understand why the thinks Erdos Numbers are a better choice, you're not enough of a geek. The calculation of Erdos Numbers is a dorky meme predating both the World Wide Web and the professional career of Kevin Bacon.
Sorry pops, you're out of style. These days, the cool kids these days have UIDs that are *prime*.
My point was to agree with what I thought you were saying - that "proof" of the sort that exists in Mathematics does not exist in any Science - but to point out that it wasn't relevant here, because Astronomy is on as firm footing as any Science.
Perhaps I did not understand your original point correctly, as I certainly haven't a clue what you're on about now. Knowledge of Astrophysics isn't as sound because you can't build stuff with it? Evolution hasn't given us tangible things (besides half of modern medicine)?
No, it wouldn't be. The world is older than your religion, and both the Egyptians and Sumerians produced earlier folk tale anthologies.
Thank you mister Philosophy. This is Physics, where we do not generally speak of "proving" things. But when laymen do use that word, we don't interpret it in the strict philosophical sense which can only be true in Mathematics. Rather we interpret such statements as they were obviously intended, e.g. "Oh, look at these stupid astronomers, just making up stuff; they don't really know anything". When trying to explain to someone making such a statement that they are wrong, (and an idiot), it's kind of annoying to have pedants popping up saying, "well, if you take his statement out of context, and interpret it in a way he obviously didn't mean, it's technically true." And it's downright unhelpful to the world in general to have them leave out the context and say "That statement is true."
RTFA! RTFA! RTFA!
Nobody has ever thought dark matter explained anything at all that this discovery explains instead. "Perfectly normal" matter does not explain anything that dark matter explains, assuming by "perfectly normal" you mean "baryonic". That is, in essence, the only thing we actually know about dark matter at all: There are things about the universe that cannot be explained by "perfectly normal" matter. If perfectly normal matter sufficed to explain these things, we wouldn't think there was dark matter in the first place.
You did say: "Dark Matter???"
... At that point, before you argue with them, for the love of God, RTFA!
To which the answer is: NO, this is not the dark matter. This does not explain the dark matter. This is unrelated to dark matter.
Which is perfectly clear if you RTFA before posting. Or even payed close attention when reading the summary. I realize this are a bit much to ask. But when you post in ignorance, and someone says, "No, RTFA"
"in the US today....$100K a year does NOT make you rich"
If that's the whole household, you're in the top 15%. I'd call that "rich"
"I saw another post that said the US median income was only $35K.."
They're slightly wrong. Median Household income is about 50K. Per Capita income is about 25K.
"I don't see how people make ends meet, unless they live in a very rural area."
Half of the country is below that median, and most of them live in very urban areas.
"If they want some luxuries, as most of us do..."
I suspect you have an entirely different concept of what constitutes "luxuries" than most people.
Do note that I'm not slamming you; by my own calculations, I'm rich. But I work with demographics extensively, and find it interesting that pretty much everyone thinks they are "scraping by". Anytime someone assures you that it's impossible to live in their area for less than X dollars, it's a safe bet X is at least twice the median for that area.
And that statement is: "I am an idiot"
I'm breaking my usual rule by replying to an AC, but it's exciting that someone somewhere jumped to the same connection as me:
"Hydras are clearly better than Dragons. They have the same skill factor and a better power factor.
They recruit in more places that are easier to get to. Their terrain specialties are about a wash.
The only thing really going for Dragons is that they can recruit Colossus."
Sure, toe-to-toe in battle Hydras are marginally better than Dragons, but you neglect the advantage of flying, which has got to be worth at least 1 power.
If you pursue a strictly focussed development goal, getting them is not that much different, baring interference, so it really depends on the aggressiveness of your opponents. You could call the terrain bonuses a wash, but being able to live in the Volcano is just cool.
But really, being able to recruit Colossus (Colossi?) is the main thing, but that's huge. Essential if you really want to build the uber-stack.
Seriously. If our sales guys had the clients name, we'd eat his lunch.
He seems to think 2-8 GB is a big database. If the customer wants some custom report, he thinks emailing someone who writes custom SQL and sends them an excel spreadsheet the next day is a process that "ticks along happily". If your customer is asking for direct SQL access so they can bypass you and do stuff themselves, your process is not ticking along happily.
My point is, the question isn't "Is someone able to develop a workable exploit?", but rather "Was someone able to develop a workable exploit?" And the answer is: we don't know.
Well, I'm not saying I think his standard is at all complete, or the end-all-be-all of defining what is valuable life. I'm just saying, if you point out that it says an adult chimpanzee deserves more protection than a single cell that happens to contain human DNA... don't expect me to take your observation as an objection. Obviously the chimp deserves more protection; what sort of monster would say otherwise?
Basic cryptographic services have been compromised for a year and your analysis is to assume on faith that it's open source so it will be fixed, so no problem?
If someone stole your crypto keys and has had them for a year...
How thoroughly might they have compromised your system by now?
How many passwords might they have stolen that you use on other systems?
What else might they have done that will give them access in the future even after you fix this?
Just regenerate your keys and no problem? The problem that guessable keys are generated will undoubtably be fixed asap, if not already. The problem that this has been the case for the last year will not be, and is a big worry.
You seem to think "distinct" is the opposite of "arbitrary". It is not.
So you're saying that by his standard, an adult chimpanzee has a greater moral status than a single-celled human zygote?
Well, OK, so I agree and think his standard is doing well so far.
"Robotic missions can not do nearly what a team of people can do, not yet, and probably not for 20 years."
So when do you expect humans will be spending a year exploring the surface of Mars? The way robots are, you know, currently.
"'I understand this is the argument, but I think it's false.'
It is not false. It is very true right now. "
Um, maybe I don't understand the argument then. The argument I thought I was replying to was that manned missions get funded more than robotic ones because the public and congress like them more. So if we cut manned missions, NASA as a whole would get less money, and we'd get less science. My intuition is that unmanned missions get so much more science done, and manned missions take so much more money, that the total output would be greater, even though I agree politics would lead to less total funding. This is all wildly speculative, which is why I say "I think", and "My intuition is". If you can tell me "It is not false. It is very true right now." you don't understand what I'm talking about, which is the entirely hypothetical results of a policy shift that isn't going to happen anyway.
"I suggest you look a little more closely at the science that has been done on earth."
I entirely support having humans do things on earth. Humans are very smart and resourceful and good at lots of things. When a team of humans on earth needs a remote manipulator and sensor platform off of Earth, I don't think that's a good job for a human.
"Doing something on paper is one thing, seeing that it works out is another. It would not have been the first time the 'paper' was wrong, or that something unexpected happened."
Sure, but if the question is "do boomerangs work in zero-G?" it's pretty unlikely anything unexpected is going to happen; the physics involved is wonderfully well understood. Additionally, zero-G environments suitable for trying this are available much much cheaper than the ISS. And finally, who the hell could possibly care if boomerangs work in zero G?!?
"but there are other benefits for humans. Ones that robots can't do."
That's what I'm disagreeing with. If you've got a robot there, and there is something it can't do that a human could, you can research, design, build, and launch another robot that can do it. You can do that something like a hundred times for the same time and money to get the human there. I submit that a hundred generations of robots will do absolutely every last thing the the first human would, and a heck of a lot more besides.
"Manned missions, on the other hand, get you more buck for your buck."
I understand this is the argument, but I think it's false. If they dropped manned exploration, I predict that NASA as a whole would get considerably less money total, robotic space exploration would get considerably more money, and the world would get far more useful science.
NASA has cut a heck of a lot of really solid science in favor of the ISS and idle speculation about other manned missions.
"Just being in orbit isn't cool anymore."
So why do we do it? Let's try my test a different way, and try to think of scientific discoveries by either team. Let's see, the rovers have given us a totally new understanding of Martian geology. And the ISS guys? All that I can come up with is that boomerangs work in zero G. Can anyone come up with something an undergrad couldn't have calculated the answer to right here on earth?
"That's why missions like the one in this story are important."
Missions like the one in the story are not going to happen. We're going to waste a heck of a lot of money on them just to get to the point where we can accurately state with confidence that we don't wish to spend anything close to the money it would take. But we'll trash all manner of useful unmanned stuff in the course of souring the public on space exploration as a ridiculous boondoggle that doesn't ultimately go anywhere.
Design a robot that can flip over the rock and send that. Repeat a hundred times, and you're still spending less money and doing it in less time than sending one human.
Humans are very resourceful, I agree. But that includes the ones that build robots, and they have don't have to make return trips, don't care much if some probes crash, don't have to take any life support, etc. etc.
I tend to think the greater versatility of humans is overrated. Yeah, they could decide to walk over to that ridge and see what's there all on their own, but they're not going to without consulting mission control anyway. The robotic planners spend a whole day deciding because they can - the robot isn't using up his oxygen.
While the first human is doing whatever versatile thing you imagine before lunchtime, the hundreth robot will be doing something far more specifically useful, with more appropriate equiptment. Robots aren't just vastly cheaper, they're vastly faster, because we can send them when we're only reasonably sure they'll arive in one piece. Which is why we've got robots there doing stuff on Mars now, while human space exploration is idly talking about going there some day, though personally I wouldn't bet on it this century.
Compare what a human will do not to what the next several robots will, but to every robot until the human gets there, even if we assume a rosier projection than mine of when that is. I think the robots win. Now, if the robots had the humans budget... No contest.
"But when you combine that with the human desire to explore and to expand, the hypothetical survival imperative for leaving earth,"
I argue these are better served by robots. I'm dubious about the prospects for establishing self-sufficient colonies off earth in any case, but if we're ever going to get there we need a heck of a lot more knowledge first, and robots acquire it more efficiently.
"...plus the tangential benefits..."
Tangential benefits aren't a reason to do things a specific way. You get jobs, technologies and understanding you haven't though of, etc. whether you do spend the money on human space exploration or some other enterprise with better direct results.