Actually, having read about this elsewhere days ago, the methodology was to take each short story, and present it in three forms: unaltered, preceded by a paragraph spoiling it, and with a spoiler paragraph inserted in the text (before the twist).
That's exactly what it says in the article the summary links to too.
Technically speaking, the question is meaningless, since...
1) The #xxxxxx system describes what colour an object displays under specific conditions (for example, lighting), not an object's innate light reflection ability (albedo). 2) The #xxxxxx system doesn't describe colour on an absolute scale; it only orders colours in an arbitrary space with an arbitrary metric. For example, there's no guarantee that #000002 is twice as bright as #000001, and there's no guarantee that #000000 is absolute black. Even when a monitor is turned off, the screen is slightly brighter than absolute black, and when it's turned on with all pixels set to #000000, it's a little brighter still. That's why for example printers and researchers need to use better systems for measuring colours.
Copyright prevents reverse-engineering, since it's used to enforce the license agreement. Without copyright, you don't need a license, and therefore don't need to accept the license agreement.
I'm not sure what the GP meant, but "robbing of the public domain" can refer to the fact that Disney et al use public domain works to create their own films, such as the Jungle Book, Peter Pan, and so on, but start lobbying for copyright extensions as soon as their own works come close to falling into the public domain. That is, companies like Disney make use of the public domain without contributing anything themselves.
It can also refer to the problem with "orphaned works", i.e, works that are no longer commercially available, but you can't obtain permission from the creator(s) to use them, so the works just rot away an archive somewhere. The vast majority of books, films, photographs and so on lose their commercial viability after a few years, but they're still protected by copyright for a century(*) just so the the media companies can continue to collect royalties on a few long-lived works. In other words, companies like Disney take an active role in destroying the public domain (even if it's just as a side effect of their commercial greed).
Saying that opposition to draft is a "clear and present danger" is ludicrous. It's, at most, a danger at some other place at some time in the future. Freedom of speech always tends to get mangled during times of war.
Which is one of the reasons we shouldn't allow ourselves to be fooled into believing we are in a war, for example, a "war against terrorism". Politicians exaggerate the external threats to justify impopular decisions.
Obvious? You don't even know what context it was said in, unless you know Arabic and have checked up the original post.
If I say "If Western society continues to respond to terrorism with military means, we shouldn't be surprised if there are even more bombings", is that also an incitement to violence? Should I be arrested for saying it?
The American constitution doesn't list the exceptions to freedom of speech, but American courts still assume that things like fraud, slander and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre are not covered by it. Which probably is a good thing.
The European Convention On Human Rights explicitly allows limitations on freedom of speech which are "necessary in a free and democratic society", but it keeps the exception vague and up to the courts to interpret.
This was what Mahfouz allegedly wrote, translated from Arabic: “If justice is not achieved and the justice system fails us, no-one should feel upset or surprised if armed gangs emerge to carry out assassinations. As long as there is no law and there is no justice, anything can happen, and nobody should be upset.”
Sounds a little too vague to me to constitute an illegal threat. Or as Mahfouz herself said: "There is no truth in these accusations, I was only warning the military council that the absence of justice will lead to chaos."
If Tim Berners-Lee had earned $100B on patenting his inventions, that money would've had to be taken from consumers in the form of higher prices. That, in turn, would've meant that consumers would've had $100B less to pay other producers for other goods and services. (See the Parable of the broken window.) I doubt Berners-Lee could've made significantly better use of those $100B than the original owners.
It IS the freeness of the Internet which has made it a success. The freeness makes it very easy for anyone to get in on the game and try out new business ideas. If every Internet provider, everyone who manufactured network cards, everyone who opened an Internet store, and so on, had to pay licensing fees, it would raise the barrier to get into the market, and lower competition.
Moreover, the people who held the patents would be able to block ideas they didn't like, or which their sponsors didn't like. For example, if Google was the biggest licensor, they could lean on the Internet patent holder to make it more difficult for Microsoft to get approval for their Internet services, or vice versa. Or the government could lean on the patent holder to block undesired information.
I agree in principle, but in the case of Sarah Palin, I've seen whole interviews where she appears just as dumb. I've also seen the speech where she announced her resignation as governor (unedited), and there was barely a coherent thought in the whole speech. Palin's ignorance is far beyond what can be explained as everyday human fallability
I think John Cleese has a point in this interview.
The proper term is "motivation". There's a lot more to motivating people (for example, in the workplace) than providing game-style rewards. For example, feeling that you're part of the social group. Not having to worry about your state of employment from day to day. Feeling that your boss listens to you. Feeling that your work contributes something to society. Not being hindered in your work by beaureacracy or office politics. And so on. In fact, there are researchers who claim (very reasonably, IMHO) that setting up reward systems ruins the natural work satisfaction which is there to begin with.
I think the term "gamification" does more to confuse than enlighten. It's an easy-to-understand buzzword which makes it sound like these ideas are specific to gaming and unexplored by psychology. By all means, get inspiration from gaming, but also read the psychological research which is available.
I think the term can even do a lot of damage if it inspires people to construct reward systems, which IMHO are usually misguided.
And that's the result studies on music and filesharing also come up with: the ones who pirate the most are also the ones who spend the most money buying it.
Well, then the ex-employee can go on developing his open-source version of the program, while the corporation can keep their version to themselves, which at least keeps them from (ab)using his future changes.
I'm not assuming anything about what the employer will do; I'm just trying to find the interpretation which makes most sense of the OP (the OP as in the post which started this thread, not the article summary). I don't know what the OP actually meant, but assuming the interpretation which makes most sense usually leads to the most interesting discussion.
(This concludes the nitpicky bitch mode. If you are operating as a sensitive individual who can't listen to annoyingly pedantic criticism, you may now return to reading this comment.)
Np. I know a lot of people in Mensa, so I'm used to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, having read about this elsewhere days ago, the methodology was to take each short story, and present it in three forms: unaltered, preceded by a paragraph spoiling it, and with a spoiler paragraph inserted in the text (before the twist).
That's exactly what it says in the article the summary links to too.
Technically speaking, the question is meaningless, since...
1) The #xxxxxx system describes what colour an object displays under specific conditions (for example, lighting), not an object's innate light reflection ability (albedo).
2) The #xxxxxx system doesn't describe colour on an absolute scale; it only orders colours in an arbitrary space with an arbitrary metric. For example, there's no guarantee that #000002 is twice as bright as #000001, and there's no guarantee that #000000 is absolute black. Even when a monitor is turned off, the screen is slightly brighter than absolute black, and when it's turned on with all pixels set to #000000, it's a little brighter still. That's why for example printers and researchers need to use better systems for measuring colours.
As ironic as you are, I believe that statement should be protected by free speech.
Good point.
Copyright prevents reverse-engineering, since it's used to enforce the license agreement. Without copyright, you don't need a license, and therefore don't need to accept the license agreement.
I'm not sure what the GP meant, but "robbing of the public domain" can refer to the fact that Disney et al use public domain works to create their own films, such as the Jungle Book, Peter Pan, and so on, but start lobbying for copyright extensions as soon as their own works come close to falling into the public domain. That is, companies like Disney make use of the public domain without contributing anything themselves.
It can also refer to the problem with "orphaned works", i.e, works that are no longer commercially available, but you can't obtain permission from the creator(s) to use them, so the works just rot away an archive somewhere. The vast majority of books, films, photographs and so on lose their commercial viability after a few years, but they're still protected by copyright for a century(*) just so the the media companies can continue to collect royalties on a few long-lived works. In other words, companies like Disney take an active role in destroying the public domain (even if it's just as a side effect of their commercial greed).
(*) Depending on how long the author lives.
Precisiely, it's a symbiote, not a virus.
Saying that opposition to draft is a "clear and present danger" is ludicrous. It's, at most, a danger at some other place at some time in the future. Freedom of speech always tends to get mangled during times of war.
Which is one of the reasons we shouldn't allow ourselves to be fooled into believing we are in a war, for example, a "war against terrorism". Politicians exaggerate the external threats to justify impopular decisions.
On the translation, since it was what the parent was basing his conclusion on. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the accused.
Obvious? You don't even know what context it was said in, unless you know Arabic and have checked up the original post.
If I say "If Western society continues to respond to terrorism with military means, we shouldn't be surprised if there are even more bombings", is that also an incitement to violence? Should I be arrested for saying it?
You don't know it's a veiled threat, and the burden of proof is, as always, on the accuser.
And as far as we know, she didn't call for the assassination of anyone; she claims she was only warning against the danger of civil unrest.
"She".
The American constitution doesn't list the exceptions to freedom of speech, but American courts still assume that things like fraud, slander and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre are not covered by it. Which probably is a good thing.
The European Convention On Human Rights explicitly allows limitations on freedom of speech which are "necessary in a free and democratic society", but it keeps the exception vague and up to the courts to interpret.
Have you read the article?
This was what Mahfouz allegedly wrote, translated from Arabic:
“If justice is not achieved and the justice system fails us, no-one should feel upset or surprised if armed gangs emerge to carry out assassinations. As long as there is no law and there is no justice, anything can happen, and nobody should be upset.”
Sounds a little too vague to me to constitute an illegal threat. Or as Mahfouz herself said:
"There is no truth in these accusations, I was only warning the military council that the absence of justice will lead to chaos."
The contributor is making a point about how patents hinder innovation, I presume.
I doubt it. Betamax was released before VHS, for example.
Open formats are often technically inferior, but still better because they're open.
If Tim Berners-Lee had earned $100B on patenting his inventions, that money would've had to be taken from consumers in the form of higher prices. That, in turn, would've meant that consumers would've had $100B less to pay other producers for other goods and services. (See the Parable of the broken window.) I doubt Berners-Lee could've made significantly better use of those $100B than the original owners.
It IS the freeness of the Internet which has made it a success. The freeness makes it very easy for anyone to get in on the game and try out new business ideas. If every Internet provider, everyone who manufactured network cards, everyone who opened an Internet store, and so on, had to pay licensing fees, it would raise the barrier to get into the market, and lower competition.
Moreover, the people who held the patents would be able to block ideas they didn't like, or which their sponsors didn't like. For example, if Google was the biggest licensor, they could lean on the Internet patent holder to make it more difficult for Microsoft to get approval for their Internet services, or vice versa. Or the government could lean on the patent holder to block undesired information.
I agree in principle, but in the case of Sarah Palin, I've seen whole interviews where she appears just as dumb. I've also seen the speech where she announced her resignation as governor (unedited), and there was barely a coherent thought in the whole speech. Palin's ignorance is far beyond what can be explained as everyday human fallability
I think John Cleese has a point in this interview.
The proper term is "motivation". There's a lot more to motivating people (for example, in the workplace) than providing game-style rewards. For example, feeling that you're part of the social group. Not having to worry about your state of employment from day to day. Feeling that your boss listens to you. Feeling that your work contributes something to society. Not being hindered in your work by beaureacracy or office politics. And so on. In fact, there are researchers who claim (very reasonably, IMHO) that setting up reward systems ruins the natural work satisfaction which is there to begin with.
I think the term "gamification" does more to confuse than enlighten. It's an easy-to-understand buzzword which makes it sound like these ideas are specific to gaming and unexplored by psychology. By all means, get inspiration from gaming, but also read the psychological research which is available.
I think the term can even do a lot of damage if it inspires people to construct reward systems, which IMHO are usually misguided.
lol
Y'know, maybe the USA should just fucking stop wasting our money being the world's goddamn police force?
Yes. Please.
And that's the result studies on music and filesharing also come up with: the ones who pirate the most are also the ones who spend the most money buying it.
Well, then the ex-employee can go on developing his open-source version of the program, while the corporation can keep their version to themselves, which at least keeps them from (ab)using his future changes.
I'm not assuming anything about what the employer will do; I'm just trying to find the interpretation which makes most sense of the OP (the OP as in the post which started this thread, not the article summary). I don't know what the OP actually meant, but assuming the interpretation which makes most sense usually leads to the most interesting discussion.
(This concludes the nitpicky bitch mode. If you are operating as a sensitive individual who can't listen to annoyingly pedantic criticism, you may now return to reading this comment.)
Np. I know a lot of people in Mensa, so I'm used to it.