You see? We've been increasing the capacity of what we can store, so we went from regular files, to MP3s, to whole movies, to whole TV seasons... but from there? What takes more space than a season of a TV show? What is the next magnitude of data file size? What will you store on your 10 TB drive that will take up all the space?
You're missing why the students are willing to give up their right to wikipedia: if teachers can't check wikipedia at school it's much harder to notice that they just copied their paper from wikipedia:P
I can't honestly say I understand what is going on in the wiki page (too much math and/or physics for me), but I noticed "2) A measurement taken by one observer has no effect on the measurement taken by the other." was one of the assumptions that was present in the thought experiment - my understanding is that all measurements change the thing being observed in some way (poorly phrased, I know, I'm really tired, but I always remember it by the futurama quote "No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it" if that helps to get across what I'm trying to express).
I'm an atheist, and I can deflate the "can-see-the-future and we have free will problem" but doing so in ten seconds will not really do it justice (for a good explanation check out Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett): you have a mistaken conception of what "free will" is. (Also I don't believe in a being who can see the future, but that's not necessary for solving the problem)
I haven't read TFA, but "Those children who do sports at school do not burn more calories than those who don't." doesn't require that those who do sports are getting the energy for free, it could just be the case that those children who do sports do not by virtue of doing sports burn more calories than those who don't. i.e. It could be the case that the students who don't do sports end up using those calories doing non-sports related activity (that is they burn their calories playing cops and robbers instead of playing soccer).
As a long time member of the human race, I can attest that stereotyping is seldom a good method by which to judge someone. You humans are all the same...
I guess I simply go by where I feel the burden of work should be. Releasing something under the GPL is an authorial act (as in, I created or modified something, which takes a non-trivial amount of work) and part of that work is determining how I want to distribute that software (and how other software that is part of my package is required to be distributed) and under which license.
In the case of EULAs my goal is as a software user (a much more common act) and my goals are to use the product I paid for, preferably quickly and easily. It should never be easier to make a product than to use a product (if the two items are of a similar nature, obviously coding a tic-tac-toe program could be easier than use advanced statistical software), as such it seems that a company who has sold me a product should spell out clearly what I'm not allowed to do with it that common sense (in the sense of what an average person would assume) alone would allow me to do as that is part of the work of preparing that item to be sold.
Condensed Version: In cases like the GPL, it is the author doing the work and more time should be invested in to determining exactly what happens than in cases of EULAs where it's the user doing the work of interpreting the license (which is an impediment to doing what they paid to do: using the software).
The GPL isn't about freedom. It's about being selfish in the guise of supporting the community. If you aren't going to profit off the code, you don't want anybody else to be able to either.
Yup, I tend to think of the GPL like that bratty kid on the playground with the ball. Every group of kids had one, the kid who would say "If you don't play by my rules I'm taking my ball and going home".
God I hated that kid.
Odd, as all the other kids are saying "you can play with my ball if you pay me a bunch of money, but it's still my ball, and at any time I can change what you're allowed to do with my ball" and this kid is just saying "if you don't play by my rules of sharing the ball with everyone, I'm taking my ball and going home". I may not like that I have to play by that kids rules, but it's better than playing by his rules and paying him to do so...or going out and making my own ball.
Exactly! The GPL is GIVING YOU EXTRA RIGHTS, while EULAs are TAKING THEM AWAY. This may just be me, but I'll allow the verbiage that gives me something extra to be considerably more esoteric than the verbiage that tries to take something away from me.
All subjective. Again, why are any of those factors justification for 75% differences in pricing?
Subjective?!?! Do you know what that word means? These are OBJECTIVE differences between the products. The cheapest product you listed lacks the color screen (which adds cost) and is TWICE as thick as the ipod despite the fact that competing in the area of PORTABLE MP3 players (which again, adds cost, if you're going for a small player, you want a SMALL player).
So what if the Sandisk requires Windows XP to run? iPod requires iTunes to run. Sucks for Linux users, huh? (Yeah, I know you can kludge your way around it on Linux. Key word - kludge).
Well, that means the ipod runs on TWICE the platforms of the sandisk, which is a consideration for some people and likewise could justify a cost increase.
Utterly irrelevant - bottom line is that those are prices consumers can pay. Not consumers problem if Apple gets pissy at sellers selling iPods below RRP! Do you whine that you paid less than MSRP for your new car, too? Or that that amount less than MSRP for the car might be less if said car is in demand?
No, I don't whine that I pay less, though I do wonder why, and in this case I would assume it's because they CANNOT sell the players and have an ABUNDANCE of them (implied: because no one wants them for one reason or another), where as ipods do not vary in cost because they have a clear demand. It's worth something to have a product that I know will still be made in a few years as it means I will still have support.
The ipod is half as thick as the mini jukebox and has a color display, the creative weighs TWO POUNDS and is considerably larger than the ipod, the Sandisk requires Windows XP to run and is twice as thick as the ipod as well (otherwise it looks like a nice player, though it is a good 50% off the suggested retail price through amazon, where as the ipod is only 3% off). Apples to Oranges.
For tradional materialistic evolution to work correctly we have to be just another chance occurrence with a "nothing to see here, move right along" sign tacked to our foreheads.
Is that thought really any different from the fact that the average person is "nothing to see here" and unlikely to be one of the handful of people that goes down in history as a "great man"? People, on average, have entirely too much ego (myself very much included) and like to extend that to their race.
Practically, what's the difference between there being more crap music and us being exposed to more crap music with the percentage of crap music being the same? Either way the quantity of songs that are bad that I'm subjected to increases which decreases my overall desire to listen to music.
Slashdot Mirror
Mine doesn't, as well, Wisconsin (issued 03).
I'd like to know which Lewis as well, please.
It was also on 4/20...
Who says I copied? Who says I didn't write the Wikipedia article?
:P
The contribution history
You're missing why the students are willing to give up their right to wikipedia: if teachers can't check wikipedia at school it's much harder to notice that they just copied their paper from wikipedia :P
As for "many eyes make secure software myth" (seriously, are we still peddling that nonsense?)
First of all, it's "many eyes make more secure software;" and second, it's not a myth - security through obscurity does not pan out.
I dunno, $50 to attend a party where there's "E" for all sounds rather interesting...
I believe those in China pay a relatively higher rate, as they don't buy a boxed version of the game, they just pay to play.
I can't honestly say I understand what is going on in the wiki page (too much math and/or physics for me), but I noticed "2) A measurement taken by one observer has no effect on the measurement taken by the other." was one of the assumptions that was present in the thought experiment - my understanding is that all measurements change the thing being observed in some way (poorly phrased, I know, I'm really tired, but I always remember it by the futurama quote "No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it" if that helps to get across what I'm trying to express).
Some people really do need to realize that ancient literature is not a scientific journal.
If it's the word of God, it should be utterly timeless.
I'm an atheist, and I can deflate the "can-see-the-future and we have free will problem" but doing so in ten seconds will not really do it justice (for a good explanation check out Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett): you have a mistaken conception of what "free will" is. (Also I don't believe in a being who can see the future, but that's not necessary for solving the problem)
I haven't read TFA, but "Those children who do sports at school do not burn more calories than those who don't." doesn't require that those who do sports are getting the energy for free, it could just be the case that those children who do sports do not by virtue of doing sports burn more calories than those who don't. i.e. It could be the case that the students who don't do sports end up using those calories doing non-sports related activity (that is they burn their calories playing cops and robbers instead of playing soccer).
Ecto
Transmit
Sync Services
BBEdit
Missing Sync for Windows Mobile
OmniGraffle Pro
ConceptDraw
iChat AV
AppleScript
Script Debugger
Microsoft Entourage
SketchFighter 4000 Alpha
TypeIt4Me
NetworkLocation
Apple Remote Desktop 3
MacLink Plus Deluxe
Parallels Desktop for Mac
Remote Desktop Connection
Snapz Pro X
Boot Camp
PDF
Lingon
Workgroup Manager
Off the topic of TFA, more info relating to Michael Larson (the PYL contestant mentioned in the post above) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Your_Luck#Micha el_Larson and http://gscentral.net/larsen.htm
I guess I simply go by where I feel the burden of work should be. Releasing something under the GPL is an authorial act (as in, I created or modified something, which takes a non-trivial amount of work) and part of that work is determining how I want to distribute that software (and how other software that is part of my package is required to be distributed) and under which license.
In the case of EULAs my goal is as a software user (a much more common act) and my goals are to use the product I paid for, preferably quickly and easily. It should never be easier to make a product than to use a product (if the two items are of a similar nature, obviously coding a tic-tac-toe program could be easier than use advanced statistical software), as such it seems that a company who has sold me a product should spell out clearly what I'm not allowed to do with it that common sense (in the sense of what an average person would assume) alone would allow me to do as that is part of the work of preparing that item to be sold.
Condensed Version: In cases like the GPL, it is the author doing the work and more time should be invested in to determining exactly what happens than in cases of EULAs where it's the user doing the work of interpreting the license (which is an impediment to doing what they paid to do: using the software).
The GPL isn't about freedom. It's about being selfish in the guise of supporting the community. If you aren't going to profit off the code, you don't want anybody else to be able to either.
Yup, I tend to think of the GPL like that bratty kid on the playground with the ball. Every group of kids had one, the kid who would say "If you don't play by my rules I'm taking my ball and going home".
God I hated that kid.
Odd, as all the other kids are saying "you can play with my ball if you pay me a bunch of money, but it's still my ball, and at any time I can change what you're allowed to do with my ball" and this kid is just saying "if you don't play by my rules of sharing the ball with everyone, I'm taking my ball and going home". I may not like that I have to play by that kids rules, but it's better than playing by his rules and paying him to do so...or going out and making my own ball.
Unreadable as well. Your point being...
Exactly! The GPL is GIVING YOU EXTRA RIGHTS, while EULAs are TAKING THEM AWAY. This may just be me, but I'll allow the verbiage that gives me something extra to be considerably more esoteric than the verbiage that tries to take something away from me.All subjective. Again, why are any of those factors justification for 75% differences in pricing?
Subjective?!?! Do you know what that word means? These are OBJECTIVE differences between the products. The cheapest product you listed lacks the color screen (which adds cost) and is TWICE as thick as the ipod despite the fact that competing in the area of PORTABLE MP3 players (which again, adds cost, if you're going for a small player, you want a SMALL player).
So what if the Sandisk requires Windows XP to run? iPod requires iTunes to run. Sucks for Linux users, huh? (Yeah, I know you can kludge your way around it on Linux. Key word - kludge).
Well, that means the ipod runs on TWICE the platforms of the sandisk, which is a consideration for some people and likewise could justify a cost increase.
Utterly irrelevant - bottom line is that those are prices consumers can pay. Not consumers problem if Apple gets pissy at sellers selling iPods below RRP! Do you whine that you paid less than MSRP for your new car, too? Or that that amount less than MSRP for the car might be less if said car is in demand?
No, I don't whine that I pay less, though I do wonder why, and in this case I would assume it's because they CANNOT sell the players and have an ABUNDANCE of them (implied: because no one wants them for one reason or another), where as ipods do not vary in cost because they have a clear demand. It's worth something to have a product that I know will still be made in a few years as it means I will still have support.
The ipod is half as thick as the mini jukebox and has a color display, the creative weighs TWO POUNDS and is considerably larger than the ipod, the Sandisk requires Windows XP to run and is twice as thick as the ipod as well (otherwise it looks like a nice player, though it is a good 50% off the suggested retail price through amazon, where as the ipod is only 3% off). Apples to Oranges.
For tradional materialistic evolution to work correctly we have to be just another chance occurrence with a "nothing to see here, move right along" sign tacked to our foreheads.
Is that thought really any different from the fact that the average person is "nothing to see here" and unlikely to be one of the handful of people that goes down in history as a "great man"? People, on average, have entirely too much ego (myself very much included) and like to extend that to their race.
People aren't making tons of money off of it?
Practically, what's the difference between there being more crap music and us being exposed to more crap music with the percentage of crap music being the same? Either way the quantity of songs that are bad that I'm subjected to increases which decreases my overall desire to listen to music.