Actually, there is a perfectly logical reason: it's called Goedel's incompleteness theorem. It shows that there are some types of mathematical proofs that a human mathematician can demonstrate to be true, but a turing machine ( read: any current technology computer ) cannot.
That's wrong. Godel's Theorem shows that there exist true theorems that are unprovable -- by humans or computers. It doesn't say humans can "demonstrate" them better than a machine. At best, it shows you can "guess" a theorem (and wave your hands to make it seem plausible) and no one is able to DISprove it, but not that a human could "demonstrate" its truth when a machine couldn't. A mathematical proof is purely logical and computers can verify and generate these proofs, if not yet as elegantly as humans.
The issue is pattern recognition in context. Computers haven't yet reached that level of sophistication.
That's why they have huamn editors. Theoretically.
And with the sheer number of posts occuring on/. every day I'm not surprised by duplication, even having been guilty of it once or twice.
Bollocks. Yesterday, eg, there were 20 front page stories, another 12 in Games, 23 in other categories. That's not really hard to grasp. More to the point, if you just type the word "fusion" into the Slashdot search box you immediately find the first version. There is no excuse for someone who collects a salary as an editor to fuck up like this so regularly -- not just a bad day once a month, but almost every day. Not to mention all the spelling mistakes (the Slashcode system has a spellcheck built in, they seem to ignore it), and dead links, and even worse, the hoax stories that show the editors never read the linked articles beyond the opening paragraph.
Where can I get a job like that -- I thought only GWB could screw up on a daily basis and still get paid.
Because it's easier to convince people to let you put a bajillion microsatellites into orbit than it is to convince them to stop burning gas in their SUVs.
Yet tracker sites which specialize in pirated material are constantly taken down. It looks like that excuse just isn't working.
Taken down by who? The webmasters or their ISPs who fold at receiving a letter with a lawyer's signature? That signifies nothing about the legalities, just how effective intimidation can be.
Maybe the astronomer was taking the piss out of astrologers. He must get pretty tired of questions related to that and was implying thy have no idea of what's in the real sky (such as the actual postions of the planets, which are hundreds of years out of phase with their "houses").
Is there a site that says what time U.S time zone the alignment might appear on. What exact direction on a compass?
There are lots of astronomical programs. One small, simple and free one is Starcalc. Just set it up with your latitude and longitude and it'll show you the sky at any time past present or future. Anyway, this shows that this is not a brief duration event like an eclipse but the three planets are very close over several days.
I wholly agree that piracy in the context above isn't inherently evil... By your definition, piracy isn't bad
I wasn't talking about morality, ("evil"), or legality, just how piracy can build mindshare and eventually marketshare and entrench a monopoly. They know that many users of bootleg software will eventually become legal customers; but few using a competing product will do so.
while I see your point, I see no practical benefit from it.
I wasn't offering advice, merely an observation. MS and Adobe will cheerfully prosecute you for using bootleg versions of their software, especially in their home markets.
>So, my bet is that if they were to offer a $50 version of Photoshop and piracy were impossible, maybe half the Photoshop pirates out there would buy it.
It would be interesting to know how much more money this would make them. I'm guessing a lot.
They do. PhotoDeluxe, Photoshop Elements. Easy to find for free, or almost, from bundles wiht scanners and printers. I was quite happy using PhotoDeluxe to make web graphics, the company couldn't budget for PS, but we had Deluxe free. These are all based on the PS software, and can use PS plugins and filters. Deluxe was limited to RGB rather than CMYK to stop you using it for pro printing, though there are workarounds.
I think copyright infringement of things like Photoshop is even more destructive than theft... Piracy devalues the product.
No. Piracy of PhotoShop is one of the prime reasons it is unchallenged as an image editor. If every aspiring graphic artist had to cough up hundreds of dollars for a legal copy, many of them would think seriously about the much cheaper alternatives (PaintShop Pro, [until recently], Gimp, Ulead, PhotoPaint, etc). There would be many more if there was a market, but there isn't. If you're poor you use pirated PhotoShop, when you get a job in the field you insist on using it and the company buys it. Pretty much the same way that MSWord became the de facto standard. Consider that though MS and Adobe make a lot of noise about piracy in the Third World, the only time they do anything serious is when countries decide to get honest, and start looking at Linux instead of Windows, for instance. Then MS brings out the hugely discounted version. Until then, they were happy for the pirates to build their market share, knowing that if the economies grew to the point of being able to afford to buy software, they would be already locked in. Adobe has brought out several cut-down versions of PhotoShop for similar reasons, like PhotoDeluxe, which was bundled with scanners and such, to fend off other cheaper image apps that would have been bundled otherwise and obtained a foothold in the market.
they're taking your house, and you'll fight to the death for it - taking as many people as you can with you. Or at least that's the general idea. I can't say I blame them.
How many lives is your house worth? Mine isn't worth one.
They may want to consider figuring out that pesky 2nd Amendment thing first. Or invest in a lot of Kevlar.
The end result is never in doubt. Unless he's got hostages, and even if he does, just lob in some tear gas. Or knock the house down. The feds have learnt it can be a bad move to walk up to the front door and ask such people to come quietly.
Some idiot marked that "redundant". Maybe pointng out spelling and grammatical errors in a samzenpus story is redundant, but I'll add that "London" and "Wimbledon", in quaint British usage, normally have capital letters.
What happens when the virus comes on the shrink wrapped distro disk from a software company? I've had this happen before
Conversely, one of the prime points every anti-piracy PR campaign makes is the high chance of getting malware. However, in 10 years of using such, from CDRs sold in Hong Kong and Thailand, I've yet to find a single infected file. And amusingly one of the most highly-pirated apps is Norton AV.
You miss the point. Ever see trackers you have to register for to download? Now imagine that is your subscription registration. And one central tracker, which is the service's tracker. Block your uploads and the tracker will cut you off.
So don't block, but choke it down in a way that looks like poor QOS. Anyway, if you're paying for a file the actual cost of bandwidth to deliver is is, I think, a small part of the total. Assuming there is competition, given a choice of paying $5 for a movie download by FTP or $4.95 using a BT-like method that's going to burn up my bandwidth, I'd just pay $5. Also, if the distributor is going to need to monitor at least custom software and even more so, hardware, in your home, I can't see this as being cheaper than just paying Akamai to deliver it. I just don't see BT-style being viable for paid content.
About head movement, I believe I read somewhere that this was the first Batman costume that did in fact allow head movement.
I read that; but they were obviously only talking about the recent big movies. Adam West in the TV version had no problem, neither did any of the earlier (1940s) movie matinee Batmen.
And otherwise I'd just like to comment on how pathetic it is that "How Stuff Works" and "Forbes" both cheapen themselves by doing bullshit "factual" articles on a comic movie. (As for Slashdot, also disappointed though not surprised.) Though makes a change from bullshit factual articles on Star Wars.
All he did was read Bram's responce to MS's research theories and decided to play captian obvious.
Dvorak wrote that "Cohen claims it's not that complicated. That said, he also tells me..." implying he interviewed him; but all the quotes are verbatim from the blog previously linked here.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to. You don't seriously think you'll be given a choice about it though?
That's why I said there wold be software to block it; to prevent it from using up your bandwidth.
They'll probably bundle P2P and viewer software into a DSL router/STB and distribute it with their own internet service
Yes, if it was locked into the ISP service and hardware that would be easier to lock down. But that's a much bigger investment and would limit them geographically. Perhaps it might be done by a cable TV company, which controls its network and already has some media.
Stupd typos, sorry:
It also shows that putting pressure on governments rarely affects those who make the decisions you disagree with; as for instance the sanctions against Iraq after 1991 killed many children leaving Saddam's fat from black-marketeering.
I think this highlights the problem with being dogmatic on licenses
It also shows that putting pressure on governments rarely affects those who make hte decsions you disagree with; as for instance the sanctions against Iran after 1991 killed many children leaving Saddam's fat from black marketeering.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, what you paraphrased me as saying was.
You don't seem to be referring to what I actually wrote. I did actually study this at university, though it was over 20 years ago.
That's wrong. Godel's Theorem shows that there exist true theorems that are unprovable -- by humans or computers. It doesn't say humans can "demonstrate" them better than a machine. At best, it shows you can "guess" a theorem (and wave your hands to make it seem plausible) and no one is able to DISprove it, but not that a human could "demonstrate" its truth when a machine couldn't. A mathematical proof is purely logical and computers can verify and generate these proofs, if not yet as elegantly as humans.
That's why they have huamn editors. Theoretically.
And with the sheer number of posts occuring on /. every day I'm not surprised by duplication, even having been guilty of it once or twice.
Bollocks. Yesterday, eg, there were 20 front page stories, another 12 in Games, 23 in other categories. That's not really hard to grasp. More to the point, if you just type the word "fusion" into the Slashdot search box you immediately find the first version. There is no excuse for someone who collects a salary as an editor to fuck up like this so regularly -- not just a bad day once a month, but almost every day. Not to mention all the spelling mistakes (the Slashcode system has a spellcheck built in, they seem to ignore it), and dead links, and even worse, the hoax stories that show the editors never read the linked articles beyond the opening paragraph.
Where can I get a job like that -- I thought only GWB could screw up on a daily basis and still get paid.
Because it's easier to convince people to let you put a bajillion microsatellites into orbit than it is to convince them to stop burning gas in their SUVs.
Taken down by who? The webmasters or their ISPs who fold at receiving a letter with a lawyer's signature? That signifies nothing about the legalities, just how effective intimidation can be.
Not necessarily, but spam has to have some method of contact and payment; that can be traced. The credit card companies have all their details.
Did you miss all the "it's" instead of "its", the "loose" instead of "lose"....
Maybe the astronomer was taking the piss out of astrologers. He must get pretty tired of questions related to that and was implying thy have no idea of what's in the real sky (such as the actual postions of the planets, which are hundreds of years out of phase with their "houses").
There are lots of astronomical programs. One small, simple and free one is Starcalc. Just set it up with your latitude and longitude and it'll show you the sky at any time past present or future. Anyway, this shows that this is not a brief duration event like an eclipse but the three planets are very close over several days.
I wasn't talking about morality, ("evil"), or legality, just how piracy can build mindshare and eventually marketshare and entrench a monopoly. They know that many users of bootleg software will eventually become legal customers; but few using a competing product will do so.
while I see your point, I see no practical benefit from it.
I wasn't offering advice, merely an observation. MS and Adobe will cheerfully prosecute you for using bootleg versions of their software, especially in their home markets.
It would be interesting to know how much more money this would make them. I'm guessing a lot.
They do. PhotoDeluxe, Photoshop Elements. Easy to find for free, or almost, from bundles wiht scanners and printers. I was quite happy using PhotoDeluxe to make web graphics, the company couldn't budget for PS, but we had Deluxe free. These are all based on the PS software, and can use PS plugins and filters. Deluxe was limited to RGB rather than CMYK to stop you using it for pro printing, though there are workarounds.
No. Piracy of PhotoShop is one of the prime reasons it is unchallenged as an image editor. If every aspiring graphic artist had to cough up hundreds of dollars for a legal copy, many of them would think seriously about the much cheaper alternatives (PaintShop Pro, [until recently], Gimp, Ulead, PhotoPaint, etc). There would be many more if there was a market, but there isn't. If you're poor you use pirated PhotoShop, when you get a job in the field you insist on using it and the company buys it. Pretty much the same way that MSWord became the de facto standard. Consider that though MS and Adobe make a lot of noise about piracy in the Third World, the only time they do anything serious is when countries decide to get honest, and start looking at Linux instead of Windows, for instance. Then MS brings out the hugely discounted version. Until then, they were happy for the pirates to build their market share, knowing that if the economies grew to the point of being able to afford to buy software, they would be already locked in. Adobe has brought out several cut-down versions of PhotoShop for similar reasons, like PhotoDeluxe, which was bundled with scanners and such, to fend off other cheaper image apps that would have been bundled otherwise and obtained a foothold in the market.
You don't need to kill policemen, or suicide, just get the vote out. Violent opposition just lets them demonise you.
How many lives is your house worth? Mine isn't worth one.
The end result is never in doubt. Unless he's got hostages, and even if he does, just lob in some tear gas. Or knock the house down. The feds have learnt it can be a bad move to walk up to the front door and ask such people to come quietly.
If they get their technical knowledge from watching Alias or 24 it's quite likely.
Some idiot marked that "redundant". Maybe pointng out spelling and grammatical errors in a samzenpus story is redundant, but I'll add that "London" and "Wimbledon", in quaint British usage, normally have capital letters.
Conversely, one of the prime points every anti-piracy PR campaign makes is the high chance of getting malware. However, in 10 years of using such, from CDRs sold in Hong Kong and Thailand, I've yet to find a single infected file. And amusingly one of the most highly-pirated apps is Norton AV.
So don't block, but choke it down in a way that looks like poor QOS. Anyway, if you're paying for a file the actual cost of bandwidth to deliver is is, I think, a small part of the total. Assuming there is competition, given a choice of paying $5 for a movie download by FTP or $4.95 using a BT-like method that's going to burn up my bandwidth, I'd just pay $5. Also, if the distributor is going to need to monitor at least custom software and even more so, hardware, in your home, I can't see this as being cheaper than just paying Akamai to deliver it. I just don't see BT-style being viable for paid content.
I read that; but they were obviously only talking about the recent big movies. Adam West in the TV version had no problem, neither did any of the earlier (1940s) movie matinee Batmen.
And otherwise I'd just like to comment on how pathetic it is that "How Stuff Works" and "Forbes" both cheapen themselves by doing bullshit "factual" articles on a comic movie. (As for Slashdot, also disappointed though not surprised.) Though makes a change from bullshit factual articles on Star Wars.
Dvorak wrote that "Cohen claims it's not that complicated. That said, he also tells me ..." implying he interviewed him; but all the quotes are verbatim from the blog previously linked here.
That's why I said there wold be software to block it; to prevent it from using up your bandwidth.
They'll probably bundle P2P and viewer software into a DSL router/STB and distribute it with their own internet service
Yes, if it was locked into the ISP service and hardware that would be easier to lock down. But that's a much bigger investment and would limit them geographically. Perhaps it might be done by a cable TV company, which controls its network and already has some media.
Stupd typos, sorry:
It also shows that putting pressure on governments rarely affects those who make the decisions you disagree with; as for instance the sanctions against Iraq after 1991 killed many children leaving Saddam's fat from black-marketeering.
It also shows that putting pressure on governments rarely affects those who make hte decsions you disagree with; as for instance the sanctions against Iran after 1991 killed many children leaving Saddam's fat from black marketeering.