I did:) But it only takes one person to leak it. There are sometimes cases where the mainstream press are restricted by a court order, whilst it's common knowledge with a simple Google (not to mention court orders generally only applying to one country).
Indeed - the edit was apparently made to the woman's entry, so come on - can anyone tell us what the article was? And we should be able to see the actual edit itself in the history, unless that gets tampered with...
To be honest I think my view on this depends on what we're talking about - is it blackmail about either false or private details? Or is it a whistleblower case?
On another note, it's sad how every story covering this (well, the Mail, the Telegraph) likes to bash Wikipedia with other example mistaken edits. But how much false information has been published by these same newspapers? At least with Wikipedia, it's often quickly reverted (and in most cases they wouldn't even know if it wasn't possible to go trawling through the history), yet newspapers often never retract their bullshit.
Download the books you've already bought? Apparently there are plenty of books out there on p2p.
Of course it's illegal, but then so is ripping a CD you bought to your mp3 player (here in the UK), and that doesn't mean no one buys mp3 players. That's a problem with the laws, not the product.
A game that requires DX 11 doesn't "get too slow", it won't run at all. Sounds pretty similar to trying to play Blu-Ray on a DVD, to me.
(Yes, there's the separate issue about games needing faster graphics cards, but that's not what the OP was talking about - the issue was the new DX version.)
Where did he claim that there is no difference? His point was that DVD was still enjoyable for him, just as DX 9 is.
And your point that things have improved does apply to DX 11 too. When you say:
It's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games, where either API lets you create highly detailed, high performance graphics.
Are you seriously suggesting there is no difference? There are technical improvements that makes things look nicer, just as there are for Blu-Ray over DVDs.
One thing I do notice these days is the Daily Iphone Slashvertisements, and the down-modding of anything critical to Apple. Of course, perhaps both of our views could be true - I think it's fair to say that this is far less of a site for open source, or open systems in general (e.g., not the locked down Iphone), than it used to be.
You don't have to explicitly mention the word "science" to be making a scientific claim.
"This room would look best in green" is not analogous, as what looks good is clearly a subjective opinion, and not in the realm of science.
But what if he said "People who live in green rooms lead longer lives, so we should paint it green"? That is a scientific claim, and hence pseudoscience. The fact that he didn't say the word "science" is irrelevant.
By your argument, hardly anything (astrology, homeopathy) would count as pseudoscience, even though advocates claim these things work and have effects, because they rarely claim "it's science".
Indeed. And in contrast, they don't disallow straight people who have had unsafe practices - the usual argument for this is that it's too invasive to delve into such details, or it complicates that matter too much. Yet it's okay to do this for gay or bi people?
On the contrary, by all means we should test things. That's how we distinguish between traditional methods that actually work (e.g., willow bark), from claptrap.
The problem is that homeopathy has been tested, and found not to work. Repeatedly. In that sense, it is a waste of money to continue doing so.
Yes, because obviously we can't address two issues at once! If the Ottawa Skeptics are criticising this, it obviously prevents anyone from tackling this other issue!
By your logic, we shouldn't address the issue of who can donate blood, because there are, in turn, even more important things. According to you, everyone should only spend their time complaining about whatever the Most Important Thing in the world is.
And anyhow, by your own argument, surely there are more important things to worry about than an organisation criticising something you don't care about?
I suspect the days of people running out and buying Windows upgrades in droves are behind us.
When did we ever have them? I would imagine that most people have always bought an OS only when buying a new computer. And that goes for platforms other than Windows too.
Yes it's a good thing that mathematics was routinely patented over the last thousand years, otherwise we'd never had made any progress, and mathematical discoveries would never have been shared with the public.
(And even if you say it's only 20 years, how would quantum mechanics have advanced last century, if every discovery by one physicist resulted in a 20 year delay before others could make use of it? Or imagine Newton and Leibniz getting bogged down in a patent court battle for the rest of their lives over who invented Calculus first...)
Nevermind copyright, there are many examples where information can be illegal - anything from threats to illegal images. So by your logic, since information can be represented by a number, it's therefore criminalising mathematics, and therefore no different to if a country decided to criminalise any other kind of mathematics, right?
The sort of numbers we are talking about are so large, that the probability of coming up with a copyrighted file is staggeringly tiny. Also copyright only applies to copying from a work - if it's clear that it was coincidental, there is no violation, unlike with patent law.
But a patent on mathematics is a patent on mathematics - this is something that isn't unlikely, and there isn't any way round it, even if you independently discover it.
Without patents, it would be even easier for medium/large/mega cooperation to prey on small companies inventions
The flip side is that it's already easy for this to happen now - because the small company is likely already infringing on numerous patents owned by other companies, that they perhaps weren't even aware of.
And what do you mean by "prey"? Currently, the "prey" means that the smaller company risks being shut down, unable to even sell their product, or liable for large patent costs. Without patents, the worst "preying" that I can think of is that the larger company outsells them in the free market, by providing a better product. Which do you think is better for the world?
No patents mean anyone can copy the invention without paying the inventor, so I win that argument.
Not with software they can't, that's protected by copyright.
Is someone who comes up with an algorithm an "inventor"? Algorithms are a subset of mathematics - where do we draw the line? Are mathematicians "inventors"? Perhaps mathematics should be locked up in patents too - after all, surely mathematicians deserve to be paid? According to you, they couldn't possibly earn a living any other way?
(And the idea that not having patents is "socialist" is absurd.)
But wait - when the Iphone lacked these features, we had no end of "But the Iphone is better off without copy/paste and MMS, it has better paradigms to do these things (but I can't explain what), and what makes Apple so great is that they remove the clutter of items it thinks you don't want". So are we now agreed that the Iphone is worse because it has these features? Or do they concede that this argument was, as I believed all along, nonsense?
The point still stands though - when copy/paste and MMS came out, the fact that people queued in line for them doesn't show Apple are great, it shows that people wanted the "new" (for the Iphone) features.
PS - the Mozilla analogy is flawed. The market share of Firefox dwarfs the Iphone market share many times over. And did it really get to the ridiculous state of having daily Mozilla stories, including extremely trivial non-news items? (E.g., "You can now view this one website... On Mozilla"? Or "Person did something, oh and he happens to use Mozilla"?
Also consider how many Apple fans whine everytime once in a blue moon there's an article about something they don't like, such as the Amiga. Suddenly the "but people want to hear about it" doesn't apply. They can't have it both ways, so it's fair game to criticise Apple stories.
Oh, I don't doubt that this place has become overrun with Apple fans, I just wish that Slashdot would be upfront about it and call it Appledot, rather than pretending that this was still primarily about Linux and open source. Obviously when an Apple site posts stories everyday about the Iphone, it's normal.
So yes, thanks for agreeing that this place is now Appledot.
(And actually, even if this was an Apple site, this story would really be a non-news scraping the barrel item.)
Life's unfair. Boo hoo.
Eh? When did I say life's unfair? That should be directed at the pro-Apple fans, who whine when there isn't enough coverage, or throw a wobbly everytime somepone posts something negative about their beloved company - just look at how my post gets modded down. Slashdot moderation has long been broken on Apple stories for this reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I did :) But it only takes one person to leak it. There are sometimes cases where the mainstream press are restricted by a court order, whilst it's common knowledge with a simple Google (not to mention court orders generally only applying to one country).
Indeed - the edit was apparently made to the woman's entry, so come on - can anyone tell us what the article was? And we should be able to see the actual edit itself in the history, unless that gets tampered with...
To be honest I think my view on this depends on what we're talking about - is it blackmail about either false or private details? Or is it a whistleblower case?
On another note, it's sad how every story covering this (well, the Mail, the Telegraph) likes to bash Wikipedia with other example mistaken edits. But how much false information has been published by these same newspapers? At least with Wikipedia, it's often quickly reverted (and in most cases they wouldn't even know if it wasn't possible to go trawling through the history), yet newspapers often never retract their bullshit.
Download the books you've already bought? Apparently there are plenty of books out there on p2p.
Of course it's illegal, but then so is ripping a CD you bought to your mp3 player (here in the UK), and that doesn't mean no one buys mp3 players. That's a problem with the laws, not the product.
A game that requires DX 11 doesn't "get too slow", it won't run at all. Sounds pretty similar to trying to play Blu-Ray on a DVD, to me.
(Yes, there's the separate issue about games needing faster graphics cards, but that's not what the OP was talking about - the issue was the new DX version.)
Where did he claim that there is no difference? His point was that DVD was still enjoyable for him, just as DX 9 is.
And your point that things have improved does apply to DX 11 too. When you say:
It's one thing to compare DirectX 9 versus 11 video games, where either API lets you create highly detailed, high performance graphics.
Are you seriously suggesting there is no difference? There are technical improvements that makes things look nicer, just as there are for Blu-Ray over DVDs.
Example posts?
One thing I do notice these days is the Daily Iphone Slashvertisements, and the down-modding of anything critical to Apple. Of course, perhaps both of our views could be true - I think it's fair to say that this is far less of a site for open source, or open systems in general (e.g., not the locked down Iphone), than it used to be.
You don't have to explicitly mention the word "science" to be making a scientific claim.
"This room would look best in green" is not analogous, as what looks good is clearly a subjective opinion, and not in the realm of science.
But what if he said "People who live in green rooms lead longer lives, so we should paint it green"? That is a scientific claim, and hence pseudoscience. The fact that he didn't say the word "science" is irrelevant.
By your argument, hardly anything (astrology, homeopathy) would count as pseudoscience, even though advocates claim these things work and have effects, because they rarely claim "it's science".
Silenced? Can you point me to where people are calling for this to be criminalised?
Just as the CBS has the right to talk rubbish, people have the right to point out that it's rubbish.
Indeed. And in contrast, they don't disallow straight people who have had unsafe practices - the usual argument for this is that it's too invasive to delve into such details, or it complicates that matter too much. Yet it's okay to do this for gay or bi people?
What's the active ingredient in homeopathy?
On the contrary, by all means we should test things. That's how we distinguish between traditional methods that actually work (e.g., willow bark), from claptrap.
The problem is that homeopathy has been tested, and found not to work. Repeatedly. In that sense, it is a waste of money to continue doing so.
Yes, because obviously we can't address two issues at once! If the Ottawa Skeptics are criticising this, it obviously prevents anyone from tackling this other issue!
By your logic, we shouldn't address the issue of who can donate blood, because there are, in turn, even more important things. According to you, everyone should only spend their time complaining about whatever the Most Important Thing in the world is.
And anyhow, by your own argument, surely there are more important things to worry about than an organisation criticising something you don't care about?
It's a shame that organizations who claim to have such high purposes waste their time and image by ranting about such stupid meaningless things.
(As opposed to wasting time ranting about people who rant?)
What sort of Ottawa-based issues do you think that the Ottawa Skeptics should be spending time on instead, OOI?
I suspect the days of people running out and buying Windows upgrades in droves are behind us.
When did we ever have them? I would imagine that most people have always bought an OS only when buying a new computer. And that goes for platforms other than Windows too.
Yes it's a good thing that mathematics was routinely patented over the last thousand years, otherwise we'd never had made any progress, and mathematical discoveries would never have been shared with the public.
(And even if you say it's only 20 years, how would quantum mechanics have advanced last century, if every discovery by one physicist resulted in a 20 year delay before others could make use of it? Or imagine Newton and Leibniz getting bogged down in a patent court battle for the rest of their lives over who invented Calculus first...)
That's still absurd :)
Another thought...
Nevermind copyright, there are many examples where information can be illegal - anything from threats to illegal images. So by your logic, since information can be represented by a number, it's therefore criminalising mathematics, and therefore no different to if a country decided to criminalise any other kind of mathematics, right?
The sort of numbers we are talking about are so large, that the probability of coming up with a copyrighted file is staggeringly tiny. Also copyright only applies to copying from a work - if it's clear that it was coincidental, there is no violation, unlike with patent law.
But a patent on mathematics is a patent on mathematics - this is something that isn't unlikely, and there isn't any way round it, even if you independently discover it.
Things like RSA encryption are good examples of patents.
... which was so novel, it had already been independently developed.
And it's a good thing that the number theory it relies on wasn't patented by Euler.
Without patents, it would be even easier for medium/large/mega cooperation to prey on small companies inventions
The flip side is that it's already easy for this to happen now - because the small company is likely already infringing on numerous patents owned by other companies, that they perhaps weren't even aware of.
And what do you mean by "prey"? Currently, the "prey" means that the smaller company risks being shut down, unable to even sell their product, or liable for large patent costs. Without patents, the worst "preying" that I can think of is that the larger company outsells them in the free market, by providing a better product. Which do you think is better for the world?
No patents mean anyone can copy the invention without paying the inventor, so I win that argument.
Not with software they can't, that's protected by copyright.
Is someone who comes up with an algorithm an "inventor"? Algorithms are a subset of mathematics - where do we draw the line? Are mathematicians "inventors"? Perhaps mathematics should be locked up in patents too - after all, surely mathematicians deserve to be paid? According to you, they couldn't possibly earn a living any other way?
(And the idea that not having patents is "socialist" is absurd.)
Ah great, welcome to the 2000s.
But wait - when the Iphone lacked these features, we had no end of "But the Iphone is better off without copy/paste and MMS, it has better paradigms to do these things (but I can't explain what), and what makes Apple so great is that they remove the clutter of items it thinks you don't want". So are we now agreed that the Iphone is worse because it has these features? Or do they concede that this argument was, as I believed all along, nonsense?
The point still stands though - when copy/paste and MMS came out, the fact that people queued in line for them doesn't show Apple are great, it shows that people wanted the "new" (for the Iphone) features.
PS - the Mozilla analogy is flawed. The market share of Firefox dwarfs the Iphone market share many times over. And did it really get to the ridiculous state of having daily Mozilla stories, including extremely trivial non-news items? (E.g., "You can now view this one website ... On Mozilla"? Or "Person did something, oh and he happens to use Mozilla"?
Also consider how many Apple fans whine everytime once in a blue moon there's an article about something they don't like, such as the Amiga. Suddenly the "but people want to hear about it" doesn't apply. They can't have it both ways, so it's fair game to criticise Apple stories.
Oh, I don't doubt that this place has become overrun with Apple fans, I just wish that Slashdot would be upfront about it and call it Appledot, rather than pretending that this was still primarily about Linux and open source. Obviously when an Apple site posts stories everyday about the Iphone, it's normal.
So yes, thanks for agreeing that this place is now Appledot.
(And actually, even if this was an Apple site, this story would really be a non-news scraping the barrel item.)
Life's unfair. Boo hoo.
Eh? When did I say life's unfair? That should be directed at the pro-Apple fans, who whine when there isn't enough coverage, or throw a wobbly everytime somepone posts something negative about their beloved company - just look at how my post gets modded down. Slashdot moderation has long been broken on Apple stories for this reason.
I'm amused at the idea that people who dislike things being "dumbed down" need someone to do this basic conversion for them :)