When people have over 8,000 songs, they're either wanna-be DJs and/or they're hoarding. Do they really listen to all those songs (at least more than once)? I seriously doubt it.
This move is not designed to quell those hoarders/downloaders (at least, I hope not), it's designed to quell those customers who are on the fence.
Also, a large.exe file is not the same as many.mp3 non-executable files. Normally, people would be naturally afraid to download an executable from p2p, so the disincentive is somewhat there already. It's just that currently, people are more afraid to download/install an executable file from a game company than from a p2p site. Something is seriously wrong here. If you're a PC owner, your PC is considerably safer if you download a game from a well-known zero-day "criminal" than if you download that same game from a well known established company.
WTF? It's the world upside down. And who is to blame for this? Like I said, this is an area where a game publisher has the natural advantage in people's mind. It should be the other way around. People should trust game companies. And trust can not be earned back by just making one announcement, or by placing a new logo on the front page, it has to be earned through repeated consistent trustworthy behavior. Once again, the natural incentive not to download executable crap from p2p is already there.
That would also show that DRM is moot as it has no effect on piracy.
No, this won't show anything either way, or if it does show something, it will be opened to interpretation. This is not a study. This is not a test. There is no control group. The game may do well, or not well. This will depend largely on how good the game actually is. Also, a criterion of success cited by one side may be cited as a criterion of failure by the other. So for instance, if the absence of DRM increases the word-of-mouth referrals and sales, that might be counted as a success by one side, but if that same spurt in word-of-mouth referrals increases the number of downloads from p2p -- that same company may see this as a failure (since it would be seeing all those downloads as a sign that imaginary dollars are walking out of the door).
So with no predefined criteria of success, and no control group of any kind, both sides are bound to repeat the same old arguments over again. It's just that all that rationalizing, framing/reframing, and arguing will be done with freshly acquired data, instead of historical data, and people from either side will probably just stick to their preconceived notions either way.
It's only a tag. It's only meant to clarify. It probably means someone saw this story before. The way the headline is written, it could have been interpreted as either breaking news or old news. Relax man.
I've been tortured by morons blasting their music in my apartment complex and out of cars with overly shaky bass systems constantly. I hereby protest...
Apparently, you and Tommy Hilfiger. Tommy Hilfiger protested that gangsters and hoodlums wore his gear. His protest created a real shit storm, now all the gangsters and gangsters-wanna-be buy his stuff and wear his gear just to try to piss him off even more.
If 16 hours of extremely loud rock music (apparently not enough to deafen, though)...
Hearing loss is a gradual linear progression. We all suffer hearing loss with age linearly. That's one of the reasons that teenagers can have ring tones at frequencies that only they can hear. If you ramp up the sound exposure to an extreme, you'll also ramp up the hearing loss. There is no two ways about it. This treatment may not be enough to deafen prisoners in one go, but it is no doubt accelerating their hearing loss to a certain degree.
To which degree? I won't speculate, but I'm just upset that this long-term damage may be one more thing that we American people may have to pay for.
...and 4 hours of complete silence and darkness counts as "torture," people need to visit some other countries more often.
Your post implies that they're not using other means of torture. They are, or at least, they have been. Also, they have been sending some of those prisoners to those other countries you speak of.
If I was a musician, and even if my music was only used as a secondary means to soften up those prisoners before the real torture begins, I would still be upset about it. I know I probably wouldn't win in a court of law, but at least I'd use my fame to bring as much attention to it as possible.
Finally: spies have NO rights, even in the Geneva Conventions.
The problem with this reasoning is that there is no due process to determine if someone is a spy, or not. For instance, a Canadian citizen was kidnapped in Canada (with the complicity of the Canadian authorities) and tortured for the better part of three years, all because he happened to have the same full name as the guy our CIA people were looking for. And in Pakistan and Iraq, the intelligence was initially so poor, that they started giving away $5,000 rewards for information leading to the arrest of insurgents. And we now know, that those rewarded denunciations were sometimes the only proof needed to get someone arrested, tortured, and detained for a number of years, without any other shred of evidence whatsoever.
So even if you want to be able to treat those detainees as guilty terrorists/spies/insurgents/whatever. We still need some kind of due process to decide whether those people are actually the real people we're after, and not just some innocent third party who was just handed to us because of some political reason, or for some profit motive.
In the case of Rwandan genocide, the French government and its troops were accused of assisting in the genocide, not stopping it. Just because a country is bigger and richer doesn't necessarily mean it actually cares about innocent people getting killed.
And even if there was an internet in Darfur, it would have been shut down. In Ethiopia, the text messaging cell phone network was being so effective for protesters, that the government basically shut it down (that was over eight years ago, I don't know if it was ever turned back on). And we say that the internet can't be shut down, but if a government is really intent on shutting off electricity, barricading the roads, and bombing civilians, it's effectively shutting down the internet in at least the region it controls.
Now, would have that Nobel laureate been an historian, an engineer, an economist, or whatever, may be I would have taken him more seriously, but since he's just a Nobel poet with no other apparent expertise/experience on this subject, I think I'll just ignore him. Poets can say whatever they want. They're not required to make sense.
A double blind test would be difficult. I assume that patients like her (or this other guy) are rare. Perhaps, a machine should be used to administer the pain in some way. In this day and age, experiments such as this one are probably off limits anyway.
I think the key to quoting a fixed price for the whole project is to clearly define the project first.
Thinking you can clearly define a project first is like thinking that you can clearly and objectively measure the coast of North England. Measuring a ragged coast line may sound like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but it's a standard fractal problem. The more you go into details (the more you zoom in), the more jagged lines and decision points you're going to find and the longer the coast line is actually going to be.
Am I the only who thinks that 100,000 is not that much to be considered the largest donation. My mom has easily seven times that amount of pictures on her personal computer.
If it's a question of quality, sure, I get that, I'm sure Wikipedia is appreciative of not having to wade through millions of images to select the better ones. But personally, I would love to have as many pictures released under the Creative Commons as possible, even if they're not all that well taken, or even if they're partially damaged. If any one can restore a digital image, or if anyone can hunt down the significance of a particular image, it's the masses of people on the internet that have a casual interest in the subject(s) of those images -- and nothing else better to do with their time.
Knowledge and information is a messy thing. I'm sure that for every image on display in a German museum (for instance), that same image has a thousand corresponding (similar/related, but unknown/less perfect) images archived somewhere in closed boxes and drawers.
From that account, she (an amnesiac) didn't want to shake Dr. C's hand but didn't know the reason why.
Without disputing the Doctor's main conclusion, which goes well with the current mainstream understanding in psychology, and without having read the primary source of his study (the google sholar link only showed a summarized secondary source), I'd like to dispute the Doctor's particular line of thinking in this example (at least, the reasoning that I could glean from the secondary source, perhaps his actual study already addresses my concern).
The second time the Doctor extended his hand to the amnesic patient (the second time he was about to prick her), he must have been even more apprehensive that he was going to be discovered/remembered this second time around.
Fear only begets fear. Did he try to prick her the exact same way that second time? I doubt it.
People usually look at their hand when they fear getting bitten/burned. People also try to avoid making eye contact when they're apprehensive, also they'll wait until the last possible moment to act, and then when they do try to act -- they'll do it when the other person is slightly off balance -- and they'll try do it as quickly as possible (thus unintentionally compounding the surprise and the fear in the other person, and thus compounding their own fear even more since both people's fear would only reinforce each others).
Just imagine a pet that wants to petted by you, but that is already afraid of you. Would you pet such a dog? I doubt it. You would be afraid, right? Then the dog would even be more afraid of you because of your fear. It wouldn't have to be a previous bad memory with that exact same dog that triggers your fear. It's only the body language and the apprehensive vibe that the dog is giving off, and perhaps it could even be the result of a previous childhood memory with a different fearful animal, that is reminding you not to touch this particular fearful dog (although, that last postulation is just an hypothesis, I don't even know if this is what's true in this particular case).
No, this experiment of pricking this amnesiac should be repeated with an actual good dog trainer, an experienced horse trainer, or a professional poker player, not just a Doctor. And even then, this kind of experiment still wouldn't even be perfect. Its results would have to be interpreted very-very carefully still.
While I completely agree that their methods are abhorrent, I'm left wondering what legal means the RIAA had of pursuing their case.
If a new disruptive technology makes your old business model obsolete, and if you've exhausted all your current *legal* options, then you change your business model (or you go look for another job in a different field). You don't start taking illegal action, because you *feel* you deserve to. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right.
You have to select, and then click. I'm sorry, but that's just way too much work.
I just use a greasemonkey script (probably the same one those students probably used, that they probably just compiled with the greasemonkey-firefox extension compiler). With it, you can check if the book/audiobook/movie is on bittorrent, but you can also check if it's at your local public library, at your local competing bookstore (assuming they display their local inventory online -- like Borders does), in your local friends personal library (assuming you have a friend or two who display their personal inventory of books on a web page), and once set up -- you don't have to do any of that selecting middle-clicking BS.
It's a game of simulated warfare and athletic strategy.
Are you sure you're not talking about sex? or good sex?
I know this is a taboo topic to talk about in such politically correct time, but according to some published medical research, we produce the same hormones and the same blood test results when we are having sex than when we are fighting. Also, a woman is four times more likely to get pregnant when she has intercourse with an aggressive male than a non-aggressive male.
China has started IPv6 deployment. Australia hasn't yet. Besides, it works somewhat for China because China doesn't tell its people a domain name/ip address/block of ip addresses has been black listed. So when the Chinese firewall blocks a dynamic ip address (or an entire block of ip addresses) because of one potential dissident host, then this firewall is accidentally blocking hundreds of legitimate (non-dissident) hosts in the process, but since this firewall is giving no clue as to its behavior and Chinese people are only getting standard error messages, everybody in China thinks that the internet is just plain crappy because the DNS never works or the web site they're going to just seems to be always down.
Very funny. O(1) doesn't mean penalty-free. O(1) only means the look-up time is constant (assuming the hash-table is large enough), so this hare-brained idea is definitely technically feasible (although, politically it's stupid, since it's an added inconvenience that's only going to affect the average non-pedophile users).
An example of this scheme working "technically" is Peerguardian2, PeerGuardian prevents your computer from interacting/sharing files with Government ip addresses, anti-sharing ip addresses, spyware/malware/botnet ip addresses, and anyone else that may have pissed you off. The look-up time is fine, it's just the occasional updating and the rehashing that can take a few seconds to a half-minute depending on how fast your computer really is.
That being said, even Peerguardian is not without its problems, sometimes it will block you from going to/sharing with a legitimate site/user just because their ISP allocates IP addresses dynamically. In my case, it even prevented me from checking my own email, because a block from my own ISP was blacklisted. But at least Peerguardian lets you easily override/change specific settings/protocols and it lets white list any ip address/block that accidentally gets misclassified, so it's not going to have the crippling effect on the average non-pedophile user that this Australian harebrained scheme is going to have.
The US election and the primaries brought out the very worst in the blogosphere. Take the whole Ron Paul fad. A commodity backed economy cannot and does not work in a global economy (evidenced by the fact that not a single country does it and the last attempts to create one failed).
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but what kind of logic is this? The absence of a current example doesn't mean it can not be done.
Besides I come from France, and for a time, the only way we got our country's currency trusted again (by both our own people and foreigners) was to go back to a Gold backed currency. Then, once that trust was back and the currency was stabilized (perhaps not a move Ron Paul would advocate) we let this requirement go again.
In my opinion, tightening up and releasing financial controls is all cycle anyway. In good times, we're releasing. In bad times, we're tightening. And we need people like Ron Paul as much as we need people like Alan Greenspan to act as proxies for the current decision/need/mood/situation of the day. And it's not like Ron Paul was going to win in this climate anyway, it's just that we might need people like Ron Paul if things really-really get bad enough.
Only implant the chips on the ones that are clear from HIV. If someone refuses to get tested (which is the real problem) then everybody else around them deserves to be overtly warned about them.
No, this is just marketing FUD. We've been able to do these quick tests in the United States legally since 2004. And the test kit that the parent seems to be talking about is much more recent, and it's only been tested on 322 people -- which is not nearly enough to make any kind of determination on it.
Slashdot Mirror
When people have over 8,000 songs, they're either wanna-be DJs and/or they're hoarding. Do they really listen to all those songs (at least more than once)? I seriously doubt it. This move is not designed to quell those hoarders/downloaders (at least, I hope not), it's designed to quell those customers who are on the fence.
Also, a large .exe file is not the same as many .mp3 non-executable files. Normally, people would be naturally afraid to download an executable from p2p, so the disincentive is somewhat there already. It's just that currently, people are more afraid to download/install an executable file from a game company than from a p2p site. Something is seriously wrong here. If you're a PC owner, your PC is considerably safer if you download a game from a well-known zero-day "criminal" than if you download that same game from a well known established company.
WTF? It's the world upside down. And who is to blame for this? Like I said, this is an area where a game publisher has the natural advantage in people's mind. It should be the other way around. People should trust game companies. And trust can not be earned back by just making one announcement, or by placing a new logo on the front page, it has to be earned through repeated consistent trustworthy behavior. Once again, the natural incentive not to download executable crap from p2p is already there.
No, this won't show anything either way, or if it does show something, it will be opened to interpretation. This is not a study. This is not a test. There is no control group. The game may do well, or not well. This will depend largely on how good the game actually is. Also, a criterion of success cited by one side may be cited as a criterion of failure by the other. So for instance, if the absence of DRM increases the word-of-mouth referrals and sales, that might be counted as a success by one side, but if that same spurt in word-of-mouth referrals increases the number of downloads from p2p -- that same company may see this as a failure (since it would be seeing all those downloads as a sign that imaginary dollars are walking out of the door).
So with no predefined criteria of success, and no control group of any kind, both sides are bound to repeat the same old arguments over again. It's just that all that rationalizing, framing/reframing, and arguing will be done with freshly acquired data, instead of historical data, and people from either side will probably just stick to their preconceived notions either way.
It's only a tag. It's only meant to clarify. It probably means someone saw this story before. The way the headline is written, it could have been interpreted as either breaking news or old news. Relax man.
Apparently, you and Tommy Hilfiger. Tommy Hilfiger protested that gangsters and hoodlums wore his gear. His protest created a real shit storm, now all the gangsters and gangsters-wanna-be buy his stuff and wear his gear just to try to piss him off even more.
Hearing loss is a gradual linear progression. We all suffer hearing loss with age linearly. That's one of the reasons that teenagers can have ring tones at frequencies that only they can hear. If you ramp up the sound exposure to an extreme, you'll also ramp up the hearing loss. There is no two ways about it. This treatment may not be enough to deafen prisoners in one go, but it is no doubt accelerating their hearing loss to a certain degree.
To which degree? I won't speculate, but I'm just upset that this long-term damage may be one more thing that we American people may have to pay for.
Your post implies that they're not using other means of torture. They are, or at least, they have been. Also, they have been sending some of those prisoners to those other countries you speak of.
If I was a musician, and even if my music was only used as a secondary means to soften up those prisoners before the real torture begins, I would still be upset about it. I know I probably wouldn't win in a court of law, but at least I'd use my fame to bring as much attention to it as possible.
Plus he's got a Nobel prize. Do you realize how many scientists want that prize? I say that's his political qualification right there.
The problem with this reasoning is that there is no due process to determine if someone is a spy, or not. For instance, a Canadian citizen was kidnapped in Canada (with the complicity of the Canadian authorities) and tortured for the better part of three years, all because he happened to have the same full name as the guy our CIA people were looking for. And in Pakistan and Iraq, the intelligence was initially so poor, that they started giving away $5,000 rewards for information leading to the arrest of insurgents. And we now know, that those rewarded denunciations were sometimes the only proof needed to get someone arrested, tortured, and detained for a number of years, without any other shred of evidence whatsoever.
So even if you want to be able to treat those detainees as guilty terrorists/spies/insurgents/whatever. We still need some kind of due process to decide whether those people are actually the real people we're after, and not just some innocent third party who was just handed to us because of some political reason, or for some profit motive.
Welcome to China. Most Chinese internet users think the internet is crappy, not censored.
In the case of Rwandan genocide, the French government and its troops were accused of assisting in the genocide, not stopping it. Just because a country is bigger and richer doesn't necessarily mean it actually cares about innocent people getting killed.
And even if there was an internet in Darfur, it would have been shut down. In Ethiopia, the text messaging cell phone network was being so effective for protesters, that the government basically shut it down (that was over eight years ago, I don't know if it was ever turned back on). And we say that the internet can't be shut down, but if a government is really intent on shutting off electricity, barricading the roads, and bombing civilians, it's effectively shutting down the internet in at least the region it controls.
Now, would have that Nobel laureate been an historian, an engineer, an economist, or whatever, may be I would have taken him more seriously, but since he's just a Nobel poet with no other apparent expertise/experience on this subject, I think I'll just ignore him. Poets can say whatever they want. They're not required to make sense.
A double blind test would be difficult. I assume that patients like her (or this other guy) are rare. Perhaps, a machine should be used to administer the pain in some way. In this day and age, experiments such as this one are probably off limits anyway.
Thinking you can clearly define a project first is like thinking that you can clearly and objectively measure the coast of North England. Measuring a ragged coast line may sound like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but it's a standard fractal problem. The more you go into details (the more you zoom in), the more jagged lines and decision points you're going to find and the longer the coast line is actually going to be.
No, it's just inconceivable that she be held criminally liable for what her father did?
Am I the only who thinks that 100,000 is not that much to be considered the largest donation. My mom has easily seven times that amount of pictures on her personal computer.
If it's a question of quality, sure, I get that, I'm sure Wikipedia is appreciative of not having to wade through millions of images to select the better ones. But personally, I would love to have as many pictures released under the Creative Commons as possible, even if they're not all that well taken, or even if they're partially damaged. If any one can restore a digital image, or if anyone can hunt down the significance of a particular image, it's the masses of people on the internet that have a casual interest in the subject(s) of those images -- and nothing else better to do with their time.
Knowledge and information is a messy thing. I'm sure that for every image on display in a German museum (for instance), that same image has a thousand corresponding (similar/related, but unknown/less perfect) images archived somewhere in closed boxes and drawers.
Without disputing the Doctor's main conclusion, which goes well with the current mainstream understanding in psychology, and without having read the primary source of his study (the google sholar link only showed a summarized secondary source), I'd like to dispute the Doctor's particular line of thinking in this example (at least, the reasoning that I could glean from the secondary source, perhaps his actual study already addresses my concern).
The second time the Doctor extended his hand to the amnesic patient (the second time he was about to prick her), he must have been even more apprehensive that he was going to be discovered/remembered this second time around.
Fear only begets fear. Did he try to prick her the exact same way that second time? I doubt it.
People usually look at their hand when they fear getting bitten/burned. People also try to avoid making eye contact when they're apprehensive, also they'll wait until the last possible moment to act, and then when they do try to act -- they'll do it when the other person is slightly off balance -- and they'll try do it as quickly as possible (thus unintentionally compounding the surprise and the fear in the other person, and thus compounding their own fear even more since both people's fear would only reinforce each others).
Just imagine a pet that wants to petted by you, but that is already afraid of you. Would you pet such a dog? I doubt it. You would be afraid, right? Then the dog would even be more afraid of you because of your fear. It wouldn't have to be a previous bad memory with that exact same dog that triggers your fear. It's only the body language and the apprehensive vibe that the dog is giving off, and perhaps it could even be the result of a previous childhood memory with a different fearful animal, that is reminding you not to touch this particular fearful dog (although, that last postulation is just an hypothesis, I don't even know if this is what's true in this particular case).
No, this experiment of pricking this amnesiac should be repeated with an actual good dog trainer, an experienced horse trainer, or a professional poker player, not just a Doctor. And even then, this kind of experiment still wouldn't even be perfect. Its results would have to be interpreted very-very carefully still.
Oddly enough? What's so odd about a man writing lesbian fiction? Isn't lesbian fiction mostly for men anyway.
If a new disruptive technology makes your old business model obsolete, and if you've exhausted all your current *legal* options, then you change your business model (or you go look for another job in a different field). You don't start taking illegal action, because you *feel* you deserve to. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right.
I think it's in the book "The Mating Mind".
You have to select, and then click. I'm sorry, but that's just way too much work.
I just use a greasemonkey script (probably the same one those students probably used, that they probably just compiled with the greasemonkey-firefox extension compiler). With it, you can check if the book/audiobook/movie is on bittorrent, but you can also check if it's at your local public library, at your local competing bookstore (assuming they display their local inventory online -- like Borders does), in your local friends personal library (assuming you have a friend or two who display their personal inventory of books on a web page), and once set up -- you don't have to do any of that selecting middle-clicking BS.
Are you sure you're not talking about sex? or good sex?
I know this is a taboo topic to talk about in such politically correct time, but according to some published medical research, we produce the same hormones and the same blood test results when we are having sex than when we are fighting. Also, a woman is four times more likely to get pregnant when she has intercourse with an aggressive male than a non-aggressive male.
China has started IPv6 deployment. Australia hasn't yet. Besides, it works somewhat for China because China doesn't tell its people a domain name/ip address/block of ip addresses has been black listed. So when the Chinese firewall blocks a dynamic ip address (or an entire block of ip addresses) because of one potential dissident host, then this firewall is accidentally blocking hundreds of legitimate (non-dissident) hosts in the process, but since this firewall is giving no clue as to its behavior and Chinese people are only getting standard error messages, everybody in China thinks that the internet is just plain crappy because the DNS never works or the web site they're going to just seems to be always down.
Very funny. O(1) doesn't mean penalty-free. O(1) only means the look-up time is constant (assuming the hash-table is large enough), so this hare-brained idea is definitely technically feasible (although, politically it's stupid, since it's an added inconvenience that's only going to affect the average non-pedophile users).
An example of this scheme working "technically" is Peerguardian2, PeerGuardian prevents your computer from interacting/sharing files with Government ip addresses, anti-sharing ip addresses, spyware/malware/botnet ip addresses, and anyone else that may have pissed you off. The look-up time is fine, it's just the occasional updating and the rehashing that can take a few seconds to a half-minute depending on how fast your computer really is.
That being said, even Peerguardian is not without its problems, sometimes it will block you from going to/sharing with a legitimate site/user just because their ISP allocates IP addresses dynamically. In my case, it even prevented me from checking my own email, because a block from my own ISP was blacklisted. But at least Peerguardian lets you easily override/change specific settings/protocols and it lets white list any ip address/block that accidentally gets misclassified, so it's not going to have the crippling effect on the average non-pedophile user that this Australian harebrained scheme is going to have.
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but what kind of logic is this? The absence of a current example doesn't mean it can not be done.
Besides I come from France, and for a time, the only way we got our country's currency trusted again (by both our own people and foreigners) was to go back to a Gold backed currency. Then, once that trust was back and the currency was stabilized (perhaps not a move Ron Paul would advocate) we let this requirement go again.
In my opinion, tightening up and releasing financial controls is all cycle anyway. In good times, we're releasing. In bad times, we're tightening. And we need people like Ron Paul as much as we need people like Alan Greenspan to act as proxies for the current decision/need/mood/situation of the day. And it's not like Ron Paul was going to win in this climate anyway, it's just that we might need people like Ron Paul if things really-really get bad enough.
Only implant the chips on the ones that are clear from HIV. If someone refuses to get tested (which is the real problem) then everybody else around them deserves to be overtly warned about them.
No, this is just marketing FUD. We've been able to do these quick tests in the United States legally since 2004. And the test kit that the parent seems to be talking about is much more recent, and it's only been tested on 322 people -- which is not nearly enough to make any kind of determination on it.