They could generate all their data using gifs. To confound software that performed screen captures and then OCR'ed the site, they could use a funky font or place noise in the background color.
What is so unethical about making one set of shareholders richer at the expense of making another set of shareholders poorer. This is capitalism, stupid. If it's not illegal, do it. That's just good coroporate governance.
I think it can be entertaining and responsible. The more important question is: Can it be entertaining and accurate? I think the answer here is no, it can't.
A journalists job is to digest complex facts and regurgitate them so that their lay audience can comprehend them. Pure science is full of complex symbols and formulas that only specialists with years of training can understand. Journalese, which is just plain spoken word, is not equipped to handle the fine symbolic details of science. Therefore, it can only provide loose approximations of theory.
So a journalist can write: the planets revolve around the sun in elliptical orbits with slight deviations due to...blah blah blah. Sure that's responsible journalism. And it's very useful to those of us who don't want to research calculus to get a lay person's understanding of the path planets take around the sun. However, it doesn't come close to the accuracy of the mathematical formulas that describe the path of the planets. But who the hell is going to want to read and study a bunch of formulas while reading the New York Times Science section? Not me. The journalist must sacrifice accuracy for readability/entertainment reasons.
But there is nothing irresponsible at all about making rough approximations to help keep an article light and entertaining. I mean, can you really consider it irresonsible to not be as accurate as you can possibly be? Consider that all of our knowledge comes from rough approximations delivered to us by our senses and equipment. Since they are only approximations, does it mean we must throw out all that we know? Is all of science, then, irresponsible because its measuring devices have tolerances?
Estimating of the cost of infinitely reproducible 1s and 0s is probably futile and ultimately an exercise in the absurd. Journalists need to stop reporting such numbers as fact without explaining where exactly how this amount is arrived at.
My guess is that these dollar figure likely assume that every copy of a song downloaded results in a lost record sale so the record labels can cry "boo-hoo" all the way to the bank. However, just because I have the Rocky theme on my hard drive doesn't mean that I would have run out to the store and plunked down $13 bucks for the CD otherwise.
Let's see, what did Orwell have to say about lotteries?
They were talking about the Lottery. Winston looked back when he had gone thirty metres. They were still arguing, with vivid, passionate faces. The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one public event to which the proles paid serious attention. It was probable that there were some millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their delight, their folly, their anodyne, their intellectual stimulant. Where the Lottery was concerned, even people who could barely read and write seemed capable of intricate calculations and staggering feats of memory. There was a whole tribe of men who made a living simply by selling systems, forecasts, and lucky amulets. Winston had nothing to do with the running of the Lottery, which was managed by the Ministry of Plenty, but he was aware (indeed everyone in the party was aware) that the prizes were largely imaginary.
Nobody ever said Government was perfect (and I defy you to find an institution that is), but dammit, it's the only thing we have to bring order and law to a world of chaos. The anti-government, anti-regulation libertarian rhetoric that has captured the popular mind in the last couple of decades has got to come to an end before the spam problem will be solved in the US. The UK is on the right track.
I see. So you are one of the libertarian purists who feel the entire federal government is illegal? Well then get your flint lock rifle and pitchfork out and round the neighbors up...it's time for a revolution!
I'm afraid the time for your angle of argument was around the year 1803 when the Louisiana Purchase occurred. Do a search on "strict constructionists" or "doctrine of implied powers" and then come talk to me when you've done your homework.
Well, in case you didn't realize, the Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT, which means that over 200 years of laws have been piled on top of it. The Constitution is a FOUNDATION for our existing laws, not the ONLY law on the books. The Constitution doesn't mention public schools, slavery, or spam but that doesn't mean we can never create laws about these issues.
There are many easy laws that have been suggested that would help stem the overwhelming tide of spam flooding our servers. Just as speed limits don't stop speeding, spam laws won't stop spam. But speed limits do have a positive effect on the safety of our highways and spam laws would have a positive effect on the amount of crap clogging the Internet.
1) Spammers do not currently violate the "rights" of anyone. But a law should be created to make it a violation of my rights.
If I own a piece of property, let's say an open field, and thousands of people arrive and decide to have a rock concert, they are trespassing and I have the right to throw them off of my property. If they don't leave upon my request, I have the right to call the police and remove them by force. The concert-goers are violating my property rights. And I'd probably have the right to sue the organizer of the concert for damanges if they destroy my land. When you get down to it, all these rights are purely imaginary. None of these rights existed before a law was created. The rights were created by a laws. Similarly, I would enjoy the right to control the ability of people to solicit me through e-mail. Right now, I have no such right under the law. My only recourse is a technological solution, as you point out. But...
2) Technological soluctions are too much of a hassle and I'd rather have someone else take care of the problem for me.
Going back to my analogy, I COULD throw up 20 foot high fence and barbed wire to keep the pesky concert goers the hell off of my property. It's expensive but it works---for me. The problem is, the roving band of rockers will just go to my neighbors field and hold a rock concert there. Now my neighbor is faced with the prospect of a throwing up an expensive barricade.
Do you see where I'm going with this? It's much less efficient for everyone to handle the problem on an individual basis. Everyone is hassled with the burden of throwing up expensive solutions and wasting time solving a problem that could have been handled if there were some basic laws in place. To be sure, trespassing laws haven't put a stop trespassing completely and they aren't perfect. Just as speed limits certainly haven't put an end to speeding but they definitely have saved many lives.
I'm all for spam regualtion and I think it would help limit the amount of useless, vulgar crap coming into my servers.
No body ever said Government was perfect (and I defy you to find an institution that is), but dammit, it's the only thing we have to bring order and law to a world of chaos. The anti-government, anti-regulation libertarian rhetoric that has captured the popular mind in the last couple of decades has got to come to an end before the spam problem will be solved.
Re:Pretending the world is NOT random is most logi
on
Fooled by Randomness
·
· Score: 1
Yup. Now please excuse me while I go get another beer. Jerry Springer is almost on.:)
Re:Pretending the world is NOT random is most logi
on
Fooled by Randomness
·
· Score: 1
I agree with you, absolutely.
But I wasn't necessarily commenting on the book. I haven't read it. But based on the review and the links here, the books seems only to confirm something I already felt in my bones: traders and economists sling a lot of BS around. But you know what? A little BS in a world of uncertainty and randomness can carry you a long, long way. Tha't why traders and economists are so full of BS!
Pretending the world is NOT random is most logical
on
Fooled by Randomness
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's quite easy to accept the fact that life is rather meaningless and random. Nihilism has been around for a long time, even before the philosophy of nothingness had a name. However, where does that get you? If you lived and breathed every moment thinking everything was meaningless and random and that you ultimately could make no sense of it all nor had no control over it, you wouldn't get much done. After all, everything you do is meaningless and random.
The solution is to PICK something important that may not be meaningless and random. After all, the world just might not be meaningless and random. This is kind of like Pascal's wager. If you go around believing everything is meaningeless and random and act accordingly like it is, than you gain nothing. You'd sit home and drink beers and watch Jerry Springer all day because theoretically, you aren't any worse or better off than Mother Theresa, Bill Gates, or any other "successful" person. If, however, you pick a goal or ideal to work toward and give it meaning, your life does have meaning and value. At the very least, if others around you deem your efforts worthy, you will gain the love and affection of others (which MOST people are biologically wired to need and crave). Therefore, it is possible to gain something (the pleasure of being valued) out of the void of randomness by giving your life some purpose, even if that purpose is ultimately meaningless in the big scheme of things.
So keep playing the game of life. You've got nothing to lose and only stand to gain.
Even IF the Segway is the greatest revolution in transportation since the automobile, it wasn't very smart to sink millions and millions of dollars into a huge hype campaign, lobbying efforts, and a factory devoted to cranking out 10,000 units a day before there was a demand. The automobilie industry didn't start out that way but rather grew more organically. When people saw the first saw a car roll down the street I'm sure they thought, "Wow! I've GOT to have one!" The rest took care of itself.
Then again, maybe the Segway they HAD to put on a dog and pony show because when people see it they probably think, "Wow! That guy riding the Segway looks like a dork!"
Here's an "illegal" web site
on
Review: Illegal Art
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
An organization I'm familiar with, the Anti-Displacement Project, created an "illegal" parody of a large corporation called Labor Ready. They claim the logo on the site infringes on their trademark. You can see the logo at www.slaverready.com. Labor Ready is now suing them.
The logo is clearly not an infringement of copyright or trademark. First, it is protected under the First Amendment because it is a parody. Also, it's being used in non-commerical way to criticize a company, which of course is also protected speech. Third, no one would ever confuse our site with Labor Ready's so it does not infringe on their trademark. What's more, the parody logo only vaguely resembles the company's official logo.
This is just another way corporations get to push around the little guy. They have the resources at their disposal to try to scare and intimidate this organization into shutting up or else face the prospect financial ruin trying to put a fight.
The constitution did not grant the right of free speech to corporations. It wasn't until the late 1800s did a court ruling determine that corporations were people and thus were entitled to the same rights as flesh and blood citizens.
Corporations are supposed to server the greater good. But the drive for profit at all costs does not serve society well at all; it serves only a handful of shareholders looking to make a return on an investment. It's absurd to give powerful corporations the right to flagrantly violate laws of human decency in order to improve the bottom line.
Let's say I have 20,000 pages to print. I buy a $200 printer. Let me guess and say 20,000 pages requires $1000 in ink. I just paid $1200 for the print job.
Now let's say I buy the same printer for $400(which will allow the printer manufacturer to make a profit) and buy the more reasonable priced ink for $200. I just paid $600 and cut my costs in half.
In other words, I sure as hell would rather pay full price for a printer than pay for ink that is marked up perhaps 500%. In the long run, I'll save money. The printer companies are ultimately making MORE money by selling cheap printers and outrageously priced ink. They are gouging consumers.
Imagine if Daimler-Chrylser, Ford, GM and others decided to implant devices in auto parts that communicated with the car's central processing unit. Then imagine your car not starting because you have a third party distributor cap or alternator. There would be an uproar and I'm sure it would be illegal. I think Lexmark thinks it can get away with this because it makes printers, designed to work with computers, and so might conceivably be covered by the DMCA. This is clearly a bunch of bullshit.
A shameless but important plug. Please link to this site. It's about a temp company, Labor Ready, that is exploiting it's workers.</offtopic> If you are feeling particularly angry at the company after reading about them, post their logo on your website.
As a MA resident, I signed up for the DNC list. I noticed that the web site did nothing to verify my identity when I placed myself on the list. How do they know a friend or relative entered my name and address into the database for me. If I represented the DMA on this case, I'd mount a legal challenge by arguing that there is no evidence that the person entering the data is indeed the person he/she claims to be.
Do I need to activate TurboTax again if I reinstall the program?
Whether or not you need to reactivate TurboTax (that is, purchase an additional product license) depends upon your particular situation:
If you reinstall TurboTax to the same hard disk that it was previously activated on, you do not need to activate it again.
If you install TurboTax on another computer, you need to activate it again only if you want to print or electronically file your tax return from that computer.
Example: You activated TurboTax on your home computer and attempt to electronically file your tax return, but for some reason you start to experience problems with your Internet connection. The next day, you install TurboTax on your computer at work, along with a copy of your tax file. In order to electronically file your tax return from your work computer, you must activate TurboTax on your work computer.
Note: If you need to reinstall an activated copy of TurboTax on another computer because of a hard disk failure, or if you are reinstalling an activated copy of TurboTax on a newly purchased computer or hard disk, please contact a live agent to obtain a second activation code.
If you install TurboTax on another computer without activating it, you can make changes to your tax return using the EasyStep Interview, but you will not be able to print, electronically file, use the Forms Method, view tax forms, or save your tax file as a.pdf file from that computer.
Example: After activating TurboTax, you electronically file your tax return and print copies of the return for your records. Shortly thereafter, you replace your original computer with a new one. You install TurboTax on the new computer in case you need to refer to your 2002 tax file, but you do not intend to electronically file or print your return again. In this case, you do not need to activate TurboTax on your new computer.
Product Activation lets you print or electronically file tax returns from any computer that TurboTax is activated on; it does not prevent installing the program on another computer.
Getting/installing/using software is becoming more and more of a headache for consumers every day. Once an average Joe loses an activiation key or has to go through the hassle trying to figure out how to use a new one, they'll just forget about using the software and come away with a bad experience. Who the hell has the time to wade through this BS just to figure out what your rights are for using the software? I just want to be able to pop the disk in my drive and have the thing run when I need it to run. Things get really maddening when you are dealing with a dozen applications, each with their own procedures and policies.
The most frustrating is the powerless feeling it gives a user. People will come to HATE software because of the frustration and agony of not being able to control something they feel they own. This will make consumer less reluctant to throw down $100 or $200 bucks for their next software purchase. Not good. Someone needs to find a better way.
I read about this project in the NYT a while back even before the WTC attack. So this project was under way before 9/11/01. As evidenced by this link, they are using the terrorist attacks to seek more funding for the project. For those without Acrobat Reader, the article says, 'The event [9/11] has raised the significance of the project. "There was dedication before but now the sense is there will be more funding."'
So the project wasn't started as a direct result of the attacks as this headline would lead you to believe.
You missed my point. I wasn't arguing that OPEC is not subject to the laws of supply and demand. I was simply stating that they exist to tilt the supply/demand curve in their favor. And as you rightly point out, when you are dealing with a tangible good like oil, manipulating the market is not always easy.
But when you are buying and selling intangible goods like electricity and bandwidth on the open market, it becomes extremely easy to manipulate the laws of supply and demand. Do you think it's really possible for UUNet, Sprint, and AT&T to precisely calculate the cost of transmitting a MB from point A to point B through their vast communication networks? It's an impossible task and subject to a lot of bullshit accounting procedures. There's no law of supply and demand being followed by these bandwidth cartels. And they certainly don't have to worry about setting the price to high. What are you going to do, start laying wire for your own personal Internet?
Slashdot Mirror
They could generate all their data using gifs. To confound software that performed screen captures and then OCR'ed the site, they could use a funky font or place noise in the background color.
Welcome to the NWO!
A journalists job is to digest complex facts and regurgitate them so that their lay audience can comprehend them. Pure science is full of complex symbols and formulas that only specialists with years of training can understand. Journalese, which is just plain spoken word, is not equipped to handle the fine symbolic details of science. Therefore, it can only provide loose approximations of theory.
So a journalist can write: the planets revolve around the sun in elliptical orbits with slight deviations due to...blah blah blah. Sure that's responsible journalism. And it's very useful to those of us who don't want to research calculus to get a lay person's understanding of the path planets take around the sun. However, it doesn't come close to the accuracy of the mathematical formulas that describe the path of the planets. But who the hell is going to want to read and study a bunch of formulas while reading the New York Times Science section? Not me. The journalist must sacrifice accuracy for readability/entertainment reasons.
But there is nothing irresponsible at all about making rough approximations to help keep an article light and entertaining. I mean, can you really consider it irresonsible to not be as accurate as you can possibly be? Consider that all of our knowledge comes from rough approximations delivered to us by our senses and equipment. Since they are only approximations, does it mean we must throw out all that we know? Is all of science, then, irresponsible because its measuring devices have tolerances?
My guess is that these dollar figure likely assume that every copy of a song downloaded results in a lost record sale so the record labels can cry "boo-hoo" all the way to the bank. However, just because I have the Rocky theme on my hard drive doesn't mean that I would have run out to the store and plunked down $13 bucks for the CD otherwise.
They were talking about the Lottery. Winston looked back when he had gone thirty metres. They were still arguing, with vivid, passionate faces. The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one public event to which the proles paid serious attention. It was probable that there were some millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their delight, their folly, their anodyne, their intellectual stimulant. Where the Lottery was concerned, even people who could barely read and write seemed capable of intricate calculations and staggering feats of memory. There was a whole tribe of men who made a living simply by selling systems, forecasts, and lucky amulets. Winston had nothing to do with the running of the Lottery, which was managed by the Ministry of Plenty, but he was aware (indeed everyone in the party was aware) that the prizes were largely imaginary.
Nobody ever said Government was perfect (and I defy you to find an institution that is), but dammit, it's the only thing we have to bring order and law to a world of chaos. The anti-government, anti-regulation libertarian rhetoric that has captured the popular mind in the last couple of decades has got to come to an end before the spam problem will be solved in the US. The UK is on the right track.
I'm afraid the time for your angle of argument was around the year 1803 when the Louisiana Purchase occurred. Do a search on "strict constructionists" or "doctrine of implied powers" and then come talk to me when you've done your homework.
There are many easy laws that have been suggested that would help stem the overwhelming tide of spam flooding our servers. Just as speed limits don't stop speeding, spam laws won't stop spam. But speed limits do have a positive effect on the safety of our highways and spam laws would have a positive effect on the amount of crap clogging the Internet.
If I own a piece of property, let's say an open field, and thousands of people arrive and decide to have a rock concert, they are trespassing and I have the right to throw them off of my property. If they don't leave upon my request, I have the right to call the police and remove them by force. The concert-goers are violating my property rights. And I'd probably have the right to sue the organizer of the concert for damanges if they destroy my land. When you get down to it, all these rights are purely imaginary. None of these rights existed before a law was created. The rights were created by a laws. Similarly, I would enjoy the right to control the ability of people to solicit me through e-mail. Right now, I have no such right under the law. My only recourse is a technological solution, as you point out. But...
2) Technological soluctions are too much of a hassle and I'd rather have someone else take care of the problem for me.
Going back to my analogy, I COULD throw up 20 foot high fence and barbed wire to keep the pesky concert goers the hell off of my property. It's expensive but it works---for me. The problem is, the roving band of rockers will just go to my neighbors field and hold a rock concert there. Now my neighbor is faced with the prospect of a throwing up an expensive barricade.
Do you see where I'm going with this? It's much less efficient for everyone to handle the problem on an individual basis. Everyone is hassled with the burden of throwing up expensive solutions and wasting time solving a problem that could have been handled if there were some basic laws in place. To be sure, trespassing laws haven't put a stop trespassing completely and they aren't perfect. Just as speed limits certainly haven't put an end to speeding but they definitely have saved many lives.
I'm all for spam regualtion and I think it would help limit the amount of useless, vulgar crap coming into my servers.
No body ever said Government was perfect (and I defy you to find an institution that is), but dammit, it's the only thing we have to bring order and law to a world of chaos. The anti-government, anti-regulation libertarian rhetoric that has captured the popular mind in the last couple of decades has got to come to an end before the spam problem will be solved.
Yup. Now please excuse me while I go get another beer. Jerry Springer is almost on. :)
But I wasn't necessarily commenting on the book. I haven't read it. But based on the review and the links here, the books seems only to confirm something I already felt in my bones: traders and economists sling a lot of BS around. But you know what? A little BS in a world of uncertainty and randomness can carry you a long, long way. Tha't why traders and economists are so full of BS!
The solution is to PICK something important that may not be meaningless and random. After all, the world just might not be meaningless and random. This is kind of like Pascal's wager. If you go around believing everything is meaningeless and random and act accordingly like it is, than you gain nothing. You'd sit home and drink beers and watch Jerry Springer all day because theoretically, you aren't any worse or better off than Mother Theresa, Bill Gates, or any other "successful" person. If, however, you pick a goal or ideal to work toward and give it meaning, your life does have meaning and value. At the very least, if others around you deem your efforts worthy, you will gain the love and affection of others (which MOST people are biologically wired to need and crave). Therefore, it is possible to gain something (the pleasure of being valued) out of the void of randomness by giving your life some purpose, even if that purpose is ultimately meaningless in the big scheme of things.
So keep playing the game of life. You've got nothing to lose and only stand to gain.
I read it on Slashdot!
Then again, maybe the Segway they HAD to put on a dog and pony show because when people see it they probably think, "Wow! That guy riding the Segway looks like a dork!"
The logo is clearly not an infringement of copyright or trademark. First, it is protected under the First Amendment because it is a parody. Also, it's being used in non-commerical way to criticize a company, which of course is also protected speech. Third, no one would ever confuse our site with Labor Ready's so it does not infringe on their trademark. What's more, the parody logo only vaguely resembles the company's official logo.
This is just another way corporations get to push around the little guy. They have the resources at their disposal to try to scare and intimidate this organization into shutting up or else face the prospect financial ruin trying to put a fight.
Get fired, land nice cush job. Fuck the rich.
Corporations are supposed to server the greater good. But the drive for profit at all costs does not serve society well at all; it serves only a handful of shareholders looking to make a return on an investment. It's absurd to give powerful corporations the right to flagrantly violate laws of human decency in order to improve the bottom line.
Now let's say I buy the same printer for $400(which will allow the printer manufacturer to make a profit) and buy the more reasonable priced ink for $200. I just paid $600 and cut my costs in half.
In other words, I sure as hell would rather pay full price for a printer than pay for ink that is marked up perhaps 500%. In the long run, I'll save money. The printer companies are ultimately making MORE money by selling cheap printers and outrageously priced ink. They are gouging consumers.
Imagine if Daimler-Chrylser, Ford, GM and others decided to implant devices in auto parts that communicated with the car's central processing unit. Then imagine your car not starting because you have a third party distributor cap or alternator. There would be an uproar and I'm sure it would be illegal. I think Lexmark thinks it can get away with this because it makes printers, designed to work with computers, and so might conceivably be covered by the DMCA. This is clearly a bunch of bullshit.
Thanks!
As a MA resident, I signed up for the DNC list. I noticed that the web site did nothing to verify my identity when I placed myself on the list. How do they know a friend or relative entered my name and address into the database for me. If I represented the DMA on this case, I'd mount a legal challenge by arguing that there is no evidence that the person entering the data is indeed the person he/she claims to be.
Do I need to activate TurboTax again if I reinstall the program? Whether or not you need to reactivate TurboTax (that is, purchase an additional product license) depends upon your particular situation:
If you reinstall TurboTax to the same hard disk that it was previously activated on, you do not need to activate it again.
If you install TurboTax on another computer, you need to activate it again only if you want to print or electronically file your tax return from that computer.
Example: You activated TurboTax on your home computer and attempt to electronically file your tax return, but for some reason you start to experience problems with your Internet connection. The next day, you install TurboTax on your computer at work, along with a copy of your tax file. In order to electronically file your tax return from your work computer, you must activate TurboTax on your work computer. Note: If you need to reinstall an activated copy of TurboTax on another computer because of a hard disk failure, or if you are reinstalling an activated copy of TurboTax on a newly purchased computer or hard disk, please contact a live agent to obtain a second activation code.
If you install TurboTax on another computer without activating it, you can make changes to your tax return using the EasyStep Interview, but you will not be able to print, electronically file, use the Forms Method, view tax forms, or save your tax file as a .pdf file from that computer.
Example: After activating TurboTax, you electronically file your tax return and print copies of the return for your records. Shortly thereafter, you replace your original computer with a new one. You install TurboTax on the new computer in case you need to refer to your 2002 tax file, but you do not intend to electronically file or print your return again. In this case, you do not need to activate TurboTax on your new computer. Product Activation lets you print or electronically file tax returns from any computer that TurboTax is activated on; it does not prevent installing the program on another computer.
The most frustrating is the powerless feeling it gives a user. People will come to HATE software because of the frustration and agony of not being able to control something they feel they own. This will make consumer less reluctant to throw down $100 or $200 bucks for their next software purchase. Not good. Someone needs to find a better way.
So the project wasn't started as a direct result of the attacks as this headline would lead you to believe.
But when you are buying and selling intangible goods like electricity and bandwidth on the open market, it becomes extremely easy to manipulate the laws of supply and demand. Do you think it's really possible for UUNet, Sprint, and AT&T to precisely calculate the cost of transmitting a MB from point A to point B through their vast communication networks? It's an impossible task and subject to a lot of bullshit accounting procedures. There's no law of supply and demand being followed by these bandwidth cartels. And they certainly don't have to worry about setting the price to high. What are you going to do, start laying wire for your own personal Internet?