Dunno how you'd hijack a plane with a freaking knife after 9-11.
a) Air Marshals are on only a very small minority of flights.
b) Humans are, well, human.
People are both afraid of personal danger and they're afraid of doing anything that would allow harm to come to others. A hijacker that killed one or two people quickly might have a lot of success at getting others to do what he wishs them to do, possibly even a pilot. I know a hijacked plane would be much more likely to go the way of the Pennsylvania 9/11 plane today, but it's far from a certainty that it couldn't be successful.
I'm amazed at the fact that people are so fearful of terrorists that they would allow this. The murder rate in America is between about 10,000 and 25,000 people. Even at the low number, each year about four times more Americans get murdered by fellow Americans than died in 9/11.
We don't allow ourselves to be randomly strip searched at the mall, in bars or before entering our cars, yet we're far more likely to be murdered in those places than on (or by) a plane. Why do we look at run-of-the-mill murder as something that we can't afford to give up our rights to prevent, but terrorism as something that is so fearful that almost anything is fair game.
I don't think I'm in a position to not travel on a plane, but I can still protest if they impliment this. I will find a non-metalic substance that's high contrast to one of these machines and I'll spell out the words "go fuck yourselves you nazi whores" on my chest or back, but under my shirt. The only people who will see it will be the screeners. I will continue to be completely cheerfull and cooperative in every other way. After they get finished looking at my cock and my ass cheeks with their machines, I dare those mother-fuckers to accuse me of being crude or mean to them.
The iPod had an 82 percent share of the market in U.S. retail stores in the 12 months ended in August, up from 64 percent in the same period a year earlier, and 33 percent two years ago, according to Port Washington, New York-based NPD Group Inc.
Both iTunes and IE are "bundled" products. Although you can get either by itself, the most common way to get them is to have them bundled with either your iPod or your Windows OS respectively. Neither IE or iTunes started out with commanding market share, but they both built share very quickly.
So now we have it on record: the music store is a loss leader. Jobs said Apple would pay its dues to the RIAA, then seek to make money where it could, from its line of hardware accessories. When the conversation turned to rivals such as eTunes and Napster, Jobs said: "They don't make iPods, so they don't have a related business where they do [make money]".
This does, in my book, give Jobs a slight ethical advantage. He's actually telling the truth about his goals and aspirations for the iPod and iTunes. However, it still leaves the whole iTunes/iPod thing very much in the same territory, both bundling-wise and monopoly-wise as IE/Windows.
If it's an ethical issue, then it's either eithical(or not) for both of them. If it's just business, then they're both just good business people. In my opinion, both practices are bad for the consumer, even though on the surface each one looks like it's making the consumer's life easier.
I don't normally reply in this fashion to my own posts, but this is ridiculous. I just had one comment marked flaimbait and one marked redundant in the same thread. Come on man, these posts are legitimate criticism.
Marking something down simply because you happen to disagree with it doesn't even come close to fitting the moderators guidelines. You are not helping to win me over to your cause with this kind of zealotry.
As I replied to the comment above yours, if it's not ok for Microsoft to lock you in then why should I consider it ok for Apple?
I just flat out dislike lock in. I have several different MP3 players in my house from several different manufactures. My daughter has an iPod and a previous generation no-name player. I have a Windows Smartphone and a PSP. Of all of them, the iPod is by far the biggest hassle to use because we just happened to be using different desktop music players before I bought the iPod.
Windows Media Player, WinAmp and MusicMatch all played pretty nicely together, mostly because none of them insisted on doing anything radical. But getting music onto and off of the MP3 players quickly became a hassle. The SmartPhone would only play ball with ActiveSync on a PC while the iPod refused to work with anything but iTunes. The ActiveSync wasn't a huge issue because it didn't necesitate I change my music player, but my daughter experienced all kinds frustration as she had to abandon the way she previously had her music organised and redo it all for iTunes.
The thing is, I don't want to use iTunes and neither does my daughter. That's not a crack on Apple or the fine people who developed iTunes, I just happen to like what I currently use. What is a crack on Apple is that they had, and IMHO still have the ability to make a portable player that's easy to use with any desktop player and they just refuse to do it. That doesn't make them evil, it just puts them on the same ethical level as Microsoft. If they're ok with that and you're ok with that then more power to you, but it's increasingly looking like this is the first and last iPod in my house unless Apple makes some changes.
Three simple steps for adding new music to your iPod: 1: Import a CD or buy some songs in iTunes. 2: Plug in your iPod. 3: There's no step three.
See, that's the problem right there. You gotta have iTunes. Using Apple products really is easier if you use all the products they tell you to, when they tell you to use them. If you want to use anything else and it can quickly turn into a hassle.
This is simplicity in exactly the same way as "just us Internet Explorer and you wont have rendering or interoperability issues." If I don't give MS a pass on their version of "simplicity", why should I say it's ok for Apple?
They're just plain old firewire/USB hard drives as far as your computer is concerned...
...You can do this as simply as dragging your music back into iTunes with the 'copy imported music' setting on, and there are plenty of other utilities that do it that have never gotten a/. article.
All my other firewire/USB hard drives don't require special utilities. Even my PSP lets me just plug in and drag and drop.
Funny, I thought simplicity was supposed to be the big draw of the one-button-mouse Mac culture.
Hate to break it to you, but by that definition air travel isn't really available to the public. After all, a welfare mom isn't really able to aford a $300 trip across the country without impacting her electric bill.
Many of the working poor can't afford to buy a new car, or even a decent used one, especially if you factor insurance, gas and maintenance into the deal.
I get your point, that only an elite few will be able to afford space travel. Please try to get my point that a decent percentage of Americans, and most people in many third world nations, cant even afford Earth-bound travel. By your definition, the "public" can't afford to go anywhere.
You're probably (like me) a relatively rich guy, when measured on a world scale. You complaining about even richer folks traveling in a style you can't afford is just a little bit hypocritical.
TW
Re:I think it's nice...
on
Just a Phone?
·
· Score: 1
If I want to do something I want to do it properly, e.g take a picture, then I'll use a proper camera, writing / reading emails, then I'll do it on something with a decent screen, keyboard and a good choice of fonts.
Email on the phone is extremely useful. When people email you they're communicating. Getting that communication, especially in a business environment, is very important. I don't usually respond to email on my phone, but I read it and I know when something important is going down without needing to be bound to my desk.
Not everyone has the need for this, but if your job is based on communicating in a timely manner then I highly recommend setting up your phone for email.
This may be interesting, but these guys are definately not the first.
TW
Re:Freud....?
on
Just a Phone?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Sometimes a phone is just a phone.
And we like it that way.
I'm not gonna argue with you. If that's what you really want, more power to you. But does this count? If all you want is a simple phone, why on earth does it need an oversized display? Why will you need to send "the odd text message"?
I think the real truth is that most people really do want more than "just a phone" but they're having a hard time understanding the phone they have or they're having a hard time understanding why it cost so much. This is not so much "just a phone" as it is a simpler and cheaper alternative... which, of course, have been available from just about every provider on earth for free for years.
Go to the web sites of Verizon, Cingular and Sprint. You'll see very simple phones available for free with a contract.
Go to Wal-mart. You'll see several variety of simple, no frills pay-as-you-go phones for about $50.
Why are people arguing that they want something simple? It's a non-argument because they're available all over the place. If what you really want is to just make phone calls, buy any phone, press the numbers for the friend you want to call and hit send. Neary every cell phone on the market will then proceed to place your call. What could be simpler than that? If, however, the real truth is that you really want all the other features, but they're too complicated to make efficient use of, then please complain about that instead. You're far more likely to get what you want if you complain about the right thing.
what expectation of privacy do you have when accessing public equipment that is the subject of a legal investigation?
You need a library card, and ID, to check out a book at a library. You need this because the library does not have unlimited resources so they need to get their books back. But you've never needed to show an ID simply to read at the library. Ever. Until now.
Ya see, they got these things called logs. They track wherever you go on the web (really. I swear.). Since they have your exact ID time coded with the logs they can tell everyplace you've visited and thus every place you've read and thus eveything you've shown interest in.
Surfed for info on: Gay marriage? It's in there. Communist ideology? It's in there. Republican blogging? It's in there. Anti-semitism? It's in there. Yes, every web site you show interest in is now linked with your name, regardless of the legal status of that page.
They get this data, and retain it, regardless of whether or not a criminal investigation is in the works. They get to keep this data regardless of whether anyone ever commits a crime again... ever.
Sure, the cops can get a warrant to listen in on private converstations if there's probable cause (check out the fourth ammendment) but here the library is tracking your interests without a warrant.
Why exactly should law enforcement "rightly" have access to this info?
Unfortunately the theory of sound and sound in actual practice have significant variation.
An example I persoanlly experience is that the non directionality of low frequency sounds doesn't seem to apply to me the same as science claims it should. Put simply, I can usually place the bass unit in the room with my eyes closed. I've done this with a variety of bass units in a varity of settings. Some of these bass units were high-quality "reference series" units as well.
Now I'm not saying science is wrong here. I think bass sound is difficult to place in a directional sense. But I also happen to know that drywall, flooring, wall hangings, television units, sound equipment, etc will all resonate to a certain extent as they bounce those sounds around. In a real world environment it's actually fairly easy for me to tell if the bass is in front or behind, and left or right of my sitting position. I've never placed a bass unit in a corner, as many people suggest, because the whole corner resonates and its very distracting to me.
I don't personally know about the high frequency sounds, but my guess is that they are perceptable to many individuals because of the effect those sounds have on the environment as soon as they leave the speaker cones. I can't prove it, and I've never tested it, but my personal experience with low frequency sounds suggests it just might be the case. Furthermore, I'd suggest that this is more likely to manifest itself as a "feeling" rather than an actual sound. Kind of like a "feeling" that something is missing if the sound isn't there.
I'm not asking you to take my word on faith. I'm only asking you to realize that science tends to test things in controlled, scientific settings and that often the messy real world environment will yeild slightly different results. It doesn't mean that the science is wrong, just that it still has some very complex interactions it has yet to figure out.
Actually, a more accurate statement would be, "Welcome to the Special Interests of Amerca". It's not always the corporations, but in general special interest groups, that muddy the waters (from the MPAA to the Greenpeace)
I don't understand why people are against "special interests" asking for legislation. After all, isn't the Slashdot crowd a special interest asking for change? Isn't the FOSS community a special interest asking for change?
If congress doesn't listen to "special interests" then who exactly do they listen to? Is it "the common people"? Are "the common people" asking for anything resebling a common goal?
I personally think "special interests" are just fine, provided they don't buy themselves into special status. I don't, for example, think Microsoft and Apple should have any special status in government just because they happen to have a lot of money and the FOSS community doesn't. But we're a special interest and I do hope the government listens to us. After all, we have some pretty good ideas.
Pretty much depends on the virus. Your average Outlook mail worm will have problems with most Wine on Linux setups.
Of course this automatically leads me to think about how to get around the difficulties virii might encounter using Wine. Which in turn causes me stop, hit my head and shout "DOH!" because I realize I'm trying to troubleshoot a virus for proper functionality and I really have much better things I should be doing.
I know, I know, you secretly want all these companies to just start handing out free MP3s. But it ain't gonna happen. Just like the days of keeping your doors unlocked and your windows open are over, the days of releasing content in any format that isn't protected six ways from sunday are over. Deal with it.
Apple has the only protected audio format that works. The pressure should be on them to open it up to licensees.
a) Who said anything about "free"? I'd be happy to _buy_ MP3s
b) Locking my doors helps keep criminals out of my house, but locking DVDs seems to be ineffective at keeping moviess off of the net. Locking iTunes has also had little effect on illegal MP3 distribution. However, locking iTunes has been very effective at keeping legaly purchased online music off of my Windows Smartphone and locking Napster has been very effective at keeping legaly purchased online music off of my daughter's iPod. Hmmm.... I see a win/win scenerio here somewhere.
c) You say "deal with it" on the subject of asking for MP3s, but then you think we should put pressure on Apple about iTunes? What's the deal, are we gonna just "deal with it" or are we gonna ask for change? If we're allowed to ask for change, I'll ask for MP3s, thank you. If we're just gonna "deal with it" then be an example and shut the fuck up.
She calls for Apple to "open up" the iPod, but then conviently forgets to mention that if all the other stores sold unencrypted MP3s they'd play on the iPod right now.
Almost every digital music player on the market is currently open (even sony is getting their act together) as long as the format is MP3. Her complaint is the equivelant to someone opening up a hydrogen fuel station today and complaining that no one has cars that work with hydrogen. No shit, Shirlock. If they opened up a gas station they might actually make some money.
continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.
I don't disagree with the definition offered, provided it's not misinterpreted. Lawyers, judges and juries sometimes do some pretty dumb stuff. If they were to look at that statement and say "logic exercises are science because logic is one of the elements listed" then that would be a real problem.
On the subject of logic being philosopy: All you have to do is take Philosopy 101 at your local junior college and they'll set you straight. But a web resource you can check right now is the wikipedia entry for logic where three paragraphs down it states "Traditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy."
The ansestor post wasn't trying to crack on logic, he was just stating a simple fact. I wasn't trying to crack on logic either, except to say that logic whithout experimentation is simply not science.
Look, math is often used in science. Math is good. I like math. Without Math I'm sure it wouldn't be possible for me to leave this post for you. But math isn't science. It's just a tool. Saying logic and math aren't in and of themselves science is just like saying hammers and nails aren't home building. Sure, they're critical to home building, but I use them both and have never so much as errected a wall, much less a whole house.
The problem isn't with people likeing logic, the problem is with people replacing science with logic. Please use logical though as much as you can, but don't make that mistake of pushing it on me as science until you've actually tested that logic out.
I'm arguing that lawmakers should not redefine the term "science" as it relates to education (or, really anything else) as a principle primarily dependant on the logic of a situation rather than the experimentation and testing necessary to prove that logic.
Heck, if ID had valid sientific tests that proved it correct, including peer review and peer testing that validated the testing methods and results, I'd hope lawmakers would _require_ it be taught in schools. If ID is just a logic exercise then it's not science at all and has no place in science classes.
One of the things I hate about a lot of sci-fi is that so many writers of the genre misunderstand the role of logic in science.
Spock was supposed to be this super scientist, but he really wasn't. Though he was the ship's "science officer" you almost never saw him testing or experimenting. Instead, you heard him pull out his catch phrase "it's the most logical explanation," to solve just about everything.
Sam Malone from Cheers was billed as a non-scientist, but you always saw him experimenting with new lines to pick up women. He constantly re-used lines that evidence showed actually worked.
Spock was smart, but not a scientist at all. Sam wasn't too bright and didn't realize he was using science, but he easily beats Spock in his intuitive understanding of scientific principles.
Logic can be very powerful and it's an extremely important part of science, but without the testing and experimenting it can be very conterproductive. Real scientists propose many brilliant, logical ideas every year that testing proves to be flat out wrong.
If misguided lawmakers actually manage to confuse logic and science in our law books, it will be a sad day indead for our country.
I'm not a criminal, at least not in the legal definition of the word.
Interesting. Do you think you're "normal"? Do you think that everyone should be held to your standards? Do you think every criminal should be "nailed" for every offense they commit?
What do you think of traffic cameras? How about those cameras that follow the people in public spaces and are watched by the police? Do you think everyone should be comfortable being examined? They shouldn't be violating the law anyway, so why should they care?
How about a camera pointed at the front of your house? It's on the outside, right? It's in a public space, right? How about a camera pointed at the back of your house? You've got nothing to hide, do you?
How about that camera in the lobby at work? How about that elevator camera? What do you think about a camera pointed right at your desk? Don't forget the microphone. It's perfectly legal. You've got nothing to hide, do you? You never goof off. You never surf for comics or Christmas presents during company time, do you? You never make personal calls while on the clock.
Don't forget that lojack gear in your car. How are your driving skills? Never make a mistake, do you? You wont mind a government GPS, just to make sure, will you? Why would you care, you're not a criminal. It's just an infraction and those cameras were letting so many people through. Why would you object to getting a ticket every time you exceded the speed limit? 36mph in a 35mph zone? I'm sure you won't care, because you wouldn't make that mistake. And who would object to paying their rightful due for every infraction they commit. I'm sure it won't affect your insurance much.
I'm sure it won't affect _your_ insurance at all, because you're not a criminal. Funny thing is, we already have traffic cameras. They catch _everyone_ who makes a mistake. You don't have to be a "criminal" (by your definition) to get a summons from a traffic camera. But you don't care, do you? Your life is an open book.
You can think you're better than the "criminals" if you want. I hope you're right. It's admirable to strive to do the right thing. But the rest of us aren't like you. We just pretend to be like you and hope no one finds our skeletons. The world will not be improved by finding better ways to expose everyone's hidden crimes, infractions and contract violations and the fact that they're not felonies won't help the people that suffer the consequenses.
I have broken the law and even though you don't consider yourself a "criminal," you have too. Don't be so dumb that you think this is only about the "criminals".
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno how you'd hijack a plane with a freaking knife after 9-11.
a) Air Marshals are on only a very small minority of flights.
b) Humans are, well, human.
People are both afraid of personal danger and they're afraid of doing anything that would allow harm to come to others. A hijacker that killed one or two people quickly might have a lot of success at getting others to do what he wishs them to do, possibly even a pilot. I know a hijacked plane would be much more likely to go the way of the Pennsylvania 9/11 plane today, but it's far from a certainty that it couldn't be successful.
TW
I'm amazed at the fact that people are so fearful of terrorists that they would allow this. The murder rate in America is between about 10,000 and 25,000 people. Even at the low number, each year about four times more Americans get murdered by fellow Americans than died in 9/11.
We don't allow ourselves to be randomly strip searched at the mall, in bars or before entering our cars, yet we're far more likely to be murdered in those places than on (or by) a plane. Why do we look at run-of-the-mill murder as something that we can't afford to give up our rights to prevent, but terrorism as something that is so fearful that almost anything is fair game.
I don't think I'm in a position to not travel on a plane, but I can still protest if they impliment this. I will find a non-metalic substance that's high contrast to one of these machines and I'll spell out the words "go fuck yourselves you nazi whores" on my chest or back, but under my shirt. The only people who will see it will be the screeners. I will continue to be completely cheerfull and cooperative in every other way. After they get finished looking at my cock and my ass cheeks with their machines, I dare those mother-fuckers to accuse me of being crude or mean to them.
TW
That's ccording to Bloomberg.
That's ccording to CNET.
That's ccording to The Register.Both iTunes and IE are "bundled" products. Although you can get either by itself, the most common way to get them is to have them bundled with either your iPod or your Windows OS respectively. Neither IE or iTunes started out with commanding market share, but they both built share very quickly.
This does, in my book, give Jobs a slight ethical advantage. He's actually telling the truth about his goals and aspirations for the iPod and iTunes. However, it still leaves the whole iTunes/iPod thing very much in the same territory, both bundling-wise and monopoly-wise as IE/Windows.
If it's an ethical issue, then it's either eithical(or not) for both of them. If it's just business, then they're both just good business people. In my opinion, both practices are bad for the consumer, even though on the surface each one looks like it's making the consumer's life easier.
TW
Or you could just reverse it and say:
MS makes the web server (IIS) the web development software (asp.net) the browser and the OS all these are run on.
Apple doesn't own or make the MP3 file format or any of the music that runs on their players.
I'm not actually suggesting this is a reasonable thing to say, but it is similar to your statement.
I don't normally reply in this fashion to my own posts, but this is ridiculous. I just had one comment marked flaimbait and one marked redundant in the same thread. Come on man, these posts are legitimate criticism.
Marking something down simply because you happen to disagree with it doesn't even come close to fitting the moderators guidelines. You are not helping to win me over to your cause with this kind of zealotry.
TW
As I replied to the comment above yours, if it's not ok for Microsoft to lock you in then why should I consider it ok for Apple?
I just flat out dislike lock in. I have several different MP3 players in my house from several different manufactures. My daughter has an iPod and a previous generation no-name player. I have a Windows Smartphone and a PSP. Of all of them, the iPod is by far the biggest hassle to use because we just happened to be using different desktop music players before I bought the iPod.
Windows Media Player, WinAmp and MusicMatch all played pretty nicely together, mostly because none of them insisted on doing anything radical. But getting music onto and off of the MP3 players quickly became a hassle. The SmartPhone would only play ball with ActiveSync on a PC while the iPod refused to work with anything but iTunes. The ActiveSync wasn't a huge issue because it didn't necesitate I change my music player, but my daughter experienced all kinds frustration as she had to abandon the way she previously had her music organised and redo it all for iTunes.
The thing is, I don't want to use iTunes and neither does my daughter. That's not a crack on Apple or the fine people who developed iTunes, I just happen to like what I currently use. What is a crack on Apple is that they had, and IMHO still have the ability to make a portable player that's easy to use with any desktop player and they just refuse to do it. That doesn't make them evil, it just puts them on the same ethical level as Microsoft. If they're ok with that and you're ok with that then more power to you, but it's increasingly looking like this is the first and last iPod in my house unless Apple makes some changes.
TW
See, that's the problem right there. You gotta have iTunes. Using Apple products really is easier if you use all the products they tell you to, when they tell you to use them. If you want to use anything else and it can quickly turn into a hassle.
This is simplicity in exactly the same way as "just us Internet Explorer and you wont have rendering or interoperability issues." If I don't give MS a pass on their version of "simplicity", why should I say it's ok for Apple?
They're just plain old firewire/USB hard drives as far as your computer is concerned...
All my other firewire/USB hard drives don't require special utilities. Even my PSP lets me just plug in and drag and drop.
Funny, I thought simplicity was supposed to be the big draw of the one-button-mouse Mac culture.
TW
Hate to break it to you, but by that definition air travel isn't really available to the public. After all, a welfare mom isn't really able to aford a $300 trip across the country without impacting her electric bill.
Many of the working poor can't afford to buy a new car, or even a decent used one, especially if you factor insurance, gas and maintenance into the deal.
I get your point, that only an elite few will be able to afford space travel. Please try to get my point that a decent percentage of Americans, and most people in many third world nations, cant even afford Earth-bound travel. By your definition, the "public" can't afford to go anywhere.
You're probably (like me) a relatively rich guy, when measured on a world scale. You complaining about even richer folks traveling in a style you can't afford is just a little bit hypocritical.
TW
If I want to do something I want to do it properly, e.g take a picture, then I'll use a proper camera, writing / reading emails, then I'll do it on something with a decent screen, keyboard and a good choice of fonts.
Email on the phone is extremely useful. When people email you they're communicating. Getting that communication, especially in a business environment, is very important. I don't usually respond to email on my phone, but I read it and I know when something important is going down without needing to be bound to my desk.
Not everyone has the need for this, but if your job is based on communicating in a timely manner then I highly recommend setting up your phone for email.
TW
This may be interesting, but these guys are definately not the first.
TW
Sometimes a phone is just a phone.
And we like it that way.
I'm not gonna argue with you. If that's what you really want, more power to you. But does this count? If all you want is a simple phone, why on earth does it need an oversized display? Why will you need to send "the odd text message"?
I think the real truth is that most people really do want more than "just a phone" but they're having a hard time understanding the phone they have or they're having a hard time understanding why it cost so much. This is not so much "just a phone" as it is a simpler and cheaper alternative... which, of course, have been available from just about every provider on earth for free for years.
Go to the web sites of Verizon, Cingular and Sprint. You'll see very simple phones available for free with a contract.
Go to Wal-mart. You'll see several variety of simple, no frills pay-as-you-go phones for about $50.
Why are people arguing that they want something simple? It's a non-argument because they're available all over the place. If what you really want is to just make phone calls, buy any phone, press the numbers for the friend you want to call and hit send. Neary every cell phone on the market will then proceed to place your call. What could be simpler than that? If, however, the real truth is that you really want all the other features, but they're too complicated to make efficient use of, then please complain about that instead. You're far more likely to get what you want if you complain about the right thing.
TW
what expectation of privacy do you have when accessing public equipment that is the subject of a legal investigation?
You need a library card, and ID, to check out a book at a library. You need this because the library does not have unlimited resources so they need to get their books back. But you've never needed to show an ID simply to read at the library. Ever. Until now.
Ya see, they got these things called logs. They track wherever you go on the web (really. I swear.). Since they have your exact ID time coded with the logs they can tell everyplace you've visited and thus every place you've read and thus eveything you've shown interest in.
Surfed for info on: Gay marriage? It's in there. Communist ideology? It's in there. Republican blogging? It's in there. Anti-semitism? It's in there. Yes, every web site you show interest in is now linked with your name, regardless of the legal status of that page.
They get this data, and retain it, regardless of whether or not a criminal investigation is in the works. They get to keep this data regardless of whether anyone ever commits a crime again... ever.
Sure, the cops can get a warrant to listen in on private converstations if there's probable cause (check out the fourth ammendment) but here the library is tracking your interests without a warrant.
Why exactly should law enforcement "rightly" have access to this info?
Unfortunately the theory of sound and sound in actual practice have significant variation.
An example I persoanlly experience is that the non directionality of low frequency sounds doesn't seem to apply to me the same as science claims it should. Put simply, I can usually place the bass unit in the room with my eyes closed. I've done this with a variety of bass units in a varity of settings. Some of these bass units were high-quality "reference series" units as well.
Now I'm not saying science is wrong here. I think bass sound is difficult to place in a directional sense. But I also happen to know that drywall, flooring, wall hangings, television units, sound equipment, etc will all resonate to a certain extent as they bounce those sounds around. In a real world environment it's actually fairly easy for me to tell if the bass is in front or behind, and left or right of my sitting position. I've never placed a bass unit in a corner, as many people suggest, because the whole corner resonates and its very distracting to me.
I don't personally know about the high frequency sounds, but my guess is that they are perceptable to many individuals because of the effect those sounds have on the environment as soon as they leave the speaker cones. I can't prove it, and I've never tested it, but my personal experience with low frequency sounds suggests it just might be the case. Furthermore, I'd suggest that this is more likely to manifest itself as a "feeling" rather than an actual sound. Kind of like a "feeling" that something is missing if the sound isn't there.
I'm not asking you to take my word on faith. I'm only asking you to realize that science tends to test things in controlled, scientific settings and that often the messy real world environment will yeild slightly different results. It doesn't mean that the science is wrong, just that it still has some very complex interactions it has yet to figure out.
TW
Ok. I'm really, really sorry. I will never check the google toolbar spell check function on Slashdot again.
this is the way we wash or stuff.
Actually, a more accurate statement would be, "Welcome to the Special Interests of Amerca". It's not always the corporations, but in general special interest groups, that muddy the waters (from the MPAA to the Greenpeace)
I don't understand why people are against "special interests" asking for legislation. After all, isn't the Slashdot crowd a special interest asking for change? Isn't the FOSS community a special interest asking for change?
If congress doesn't listen to "special interests" then who exactly do they listen to? Is it "the common people"? Are "the common people" asking for anything resebling a common goal?
I personally think "special interests" are just fine, provided they don't buy themselves into special status. I don't, for example, think Microsoft and Apple should have any special status in government just because they happen to have a lot of money and the FOSS community doesn't. But we're a special interest and I do hope the government listens to us. After all, we have some pretty good ideas.
TW
Pretty much depends on the virus. Your average Outlook mail worm will have problems with most Wine on Linux setups.
Of course this automatically leads me to think about how to get around the difficulties virii might encounter using Wine. Which in turn causes me stop, hit my head and shout "DOH!" because I realize I'm trying to troubleshoot a virus for proper functionality and I really have much better things I should be doing.
You win.
I know, I know, you secretly want all these companies to just start handing out free MP3s. But it ain't gonna happen. Just like the days of keeping your doors unlocked and your windows open are over, the days of releasing content in any format that isn't protected six ways from sunday are over. Deal with it.
Apple has the only protected audio format that works. The pressure should be on them to open it up to licensees.
a) Who said anything about "free"? I'd be happy to _buy_ MP3s
b) Locking my doors helps keep criminals out of my house, but locking DVDs seems to be ineffective at keeping moviess off of the net. Locking iTunes has also had little effect on illegal MP3 distribution. However, locking iTunes has been very effective at keeping legaly purchased online music off of my Windows Smartphone and locking Napster has been very effective at keeping legaly purchased online music off of my daughter's iPod. Hmmm.... I see a win/win scenerio here somewhere.
c) You say "deal with it" on the subject of asking for MP3s, but then you think we should put pressure on Apple about iTunes? What's the deal, are we gonna just "deal with it" or are we gonna ask for change? If we're allowed to ask for change, I'll ask for MP3s, thank you. If we're just gonna "deal with it" then be an example and shut the fuck up.
TW
Yeah, she's pretty funny.
She calls for Apple to "open up" the iPod, but then conviently forgets to mention that if all the other stores sold unencrypted MP3s they'd play on the iPod right now.
Almost every digital music player on the market is currently open (even sony is getting their act together) as long as the format is MP3. Her complaint is the equivelant to someone opening up a hydrogen fuel station today and complaining that no one has cars that work with hydrogen. No shit, Shirlock. If they opened up a gas station they might actually make some money.
TW
The difference is Apple wouldn't release something that looks that bad.
So the eMac is good looking? Yeah. Right.
continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.
I don't disagree with the definition offered, provided it's not misinterpreted. Lawyers, judges and juries sometimes do some pretty dumb stuff. If they were to look at that statement and say "logic exercises are science because logic is one of the elements listed" then that would be a real problem.
On the subject of logic being philosopy: All you have to do is take Philosopy 101 at your local junior college and they'll set you straight. But a web resource you can check right now is the wikipedia entry for logic where three paragraphs down it states "Traditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy."
The ansestor post wasn't trying to crack on logic, he was just stating a simple fact. I wasn't trying to crack on logic either, except to say that logic whithout experimentation is simply not science.
Look, math is often used in science. Math is good. I like math. Without Math I'm sure it wouldn't be possible for me to leave this post for you. But math isn't science. It's just a tool. Saying logic and math aren't in and of themselves science is just like saying hammers and nails aren't home building. Sure, they're critical to home building, but I use them both and have never so much as errected a wall, much less a whole house.
The problem isn't with people likeing logic, the problem is with people replacing science with logic. Please use logical though as much as you can, but don't make that mistake of pushing it on me as science until you've actually tested that logic out.
TW
I'm arguing that lawmakers should not redefine the term "science" as it relates to education (or, really anything else) as a principle primarily dependant on the logic of a situation rather than the experimentation and testing necessary to prove that logic.
Heck, if ID had valid sientific tests that proved it correct, including peer review and peer testing that validated the testing methods and results, I'd hope lawmakers would _require_ it be taught in schools. If ID is just a logic exercise then it's not science at all and has no place in science classes.
TW
Wish I had mod points.
One of the things I hate about a lot of sci-fi is that so many writers of the genre misunderstand the role of logic in science.
Spock was supposed to be this super scientist, but he really wasn't. Though he was the ship's "science officer" you almost never saw him testing or experimenting. Instead, you heard him pull out his catch phrase "it's the most logical explanation," to solve just about everything.
Sam Malone from Cheers was billed as a non-scientist, but you always saw him experimenting with new lines to pick up women. He constantly re-used lines that evidence showed actually worked.
Spock was smart, but not a scientist at all. Sam wasn't too bright and didn't realize he was using science, but he easily beats Spock in his intuitive understanding of scientific principles.
Logic can be very powerful and it's an extremely important part of science, but without the testing and experimenting it can be very conterproductive. Real scientists propose many brilliant, logical ideas every year that testing proves to be flat out wrong.
If misguided lawmakers actually manage to confuse logic and science in our law books, it will be a sad day indead for our country.
TW
I'm not a criminal, at least not in the legal definition of the word.
Interesting. Do you think you're "normal"? Do you think that everyone should be held to your standards? Do you think every criminal should be "nailed" for every offense they commit?
What do you think of traffic cameras? How about those cameras that follow the people in public spaces and are watched by the police? Do you think everyone should be comfortable being examined? They shouldn't be violating the law anyway, so why should they care?
How about a camera pointed at the front of your house? It's on the outside, right? It's in a public space, right? How about a camera pointed at the back of your house? You've got nothing to hide, do you?
How about that camera in the lobby at work? How about that elevator camera? What do you think about a camera pointed right at your desk? Don't forget the microphone. It's perfectly legal. You've got nothing to hide, do you? You never goof off. You never surf for comics or Christmas presents during company time, do you? You never make personal calls while on the clock.
Don't forget that lojack gear in your car. How are your driving skills? Never make a mistake, do you? You wont mind a government GPS, just to make sure, will you? Why would you care, you're not a criminal. It's just an infraction and those cameras were letting so many people through. Why would you object to getting a ticket every time you exceded the speed limit? 36mph in a 35mph zone? I'm sure you won't care, because you wouldn't make that mistake. And who would object to paying their rightful due for every infraction they commit. I'm sure it won't affect your insurance much.
I'm sure it won't affect _your_ insurance at all, because you're not a criminal. Funny thing is, we already have traffic cameras. They catch _everyone_ who makes a mistake. You don't have to be a "criminal" (by your definition) to get a summons from a traffic camera. But you don't care, do you? Your life is an open book.
You can think you're better than the "criminals" if you want. I hope you're right. It's admirable to strive to do the right thing. But the rest of us aren't like you. We just pretend to be like you and hope no one finds our skeletons. The world will not be improved by finding better ways to expose everyone's hidden crimes, infractions and contract violations and the fact that they're not felonies won't help the people that suffer the consequenses.
I have broken the law and even though you don't consider yourself a "criminal," you have too. Don't be so dumb that you think this is only about the "criminals".
TW