Maybe, but I would not expect it to. After all, this is AOL, and adding that kind of customizability to a lowest-common-denominator product would probably be counterproductive. Can't you just see the average "Isn't AOL the Whole Internet" user's blank stare when told they can use either IE or Gecko as their browser engine?
Besides, allowing users a choice now locks AOL in later. If they decide they do not want to use the IE engine at all in the future, and their users had a choice at one point, it will look like by taking away the choice of IE they are taking away a feature.
There are both Gecko and IE betas. It looks like (to an outside observer) they're going to stick with IE for 8.0, but I'd guess that 9.0 will be Gecko.
It would take decades to get something usuable, I'm afraid (I'm working on a project doing an online searchable annotated translation of a single dictionary, and after four years of distributed volunteer work, we're almost 1/3 done; and this is just 1 book!).
Secondly, it matters not a jot if the creators are multilingual, since the problem is not that you don't know 'many' languages, but that you and one other person don't know a language in common. doh!
Hey, I know PERL, so of course I can write a program that converts PERL to LISP, even though I don't know LISP.
But it's worse than that. Because PERL and C are logical symbolic languages, and natural languages are by nature ambiguous and contingent, and noone learns that until they are at least bilingual.
Languages have very precise definitions, and it is possible to make programs that translate any language into logic, see aristotle for an example.
No, languages do not have very precise definitions. Take this from a published translator: they do not. The definitions in the dictionary are at best approximations to a particular range of any given word's semantic field; precision with human languages is impossible. Read up on some linguistics before you start posting things about linguistics.
So in other words the damned thing isn't actually doing any translation; it just matching column A with column B. Worthless. It can only "translate" something that's already been thought up and translated by a human. Which means it can only be used with a very limited repetoire. And the nature of human language is that it's repetoire is unlimited; it is theoretically finite, but it is a finity that approaches infinity (see Borges' story "The Library of Babel" to understand what I mean).
The problem with this is that Esperanto doesn't have enough resources to map syntactical and vocabulary fields from all possible source languages (and all parts of any given source language) to all possible target languages (or every part of any given target language). And the adding the resources would be a relatively intractable problem. This is an AI issue, not something that can be solved entirely within the machine.
I've long wondered why someone doesn't
just brute force translation.
Create a human translated database
of damn near EVERYTHING in two languages,
like English and Spanish. Then, just do
fast lookups.
Computing power is such that this
would be possible.
Because natural languages don't work like that. Natural language translation is an AI problem, it cannot be solved with brute force. Hell, translation by human agents is nearly intractable. This is a problem which has been worked on since the 1960s (if you think Babelfish is bad, you should understand that it's superb compared to the early efforts).
The syntaxes of natural languages do not map 1:1. For instance, some languages are ergative - they use agents rather than subjects to explain who is doing what. Though it sounds like all you'd have to do is map Tamil::Agent = English::Subject, and restructure the rest of the statement, it doesn't work that way. Vocabularies are the same way: each word has a semantic field which overlaps the semantic fields of other words in the same language, and overlaps the semantic fields in other languages, but almost never is the semantic field of one word in one language the same as that of another word in a second language. Try to translate the word "know" to French or "love" to ancient Greek and you'll understand the problem (French uses a different word depending on whether what you know is a person or an idea, e.g., while in Greek the words eros, philia, and agape all refer to different concepts that English speakers describe as "love").
It can't be translated the way suggested, either, with "bank" being translated as either "river's edge" or "money storage place" - leaving aside that the second definition is culturally contingent, there could be connotations in either phrase which are distinct from those in the source phrase. There are also problems with ambiguity - natural languages are by definition laden with ambiguities and contingencies, which require the ability to reason to find some corresponding structure in a target language.
This is a problem which will continue to be worked on for pretty much all our lives. If it's ever solved, HAL won't be far around the corner.
Well, I was trying to track down a bug yesterday in 0.9.6, which dates to December, so I'm guessing that 0.9.4 dates to September or October of 2001. Hardly an up-to-date test, especially as most of this stuff is fixed in 1.0. But the BugTraq posting said Moz 1.0 was invulnerable, no?
The attacker still has to get on the network between you and the website and essentially transparent-proxy your connection through a rogue ssl proxy to make this all work.
Before the M$ vs Everyone war starts...how about we have a fair and simple timing contest.....where does this get fixed first?;)
Since Mozilla doesn't have a problem (and ignore the Reg author's comments about Mozilla, the version he called too buggy is almost a year old (0.9.4)), I'd say Mozilla won.
C'mon, didn't you READ that article? It seems like the Reg has given up on waiting for "flame of the week" candidates to fill up their mailbag, and now they're developing their own content for FOTW. A particular favorite (not) was the reference to the US Constituion as the product of a bunch of activist merchants and "rebellious slave owners." Accurate, but deliberately inflammatory nonsense.
The issue isn't the US, it's the current US administration and the current US Congress and their bending over backward to accommodate the big multinationals. The US Constitution most certainly isn't the issue, written as it is with a very healthy dose of British inspiration (don't like our First Amendment? Blame your former Latin Secretary Mr. Milton).
I think part of the reason you have such high numbers for Apple is because they have control over the entire machine. They make the hardware, they make the software, and they certify the parts that hook up to their hardware. PC manufactureres don't have that luxury.
So maybe what you're telling us is that Apple has a superior business model, and if their competitors want the same customer satisfaction numbers, they would do well to emulate Apple's model?
Those guys... don't do anything unless it will get them money
http://www.gatesfoundation.org
Ex cathedra as the big cheese of Microsoft, I imagine the parent is correct - that in that role, Bill Gates "do[es]n't do anything unless it will get [him] money." As a human being, on the other hand, he seems to know what money is really for. I'm not about to bitch about the guy giving $1B to pay for inoculations for kids in the third world.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
What part of exclusive right do you not understand?
After the concert, people can download the mp3s from the vending machines then go online and share it.
So I'll make, what, 50 cents while thousands of people get copies of the song that I worked on for months? Screw that business.
There's a difference between "sharing" an MP3 file and "sharing" a painting on display. If you are "sharing" a painting on display, do you make a copy of it for everyone to take home with you?
If I play a CD for a friend, I'm sharing it. If I rip the whole thing, then burn a copy for my friend, I'm not sharing it anymore, I'm duplicating it. Maybe you're doing it for no reason, or maybe you're doing it for something intangible - the good feelings you'll get from your friend for providing him with something he didn't already have.
At any rate, the real argument here regards fair use. If I put mp3s of three songs from an album on Napster, am I violating fair use or not? That's a VERY good question, and the answer may be no. If I put a bunch of ripped and burned songs on my doorstep with a sign that says "take these," am I violating fair use? Probably. If I put a directory with mp3s of ALL the songs from an album on Napster, am I violating fair use? We need case law on that one. I'd say probably yes. We also need for RIAA and MPAA to stop trying to eliminate the whole concept of fair use.
You also have to understand that there's a moral difference between sharing things with the creator's permission (e.g., the GPL) and sharing things without the creator's permission. If you want to come down on a software vendor, or an artist, or a publisher, or whatever for not sharing their work for free, go ahead. I'd be all in favor of an economy that could support musicians only on their concert revenues (though we'd have to get rid of the promoters first), with the margin after studio time, promotion, touring, etc. being enough for the artists to live on without having to charge anything for the music itself. I'd be all in favor of an economy that could support writers purely with government grants and public readings. I'd be all in favor of an economy that could support programmers purely on serivce. But you have to create this system from the ground up, not by going on Slashdot complaining about how mean the RIAA is because they won't let you get the new Metallica album for free (why anyone would want to listen to Metallica in the first place is beyond me).
Don't go around spouting nonsense about how DRM violates your right to religious expression - noone will take you seriously.
From what I understand, the publishing industry doesn't directly take the copyright. That'd make the expiry much shorter. They do, however, reserve pretty much all of the rights provided by copyright law. Same goes for record companies. And thanks to the consolidation of bookstores and record outlets, its hard for smaller publishing houses to start up.
The artists aren't in the employ of the record companies, therefore the works are not works for hire. So the rights are assigned, but the terms assigned are defined by the artist's life, not the corporations.
The moment that the "author" of the work is a corporation, the copyright drops from death+70 (which for a 25 year old recording artist would be something on the order of 130 years!) to 95 years after publication. So the "author" has to be the artist. This may also have effects on compensation (for instance, IIRC, don't artists have to put out the outlays for their studio time, out of their earnings on royalties? That might be because they are not employees. But IANAL, IANA Musician, and IANA Record Executive).
What if sharing is a central part of my religious beliefs? Lets look at what the constitution says... [snip] However, sharing music isnt harming anyone, in fact its helping many people, music makes people happy, why am I not allowed to share happiness with others? Its a nice try for them to call it stealing, but stealing is only wrong when it harms other people, if stealing helps everyone and harms no one, calling me a theif is just like calling me a hero.
This is nonsense.
1. Stealing content does, theoretically, hurt people. Now, usually that "hurt" involves a giant nameless, faceless corporation, but it is, technically, still financial harm. And sometimes the owner of content is a little guy. Let's look at it this way: suppose you had a small band, and you made 2,000 cds of your work. Now, imagine that somebody from Warner Brothers sees you at a club and likes your stuff, wants to sell copies of your record. Would it be ok by you if he took one of those 2,000 cds, made 1,000,000 copies of it, slapped a Warner Bros. label on it and sold them all without giving you a dime? Obviously not. That's stealing from you (we'll ignore for a moment the issue of whether or not many of the record labels give the artists so little compensation that they might as well be stealing, since that's not quite but almost stealing).
You'd be harmed. Your only recourse is to sue, under the copyright law.
2. The establishment cause doesn't cover the situation you describe. If your religious practice includes a behavior that is not necessarily part of your religious practice (i.e., that could be engaged in by others for other reasons) and is illegal under a US law which was passed to cover the behavior as such, rather than in the context of religious observance, the law is not in violation of the establishment clause.
That's what stops you from just saying "hey, killing people is part of my religion, so it must be ok for me to kill people.
IANAL, but God knows the quoted poster sure as hell isn't one either.
400 years later, the publishers own 98% of the copyrights again, and dont have to reqliquish control until 70 years after the death of the company
Nope. It's 70 years after the death of the human author, in whom copyright resides unless it is a work for hire (though the copyright can be assigned to an agent, i.e., a publisher). If it is a work for hire, anonymous, etc. - e.g., if the "author" is a corporation - the rules are different - 120 years from creation, or 95 years from publication, whichever expires first.
Oddly enough, I seem to remember a bit in the intro to one of James Blish's Star Trek books about a certain Capt. Kirk during the Vietnam conflict who managed to use the coincidence of his name with James T.'s to good tactical advantage against what must have been the dumbest cadre in the entire Viet Cong.
So you never know. Maybe the enemy will think that big black triangular blimp thingy is from another planet.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, 8.0 could allow the user to choose...
Maybe, but I would not expect it to. After all, this is AOL, and adding that kind of customizability to a lowest-common-denominator product would probably be counterproductive. Can't you just see the average "Isn't AOL the Whole Internet" user's blank stare when told they can use either IE or Gecko as their browser engine?
Besides, allowing users a choice now locks AOL in later. If they decide they do not want to use the IE engine at all in the future, and their users had a choice at one point, it will look like by taking away the choice of IE they are taking away a feature.
There are both Gecko and IE betas. It looks like (to an outside observer) they're going to stick with IE for 8.0, but I'd guess that 9.0 will be Gecko.
It would take decades to get something usuable, I'm afraid (I'm working on a project doing an online searchable annotated translation of a single dictionary, and after four years of distributed volunteer work, we're almost 1/3 done; and this is just 1 book!).
Secondly, it matters not a jot if the creators are multilingual, since the problem is not that you don't know 'many' languages, but that you and one other person don't know a language in common. doh!
Hey, I know PERL, so of course I can write a program that converts PERL to LISP, even though I don't know LISP.
But it's worse than that. Because PERL and C are logical symbolic languages, and natural languages are by nature ambiguous and contingent, and noone learns that until they are at least bilingual.
Languages have very precise definitions, and it is possible to make programs that translate any language into logic, see aristotle for an example.
No, languages do not have very precise definitions. Take this from a published translator: they do not. The definitions in the dictionary are at best approximations to a particular range of any given word's semantic field; precision with human languages is impossible. Read up on some linguistics before you start posting things about linguistics.
So in other words the damned thing isn't actually doing any translation; it just matching column A with column B. Worthless. It can only "translate" something that's already been thought up and translated by a human. Which means it can only be used with a very limited repetoire. And the nature of human language is that it's repetoire is unlimited; it is theoretically finite, but it is a finity that approaches infinity (see Borges' story "The Library of Babel" to understand what I mean).
The problem with this is that Esperanto doesn't have enough resources to map syntactical and vocabulary fields from all possible source languages (and all parts of any given source language) to all possible target languages (or every part of any given target language). And the adding the resources would be a relatively intractable problem. This is an AI issue, not something that can be solved entirely within the machine.
I've long wondered why someone doesn't just brute force translation. Create a human translated database of damn near EVERYTHING in two languages, like English and Spanish. Then, just do fast lookups. Computing power is such that this would be possible.
Because natural languages don't work like that. Natural language translation is an AI problem, it cannot be solved with brute force. Hell, translation by human agents is nearly intractable. This is a problem which has been worked on since the 1960s (if you think Babelfish is bad, you should understand that it's superb compared to the early efforts).
The syntaxes of natural languages do not map 1:1. For instance, some languages are ergative - they use agents rather than subjects to explain who is doing what. Though it sounds like all you'd have to do is map Tamil::Agent = English::Subject, and restructure the rest of the statement, it doesn't work that way. Vocabularies are the same way: each word has a semantic field which overlaps the semantic fields of other words in the same language, and overlaps the semantic fields in other languages, but almost never is the semantic field of one word in one language the same as that of another word in a second language. Try to translate the word "know" to French or "love" to ancient Greek and you'll understand the problem (French uses a different word depending on whether what you know is a person or an idea, e.g., while in Greek the words eros, philia, and agape all refer to different concepts that English speakers describe as "love").
It can't be translated the way suggested, either, with "bank" being translated as either "river's edge" or "money storage place" - leaving aside that the second definition is culturally contingent, there could be connotations in either phrase which are distinct from those in the source phrase. There are also problems with ambiguity - natural languages are by definition laden with ambiguities and contingencies, which require the ability to reason to find some corresponding structure in a target language.
This is a problem which will continue to be worked on for pretty much all our lives. If it's ever solved, HAL won't be far around the corner.
Well, I was trying to track down a bug yesterday in 0.9.6, which dates to December, so I'm guessing that 0.9.4 dates to September or October of 2001. Hardly an up-to-date test, especially as most of this stuff is fixed in 1.0. But the BugTraq posting said Moz 1.0 was invulnerable, no?
The attacker still has to get on the network between you and the website and essentially transparent-proxy your connection through a rogue ssl proxy to make this all work.
So, https://store.micros0ft.com/ won't do it?
Before the M$ vs Everyone war starts...how about we have a fair and simple timing contest.....where does this get fixed first? ;)
Since Mozilla doesn't have a problem (and ignore the Reg author's comments about Mozilla, the version he called too buggy is almost a year old (0.9.4)), I'd say Mozilla won.
Except that Clinton signed the DMCA into law.
Stipulated.
Anyway, both parties grab their ankles for the multinationals; the current administration is just more brazen about it.
Exactly.
C'mon, didn't you READ that article? It seems like the Reg has given up on waiting for "flame of the week" candidates to fill up their mailbag, and now they're developing their own content for FOTW. A particular favorite (not) was the reference to the US Constituion as the product of a bunch of activist merchants and "rebellious slave owners." Accurate, but deliberately inflammatory nonsense.
The issue isn't the US, it's the current US administration and the current US Congress and their bending over backward to accommodate the big multinationals. The US Constitution most certainly isn't the issue, written as it is with a very healthy dose of British inspiration (don't like our First Amendment? Blame your former Latin Secretary Mr. Milton).
If the default configuration dual-booted OS X and YDL. But without OS X installed? Why bother?
I think part of the reason you have such high numbers for Apple is because they have control over the entire machine. They make the hardware, they make the software, and they certify the parts that hook up to their hardware. PC manufactureres don't have that luxury.
So maybe what you're telling us is that Apple has a superior business model, and if their competitors want the same customer satisfaction numbers, they would do well to emulate Apple's model?
Those guys ... don't do anything unless it will get them money
http://www.gatesfoundation.org
Ex cathedra as the big cheese of Microsoft, I imagine the parent is correct - that in that role, Bill Gates "do[es]n't do anything unless it will get [him] money." As a human being, on the other hand, he seems to know what money is really for. I'm not about to bitch about the guy giving $1B to pay for inoculations for kids in the third world.
This function is built in to Mail.app (for OS X). Doesn't help, though.
1. HTML is text, it's just text with markup. 2. Have you tried filtering out any message that contains "" in the body of the message?
Theres no right in the constitution saying a Musician has control of distribution of their work!
You've obviously never read the damned thing, have you? See the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
What part of exclusive right do you not understand?
After the concert, people can download the mp3s from the vending machines then go online and share it.
So I'll make, what, 50 cents while thousands of people get copies of the song that I worked on for months? Screw that business.
There's a difference between "sharing" an MP3 file and "sharing" a painting on display. If you are "sharing" a painting on display, do you make a copy of it for everyone to take home with you? If I play a CD for a friend, I'm sharing it. If I rip the whole thing, then burn a copy for my friend, I'm not sharing it anymore, I'm duplicating it. Maybe you're doing it for no reason, or maybe you're doing it for something intangible - the good feelings you'll get from your friend for providing him with something he didn't already have.
At any rate, the real argument here regards fair use. If I put mp3s of three songs from an album on Napster, am I violating fair use or not? That's a VERY good question, and the answer may be no. If I put a bunch of ripped and burned songs on my doorstep with a sign that says "take these," am I violating fair use? Probably. If I put a directory with mp3s of ALL the songs from an album on Napster, am I violating fair use? We need case law on that one. I'd say probably yes. We also need for RIAA and MPAA to stop trying to eliminate the whole concept of fair use.
You also have to understand that there's a moral difference between sharing things with the creator's permission (e.g., the GPL) and sharing things without the creator's permission. If you want to come down on a software vendor, or an artist, or a publisher, or whatever for not sharing their work for free, go ahead. I'd be all in favor of an economy that could support musicians only on their concert revenues (though we'd have to get rid of the promoters first), with the margin after studio time, promotion, touring, etc. being enough for the artists to live on without having to charge anything for the music itself. I'd be all in favor of an economy that could support writers purely with government grants and public readings. I'd be all in favor of an economy that could support programmers purely on serivce. But you have to create this system from the ground up, not by going on Slashdot complaining about how mean the RIAA is because they won't let you get the new Metallica album for free (why anyone would want to listen to Metallica in the first place is beyond me). Don't go around spouting nonsense about how DRM violates your right to religious expression - noone will take you seriously.
IANAL
From what I understand, the publishing industry doesn't directly take the copyright. That'd make the expiry much shorter. They do, however, reserve pretty much all of the rights provided by copyright law. Same goes for record companies. And thanks to the consolidation of bookstores and record outlets, its hard for smaller publishing houses to start up.
The artists aren't in the employ of the record companies, therefore the works are not works for hire. So the rights are assigned, but the terms assigned are defined by the artist's life, not the corporations.
The moment that the "author" of the work is a corporation, the copyright drops from death+70 (which for a 25 year old recording artist would be something on the order of 130 years!) to 95 years after publication. So the "author" has to be the artist. This may also have effects on compensation (for instance, IIRC, don't artists have to put out the outlays for their studio time, out of their earnings on royalties? That might be because they are not employees. But IANAL, IANA Musician, and IANA Record Executive).
What if sharing is a central part of my religious beliefs? Lets look at what the constitution says ... [snip]
However, sharing music isnt harming anyone, in fact its helping many people, music makes people happy, why am I not allowed to share happiness with others?
Its a nice try for them to call it stealing, but stealing is only wrong when it harms other people, if stealing helps everyone and harms no one, calling me a theif is just like calling me a hero.
This is nonsense.
1. Stealing content does, theoretically, hurt people. Now, usually that "hurt" involves a giant nameless, faceless corporation, but it is, technically, still financial harm. And sometimes the owner of content is a little guy. Let's look at it this way: suppose you had a small band, and you made 2,000 cds of your work. Now, imagine that somebody from Warner Brothers sees you at a club and likes your stuff, wants to sell copies of your record. Would it be ok by you if he took one of those 2,000 cds, made 1,000,000 copies of it, slapped a Warner Bros. label on it and sold them all without giving you a dime? Obviously not. That's stealing from you (we'll ignore for a moment the issue of whether or not many of the record labels give the artists so little compensation that they might as well be stealing, since that's not quite but almost stealing). You'd be harmed. Your only recourse is to sue, under the copyright law.
2. The establishment cause doesn't cover the situation you describe. If your religious practice includes a behavior that is not necessarily part of your religious practice (i.e., that could be engaged in by others for other reasons) and is illegal under a US law which was passed to cover the behavior as such, rather than in the context of religious observance, the law is not in violation of the establishment clause. That's what stops you from just saying "hey, killing people is part of my religion, so it must be ok for me to kill people.
IANAL, but God knows the quoted poster sure as hell isn't one either.
400 years later, the publishers own 98% of the copyrights again, and dont have to reqliquish control until 70 years after the death of the company
Nope. It's 70 years after the death of the human author, in whom copyright resides unless it is a work for hire (though the copyright can be assigned to an agent, i.e., a publisher). If it is a work for hire, anonymous, etc. - e.g., if the "author" is a corporation - the rules are different - 120 years from creation, or 95 years from publication, whichever expires first.
Oddly enough, I seem to remember a bit in the intro to one of James Blish's Star Trek books about a certain Capt. Kirk during the Vietnam conflict who managed to use the coincidence of his name with James T.'s to good tactical advantage against what must have been the dumbest cadre in the entire Viet Cong.
So you never know. Maybe the enemy will think that big black triangular blimp thingy is from another planet.
I was going to say "troop deployment" but then I remembered the Hindenberg.
Hopefully this thing, if it really does exist, isn't coated with powdered aluminum and filled with hydrogen.