If you find yourself deeply interested in something you're studying or see something that you want to devote your attention to, then do it. It doesn't actually have to be in a structured academic environment.
Now that we've gotten the idealistic stuff out of the way (more and more easily done it seems), the fact of the matter is that a master's degree gives you leverage for better (starting) pay. After a few years at work, however, your performance will determine what you are paid and not your education.
I'd say, do it if you have the time/money and you really want to dive deep into something. Otherwise, go and start working.
It's odd. I had come up with this theory when I was around ten. Maybe ten minutes after I learned about the big bang theory. It seems such a natural intuitive idea. I don't understand how science can make this news. OK I didn't rta but somehow I don't think they are proving anything in that article. Maybe just throwing a bit of scientific jargon on it but it still amounts to the same idea a ten year old can come up with.
unlike portable music players, people actually are happy with their cellphones. I've never met a portable music player that is unhappy with it's cellphone. Though to be fair, every one that I've listened to didn't offer an opinion one way or the other.
Here's a site that's devoted to exactly this. Each user lists their top 20 and the site then presents the complete list according to all users. Curious to see how close this matches up with Time's list...
I rip the stuff using the software that came with my player and rip it to vorbis. The DRM on the Foo Fighters CD gets in the way of it even being readable on my computer.
Good point about buying used. I'll consider it from now on.
I only download to hear an album before I buy it. Let's not forget that sometimes even buying the CD won't let you do what you want with it. The Foo Fighters One by One will not rip which means I can't put it on my player.
So now that content is licensed the content, who do i contact to have my media replaced when it gets ruined? Certainly I shouldn't have to pay the full retail price for a new CD since I already have the license...
That's kind of interesting. If they're a holding company that doesn't actually do anything with there patents, then exactly what damages are being awarded?
BushCo seems to hate the word privacy but not as it applies to the 2nd ammendment. I seem to recall him nixing the idea of fingerprinting firearms on the basis that it would be an invasion of privacy.
Re:Ogg linked with the Global Patent story
on
AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
·
· Score: 1
Interesting that you mention there are no patents. Another story just posted talks about globalizing patent filing. From what I understood, it seems that the U.S. is the only country that considers prior art when granting (or refusing) patents (other countries simply grant a patent to the first to file). Therefore, someone in another country could still file a patent on OGG (because there it's just file first...) and start collecting royalties/selling licenses in those countries...
The Second Superpower has no teeth...well maybe very small teeth as this bit of legislation shows. Talking about a new anti-terrorism bill that would jail street-blocking protesters. From the article it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.
Hmmm...disrupting free assembly? Wouldn't that make the person who proposed the bill and all those who vote for it terrorists?
This actually makes sense when you consider that constraints and restrictions actually force a person to be more creative.
Having said that I'm not trying to suggest that this is a good idea, just an observation.
Actually, this is the way many companies make product decisions. They ask vendors to come in and sell the strong points of their product. The objectivity comes from those asking for the pitch.
To expect anything more purely objective is really quite naive.
Okay fine maybe I was leading you a bit off topic so let's get back to it. The Segway HT will still have it's uses. Think of any person that has to use a walker to get around; or simply somebody that's put on crutches; or, to put it more generally;), anybody who simply can't walk long distances.
Just because you think it's a toy doesn't mean that it will be a toy for EVERYBODY.
While some people will be lazy, this invention will have it's uses. There's no need to be so broadly insulting. For instance, why do Americans need to be fat AND stupid? How would using a Segway establish that?
ok...i surrender;o)... you've got me (sort of:o) I wasn't trying to BS or anything, i just offered my opinion and used the article to back that up, Nonetheless, I think some very useful words can come out of this...but let's set the stage first to avoid useless arguments...
1st: I am not a "loyal core follower" of anything. In the current context I think "uninformed" would be more appropriate but certainly not the ignorance implied byt he term 'loyal core follower'. If you think that is the case then don't just tell me I'm uniformed but inform me. 2nd: i don't want this to degenerate into a heated and useles debate where i'm resorted to calling you're mother so fat that it takes two counties to... well you get the drift... 3rd: in the debate that i am framing I use simple terms such as THE GOVERNMENT and the LAW ENFORCEMENT ANGENCY. I am a layman and do not see much difference. If anyone wants to jump down my throat about that, fine. But the law is supposed to be to protect us not confuse us so if i can't interpret it in my own words then it is useless... 4th: the entire PATRIOT act is not a useless or callous political endeavour. It can truly present important support (such as "providing for ALL victims of the attacks, increasing translation facilities and increasing forensic cybercrime capabilities" (or so I'm told by the EFF)
OK so now that I've framed the debate let's start (and i'm not trying to mince words so let's focus on the heart of the issues):
You (istartedi) pointed out that the first paragraph you quoted is plainly false. A search warrant was requested and denied in the Moussaui (sp.?) case. Had it been granted, it could have prevented 911. And of course there is the roving wiretap issue. Right, now my first quote claims that the USAPATRIOT ACT makes no statement of the fact that the current powers granted to LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES were insufficient. If that claim is false, show me where in the USAPATRIOT act it is stated that a specific search warrant was denied and how expanding and removing the validation of these powers with regards to the internet could have helped law enforcement in preventing these attacks. The absence of such a statement should be cause for alarm because it means that we need yet another watcher.
You then pointed out:
The 2nd paragraph is just more rhetoric. There is no citation to the USAPA. We are expected to take the EFF at its word that it provides "sweeping new powers" and "eliminates checks and balances".
I guess these organizations have their loyal core of followers that will take them at their word, but I'm not one of them. If the EFF and ACLU provide more scholarly arguments that include citations to the USAPA and logical arguments as to why they are unconstitutional and/or unjust than I'd like to see them.
You're (again sort of) right. You are right that the second paragraph is rhetoric. However, it is not "more" rhetoric but it is the facts that INITIATE the concerns about the USAPATRIOT act. Nobody's arguing against the need for a safer world . What people are arguing for is that we have to remember that our freedom is part of our safety.
I am a laymen so my own interpretation of the constitution will never stand up to the scrutiny of the letter but this is what it's spirit says to me: We can not and should not trust our safety to anyone but our selves. NOT EVEN OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.
Perhaps a more compelling argument for the act should be made. From the EFF piece:
...there is no evidence that our previous civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. In fact, in asking for these broad new powers, the government made no showing that the previous powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to spy on US citizens were insufficient to allow them to investigate and prosecute acts of terrorism.
In other words, the government didn't say "because we weren't allowed to tap that source of information, we were prevented from doing our job."
If you need something to leap out at you perhaps you should read the first paragraph:
With this law we have given sweeping new powers to both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies and have eliminated the checks and balances that previously gave courts the opportunity to ensure that these powers were not abused. Most of these checks and balances were put into place after previous misuse of surveillance powers by these agencies, including the revelation in 1974 that the FBI and foreign intelligence agencies had spied on over 10,000 U.S. citizens, including Martin Luther King.
I also have an open mind and would like to make sure the FBI et al can do there job without one hand tied behind it's back. But to also blind those that keep an eye on them is just plain stupid. Being accountable does not limit their ability to do their job. It just prevents them from abusing the powers granted to them.
Slashdot Mirror
If you find yourself deeply interested in something you're studying or see something that you want to devote your attention to, then do it. It doesn't actually have to be in a structured academic environment. Now that we've gotten the idealistic stuff out of the way (more and more easily done it seems), the fact of the matter is that a master's degree gives you leverage for better (starting) pay. After a few years at work, however, your performance will determine what you are paid and not your education. I'd say, do it if you have the time/money and you really want to dive deep into something. Otherwise, go and start working.
It's odd. I had come up with this theory when I was around ten. Maybe ten minutes after I learned about the big bang theory. It seems such a natural intuitive idea. I don't understand how science can make this news. OK I didn't rta but somehow I don't think they are proving anything in that article. Maybe just throwing a bit of scientific jargon on it but it still amounts to the same idea a ten year old can come up with.
Actually it was shut down by the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA).
Hear hear!!!
Here's a site that's devoted to exactly this. Each user lists their top 20 and the site then presents the complete list according to all users. Curious to see how close this matches up with Time's list...
No you weren't the only one. However, I kinda thought it would be cool to make more of them (assuming no suffering...)
One solution is to have a pretty printer run through any file that's being commited to version control. This way formatting is constant...
I rip the stuff using the software that came with my player and rip it to vorbis. The DRM on the Foo Fighters CD gets in the way of it even being readable on my computer. Good point about buying used. I'll consider it from now on.
I only download to hear an album before I buy it. Let's not forget that sometimes even buying the CD won't let you do what you want with it. The Foo Fighters One by One will not rip which means I can't put it on my player.
So now that content is licensed the content, who do i contact to have my media replaced when it gets ruined? Certainly I shouldn't have to pay the full retail price for a new CD since I already have the license...
And what about the sites he linked to? Will the Feds be going after them?
That's kind of interesting. If they're a holding company that doesn't actually do anything with there patents, then exactly what damages are being awarded?
BushCo seems to hate the word privacy
but not as it applies to the 2nd ammendment. I seem to recall him nixing the idea of fingerprinting firearms on the basis that it would be an invasion of privacy.
Interesting that you mention there are no patents. Another story just posted talks about globalizing patent filing. From what I understood, it seems that the U.S. is the only country that considers prior art when granting (or refusing) patents (other countries simply grant a patent to the first to file). Therefore, someone in another country could still file a patent on OGG (because there it's just file first...) and start collecting royalties/selling licenses in those countries...
Good post up until that last comment...you made it sound as if Fox and CNN are the only American perspectives
first post redundant?
The Second Superpower has no teeth...well maybe very small teeth as this bit of legislation shows. Talking about a new anti-terrorism bill that would jail street-blocking protesters. From the article it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly. Hmmm...disrupting free assembly? Wouldn't that make the person who proposed the bill and all those who vote for it terrorists?
This actually makes sense when you consider that constraints and restrictions actually force a person to be more creative. Having said that I'm not trying to suggest that this is a good idea, just an observation.
Um...it seems open sourced to me...from the Film Gimp homepage
Film Gimp is a free open source painting and image retouching program designed to be more suitable for film work than GIMP or Adobe Photoshop.
Actually, this is the way many companies make product decisions. They ask vendors to come in and sell the strong points of their product. The objectivity comes from those asking for the pitch. To expect anything more purely objective is really quite naive.
Okay fine maybe I was leading you a bit off topic so let's get back to it. The Segway HT will still have it's uses. Think of any person that has to use a walker to get around; or simply somebody that's put on crutches; or, to put it more generally ;), anybody who simply can't walk long distances.
Just because you think it's a toy doesn't mean that it will be a toy for EVERYBODY.
Cheers
While some people will be lazy, this invention will have it's uses. There's no need to be so broadly insulting. For instance, why do Americans need to be fat AND stupid? How would using a Segway establish that?
ok...i surrender ;o)... :o) I wasn't trying to BS or anything, i just offered my opinion and used the article to back that up, Nonetheless, I think some very useful words can come out of this...but let's set the stage first to avoid useless arguments...
... well you get the drift...
you've got me (sort of
1st: I am not a "loyal core follower" of anything. In the current context I think "uninformed" would be more appropriate but certainly not the ignorance implied byt he term 'loyal core follower'. If you think that is the case then don't just tell me I'm uniformed but inform me.
2nd: i don't want this to degenerate into a heated and useles debate where i'm resorted to calling you're mother so fat that it takes two counties to
3rd: in the debate that i am framing I use simple terms such as THE GOVERNMENT and the LAW ENFORCEMENT ANGENCY. I am a layman and do not see much difference. If anyone wants to jump down my throat about that, fine. But the law is supposed to be to protect us not confuse us so if i can't interpret it in my own words then it is useless...
4th: the entire PATRIOT act is not a useless or callous political endeavour. It can truly present important support (such as "providing for ALL victims of the attacks, increasing translation facilities and increasing forensic cybercrime capabilities" (or so I'm told by the EFF)
OK so now that I've framed the debate let's start (and i'm not trying to mince words so let's focus on the heart of the issues):
You (istartedi) pointed out that
the first paragraph you quoted is plainly false. A search warrant was requested and denied in the Moussaui (sp.?) case. Had it been granted, it could have prevented 911. And of course there is the roving wiretap issue.
Right, now my first quote claims that the USAPATRIOT ACT makes no statement of the fact that the current powers granted to LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES were insufficient. If that claim is false, show me where in the USAPATRIOT act it is stated that a specific search warrant was denied and how expanding and removing the validation of these powers with regards to the internet could have helped law enforcement in preventing these attacks. The absence of such a statement should be cause for alarm because it means that we need yet another watcher.
You then pointed out:
The 2nd paragraph is just more rhetoric. There is no citation to the USAPA. We are expected to take the EFF at its word that it provides "sweeping new powers" and "eliminates checks and balances".
I guess these organizations have their loyal core of followers that will take them at their word, but I'm not one of them. If the EFF and ACLU provide more scholarly arguments that include citations to the USAPA and logical arguments as to why they are unconstitutional and/or unjust than I'd like to see them.
You're (again sort of) right. You are right that the second paragraph is rhetoric. However, it is not "more" rhetoric but it is the facts that INITIATE the concerns about the USAPATRIOT act. Nobody's arguing against the need for a safer world . What people are arguing for is that we have to remember that our freedom is part of our safety.
I am a laymen so my own interpretation of the constitution will never stand up to the scrutiny of the letter but this is what it's spirit says to me: We can not and should not trust our safety to anyone but our selves. NOT EVEN OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.
PEACE first!...please
If you need something to leap out at you perhaps you should read the first paragraph: I also have an open mind and would like to make sure the FBI et al can do there job without one hand tied behind it's back. But to also blind those that keep an eye on them is just plain stupid. Being accountable does not limit their ability to do their job. It just prevents them from abusing the powers granted to them.