I'd say they have a good reason to complain if they have to pay 2-3 times the market price for X amount of storage capacity because Sony invented an unnecessary new format that does the same thing as SD cards. Stop being a defensive fanboy and work on reading comprehension.
The Google lovefest on Slashdot is clouding your judgement.
Go ahead and tell yourself that, but in reality, preconceived stereotypes are clouding your judgment.
Haven't you noticed by now that a lot of people on Slashdot are against software patents? That they don't like money being forcibly removed from their wallets just because they tried to give something freely to the world? And that many like to be able to use a Free Software desktop without being treated like second-class citizens due to frivolous IP nonsense?
Put two and two together, man. It's pretty clear why H.264 is bad and WebM is good. It's the license fees, stupid! You're either so biased you create strawman motivations for people before you can realize even the most obvious facts about their real motivation, or you're so stupid that such simple inferences are difficult for you. So which are you, biased or stupid?
If microsoft was doing what google is attempting to do we would all be screaming bloody murder
What, you mean producing a standard that actually matches the implementation and irrevocably granting free use of the necessary patents to everyone? How do you know how people would respond? Microsoft has never done that. They'e done the exact opposite, though...
Of course as with Randi's challenge, the challenge would have to be limited to a specific set of disciplines. Let's say ESP, dowsing, telepathic communication, telekinesis for an example list. It is also not sufficient to do as you suggest and simply prove the lack of ability in a single person.
Why not? In Randi's challenge, it's sufficient to prove the presence of an ability in a single person.
If you could prove that my skills in brain surgery are insufficient to cure any illness that would not be evidence that the field of brain surgery is invalid.
No, however if nobody anywhere ever was able to cure an illness with brain surgery, even when offered a huge incentive, that would show that brain surgery is invalid.
I am not a brain surgeon, even if I claim to be. So how would you go about disproving any of these things?
Same way Randi does. Observe brain surgeries and check if the outcome matches the claimed effects of the surgery and is different from what would happen with no surgery. If anyone can consistently meet this standard, then I've failed to disprove it and have in fact validated it.
James Randi's standards work that way by necessity. If the claim is true, then the claimant will pass the test. That's what gives it its disproving power: through modus tollens, if the claimant doesn't pass the test, then the claim is not true.
Claiming that a failure to disprove these things for a million dollar prize is evidence of their veracity is logically equivalent to claiming that failure to prove them for a million dollars is evidence that they are invalid.
No, those are not equivalent. The nature of these claims is that they are trivially easy to demonstrate if true. If it's real, somebody will show off their supernatural power. If it's false, nobody can just casually show up and prove that. It's only the persistent failure to provide any confirming evidence that can discredit the claim.
I am by no means arguing that any of these disciplines are real science, merely disputing that a million dollar televised prize is real science.
Setting up a test that a real psychic could pass and a fake one could not, and seeing if they actually do pass it is science. It's a test that will go one way or another depending on the truth of the hypothesis being tested, and he's doing it in front of a ton of witnesses. If any supernatural ability is ever confirmed to be real, it will be a skeptic like James Randi that does it.
The only contradiction here is between you and the English language. Disbelieve means to not believe. It does not imply certainty of a claim's falsehood.
Your hypothetical is ridiculous. If I could win a million dollars just by proving that someone's prediction ability is equal to random chance, then I can and would win that challenge easily.
So I don't know what it'd mean if nobody could disprove paranormal phenomena. It seems like a logical contradiction to me, much like speculating what it would mean if 2 + 2 were 5. If 1 + 1 is still 2, 2 + 1 is still 3, and 3 + 1 is still 4, then 2 + 2 = 2 + 1 + 1 = 3 + 1 = 4 = 5. We have a contradiction and everything is true (but also false at the same time).
There's nothing special about living beings. Ask yourself this: why does paper have marks from pen strokes in the past, but not from pen strokes in the future?
There are no statistically verified variants of ESP. Statistics only rules out coincidence, and doesn't positively confirm the mechanism by which someone was able to pass a test. When someone can beat the odds consistently, it always turns out that they are cheating in some way.
If you know of some real form of ESP, you can easily win a million dollars. So why don't you?
He says one thing and does another completely unrelated thing. Work on your critical thinking skills. Just because you see COICA as censorship doesn't mean Al Franken has to.
Besides that, no senator opposes copyright enforcement, so they all support some censorship according to the broader definition. The difference is in where they draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable. I'm glad we have a senator who has clearly stated that loss of network neutrality is on the unacceptable side of his line.
People call GPL software free when it is not. It's copyrighted software just like proprietary software. No difference.
You aren't the Ministry of Truth. You don't get to dictate the definitions of words to people. To the general public, 'free' means you can get it and use it without paying any money. That is true of GPL'd software.
To the general public, free in the sense of freedom does NOT extend to taking freedom away from others. Freedom means you have (or can have) land and property and you can decide what to do with them. It also means you have a reasonable amount of safety. Freedom does NOT mean you're allowed to rob people or commit murders. In such a society, you'd actually be less free, because other people would also be able to do those things to you. When is the last time you heard someone complain that their freedom was being infringed by all the laws against theft, murder, and arson?
Freedom is power over yourself, not power over others. GPL grants you freedom.
The posts all state that if I don't like the terms of the GPL licence then I dont have to use the software. Absolutely correct. And likewise if Apple doesn't like the GPL licence then they dont have to distribute the software.
And that's what the author requested, and it's what Apple will most likely do. So what's the issue, then? Why are you up on your soapbox over this?
Shouldn't be a problem but the VNC author chose this stunt to try and push his own agenda.
What stunt? Trying to make sure the license terms are actually followed? Is MGM pulling a stunt when they have one of their movies taken off YouTube? Are software companies pulling a stunt when they go after people torrenting their software? Would you be pulling a stunt if you sued me for distributing pirate copies of software you wrote?
All this backlash just goes to prove my original point in that this is just soapbox nonsense.
The 'backlash' proves nothing other than people's opinions on the subject. Though your statement shows how desperate you are to rationalize your point of view that you have to grasp at a bandwagon fallacy.
I was satirizing you. Your sense of a failure to grasp socialism and communism comes from me holding a mirror to you.
Also, you tacitly conceded my point that GPL grants more freedom than proprietary licenses. In that case, you have to admit that what you called communism is more free than free enterprise. So why all the hate directed at GPL?
So I'm writing code and forced to give it up for free for the good of the community. Good to see communism is alive and well in the software world.
If that's communism, then what is proprietary software? GPL strictly grants you more rights than proprietary software licenses. If you dispute that, then name just ONE thing proprietary software lets you do that GPL doesn't.
Sig: Universal health care is a good thing. It's not socialist. Get over it.
So I'm making money and am forced to give some of it up for free for the good of the community. Good to see communism is alive and well in you.
I feel a little bad about this but the first thing I thought was, "damn, that one Jonathan Coulton song is going to be really confusing whenever he performs it now."
Can't be worse than immediately thinking "I must post the best yo dawg joke ever." You know, he put the Mandelbrot Set in the Mandelbrot Set, so we can explore it while we explore it.
From this day forward, this recursive meme ought to be associated with Mandelbrot. After all, he put something inside itself infinitely many times long before Xzibit did so once.
Property ownership is just a social convention we support because it improves our lives. To take the concept far beyond the point that it helps us, even to the degree that it actively does us harm, is dogmatic zealotry.
Yeah, I realize that. Re-read my post. Sensitivity to lag depends on what you're doing, and the exact same amount of lag might be unnoticeable when your button fires a gun but jarring when it releases a virtual frisbee you're swinging with your arm.
If there's a 40ms delay between Move input and a response showing on your TV, they can compensate by taking your current position and adding velocity times 40ms. That way the output will approximately match what you're doing by the time the frame is displayed. But they can't actually see 40ms into the future to see what buttons you'll be pressing. Therefore if they use this strategy, buttons will have lag relative to motion. And that appears to be what's happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever seen a religious animal? No? Then there's a religiosity gene.
I'd say they have a good reason to complain if they have to pay 2-3 times the market price for X amount of storage capacity because Sony invented an unnecessary new format that does the same thing as SD cards. Stop being a defensive fanboy and work on reading comprehension.
The Google lovefest on Slashdot is clouding your judgement.
Go ahead and tell yourself that, but in reality, preconceived stereotypes are clouding your judgment.
Haven't you noticed by now that a lot of people on Slashdot are against software patents? That they don't like money being forcibly removed from their wallets just because they tried to give something freely to the world? And that many like to be able to use a Free Software desktop without being treated like second-class citizens due to frivolous IP nonsense?
Put two and two together, man. It's pretty clear why H.264 is bad and WebM is good. It's the license fees, stupid! You're either so biased you create strawman motivations for people before you can realize even the most obvious facts about their real motivation, or you're so stupid that such simple inferences are difficult for you. So which are you, biased or stupid?
If microsoft was doing what google is attempting to do we would all be screaming bloody murder
What, you mean producing a standard that actually matches the implementation and irrevocably granting free use of the necessary patents to everyone? How do you know how people would respond? Microsoft has never done that. They'e done the exact opposite, though...
Pay attention people: This is what actual theft looks like.
Of course as with Randi's challenge, the challenge would have to be limited to a specific set of disciplines. Let's say ESP, dowsing, telepathic communication, telekinesis for an example list. It is also not sufficient to do as you suggest and simply prove the lack of ability in a single person.
Why not? In Randi's challenge, it's sufficient to prove the presence of an ability in a single person.
If you could prove that my skills in brain surgery are insufficient to cure any illness that would not be evidence that the field of brain surgery is invalid.
No, however if nobody anywhere ever was able to cure an illness with brain surgery, even when offered a huge incentive, that would show that brain surgery is invalid.
I am not a brain surgeon, even if I claim to be. So how would you go about disproving any of these things?
Same way Randi does. Observe brain surgeries and check if the outcome matches the claimed effects of the surgery and is different from what would happen with no surgery. If anyone can consistently meet this standard, then I've failed to disprove it and have in fact validated it.
James Randi's standards work that way by necessity. If the claim is true, then the claimant will pass the test. That's what gives it its disproving power: through modus tollens, if the claimant doesn't pass the test, then the claim is not true.
Claiming that a failure to disprove these things for a million dollar prize is evidence of their veracity is logically equivalent to claiming that failure to prove them for a million dollars is evidence that they are invalid.
No, those are not equivalent. The nature of these claims is that they are trivially easy to demonstrate if true. If it's real, somebody will show off their supernatural power. If it's false, nobody can just casually show up and prove that. It's only the persistent failure to provide any confirming evidence that can discredit the claim.
I am by no means arguing that any of these disciplines are real science, merely disputing that a million dollar televised prize is real science.
Setting up a test that a real psychic could pass and a fake one could not, and seeing if they actually do pass it is science. It's a test that will go one way or another depending on the truth of the hypothesis being tested, and he's doing it in front of a ton of witnesses. If any supernatural ability is ever confirmed to be real, it will be a skeptic like James Randi that does it.
The only contradiction here is between you and the English language. Disbelieve means to not believe. It does not imply certainty of a claim's falsehood.
Your hypothetical is ridiculous. If I could win a million dollars just by proving that someone's prediction ability is equal to random chance, then I can and would win that challenge easily.
So I don't know what it'd mean if nobody could disprove paranormal phenomena. It seems like a logical contradiction to me, much like speculating what it would mean if 2 + 2 were 5. If 1 + 1 is still 2, 2 + 1 is still 3, and 3 + 1 is still 4, then 2 + 2 = 2 + 1 + 1 = 3 + 1 = 4 = 5. We have a contradiction and everything is true (but also false at the same time).
There's nothing special about living beings. Ask yourself this: why does paper have marks from pen strokes in the past, but not from pen strokes in the future?
There are no statistically verified variants of ESP. Statistics only rules out coincidence, and doesn't positively confirm the mechanism by which someone was able to pass a test. When someone can beat the odds consistently, it always turns out that they are cheating in some way.
If you know of some real form of ESP, you can easily win a million dollars. So why don't you?
How come anti-miracles are just as common as miracles? You won't get anywhere with your research if you don't understand what a bell curve is.
Your argument:
1. Humans get equal protection under the law
2. Corporations are composed of humans
3. Therefore, corporations get equal protection under the law
He says one thing and does another completely unrelated thing. Work on your critical thinking skills. Just because you see COICA as censorship doesn't mean Al Franken has to.
Besides that, no senator opposes copyright enforcement, so they all support some censorship according to the broader definition. The difference is in where they draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable. I'm glad we have a senator who has clearly stated that loss of network neutrality is on the unacceptable side of his line.
Prosecutors work for the state.
Officially, yes. But it feels more like they work for the ESA.
However that may be, just blatantly disregarding the law is not the solution.
I wish the judge felt that way.
Hmmm, so the btrfsck I have installed on my system is imaginary?
Kind of. It will scan for and report errors, but there is absolutely no repair code in it. It's read-only.
woosh
People call GPL software free when it is not. It's copyrighted software just like proprietary software. No difference.
You aren't the Ministry of Truth. You don't get to dictate the definitions of words to people. To the general public, 'free' means you can get it and use it without paying any money. That is true of GPL'd software.
To the general public, free in the sense of freedom does NOT extend to taking freedom away from others. Freedom means you have (or can have) land and property and you can decide what to do with them. It also means you have a reasonable amount of safety. Freedom does NOT mean you're allowed to rob people or commit murders. In such a society, you'd actually be less free, because other people would also be able to do those things to you. When is the last time you heard someone complain that their freedom was being infringed by all the laws against theft, murder, and arson?
Freedom is power over yourself, not power over others. GPL grants you freedom.
The posts all state that if I don't like the terms of the GPL licence then I dont have to use the software. Absolutely correct. And likewise if Apple doesn't like the GPL licence then they dont have to distribute the software.
And that's what the author requested, and it's what Apple will most likely do. So what's the issue, then? Why are you up on your soapbox over this?
Shouldn't be a problem but the VNC author chose this stunt to try and push his own agenda.
What stunt? Trying to make sure the license terms are actually followed? Is MGM pulling a stunt when they have one of their movies taken off YouTube? Are software companies pulling a stunt when they go after people torrenting their software? Would you be pulling a stunt if you sued me for distributing pirate copies of software you wrote?
All this backlash just goes to prove my original point in that this is just soapbox nonsense.
The 'backlash' proves nothing other than people's opinions on the subject. Though your statement shows how desperate you are to rationalize your point of view that you have to grasp at a bandwagon fallacy.
WOOSH!
I was satirizing you. Your sense of a failure to grasp socialism and communism comes from me holding a mirror to you.
Also, you tacitly conceded my point that GPL grants more freedom than proprietary licenses. In that case, you have to admit that what you called communism is more free than free enterprise. So why all the hate directed at GPL?
So I'm writing code and forced to give it up for free for the good of the community. Good to see communism is alive and well in the software world.
If that's communism, then what is proprietary software? GPL strictly grants you more rights than proprietary software licenses. If you dispute that, then name just ONE thing proprietary software lets you do that GPL doesn't.
Sig: Universal health care is a good thing. It's not socialist. Get over it.
So I'm making money and am forced to give some of it up for free for the good of the community. Good to see communism is alive and well in you.
I feel a little bad about this but the first thing I thought was, "damn, that one Jonathan Coulton song is going to be really confusing whenever he performs it now."
Can't be worse than immediately thinking "I must post the best yo dawg joke ever." You know, he put the Mandelbrot Set in the Mandelbrot Set, so we can explore it while we explore it.
From this day forward, this recursive meme ought to be associated with Mandelbrot. After all, he put something inside itself infinitely many times long before Xzibit did so once.
She is what she is. She'll do what she wants.
Here's an idea: do it, rather than posting on Slashdot about it.
radish may already plan on doing it, you don't know. Posting on Slashdot about it does not take away his/her ability to do so.
Yes it does.
Property ownership is just a social convention we support because it improves our lives. To take the concept far beyond the point that it helps us, even to the degree that it actively does us harm, is dogmatic zealotry.
Yeah, I realize that. Re-read my post. Sensitivity to lag depends on what you're doing, and the exact same amount of lag might be unnoticeable when your button fires a gun but jarring when it releases a virtual frisbee you're swinging with your arm.
If there's a 40ms delay between Move input and a response showing on your TV, they can compensate by taking your current position and adding velocity times 40ms. That way the output will approximately match what you're doing by the time the frame is displayed. But they can't actually see 40ms into the future to see what buttons you'll be pressing. Therefore if they use this strategy, buttons will have lag relative to motion. And that appears to be what's happening.