sebFlyte writes "Since Slashdot readers seem to be interesting in the issues and problems surrounding software patents, I thought they might be interested to see that Wired is running an interesting piece on patents in Biotech and the way that they can hold up important research, and how there are clear parallels with the open source software community with the way that advocates of openness are trying to solve these problems."
sebFlyte continued:
It's very interesting. I'm interested to see what interesting direcitons may be taken if these patent holders are interested in furthuring this interesting branch of research for the good of humanity.
Dude, you ever been to Plymouth Rock? It's the most disappointing historical attraction ever. It's a rock. Not an impressive one, at that. Please, for future generations of children whose parents drag them to historical attractions, don't elevate some tire ruts in the dust to more than what they are.
In addition I would say that, as a theory, it has stayed around so long because it explains observation
better than any of the alternatives offered so far (my emphasis).
I think, since this is a comment written by you, stating that the emphasis added is indeed yours is a bit redundant. =)
Kaufman's screenplay does look good. However, without actually reading this screenplay, i think a comparison is unfair at this point. Also keep in mind that Linklater is very committed to staying true to the book, which is a real first in PKD film adaptations.
I'm a bit more upset about the casting choices than the screenplay (wynona rider as donna? no. and neo as arctor? wtf?) but I'm hoping that I will be pleasantly surprised.
Pretty bad fighting engine, but an incredibly fun game. And the best intro music ever. It was released after Killer Instinct, when fighters were still a big deal. One of my favourite touches was the 40,000 hit combo or something equally vast, but I forget the character that had it. I'll never forget playing against a friend and all of a sudden he's hitting me repeatedly, and very fast. I look over to see shock on his face and the controller lying on the floor =)
I agree that there is defnintely a hypocrisy as far as racism vs. cursing is concerned. I'm not qualified to set a definition of what is acceptable for the general population - i'm only qualified to define what I find acceptable. Here are my thoughts (assuming this thread is still live enough for anyone to care):
Get rid of TV censorship alltogether. Yes, this includes censoring racist viewpoints. However, I don't think that protected free speech includes protection from backlash that you may bring upon yourself. I'd elaborate, but I hope the idea is pretty clear--if you air racist material, expect protests. Same goes for "immoral" or "unethical"--people have the right to let you know that they're offended.
It's a pretty libertarian stance, but if you look at cable TV it's been effective, as cable channels aren't regulated like broadcast stations are.
It's stated in the books that one can never know both the question and the answer. Having said that, here are two paraphrases (don't have the book handy) from the text:
Excerpt 1: Marvin: I'm roughly 30 billion times smarter than you. Let me give you an example. Pick a number. Any number. ??(can't recall name)??: Um...seven? Marvin: Wrong. You see?
Excerpt 2: Arthur: I'm still sort of bummed we never figured out that Ultimate Question thing. Eddie, Ship's Computer: Pick a number. Any number.
It's arguable that neither of the entities who knew the proposed question violate the question/answer mutual exclusivity because they are machines. However, since Adams was an atheist, he would probably conclude that we are essentially also machines, so this might not fly.
It doesn't only apply to Bush, and it serves the economic interests of the nation as a whole. The problem is ethical. Our leaders had a choice to either lose a lot of stuff we depend on, or to fight unjustly for it. The current administration was unwilling to let it go, thereby putting the interests of the US ECONOMY above those of the PEOPLE of a foreign land. That's where I see the problem. It's arguably 'just' if we are fighting for our safety, which is why things were spun to make it appear that way.
People should win out over stuff every time.
(hopefully lucid, this is admittedly very off-the-cuff) -f
I know for me, caffeine can often trigger a migraine, especially if used in conjunction with a lack of sleep. 'Course, I have heard rumours that the Demon Weed helps prevent migraines and relieve symptoms, but due to the views held by our society, I'll never be able to find a reliable study (or self-medicate, for that matter).
Is the comment still here? Then freedom of expression is being fulfilled. We also have a moderation system in place, which means that opinions not expressed by the majority are often going to be modded down to -1 due to the moderators' freedom of expression. If you want to see bigotry and racism in real life, go to a kkk rally. If you want to see it on slashdot, browse at -1.
Which is bullshit. If you're really looking out for the citizens you represent and there's any question as to how you got there, your first move in office should be to look into it. Guess whose respect (if not future vote) you'll get? That's right, the people you're supposed to represent.
So we need grey hats. Seriously. If the elections are fscked anyway, we may as well make them truly and visibly fscked up. Find and exploit the holes in the systems. Zero the count on voting machines. Give all candidates (including 3rd parties) an absolutely equal number of votes. Bonus points for making this number much higher than the population of the county. Anything obvious with NO CHANCE of being misrepresented as a legitimate win for anybody, because this shouldn't be about any one side's agenda - this should be about truth. We know secure systems are possible. So do those who want to (maliciously) exploit our current systems. The only way to force a secure vote is to expose the problems in a very tangible, widespread, and confidence-destroying manner. Hell, can we make the total count output text? That could be fun.
Results:
Bush: THIS MACHINE IS INSECURE.
Kerry: HAVE A HOLLY JOLLY CHRISTMAS.
Badnarik: HAPPY NEW YEAR, IT'S 1984. etc.
Of course, posting this stuff on slashdot won't get anybody to do anything. So where do I go to actually try and make some changes?
Disclaimer: Though I am, in fact, attempting to encourage behavior that is questionable, I don't (unfortunately) have the skills to perform it myself. But make no mistake, I am encouraging it for the purposes of national security. So bother someone else, feds =)
The problemw with putting a display in the windshield itself is that you have to change your focus from the road ahead to the windshield or else you get double vision. Having an overlay of the lines would be great, but in addition to the wrong focus, you'd also need a head-tracking component, or else you'd move and the lines would be shifted left or right on the windscreen.
There are some cars that have digital speedometers focused further out than the windshield, but it's actually a display in the dash that is reflected back by the windshield, which is the only way I can see it working.
Interesting post. However, you are still being somewhat inconsistent. Here's what I take issue with:
'So, "Oh, my fucking Christ with a pogostick!" is not indecent, but "Fuck off, tard!" is, unless the person being talked to *is* a tard, and has been doing something for which he/she should fuck off.'
In my thinking, 'respect for your fellow person' includes respecting their opinions or beliefs even when (perhaps especially when) you are in total disagreement. So saying "Oh, my fucking Christ with a pogostick!" to one of your athiest friends is not indecent, but wouldn't saying the same thing to a Christian friend be disrespectful to their beliefs, showing a lack of respect for the individual who holds them, and therefore by your definition immoral? To perhaps give a parallel example that should make my question more concrete, would saying "Go fuck your grandma" be disrespectful, because the person you're saying it to probably holds their grandma in high regard, such as a Christian would Christ? Note that I'm not saying you have to agree with their worldview, and I'm certainly not defending the censorship of television. I'm just talking about person-to-person communication.
The other half of my issue is "Fuck off, tard!" See, "tard" is an insult, no matter if the person you're dealing with is retarded or not. That's like saying "Fuck off, nigger!" is totally fine if the person you're talking to is black -- but it's a racial slur no matter how you look at it, and will be very offensive, unless of course you have a particularly close and easygoing relationship with that person.
To bring things back on topic, your model (once made consistent) works well for p2p communication, but how can you apply this to a broadcast medium such as TV? Is the current model adequate, barring the misuse detailed in the article?
While I agree with most of your statements, I can't agree with this one:
"Movies also are the only product of actors. I can see recorded music serving primarily as an advertisement for musicians live shows."
This is true for some pop/rock and jazz, certainly. But making this statement diminishes the value of an album as a work of art. Sure, there is an art to performing live, but more and more (especially in electronic music) the creator takes on the role of composer rather than performer.
As an example of a disparity between recorded material and live shows, see The Flaming Lips. They have discussed in several interviews that when they are in the studio, they take advantage of all the extra creative enhancements they can, and when they play live shows they are there to entertain. A lot of songs sound radically different, but neither their skill as players nor as studio musicians is diminished by the difference.
I only bring it up because I'm a "desktop musician," and a lot of the stuff I'm working on would take a small army and a large budget to perform live. Not to mention, it wouldn't be all that interesting to watch the majority of the infantry push buttons and turn knobs for an hour =)
With respect to your cost reasoning, though, I definitely agree. Music is cheaper to produce by several magnitudes. Still, respect for the artist should be maintained, which is why it would be nice if we could find out who likes to share. I will definitely be putting my finished material wherever I can.
The problem with blogs is that everybody has one. Sure, there may be some that may have great commentaries or information, some that are generally amusing, etc., but finding them is like searching for the proverbial needle in the haystack.
The main tool I use to get that sound currently is a Korg Electribe ESX. One of the effects is the decimator, which varies the bitrate on the fly. It works well for samples, but it's a pain to run other audio through it (if I want a nasty synth or whatever without sampling).
I used PT for a short time, but I didn't care for the free version, so I'm hesitant to purchase the full.
Man, I feel like I missed out. "8-bit glitch aesthetic" just about describes the sound I'm looking for, but this is the first I've heard of nanoloop, and it looks like nanoloop 1.2 is no longer available but will be later in ROM form.
Perhaps I'm off-base here, but I believe when he talks about our rights he's referring to what's written in the Constitution. The appeal of Libertarianism is that it's essentially getting back to our roots, or getting back on track re: the gov't that the Founding Fathers wrote. That appears to me to be Badnarik's, if not the whole LP's platform. All the stuff about individual freedom &c. stems from the return to constitutional government. Also, the increased power of the states (not covered in this interview) is from the Constitution as well.
So the rights come from the constitution. Libertarians still tell you what to do, but they do so within the boundaries laid out by the Constitution. The reason for this is to protect people from each other, rather than from themselves. With Libertarianism there is a system in place to enforce constitutional rights (life, liberty, pursuit of mone^H^H^Hhappiness) with as little interference with your own personal choices as possible.
>What's the last first person shooter to allow co op play besides halo?
Perfect Dark? TimeSplitters 2?
TimeSplitters 2 was a fantastic co-op experience. If you don't limit to FPS, there's the new Bond game that had an entirely different set of co-op missions, which is good. So, really, co-op doesn't distinguish Halo 2. LAN or Live co-op WOULD, because the examples I mentioned are all split-screen, which I find mildly annoying - cuts down your vertical FOV or shrinks everything.
Well, there's a problem. If we had stuck with that method to begin with, or only recently diverged from it, sure it'd be viable. But if you look at the political climate in the country today...most people are already certain that they'll vote for a particular candidate. What will happen is republicans will vote for someone who they are certain will vote within the party, democrats will do the same. Due to this, the results of the system are similar to the electoral system. The good thing about it is that it'll be district by district instead of an entire state, which is IMO a big improvement over the current electoral system.
Slashdot Mirror
sebFlyte writes "Since Slashdot readers seem to be interesting in the issues and problems surrounding software patents, I thought they might be interested to see that Wired is running an interesting piece on patents in Biotech and the way that they can hold up important research, and how there are clear parallels with the open source software community with the way that advocates of openness are trying to solve these problems."
sebFlyte continued:
It's very interesting. I'm interested to see what interesting direcitons may be taken if these patent holders are interested in furthuring this interesting branch of research for the good of humanity.
(all in good fun)
Dude, you ever been to Plymouth Rock? It's the most disappointing historical attraction ever. It's a rock. Not an impressive one, at that. Please, for future generations of children whose parents drag them to historical attractions, don't elevate some tire ruts in the dust to more than what they are.
I think, since this is a comment written by you, stating that the emphasis added is indeed yours is a bit redundant. =)
Kaufman's screenplay does look good. However, without actually reading this screenplay, i think a comparison is unfair at this point. Also keep in mind that Linklater is very committed to staying true to the book, which is a real first in PKD film adaptations.
I'm a bit more upset about the casting choices than the screenplay (wynona rider as donna? no. and neo as arctor? wtf?) but I'm hoping that I will be pleasantly surprised.
Pretty bad fighting engine, but an incredibly fun game. And the best intro music ever. It was released after Killer Instinct, when fighters were still a big deal. One of my favourite touches was the 40,000 hit combo or something equally vast, but I forget the character that had it. I'll never forget playing against a friend and all of a sudden he's hitting me repeatedly, and very fast. I look over to see shock on his face and the controller lying on the floor =)
I agree that there is defnintely a hypocrisy as far as racism vs. cursing is concerned. I'm not qualified to set a definition of what is acceptable for the general population - i'm only qualified to define what I find acceptable. Here are my thoughts (assuming this thread is still live enough for anyone to care):
Get rid of TV censorship alltogether. Yes, this includes censoring racist viewpoints. However, I don't think that protected free speech includes protection from backlash that you may bring upon yourself. I'd elaborate, but I hope the idea is pretty clear--if you air racist material, expect protests. Same goes for "immoral" or "unethical"--people have the right to let you know that they're offended.
It's a pretty libertarian stance, but if you look at cable TV it's been effective, as cable channels aren't regulated like broadcast stations are.
It's stated in the books that one can never know both the question and the answer. Having said that, here are two paraphrases (don't have the book handy) from the text:
Excerpt 1:
Marvin: I'm roughly 30 billion times smarter than you. Let me give you an example. Pick a number. Any number.
??(can't recall name)??: Um...seven?
Marvin: Wrong. You see?
Excerpt 2:
Arthur: I'm still sort of bummed we never figured out that Ultimate Question thing.
Eddie, Ship's Computer: Pick a number. Any number.
It's arguable that neither of the entities who knew the proposed question violate the question/answer mutual exclusivity because they are machines. However, since Adams was an atheist, he would probably conclude that we are essentially also machines, so this might not fly.
Food for thought, though.
It doesn't only apply to Bush, and it serves the economic interests of the nation as a whole. The problem is ethical. Our leaders had a choice to either lose a lot of stuff we depend on, or to fight unjustly for it. The current administration was unwilling to let it go, thereby putting the interests of the US ECONOMY above those of the PEOPLE of a foreign land. That's where I see the problem. It's arguably 'just' if we are fighting for our safety, which is why things were spun to make it appear that way.
People should win out over stuff every time.
(hopefully lucid, this is admittedly very off-the-cuff)
-f
Is it bad that I took the time to count the repetitions? Twice?
I know for me, caffeine can often trigger a migraine, especially if used in conjunction with a lack of sleep. 'Course, I have heard rumours that the Demon Weed helps prevent migraines and relieve symptoms, but due to the views held by our society, I'll never be able to find a reliable study (or self-medicate, for that matter).
Is the comment still here? Then freedom of expression is being fulfilled. We also have a moderation system in place, which means that opinions not expressed by the majority are often going to be modded down to -1 due to the moderators' freedom of expression. If you want to see bigotry and racism in real life, go to a kkk rally. If you want to see it on slashdot, browse at -1.
Which is bullshit. If you're really looking out for the citizens you represent and there's any question as to how you got there, your first move in office should be to look into it. Guess whose respect (if not future vote) you'll get? That's right, the people you're supposed to represent.
So we need grey hats. Seriously. If the elections are fscked anyway, we may as well make them truly and visibly fscked up. Find and exploit the holes in the systems. Zero the count on voting machines. Give all candidates (including 3rd parties) an absolutely equal number of votes. Bonus points for making this number much higher than the population of the county. Anything obvious with NO CHANCE of being misrepresented as a legitimate win for anybody, because this shouldn't be about any one side's agenda - this should be about truth. We know secure systems are possible. So do those who want to (maliciously) exploit our current systems. The only way to force a secure vote is to expose the problems in a very tangible, widespread, and confidence-destroying manner. Hell, can we make the total count output text? That could be fun.
Results:
Bush: THIS MACHINE IS INSECURE.
Kerry: HAVE A HOLLY JOLLY CHRISTMAS.
Badnarik: HAPPY NEW YEAR, IT'S 1984.
etc.
Of course, posting this stuff on slashdot won't get anybody to do anything. So where do I go to actually try and make some changes?
Disclaimer: Though I am, in fact, attempting to encourage behavior that is questionable, I don't (unfortunately) have the skills to perform it myself. But make no mistake, I am encouraging it for the purposes of national security. So bother someone else, feds =)
Why stop there? Imagine: a giant rubik's cube where each of the 26 smaller cubes is an apartment. And it could solve itself once a day!
If you thought changing the view outside your window was exciting, how about waking up with your wall as your floor?
The problemw with putting a display in the windshield itself is that you have to change your focus from the road ahead to the windshield or else you get double vision. Having an overlay of the lines would be great, but in addition to the wrong focus, you'd also need a head-tracking component, or else you'd move and the lines would be shifted left or right on the windscreen.
There are some cars that have digital speedometers focused further out than the windshield, but it's actually a display in the dash that is reflected back by the windshield, which is the only way I can see it working.
E.A. Spouse:
his job is lame
(hoping someone remembers the old EA Sports catchphrase)
Interesting post. However, you are still being somewhat inconsistent. Here's what I take issue with:
'So, "Oh, my fucking Christ with a pogostick!" is not indecent, but "Fuck off, tard!" is, unless the person being talked to *is* a tard, and has been doing something for which he/she should fuck off.'
In my thinking, 'respect for your fellow person' includes respecting their opinions or beliefs even when (perhaps especially when) you are in total disagreement. So saying "Oh, my fucking Christ with a pogostick!" to one of your athiest friends is not indecent, but wouldn't saying the same thing to a Christian friend be disrespectful to their beliefs, showing a lack of respect for the individual who holds them, and therefore by your definition immoral? To perhaps give a parallel example that should make my question more concrete, would saying "Go fuck your grandma" be disrespectful, because the person you're saying it to probably holds their grandma in high regard, such as a Christian would Christ? Note that I'm not saying you have to agree with their worldview, and I'm certainly not defending the censorship of television. I'm just talking about person-to-person communication.
The other half of my issue is "Fuck off, tard!" See, "tard" is an insult, no matter if the person you're dealing with is retarded or not. That's like saying "Fuck off, nigger!" is totally fine if the person you're talking to is black -- but it's a racial slur no matter how you look at it, and will be very offensive, unless of course you have a particularly close and easygoing relationship with that person.
To bring things back on topic, your model (once made consistent) works well for p2p communication, but how can you apply this to a broadcast medium such as TV? Is the current model adequate, barring the misuse detailed in the article?
While I agree with most of your statements, I can't agree with this one:
"Movies also are the only product of actors. I can see recorded music serving primarily as an advertisement for musicians live shows."
This is true for some pop/rock and jazz, certainly. But making this statement diminishes the value of an album as a work of art. Sure, there is an art to performing live, but more and more (especially in electronic music) the creator takes on the role of composer rather than performer.
As an example of a disparity between recorded material and live shows, see The Flaming Lips. They have discussed in several interviews that when they are in the studio, they take advantage of all the extra creative enhancements they can, and when they play live shows they are there to entertain. A lot of songs sound radically different, but neither their skill as players nor as studio musicians is diminished by the difference.
I only bring it up because I'm a "desktop musician," and a lot of the stuff I'm working on would take a small army and a large budget to perform live. Not to mention, it wouldn't be all that interesting to watch the majority of the infantry push buttons and turn knobs for an hour =)
With respect to your cost reasoning, though, I definitely agree. Music is cheaper to produce by several magnitudes. Still, respect for the artist should be maintained, which is why it would be nice if we could find out who likes to share. I will definitely be putting my finished material wherever I can.
The problem with blogs is that everybody has one. Sure, there may be some that may have great commentaries or information, some that are generally amusing, etc., but finding them is like searching for the proverbial needle in the haystack.
The main tool I use to get that sound currently is a Korg Electribe ESX. One of the effects is the decimator, which varies the bitrate on the fly. It works well for samples, but it's a pain to run other audio through it (if I want a nasty synth or whatever without sampling).
I used PT for a short time, but I didn't care for the free version, so I'm hesitant to purchase the full.
> [Can we] have Verizon install FTTP to Congress, the White House, ... ? :)
With the amount of raw sewage coming out of there already, anything new would hardly be noticeable...
Man, I feel like I missed out. "8-bit glitch aesthetic" just about describes the sound I'm looking for, but this is the first I've heard of nanoloop, and it looks like nanoloop 1.2 is no longer available but will be later in ROM form.
Anybody looking to sell one? =)
Perhaps I'm off-base here, but I believe when he talks about our rights he's referring to what's written in the Constitution. The appeal of Libertarianism is that it's essentially getting back to our roots, or getting back on track re: the gov't that the Founding Fathers wrote. That appears to me to be Badnarik's, if not the whole LP's platform. All the stuff about individual freedom &c. stems from the return to constitutional government. Also, the increased power of the states (not covered in this interview) is from the Constitution as well.
So the rights come from the constitution. Libertarians still tell you what to do, but they do so within the boundaries laid out by the Constitution. The reason for this is to protect people from each other, rather than from themselves. With Libertarianism there is a system in place to enforce constitutional rights (life, liberty, pursuit of mone^H^H^Hhappiness) with as little interference with your own personal choices as possible.
>What's the last first person shooter to allow co op play besides halo?
Perfect Dark?
TimeSplitters 2?
TimeSplitters 2 was a fantastic co-op experience. If you don't limit to FPS, there's the new Bond game that had an entirely different set of co-op missions, which is good. So, really, co-op doesn't distinguish Halo 2. LAN or Live co-op WOULD, because the examples I mentioned are all split-screen, which I find mildly annoying - cuts down your vertical FOV or shrinks everything.
Well, there's a problem. If we had stuck with that method to begin with, or only recently diverged from it, sure it'd be viable. But if you look at the political climate in the country today...most people are already certain that they'll vote for a particular candidate. What will happen is republicans will vote for someone who they are certain will vote within the party, democrats will do the same. Due to this, the results of the system are similar to the electoral system. The good thing about it is that it'll be district by district instead of an entire state, which is IMO a big improvement over the current electoral system.