I was thinking this same thing when I read the post. Why are people so eager to assume that something they don't really understand (copyright assignments under US law) is just like something they do understand (stealing a car)? These things are not the same. If you think about it long enough, it will seem obvious that they aren't. If I say that copying software without permission is a form of rape, and start using language associated with sexual assualt, does that make software "pirates" into software "rapists?" Where does this chain of hyperbole end? It can only end in comparisons with Hitler.
These are important things to think about, and you have to worry about how they can muddle a jury...
My understanding was that these long civil cases don't generally involve juries, since you can't sit on for that long. IANAL, but most of the time these cases are decided by judges. If this case were decided by a judge, your point about "muddling" is irrelevant since it is the judge's job to deal with that stuff from Lawyers.
By using tools that break the "encryption" on, for examply, the Washington Post.pdf file mentioned in the article, isn't the researcher violating the DMCA? Isn't his whole project bragging about doing this, a la 2600?
I hope he remembers a few packs of cigarettes in order to buy himself a few nights of sleep in the Big House.
I'm suprised that the potential for batteries wasn't discussed. What if this technique allowed better energy storage than we have now? What if we could store electricity when and where we produce it, and move it to where and when we want to use it? I guess what I'm asking is: when can I run my laptop off of one, and will it cause "flipper-babies?"
Actually, Occam's Razor is frequently misquoted. I think it is more accurate to say that the explanation with the least amount of causes is the correct one. Simplicity isn't part of the statement. You can find the original on the web.
So if you observe a window breaking and a kid running away, you could say:
The kid broke the window
The kid broke the window, along with a magic invisible turtle that flies.
...and Occam would say that the first explanation is probably true, because it explains the evidence with the fewest possible causative factors.
Saying Einstein was deeply religious is disingenuous, like saying that Thomas Jefferson was deeply religious. It is true in the sense that he believed in a Creator, but he didn't believe in the kind of activist answer-the-prayers snowy white beard in the clouds Creator that sends gays and women who have abortions to Hell. Evangelist Xtians make the link between these respected thinkers and themselves in order to seem rational. It is a false link; they have just as much in common with these belief systems as they have with fundamentalist Hinduism.
"God doesn't play dice with the Universe" is oft quoted and deeply misunderstood. Check out other quotes by Einstein in order to understand his position in a non-jingoistic manner.
Copernicus' ideas attacked the religious establishment, not God himself, but the statement is irrelevent to the discussion. I think this thread is about intelligent design, and since Copernicus was never exposed to the ideas of evolution, its a little ridiculous to bring him into it. I doubt he believed in washing his hands after he went to the bathroom. He died in 1543 and modern sanitation was invented in the 20th century.
Christianity obviously didn't lead to the formulation of the scientific method; it existed in ancient Greece. It's debatable whether religion had any role in the development of the scientific method; I would contend that it didn't.
Intelligent Design, a recent theory that has gained enough respect from the scientific community that it is being taught alongside evolution in many schools and colleges
Great. The creationists complain if evolution is taught without teaching "other opinions" (i.e. nonscientific theories), and then when we do teach these theories as a sop, suddenly we have given them "enough respect...that it is being taught alongside evolution...."
Lamarck's theory of evolution and the Greek's physical theory of phlogiston are also taught in science classes, but they are taught as examples of flawed or discredited hypotheses rather than viable alternatives to modern thinking. Does this mean that they also have "enough respect" to be worthy of consideration if only we have an enlightened "change in perspective?"
I also have to say that if Copernicus and/or Einstein were around today, they might have challenging new ideas, but they wouldn't be believers in "intelligent design." Both men were accomplished at use of the scientific method, and they had no need to repackage non-scientific ideas (deism) in scientific shrinkrap. They could come up with their own ideas.
I remember from college courses that the composition of dark matter is one of the most important issues in cosmology today. One example of this importance is that there are some estimates that 90% of the mass of galaxies is not visible. There was some work that was presented to the public a while ago from WMAP at NASA. I read that it had implications for the sources of dark matter, but I don't understand what they are.
Since it is something of an open issue, what is the current understanding of the nature of dark matter in our universe? What kinds of questions are still being investigated? What kinds of hypotheses do we have now, and what do they imply?
At that point you will certainly have fear and loathing between the people who undergo the procedure (the superior beings) and the people who don't (the all-natural people).
This is guaranteed to be true, since people hate and fear each other for all kinds of reasons, including no reason at all. A great man once wrote a story about Star-Bellied Sneeches, and his point was that humans will seize upon any difference, no matter how trivial, as an excuse to vent their psychological and emotional problems. I don't think that the improvement of one's body should be condemned simply because someone will be angry about it. If that's how I made decisions, I wouldn't dump my garbage in my neighbour's backyard, and then where would I be?
Consumer confidence figures have been plunging recently, and I wonder: does the fact that IT and other high tech workers live in an increasingly uncertain job market mean that the market for high-end sci-fi collectibles is weaker? Has anyone seen a geek market that is significantly weaker than it was a few years ago? I know that I personally will not be buying a piece of the DeathStar any time soon; it's probably too big to fit into the refridgerator box. It seemed like the value of these type of collectibles was very high during the late 90s boom years, when techies had lots of money burning holes in their pockets.
According to this article, Japan's population in 2050 will be half of what it is today (120M to 60M). That will make room for the robots, avoiding unpleasant alternatives.
In Portland, you need to visit Powell's Bookstore. It is huge (a couple of city blocks in downtown) and has all kinds of cheap used books to read on your travels. Portland is also generally a cool place to visit, and if you're in the Northwest anyway it would be a good time.
Flagburners have got too much freedom
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
I appreciate your suggestion about reading the article.
You say that he's "attacking the mindset...that Google is the best tool for every job." Like I said in my post, I think he's starting by assuming that this mindset exists. It's a bit of a strawman argument, since almost by definition, there is no tool that's right for every job. I'd also like to point out that you seem unaware that "blame" and "criticize" are subtly different concepts; I don't think he blames Google, I think that he set it up to be something it isn't, and then shows that it isn't that thing. I'm trying to indicate that setting up a weak argument and beating it down isn't really all that hard.
I agree that the article is weak. It begins by assuming that Google should be something it isn't (a search engine that reads your mind) and then criticizes it for failing. Other posts mention that the author's examples use one search term, while google allows up to 10. This could be similar to complaining that the dictionary is skewed towards "aardvarks" if you are trying to look up "application" using only the first letter, instead of the first ten.
I thought that the last section of the article was the most clueless, though. The author complains that "we may find ourselves in a world where, if you want to get an idea into circulation, you're better off publishing a PDF file on the Web than landing a book deal." No kidding. First, it isn't clear that his assertion is true, and second, even if it were true, it would be good, not bad, since the barrier to entry for ideas would be lower. He also complains that google doesn't search the NYT, and so it doesn't find the most relevant material. He acts like this is somehow a failing of google, when a rational person would consider it to be a failing of the NYT. How can any single search engine find material on the web if it is hidden behind subscriptions?
My paranoia says the author has another agenda (see posts re: MSN = evil). Common sense says he just needed to get something out by deadline. The easy way to do this "hackneyed demagogue," according to Adam Thrasher.
The question of the business model is one I've been thinking about recently. How is the situation today similar to this example:
Let's say I have a business model where people bring me their change and I convert it into paper money for an 8% fee (Coinstar does this now). Let's say that, because I want to maximize my profit, I set up a stand at every street corner in America. Let's also say that I want to keep my costs down, so I leave a barrel for the change and several thousand dollar in cash on a countertop with a sign explaining the policy.
Now, it seems obvious that when I roll around to visit my stands, all of the money will be gone. Now I complain to the policy department, because my property has been stolen. I could even complain to the FBI because this theft has happened on every street corner in America, and is obviously the work of organized criminals. My solution is that the police station a cop at every one of my stands to make sure that people only take the appropriate amount of cash when they bring in their change. Effectively, the police have become my employees, and society as a whole is subsidizing my business model.
Is this situation similar? What happens if a new technology turns a viable business model into something similar to what is above? To what extent can businesses outsource their labour to our police departments?
At the Oregon State Bar CLE Seminar on Intellectual Property, they mentioned a provision of the DMCA that states, as I understand it, that someone can only be sued under the statute if their financial gain from the activity can be shown to be over 1000$ during a period of 180 days. This would imply that people who swap a couple of songs a week would be safe from prosecution. In fact, 1000/180 = 5.55$ a day, which would be five songs (and an NSYNC song) at the Apple rates of 1 song = 1 dollar.
Another interesting fact was that there is a three year statute of limitations for infringement for civil suites, so all those college collections of music you made should be free and clear.
IANAL, but I'd like to be one day, mostly so I don't wind up in jail. Again.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking this same thing when I read the post. Why are people so eager to assume that something they don't really understand (copyright assignments under US law) is just like something they do understand (stealing a car)? These things are not the same. If you think about it long enough, it will seem obvious that they aren't. If I say that copying software without permission is a form of rape, and start using language associated with sexual assualt, does that make software "pirates" into software "rapists?" Where does this chain of hyperbole end? It can only end in comparisons with Hitler.
My understanding was that these long civil cases don't generally involve juries, since you can't sit on for that long. IANAL, but most of the time these cases are decided by judges. If this case were decided by a judge, your point about "muddling" is irrelevant since it is the judge's job to deal with that stuff from Lawyers.
HOMER: I didn't even know what a nukular pannerplant was!
By using tools that break the "encryption" on, for examply, the Washington Post .pdf file mentioned in the article, isn't the researcher violating the DMCA? Isn't his whole project bragging about doing this, a la 2600?
I hope he remembers a few packs of cigarettes in order to buy himself a few nights of sleep in the Big House.
I'm suprised that the potential for batteries wasn't discussed. What if this technique allowed better energy storage than we have now? What if we could store electricity when and where we produce it, and move it to where and when we want to use it? I guess what I'm asking is: when can I run my laptop off of one, and will it cause "flipper-babies?"
Your point is both funny and pertinent. I wish I had some mod points for you.
So if you observe a window breaking and a kid running away, you could say:
Saying Einstein was deeply religious is disingenuous, like saying that Thomas Jefferson was deeply religious. It is true in the sense that he believed in a Creator, but he didn't believe in the kind of activist answer-the-prayers snowy white beard in the clouds Creator that sends gays and women who have abortions to Hell. Evangelist Xtians make the link between these respected thinkers and themselves in order to seem rational. It is a false link; they have just as much in common with these belief systems as they have with fundamentalist Hinduism.
"God doesn't play dice with the Universe" is oft quoted and deeply misunderstood. Check out other quotes by Einstein in order to understand his position in a non-jingoistic manner.
Copernicus' ideas attacked the religious establishment, not God himself, but the statement is irrelevent to the discussion. I think this thread is about intelligent design, and since Copernicus was never exposed to the ideas of evolution, its a little ridiculous to bring him into it. I doubt he believed in washing his hands after he went to the bathroom. He died in 1543 and modern sanitation was invented in the 20th century.
Christianity obviously didn't lead to the formulation of the scientific method; it existed in ancient Greece. It's debatable whether religion had any role in the development of the scientific method; I would contend that it didn't.
Great. The creationists complain if evolution is taught without teaching "other opinions" (i.e. nonscientific theories), and then when we do teach these theories as a sop, suddenly we have given them "enough respect...that it is being taught alongside evolution...."
Lamarck's theory of evolution and the Greek's physical theory of phlogiston are also taught in science classes, but they are taught as examples of flawed or discredited hypotheses rather than viable alternatives to modern thinking. Does this mean that they also have "enough respect" to be worthy of consideration if only we have an enlightened "change in perspective?"
I also have to say that if Copernicus and/or Einstein were around today, they might have challenging new ideas, but they wouldn't be believers in "intelligent design." Both men were accomplished at use of the scientific method, and they had no need to repackage non-scientific ideas (deism) in scientific shrinkrap. They could come up with their own ideas.
Since it is something of an open issue, what is the current understanding of the nature of dark matter in our universe? What kinds of questions are still being investigated? What kinds of hypotheses do we have now, and what do they imply?
Which one do my Tatu videos fall under?
A friend was looking through my music and asked, "Why are all your Tatu songs mp3s instead of mpgs?" Good question.
This is guaranteed to be true, since people hate and fear each other for all kinds of reasons, including no reason at all. A great man once wrote a story about Star-Bellied Sneeches, and his point was that humans will seize upon any difference, no matter how trivial, as an excuse to vent their psychological and emotional problems. I don't think that the improvement of one's body should be condemned simply because someone will be angry about it. If that's how I made decisions, I wouldn't dump my garbage in my neighbour's backyard, and then where would I be?
Consumer confidence figures have been plunging recently, and I wonder: does the fact that IT and other high tech workers live in an increasingly uncertain job market mean that the market for high-end sci-fi collectibles is weaker? Has anyone seen a geek market that is significantly weaker than it was a few years ago? I know that I personally will not be buying a piece of the DeathStar any time soon; it's probably too big to fit into the refridgerator box. It seemed like the value of these type of collectibles was very high during the late 90s boom years, when techies had lots of money burning holes in their pockets.
I don't think this translation program would be able to deal with his Texan affectations.
- Fly to Chile
- Go to the Atacama desert
- Hide behind a dune (bring water)
- Wait for rover to trundle by
- Take the rover and run
- Possession is
.9 of the law
I call this the "Sandpeople Technique."And there are some people who consider progress in general to be rude.
According to this article, Japan's population in 2050 will be half of what it is today (120M to 60M). That will make room for the robots, avoiding unpleasant alternatives.
In Portland, you need to visit Powell's Bookstore. It is huge (a couple of city blocks in downtown) and has all kinds of cheap used books to read on your travels. Portland is also generally a cool place to visit, and if you're in the Northwest anyway it would be a good time.
BILL: But if we change the constitution....
KID: We can pass all sorts of crazy laws!
BILL: Now you're talking!
I appreciate your suggestion about reading the article.
You say that he's "attacking the mindset...that Google is the best tool for every job." Like I said in my post, I think he's starting by assuming that this mindset exists. It's a bit of a strawman argument, since almost by definition, there is no tool that's right for every job. I'd also like to point out that you seem unaware that "blame" and "criticize" are subtly different concepts; I don't think he blames Google, I think that he set it up to be something it isn't, and then shows that it isn't that thing. I'm trying to indicate that setting up a weak argument and beating it down isn't really all that hard.
If computers are able to read the minds of dumb people, won't the computers crash all the time? How often does your computer crash?
I agree that the article is weak. It begins by assuming that Google should be something it isn't (a search engine that reads your mind) and then criticizes it for failing. Other posts mention that the author's examples use one search term, while google allows up to 10. This could be similar to complaining that the dictionary is skewed towards "aardvarks" if you are trying to look up "application" using only the first letter, instead of the first ten.
I thought that the last section of the article was the most clueless, though. The author complains that "we may find ourselves in a world where, if you want to get an idea into circulation, you're better off publishing a PDF file on the Web than landing a book deal." No kidding. First, it isn't clear that his assertion is true, and second, even if it were true, it would be good, not bad, since the barrier to entry for ideas would be lower. He also complains that google doesn't search the NYT, and so it doesn't find the most relevant material. He acts like this is somehow a failing of google, when a rational person would consider it to be a failing of the NYT. How can any single search engine find material on the web if it is hidden behind subscriptions?
My paranoia says the author has another agenda (see posts re: MSN = evil). Common sense says he just needed to get something out by deadline. The easy way to do this "hackneyed demagogue," according to Adam Thrasher.
The question of the business model is one I've been thinking about recently. How is the situation today similar to this example:
Let's say I have a business model where people bring me their change and I convert it into paper money for an 8% fee (Coinstar does this now). Let's say that, because I want to maximize my profit, I set up a stand at every street corner in America. Let's also say that I want to keep my costs down, so I leave a barrel for the change and several thousand dollar in cash on a countertop with a sign explaining the policy.
Now, it seems obvious that when I roll around to visit my stands, all of the money will be gone. Now I complain to the policy department, because my property has been stolen. I could even complain to the FBI because this theft has happened on every street corner in America, and is obviously the work of organized criminals. My solution is that the police station a cop at every one of my stands to make sure that people only take the appropriate amount of cash when they bring in their change. Effectively, the police have become my employees, and society as a whole is subsidizing my business model.
Is this situation similar? What happens if a new technology turns a viable business model into something similar to what is above? To what extent can businesses outsource their labour to our police departments?
Does a wireless access point work when it is covered by a tinfoil hat? "Security through conductivity?"
At the Oregon State Bar CLE Seminar on Intellectual Property, they mentioned a provision of the DMCA that states, as I understand it, that someone can only be sued under the statute if their financial gain from the activity can be shown to be over 1000$ during a period of 180 days. This would imply that people who swap a couple of songs a week would be safe from prosecution. In fact, 1000/180 = 5.55$ a day, which would be five songs (and an NSYNC song) at the Apple rates of 1 song = 1 dollar.
Another interesting fact was that there is a three year statute of limitations for infringement for civil suites, so all those college collections of music you made should be free and clear.
IANAL, but I'd like to be one day, mostly so I don't wind up in jail. Again.