Don't forget the payola situation. Sure, it's technically illegal, but it is not actively enforced, so it might as well be legal and it has been routine for years. Just try to get an independent single played on a commercial radio station.
Also, it was PUBLICIZED around the 1983 timeframe that CDs were cheaper to manufacture, as I remember thinking "great, music will be more affordable now." Instead, they figured the "golden ears" would pay more for the supposedly higher quality media. Then, many of us bought CD copies of the LP's we used to have because we didn't want to have to maintain both types of playback equipment. Did we get a discount or trade-in value for our previous purchase? Of course not.
Now, I don't buy music at stores at all anymore, when I used to spend at least $100 a week on it for years. I don't P2P trade it either. There are plenty of good new artists out there that are ignored by the industry because they prefer to hype huge acts which is the music industry version of what other industries call ECONOMY OF SCALE, and consequently, most of what new stuff is out there hasn't been worth listening to. My 30 year x $100 week collection gives me plenty of old stuff to choose from, so it's not like I'm not able to listen to any music. But in the "biz" it's been about profits not music for so long that it's just a commodity market to control.
And they wonder why people are pissed at them. Gray Davis is wondering that too, but a fat lot of good it's gonna do any of them now-- the jig's up...
The challenge for 3-D image display isn't blocking the "wrong" images from each eye, it's blocking the wrong images when they're displayed in the same space -- overlaid in a single frame. For that, you need colors (anaglyphic glasses), or polarizing filters (again, though, both images displayed in the same space), or lcd shutters (multiplexing the images in time, rather than in color or polarization). Or you can use a lenticular screen, that bends the images left or right and draws them in a series of interlaced vertical stripes.
I agree-- if these guys actually believe they've come up with something they're deluding themselves-- perhaps it's all a joke. Figure 4A says it all-- you don't need the glasses or cellophane at all to sit in front of a laptop with left right images-- you just have to "free view" the stereo to get your eyes to merge the images, the best this will do is to make it a little bit easier as the "wrong" image will be blacked out for each eye (presumably). You could do about the same by putting a piece of cardboard between your nose and the screen to try to block the images and force your eyes to free-view. If you have trouble free viewing, then get one of these: http://www.stereoscopy.com/reel3d/print-viewers.ht ml and dispense with the near-useless cellophane voodoo.
Re:Doctors can't leave us alone.
on
Chimera Twins Story
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I think it's quite possible that it's an attempt to cover up realities that fly in the face of some people's interpretation of the Bible-- all that supposed Biblical prohibition of homosexuality and that defense of marriage stuff is dependent on the erroneous assumption that everyone is either 100% male or 100% female. I've heard some people try to write it off because the number of intersexuals is supposedly very small-- as if you can just ignore their existence because there aren't very many of them (which remains to be seen as well). It's evidence of a bankrupt philosophy unable to deal with truths that are contradictory-- and a continued insistence on such coverups would simply be further evidence of a corrupt nature, if that is what is going on.
There was an article in an L.A. paper a few months back, that included photos and an interview of an individual who's hormones would cause enough variation day-to-day that the individual would seem more male on one day and more female on the next (including the genitalia). If "marriage" is defined as a union between a "man" and a "woman," I suppose such an individual isn't then legally allowed to marry *anyone*.
Other individuals are "categorized" at birth only to find out at puberty or sometime later that the categorization was arbitrary or incorrect-- XY individuals with testes (or at least that had them at birth) that have always believed they were female, is fairly common for example. How do you suppose a "defence of marriage act" should be applied to them?
You know, I could never quite make out what was going on there-- I know the screen you are talking about, and it was a start as you run right into it, but I really couldn't make out what the image was that was being projected onto it. Rats, huh. Cool... I'll try to see if I can make it out next time...
You're paid to think critcally, right? Did you ever think the reason why there is so many INDEPENDENT films about minorities, gender issues and enviros because the non independent film industry does not release films with those kind of issues???
Did you ever think the reason why the non independent film industry does not release films with those kind of issues is because the vast majority of people find them boring???
SCO now has to counter with another wild claim or suit in order to undo the damage. SCO has made it quite clear that it's a PR battle and therefore must respond, lest the share price and FUD wane.
And of course the move will necessarily be even more preposterous than what they've already done, as they've already used up all the plausible moves they had and then some.
I sure wouldn't want to be the first one out of the gate with an entirely robotic fast food restaurant. The first time one "accidentally" assembles a hamburger out of bogus ingredience because it's hopper was misloaded or broke down and "there was no human to notice it" will be a goldmine for some future patron out there. In fact, I'll wager that getting a burger at one of those will be just about like playing the lottery-- except the payoff percentage will be much better...
This is just something to milk for a press opportunity. As has already been pointed out, all registering a copyright does for you is attach a date to a submission, and nothing else-- it does not prove that you own the rights to the submission, merely that you claimed to have at a given time. It's up to the courts to sort out what that means. Anyone can register anything.
The fact that SCO has turned it into an important event shows that their strategy is based on continued FUD in the marketplace. What better way to bully some Linux users into paying license fees? If the FUD subsides, they lose their leverage in that regard. So expect an announcement of some kind by them periodically, when interest and concern about the issue wanes, just to keep their name in the news in an attempt to fan the FUD flames. Pathetic, really.
I can see paying 99 cents a tune for mp3 files, *providing* there are no strings-- I don't ever have to come back to the site again for any reason if I don't want to and it only costs me the 99 cents for the mp3 I wanted. There are going to be hundreds of sites with tunes that may not be available anywhere else (legally, anyway), I'm certainly not going to subscribe to them all, in fact, I won't subscribe to any, because I know I will get stuck having to pick from only their catalog. If you want to get me back to the site, you'll have to do it by providing mp3s that I want, not because you've got a "record club" mentality that's designed to lock in my dollars when quite possibly I'm only interested in a couple of your mp3s. If you don't want my onesy-twosy business, too bad, there's millions of me out there who could justify a single purchase or two but no way in hell would sign up for a "subscription." If you can afford to ignore that kind of business, more power to you, but you won't be getting any of my dollars.
Isn't it obvious-- this is EXACTLY what the major producers want. They don't want you buying a DVD of an old PD film that they don't get a piece of when you could be spending that money on their latest sequel.
I'm not saying there aren't sites that are vision dependent such that there may be little that can be done to accomodate the vision impaired. What I'm saying is that the generic concept of captchas-- devices designed to differentiate live users from 'bots, don't need to be exclusively visually dependent. If the ONLY thing on a site that is keeping the visually impaired from utilizing it is a visual captcha, then there's no excuse. If in ADDITION to a visual captcha, the site consists of visual information that would be useless to those who are vision impaired, that's a different story. There's not a lot of point in creating an accomodating captcha for the vision impaired on, say, a site that only contains images of your favorite movie stars and nothing else. On the other hand, if the site also has BIOs of the movie stars, there may be useful information avaiable for the vision impaired even if much of the information on the site can't be utilized.
And I suppose that one might argue that it could be possible to produce a 3D tactile representation of an image that can be "felt" by the vision impaired-- like one of those pin grids that might be computer controlled. I'm not aware of such a thing, but it is theoretically possible that one could be made to allow for the blind to explore images on the web. Whether or not such a device would allow them to work with a visual captcha would then be an interesting question. In any event, accomodating captchas can reasonably be implemented-- it's not rocket science, even if it isn't quite as simple as it may seem at first glance.
I don't know if passing a law or some tort action is the best way to accomplish it, that is a separate question. My point is only that the only justifications for not accomodating the blind, et al., are lazyness, ignorance or intentional discrimination none of which represent a good argument.
Captcha's are a *generic* means of differentiating a human user from a 'bot, which is not inherently a vision thing. Not providing an accomodation for the vision-impaired is not just lazy, but specifically discriminatory, though presumably out of ignorance rather than malice. In short, there's no excuse for such discrimination.
There's no reason a user couldn't opt whether to use an audio or visual captcha, and therefore accomodate either visual or auditory impairments.
And YES, there are various experimenters developing better and better recognition algorithms such that it is a bit of an arms race. Creating a good captcha is not quite as easy as one might think. Check this paper for some discussion on the subject.
It doesn't matter WHAT language you speak, the Silly Go Lucky Adventures of the Laughing Dog is totally wacky by any measure. Who WOULDN'T pay to have such bizarrenes inserted in their daily video stream?
--
Younger minds...
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Younger minds are less likely to notice the incompetencies of management, and will tend to assume management must know what they are doing (after all, they got there somehow, didn't they, and of course they are paying the bills). "Seasoned" programmers aren't usually
motivated by the same sort of "hype" used by
some managers to motivate the inexperienced towards greater productivity. The actual effectiveness of the results a a long-term issue, and we all know that many in business are too
myopic to make the connections in that regard.
I'm just speculating, but the problem may be related to the same problem that magazine publishers have with newsstands with regards to unsold issues. The newsstands get credit (or at least, used to) for the unsold issues-- at one time they would return the upper portion of the cover for proof, rather than send the entire issue back. Possibly what is happening here, is stores are getting credit for unsold patterns that the manufacturers don't want to pay to have returned, and expect the store to destroy them. If that is the case, then the stores are at fault for not sufficiently destroying them, but perhaps the pattern manufacturers realize that suing their stores is not particularly a good idea.
I've seen the same thing happen to magazines-- magazines with portions of the cover removed do sometimes get sold anyway, but I don't know what the legality of this is. It's probably less of a problem with a magazine publisher where a back issue of a magazine doesn't compete all that much with the current issue-- old patterns, on the other hand, could concievably be quite competitive with new pattern lines, thus making it a more significant issue with the pattern manufacturers.
In any event, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out...
There's no way you can keep people from paying in advance, if not directly then though some representative such as a third party who will take the fees in advance and pay them when they come due. All this will do is raise the initial fees a few dollars as it will become standard practice to simply pay for huge amounts of time in advance. Consequently this will not address the problem trying to be solved at all, and in fact will exacerbate it.
If you want to solve the public domain problem, solve the public domain problem (by setting the appropriate ceiling on copyright duration, for example). This is a band-aid that will fall off before the cut heals.
Except that the FCC is required to review the diversity of media every two years and decide whether or not ownership limitations need to be opposed or lifted (this was result of the 2 year anniversary from the last review). So if the media really did become a monoculture and the FCC actually did serve the public interest... then we'd be okay
Oh yeah, this works-- AFTER the horses are out of the barn, THEN we can decide "oops, it didn't work" and then what? We can always break up the monopoly like was done with Microsoft I suppose.
The media has ALREADY become virtually irrelevant in the few cases where its not simply erroneous or fraudulent, an ad spammer mentality that frankly I've already given up on, except for a very few select circumstances. I watch less TV and read less newspapers and magazines than I ever have. After this, I'm REALLY glad I've got a lot of other things that better deserve my attention, as the media just spells b-o-r-i-n-g, now it'll just be in all caps and underlined....
All this just means Linux has come of age.
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
That Linux is percieved as such threat is a complement to its effectiveness. It had to go through these growing pains eventually, it is a necessary rite of passage. As long as they keep spelling its name right, all this is ultimately, positive press.
Anyone ready to take bets on when the SCO stockholder class action lawsuit gets filed?
It's clear that Microsoft sees Linux as a serious threat. Likely as not they are probably considering multiple strategies in dealing with the problem, several of which may be in development stages. We've seen in the past that IBM has had different divisions creating solutions to the same problem, and then chose which of the results were preferrable at the time and canceled the redundant projects. Microsoft is fiercely competitive and has considerable resources, so it's reasonable to assume that they could be working on parallel strategies as well.
When we consider some of the most obvious ones:
1. Funnel some money to SCO to help in the IBM lawsuit and undermine open source/Linux.
2. Produce a Microsoft "MS-Nix" that is Linux compatible (i.e., will run Linux apps) in conjunction with MS Office apps that will ONLY run on MS-Nix and not Linux. Microsoft may therefore find a need to license Unix source from SCO. Microsoft's success in the desktop, despite popular opinion, was NOT due to the production of a wonderful OS (I'm being charitable here, of course), but due to the production of solid workhorse apps. Noone except techie nerds buy a computer for what OS it runs, most buyers buy a computer for what apps it runs, and the MS Office suite are solid core applications. And if the Office suites depend on kernel functionality that is owned by SCO (perhaps even patented?) all the more difficult for Linux to aquire the necessary compatibility to run the apps.
3. Microsoft is attempting to add some additional Unix compatibility to XP or.NET and finds the need to update their license from SCO.
4. Microsoft doesn't want to be caught with their pants down if Linux ends up becoming a significant desktop presence-- and thereby losing out to some other companies office suite. The office suite is what made their fortune, NOT their OS, and that's one market they won't want to lose, and right now that is a market ripe for plucking on Linux platforms. One solution-- port the office suite to Linux. SCO Unix licensing could have a potential part in such a strategy, one problem they will be concerned about is how to keep control over the use of their programs on Unix platforms so that some dent can be made in the piracy problem.
Which seems more interesting to you? I'd put #1 on the BOTTOM of the list, not the top. Don't underestimate Microsoft, just because they make a mickeymouse OS...
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
What about all those parts of me that are irreducibly complex? Did they just pop out of nothing? (remember an irreducibly complex system cannot, by definition, function with any one part missing, misplaced or malformed).
Simple-- presuming there even are such parts (which may be questionable), "irreducibly complex" parts would at one time have been some more complex structure that has already lost some of its complexity such that it now no longer can function with further parts removed. One such possible example is a structure that is used as a scaffolding that facilitates the construction of a secondary structure that eventually has no further need for the original scaffolding. Does the fact that the scaffolding used to construct masonry arches (for example) may no longer exist mean that the arch could not have been built a stone at a time?
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
Okay, here's the current evolutionary biology problem set:
If the theory of evolutionary biology is true, then we should see less genetic diversity the farther back in time we go. We should be able to find an ancestor common to all species. We haven't yet.
In general, evolution doesn't predict that genetic diversity should correlate with time-- and also doesn't predict a single common ancestor-- there may have been multiple initial replicators, for example. Genetic diversity can increase, and then decrease, it is not forever on an increase. Genetic diversity can be gained and lost over time. And the fact is, initial replicators will be simple, won't have a skeletal structure that will fossilize, and would have existed one heck of a long time ago, making it pretty unlikely that one can be found. These are not problems in evolution.
There are gaps in the fossil record. Species seem to go from one form to another with no evolutionary steps in between. Evolutionary biologists explain this with the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" - an intellectual kludge at best.
Actually we see such punctuations in the mathematical simulations. When a population is faced with significant selection pressures (generally due to a change in environmental conditions) evolutionary changes can occur relatively quickly. At least one species is even capable of adjusting its mutation rate to aid this process-- some yeasts will switch from sexual to asexual reproduction which makes it less resistant to mutations, therefore increasing the rate at which it can accumulate new variations. And some "gaps" are just gaps in the record, as few organisms fossilize, what we have in the fossil record is a very scattered sampling, not a record of every creature that ever lived.
Fossil dates are notoriously inaccurate. Geologists uses fossils to date strata, and Paleontolists use strata to date fossils. The dating of strata is based on two methods: carbon dating, and the decay of heavy isotopes, both of which make certain assumptions which are not necessarily true. (Carbon dating assumes that the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere has remained constant over the past 10,000 years, however recent studies have shown this to be false.)
These are completely ignorant statements about dating methods. Carbon dating is calibrated against dendrochronology, not strata. Carbon dating is only good for about the last 50,000 years, it's not used for dating any but the most recent fossils because of that, but in any event, its dates can be correlated with dendrochronological dating (tree rings, ice cores, etc). Carbon dating is therefore not dependent on an assumption of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but is merely consistent with such an assumption. Isotope decay dating makes use of multiple isotopes which have different decay rates, and the results are compared so that samples which have been subject to some process over time (such as the incursion of adulterating materials) that would alter the dating will stand out as the different isotope decay curves won't agree on the resultant date (consequently, the sample then can't be dated by such methods). Even if the decay rates of the isotopes has not been constant over time, the decay curves of the different isotopes would not converge on the same date, so isotope dating too, is not dependent on constant decay rates over time, but is merely consistent with them.
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
The question has always been "are these sufficient mechanisms for complex function to arise?"
Acutally, an increase in complexity is not an inherent characteristic of evolution, innovation is a better term (though I suppose it may depend on what definition of complexity you choose, an issue which itself is somewhat controversial). While it is true that from an initial self-replicator there is a significant bias towards an increase in complexity (as any decrease would tend to eliminate the ability to self-replicate at that point), it is only an initial bias, at some point increases in complexity will tend to be less viable due to the overhead of sustaining such additional complexity. The important factor in evolution is the production of innovations, NOT the production of increases in complexity (again, depending on how you define it...).
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the payola situation. Sure, it's technically illegal, but it is not actively enforced, so it might as well be legal and it has been routine for years. Just try to get an independent single played on a commercial radio station.
Also, it was PUBLICIZED around the 1983 timeframe that CDs were cheaper to manufacture, as I remember thinking "great, music will be more affordable now." Instead, they figured the "golden ears" would pay more for the supposedly higher quality media. Then, many of us bought CD copies of the LP's we used to have because we didn't want to have to maintain both types of playback equipment. Did we get a discount or trade-in value for our previous purchase? Of course not.
Now, I don't buy music at stores at all anymore, when I used to spend at least $100 a week on it for years. I don't P2P trade it either. There are plenty of good new artists out there that are ignored by the industry because they prefer to hype huge acts which is the music industry version of what other industries call ECONOMY OF SCALE, and consequently, most of what new stuff is out there hasn't been worth listening to. My 30 year x $100 week collection gives me plenty of old stuff to choose from, so it's not like I'm not able to listen to any music. But in the "biz" it's been about profits not music for so long that it's just a commodity market to control.
And they wonder why people are pissed at them. Gray Davis is wondering that too, but a fat lot of good it's gonna do any of them now-- the jig's up...
The challenge for 3-D image display isn't blocking the "wrong" images from each eye, it's blocking the wrong images when they're displayed in the same space -- overlaid in a single frame. For that, you need colors (anaglyphic glasses), or polarizing filters (again, though, both images displayed in the same space), or lcd shutters (multiplexing the images in time, rather than in color or polarization). Or you can use a lenticular screen, that bends the images left or right and draws them in a series of interlaced vertical stripes.
I agree-- if these guys actually believe they've come up with something they're deluding themselves-- perhaps it's all a joke. Figure 4A says it all-- you don't need the glasses or cellophane at all to sit in front of a laptop with left right images-- you just have to "free view" the stereo to get your eyes to merge the images, the best this will do is to make it a little bit easier as the "wrong" image will be blacked out for each eye (presumably). You could do about the same by putting a piece of cardboard between your nose and the screen to try to block the images and force your eyes to free-view. If you have trouble free viewing, then get one of these: http://www.stereoscopy.com/reel3d/print-viewers.ht ml and dispense with the near-useless cellophane voodoo.
I think it's quite possible that it's an attempt to cover up realities that fly in the face of some people's interpretation of the Bible-- all that supposed Biblical prohibition of homosexuality and that defense of marriage stuff is dependent on the erroneous assumption that everyone is either 100% male or 100% female. I've heard some people try to write it off because the number of intersexuals is supposedly very small-- as if you can just ignore their existence because there aren't very many of them (which remains to be seen as well). It's evidence of a bankrupt philosophy unable to deal with truths that are contradictory-- and a continued insistence on such coverups would simply be further evidence of a corrupt nature, if that is what is going on.
There was an article in an L.A. paper a few months back, that included photos and an interview of an individual who's hormones would cause enough variation day-to-day that the individual would seem more male on one day and more female on the next (including the genitalia). If "marriage" is defined as a union between a "man" and a "woman," I suppose such an individual isn't then legally allowed to marry *anyone*.
Other individuals are "categorized" at birth only to find out at puberty or sometime later that the categorization was arbitrary or incorrect-- XY individuals with testes (or at least that had them at birth) that have always believed they were female, is fairly common for example. How do you suppose a "defence of marriage act" should be applied to them?
"is this a possible explaination for hermaphrodites? "
No. Most hermaphrodites have DNA for one person - not two distinct cell populations from two separately fertilized eggs.
Actually, yes: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/338/3/ 166, it's just not the *only* explanation.
You know, I could never quite make out what was going on there-- I know the screen you are talking about, and it was a start as you run right into it, but I really couldn't make out what the image was that was being projected onto it. Rats, huh. Cool... I'll try to see if I can make it out next time...
You're paid to think critcally, right? Did you ever think the reason why there is so many INDEPENDENT films about minorities, gender issues and enviros because the non independent film industry does not release films with those kind of issues???
Did you ever think the reason why the non independent film industry does not release films with those kind of issues is because the vast majority of people find them boring???
SCO now has to counter with another wild claim or suit in order to undo the damage. SCO has made it quite clear that it's a PR battle and therefore must respond, lest the share price and FUD wane.
And of course the move will necessarily be even more preposterous than what they've already done, as they've already used up all the plausible moves they had and then some.
I sure wouldn't want to be the first one out of the gate with an entirely robotic fast food restaurant. The first time one "accidentally" assembles a hamburger out of bogus ingredience because it's hopper was misloaded or broke down and "there was no human to notice it" will be a goldmine for some future patron out there. In fact, I'll wager that getting a burger at one of those will be just about like playing the lottery-- except the payoff percentage will be much better...
This is just something to milk for a press opportunity. As has already been pointed out, all registering a copyright does for you is attach a date to a submission, and nothing else-- it does not prove that you own the rights to the submission, merely that you claimed to have at a given time. It's up to the courts to sort out what that means. Anyone can register anything.
The fact that SCO has turned it into an important event shows that their strategy is based on continued FUD in the marketplace. What better way to bully some Linux users into paying license fees? If the FUD subsides, they lose their leverage in that regard. So expect an announcement of some kind by them periodically, when interest and concern about the issue wanes, just to keep their name in the news in an attempt to fan the FUD flames. Pathetic, really.
I can see paying 99 cents a tune for mp3 files, *providing* there are no strings-- I don't ever have to come back to the site again for any reason if I don't want to and it only costs me the 99 cents for the mp3 I wanted. There are going to be hundreds of sites with tunes that may not be available anywhere else (legally, anyway), I'm certainly not going to subscribe to them all, in fact, I won't subscribe to any, because I know I will get stuck having to pick from only their catalog. If you want to get me back to the site, you'll have to do it by providing mp3s that I want, not because you've got a "record club" mentality that's designed to lock in my dollars when quite possibly I'm only interested in a couple of your mp3s. If you don't want my onesy-twosy business, too bad, there's millions of me out there who could justify a single purchase or two but no way in hell would sign up for a "subscription." If you can afford to ignore that kind of business, more power to you, but you won't be getting any of my dollars.
Isn't it obvious-- this is EXACTLY what the major producers want. They don't want you buying a DVD of an old PD film that they don't get a piece of when you could be spending that money on their latest sequel.
I'm not saying there aren't sites that are vision dependent such that there may be little that can be done to accomodate the vision impaired. What I'm saying is that the generic concept of captchas-- devices designed to differentiate live users from 'bots, don't need to be exclusively visually dependent. If the ONLY thing on a site that is keeping the visually impaired from utilizing it is a visual captcha, then there's no excuse. If in ADDITION to a visual captcha, the site consists of visual information that would be useless to those who are vision impaired, that's a different story. There's not a lot of point in creating an accomodating captcha for the vision impaired on, say, a site that only contains images of your favorite movie stars and nothing else. On the other hand, if the site also has BIOs of the movie stars, there may be useful information avaiable for the vision impaired even if much of the information on the site can't be utilized.
And I suppose that one might argue that it could be possible to produce a 3D tactile representation of an image that can be "felt" by the vision impaired-- like one of those pin grids that might be computer controlled. I'm not aware of such a thing, but it is theoretically possible that one could be made to allow for the blind to explore images on the web. Whether or not such a device would allow them to work with a visual captcha would then be an interesting question. In any event, accomodating captchas can reasonably be implemented-- it's not rocket science, even if it isn't quite as simple as it may seem at first glance.
I don't know if passing a law or some tort action is the best way to accomplish it, that is a separate question. My point is only that the only justifications for not accomodating the blind, et al., are lazyness, ignorance or intentional discrimination none of which represent a good argument.
Captcha's are a *generic* means of differentiating a human user from a 'bot, which is not inherently a vision thing. Not providing an accomodation for the vision-impaired is not just lazy, but specifically discriminatory, though presumably out of ignorance rather than malice. In short, there's no excuse for such discrimination.
There's no reason a user couldn't opt whether to use an audio or visual captcha, and therefore accomodate either visual or auditory impairments.
And YES, there are various experimenters developing better and better recognition algorithms such that it is a bit of an arms race. Creating a good captcha is not quite as easy as one might think. Check this paper for some discussion on the subject.
It doesn't matter WHAT language you speak, the Silly Go Lucky Adventures of the Laughing Dog is totally wacky by any measure. Who WOULDN'T pay to have such bizarrenes inserted in their daily video stream? --
Younger minds are less likely to notice the incompetencies of management, and will tend to assume management must know what they are doing (after all, they got there somehow, didn't they, and of course they are paying the bills). "Seasoned" programmers aren't usually motivated by the same sort of "hype" used by some managers to motivate the inexperienced towards greater productivity. The actual effectiveness of the results a a long-term issue, and we all know that many in business are too myopic to make the connections in that regard.
Seems to me, they're just likely to make HEROES out of the guys buy announcing their names. Hope they spell 'em right...
I'm just speculating, but the problem may be related to the same problem that magazine publishers have with newsstands with regards to unsold issues. The newsstands get credit (or at least, used to) for the unsold issues-- at one time they would return the upper portion of the cover for proof, rather than send the entire issue back. Possibly what is happening here, is stores are getting credit for unsold patterns that the manufacturers don't want to pay to have returned, and expect the store to destroy them. If that is the case, then the stores are at fault for not sufficiently destroying them, but perhaps the pattern manufacturers realize that suing their stores is not particularly a good idea.
I've seen the same thing happen to magazines-- magazines with portions of the cover removed do sometimes get sold anyway, but I don't know what the legality of this is. It's probably less of a problem with a magazine publisher where a back issue of a magazine doesn't compete all that much with the current issue-- old patterns, on the other hand, could concievably be quite competitive with new pattern lines, thus making it a more significant issue with the pattern manufacturers.
In any event, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out...
There's no way you can keep people from paying in advance, if not directly then though some representative such as a third party who will take the fees in advance and pay them when they come due. All this will do is raise the initial fees a few dollars as it will become standard practice to simply pay for huge amounts of time in advance. Consequently this will not address the problem trying to be solved at all, and in fact will exacerbate it.
If you want to solve the public domain problem, solve the public domain problem (by setting the appropriate ceiling on copyright duration, for example). This is a band-aid that will fall off before the cut heals.
Except that the FCC is required to review the diversity of media every two years and decide whether or not ownership limitations need to be opposed or lifted (this was result of the 2 year anniversary from the last review). So if the media really did become a monoculture and the FCC actually did serve the public interest ... then we'd be okay
Oh yeah, this works-- AFTER the horses are out of the barn, THEN we can decide "oops, it didn't work" and then what? We can always break up the monopoly like was done with Microsoft I suppose.
The media has ALREADY become virtually irrelevant in the few cases where its not simply erroneous or fraudulent, an ad spammer mentality that frankly I've already given up on, except for a very few select circumstances. I watch less TV and read less newspapers and magazines than I ever have. After this, I'm REALLY glad I've got a lot of other things that better deserve my attention, as the media just spells b-o-r-i-n-g, now it'll just be in all caps and underlined....
That Linux is percieved as such threat is a complement to its effectiveness. It had to go through these growing pains eventually, it is a necessary rite of passage. As long as they keep spelling its name right, all this is ultimately, positive press.
Anyone ready to take bets on when the SCO stockholder class action lawsuit gets filed?
It's clear that Microsoft sees Linux as a serious threat. Likely as not they are probably considering multiple strategies in dealing with the problem, several of which may be in development stages. We've seen in the past that IBM has had different divisions creating solutions to the same problem, and then chose which of the results were preferrable at the time and canceled the redundant projects. Microsoft is fiercely competitive and has considerable resources, so it's reasonable to assume that they could be working on parallel strategies as well.
When we consider some of the most obvious ones:
1. Funnel some money to SCO to help in the IBM lawsuit and undermine open source/Linux.
2. Produce a Microsoft "MS-Nix" that is Linux compatible (i.e., will run Linux apps) in conjunction with MS Office apps that will ONLY run on MS-Nix and not Linux. Microsoft may therefore find a need to license Unix source from SCO. Microsoft's success in the desktop, despite popular opinion, was NOT due to the production of a wonderful OS (I'm being charitable here, of course), but due to the production of solid workhorse apps. Noone except techie nerds buy a computer for what OS it runs, most buyers buy a computer for what apps it runs, and the MS Office suite are solid core applications. And if the Office suites depend on kernel functionality that is owned by SCO (perhaps even patented?) all the more difficult for Linux to aquire the necessary compatibility to run the apps.
3. Microsoft is attempting to add some additional Unix compatibility to XP or .NET and finds the need to update their license from SCO.
4. Microsoft doesn't want to be caught with their pants down if Linux ends up becoming a significant desktop presence-- and thereby losing out to some other companies office suite. The office suite is what made their fortune, NOT their OS, and that's one market they won't want to lose, and right now that is a market ripe for plucking on Linux platforms. One solution-- port the office suite to Linux. SCO Unix licensing could have a potential part in such a strategy, one problem they will be concerned about is how to keep control over the use of their programs on Unix platforms so that some dent can be made in the piracy problem.
Which seems more interesting to you? I'd put #1 on the BOTTOM of the list, not the top. Don't underestimate Microsoft, just because they make a mickeymouse OS...
What about all those parts of me that are irreducibly complex? Did they just pop out of nothing? (remember an irreducibly complex system cannot, by definition, function with any one part missing, misplaced or malformed).
Simple-- presuming there even are such parts (which may be questionable), "irreducibly complex" parts would at one time have been some more complex structure that has already lost some of its complexity such that it now no longer can function with further parts removed. One such possible example is a structure that is used as a scaffolding that facilitates the construction of a secondary structure that eventually has no further need for the original scaffolding. Does the fact that the scaffolding used to construct masonry arches (for example) may no longer exist mean that the arch could not have been built a stone at a time?
Okay, here's the current evolutionary biology problem set:
If the theory of evolutionary biology is true, then we should see less genetic diversity the farther back in time we go. We should be able to find an ancestor common to all species. We haven't yet.
In general, evolution doesn't predict that genetic diversity should correlate with time-- and also doesn't predict a single common ancestor-- there may have been multiple initial replicators, for example. Genetic diversity can increase, and then decrease, it is not forever on an increase. Genetic diversity can be gained and lost over time. And the fact is, initial replicators will be simple, won't have a skeletal structure that will fossilize, and would have existed one heck of a long time ago, making it pretty unlikely that one can be found. These are not problems in evolution.
There are gaps in the fossil record. Species seem to go from one form to another with no evolutionary steps in between. Evolutionary biologists explain this with the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" - an intellectual kludge at best.
Actually we see such punctuations in the mathematical simulations. When a population is faced with significant selection pressures (generally due to a change in environmental conditions) evolutionary changes can occur relatively quickly. At least one species is even capable of adjusting its mutation rate to aid this process-- some yeasts will switch from sexual to asexual reproduction which makes it less resistant to mutations, therefore increasing the rate at which it can accumulate new variations. And some "gaps" are just gaps in the record, as few organisms fossilize, what we have in the fossil record is a very scattered sampling, not a record of every creature that ever lived.
Fossil dates are notoriously inaccurate. Geologists uses fossils to date strata, and Paleontolists use strata to date fossils. The dating of strata is based on two methods: carbon dating, and the decay of heavy isotopes, both of which make certain assumptions which are not necessarily true. (Carbon dating assumes that the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere has remained constant over the past 10,000 years, however recent studies have shown this to be false.)
These are completely ignorant statements about dating methods. Carbon dating is calibrated against dendrochronology, not strata. Carbon dating is only good for about the last 50,000 years, it's not used for dating any but the most recent fossils because of that, but in any event, its dates can be correlated with dendrochronological dating (tree rings, ice cores, etc). Carbon dating is therefore not dependent on an assumption of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but is merely consistent with such an assumption. Isotope decay dating makes use of multiple isotopes which have different decay rates, and the results are compared so that samples which have been subject to some process over time (such as the incursion of adulterating materials) that would alter the dating will stand out as the different isotope decay curves won't agree on the resultant date (consequently, the sample then can't be dated by such methods). Even if the decay rates of the isotopes has not been constant over time, the decay curves of the different isotopes would not converge on the same date, so isotope dating too, is not dependent on constant decay rates over time, but is merely consistent with them.
The question has always been "are these sufficient mechanisms for complex function to arise?"
Acutally, an increase in complexity is not an inherent characteristic of evolution, innovation is a better term (though I suppose it may depend on what definition of complexity you choose, an issue which itself is somewhat controversial). While it is true that from an initial self-replicator there is a significant bias towards an increase in complexity (as any decrease would tend to eliminate the ability to self-replicate at that point), it is only an initial bias, at some point increases in complexity will tend to be less viable due to the overhead of sustaining such additional complexity. The important factor in evolution is the production of innovations, NOT the production of increases in complexity (again, depending on how you define it...).