They got a refund too. That is more material than a free apology. Agreed, it's the least they could do, but still, it's a pretty big piece of the story that's missing from TFS and TFA.
It's about as material as a burglar who steals a book from your night stand and leaves some money in exchange. You still feel violated. The excuse that the bookstore where you bought it didn't have the right to sell it, doesn't make it okay to take the book back from you, who bought it in good faith.
You're missing the point: the reason they deleted them in the first place was because the seller did not have the rights to the novel. I agree that making a snap judgment to erase them was not the right move, but until they work out some other arrangement, simply "giving the books back" is not an option.
He could at least point to Project Gutenberg, which offers the same book for free.
One telling remark, however â" given that Wave is supposed to run in a browser and not require any kind of desktop support: âoeIâ(TM)m not sure if there are API interfaces into the application but, ironically, itâ(TM)s crying out for a proper desktop client.â
This could be interesting beyond Waves own success/failure. It sounds like we're finally going to face real wide scale usage of a full blown web based javascript app for the first time. Perhaps if it's successful we'll see someone write a stand alone version too.
That quote from the article proves that the author lacks clue. It has been dealt with in the original Wave demo at Google I/O. It's a protocol. The reference implementation of the client works in a browser, but nobody is stopping anyone from writing a desktop application for it. If it's really crying out for one, someone will write it.
The new tech is the kind that augments your life as quietly and unobtrusively as possible, then gets the hell out of your way. And Wave does not seem designed to get out of the way.
Compared to email, IM and wikis, it does. And the integration of those three is exactly the problem that Wave wants to solve.
The other part of the story is that his letter is going to end up in front of the federal judge. He might be entitled to sanctions to compensate him for the wasted time and expense in responding to a lawsuit that was brought against him with no basis in reality, but federal judges tend to disdain juvenile responses to serious matters.
What's serious about this lawsuit? It's completely ridiculous. That's not serious, that's laughable.
Sounds like it'd be a lot more reliable as a desktop app. Have it organise your inbox the way a regular mailreader does, but instead of emails (or perhaps even as well as emails?), the inbox contains these funky IM/wiki-like conversations.
If I understand correctly, it's actually Jabber underneath, so there's no need to restrict it to a web interface at all.
Here's the thing: I'm not the director of an institute that has spent 15 years studying the brain, and I'm willing to bet you aren't either. In these situations, it's generally wise to accept the majority opinion of those considerably more educated in that field than oneself (see: climatology), so forgive us if we take his word over yours.
One scientist claiming something is not quite a majority opinion yet.
I don't doubt it's going to be possible some day, but overly optimistic AI researchers have a bad track record in predicting the future of their field.
I assume that we'd basically adopt a strategy of "enlightened plagiarism": use our (nontrivial) imaging and structural analysis technology to get the best idea we can of the structure of a real brain(without necessarily understanding what it does, or why it is structured as it is).
I'm not convinced our imaging technology is going to be good enough for that in 10 years, though.
Every decade somebody claims we'll be able to simulate the human brain or build a human-level AI within 10 years, and always they're wrong, because they're only focusing on their own tiny aspect of the human brain or human intelligence, and ignore the complexity of other aspects or the complexity of how all those parts fit together. This overconfidence goes back to the 1950.
Sam Raimi doesn't exactly have a better record than Michael Bay tbh... I think they're both B- class directors... Both spiderman movies might have been a huge success - but the movies basically sucked big time.
Who cares about Spiderman? Has Michael Bay ever made something like Evil Dead? Army of Darkness? Drag Me To Hell?
It's going to take place between Wardraft 3 and the beginning of WoW, and it's going to be a war movie building up to sme final confrontation, which suggests it might lean a bit more to Warcraft.
Even the first Spiderman movie wasn't all that bad for a superheo movie, although he clearly didn't have the kind of freedom he had with Army Of Darkness.
I also wonder why Raimi insists on making crap film after crap film. Why does he waste his time on licenses like Spider-Man and now Warcraft, when he should be working on the Evil Dead 4!
Is Drag Me To Hell that bad? I haven't seen it yet, but I heard it was reaching back to the days if Evil Dead. WoW in Army Of Darkness style is something I might watch.
I wouldn't normally be terribly interested in a WoW movie, but if Sam Raimi does it, well, perhaps. It's certainly millions of times better than Uwe Boll or Michael Bay. Raimi knows how to make movies fun.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not listed in their archives.
Yes it is: http://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty-n-z.html#orwell
Apparently Gutenberg Australia has it because copyright got slightly less out of control in Australia than in some other parts of the world.
Wou can still get 1984 from Project Gutenberg. Without DRM.
They got a refund too. That is more material than a free apology. Agreed, it's the least they could do, but still, it's a pretty big piece of the story that's missing from TFS and TFA.
It's about as material as a burglar who steals a book from your night stand and leaves some money in exchange. You still feel violated. The excuse that the bookstore where you bought it didn't have the right to sell it, doesn't make it okay to take the book back from you, who bought it in good faith.
You're missing the point: the reason they deleted them in the first place was because the seller did not have the rights to the novel. I agree that making a snap judgment to erase them was not the right move, but until they work out some other arrangement, simply "giving the books back" is not an option.
He could at least point to Project Gutenberg, which offers the same book for free.
It couldn't have happened to a more appropriate book.
This could be interesting beyond Waves own success/failure. It sounds like we're finally going to face real wide scale usage of a full blown web based javascript app for the first time. Perhaps if it's successful we'll see someone write a stand alone version too.
That quote from the article proves that the author lacks clue. It has been dealt with in the original Wave demo at Google I/O. It's a protocol. The reference implementation of the client works in a browser, but nobody is stopping anyone from writing a desktop application for it. If it's really crying out for one, someone will write it.
The new tech is the kind that augments your life as quietly and unobtrusively as possible, then gets the hell out of your way. And Wave does not seem designed to get out of the way.
Compared to email, IM and wikis, it does. And the integration of those three is exactly the problem that Wave wants to solve.
Wave is to email as Ruby is to Basic.
You must have missed the "Karoo is the only ISP in the area" part.
That's the part that really stinks. I'd say there's a nice opportunity for a competing ISP here.
The other part of the story is that his letter is going to end up in front of the federal judge. He might be entitled to sanctions to compensate him for the wasted time and expense in responding to a lawsuit that was brought against him with no basis in reality, but federal judges tend to disdain juvenile responses to serious matters.
What's serious about this lawsuit? It's completely ridiculous. That's not serious, that's laughable.
The webcomic didn't like the source URL. A refresh brings it right up.
Not for me.
Sounds like it'd be a lot more reliable as a desktop app. Have it organise your inbox the way a regular mailreader does, but instead of emails (or perhaps even as well as emails?), the inbox contains these funky IM/wiki-like conversations.
If I understand correctly, it's actually Jabber underneath, so there's no need to restrict it to a web interface at all.
Generally anything on crack is something supercharged. Bigger, faster, better.
Are you on crack?
I think they meant "on steroids".
But it's a stupid article anyway. They end with a seemingly interesting question that has already been answered at the original Google I/O demo.
Here's the thing: I'm not the director of an institute that has spent 15 years studying the brain, and I'm willing to bet you aren't either. In these situations, it's generally wise to accept the majority opinion of those considerably more educated in that field than oneself (see: climatology), so forgive us if we take his word over yours.
One scientist claiming something is not quite a majority opinion yet.
I don't doubt it's going to be possible some day, but overly optimistic AI researchers have a bad track record in predicting the future of their field.
I assume that we'd basically adopt a strategy of "enlightened plagiarism": use our (nontrivial) imaging and structural analysis technology to get the best idea we can of the structure of a real brain(without necessarily understanding what it does, or why it is structured as it is).
I'm not convinced our imaging technology is going to be good enough for that in 10 years, though.
Every decade somebody claims we'll be able to simulate the human brain or build a human-level AI within 10 years, and always they're wrong, because they're only focusing on their own tiny aspect of the human brain or human intelligence, and ignore the complexity of other aspects or the complexity of how all those parts fit together. This overconfidence goes back to the 1950.
In other words: I'll believe it when I see it.
Sam Raimi doesn't exactly have a better record than Michael Bay tbh... I think they're both B- class directors... Both spiderman movies might have been a huge success - but the movies basically sucked big time.
Who cares about Spiderman? Has Michael Bay ever made something like Evil Dead? Army of Darkness? Drag Me To Hell?
What, was Uwe Boll too busy?
He was very explicitly denied the right to make this movie because he sucks. Or so Blizzard said.
It's caused by how the verbing of a noun usually means "to apply [noun]" or "turn him into [noun]".
In 50 years, English will only consist of nouns, and verbs will be simple conjugations of those nouns.
It's going to take place between Wardraft 3 and the beginning of WoW, and it's going to be a war movie building up to sme final confrontation, which suggests it might lean a bit more to Warcraft.
What the hell is wrong with the mods here? We're discussing Sam Raimi, and quotes from Army Of Darkness are off topic?
why the guy that did spiderman?
You mean the guy that did Evil Dead?
Even the first Spiderman movie wasn't all that bad for a superheo movie, although he clearly didn't have the kind of freedom he had with Army Of Darkness.
Didn't they laugh him out of their offices when he offered to direct it?
That's certainly what I heard. I'm glad the Blizzard guys have some taste.
I also wonder why Raimi insists on making crap film after crap film. Why does he waste his time on licenses like Spider-Man and now Warcraft, when he should be working on the Evil Dead 4!
Is Drag Me To Hell that bad? I haven't seen it yet, but I heard it was reaching back to the days if Evil Dead. WoW in Army Of Darkness style is something I might watch.
I wouldn't normally be terribly interested in a WoW movie, but if Sam Raimi does it, well, perhaps. It's certainly millions of times better than Uwe Boll or Michael Bay. Raimi knows how to make movies fun.