From the article: "Only second-world countries, like Croatia or Brazil, he speculates, are unfettered enough to try something new." (refering to William Fisher's business model in which music is paid for by levy's on recordable media like CD-Rs).
Um, this is already partially implemented in Canada. We pay a levy on recordable media, and as a result downloading is legal. Supposedly, the levy is supposed to go to the artists and recording industry. The only thing missing is the "central office", otherwise it is very much like Fisher's concept. And I hardly think Canada qualifies as a second world country.
Don't put it past the US government that they wouldn't consider making GPLed software illegal.
I'm not sure how that would be possible. GPL is just a licensing scheme that lists conditions under which the software can be used. It doesn't say anything about price (you can charge for GPL software). To outlaw it means you'd have to change copyright law to say that the copyright holders can't decide what to do with their work -- they must sell it or keep it secret. I'm not sure such a law would even be constitutional.
Interesting links. Unfortunately they tend make opinions rather than presenting research. One point of good research in the second one clearly points out that the "could" version is a bastardization of the correct "couldn't" version, but can't find the reason for the inversion.
Both articles suggest, without evidence, that the "could" version is meant sarcastically, with the second article stating that the intonation is different. However, that's the problem. I have never heard "I could care less" with a sarcastic intonation (as in the "Tell me about it" example they use). I've always heard it in the same intonation as "I couldn't care less", sometimes even in an angry intonation. And the example they use of it meaning "As if there was something in the world that I care less about? is really reaching. In this sense, the "care less" refers to the "something else" rather than the topic being discussed, which just doesn't fit well at all.
What both articles miss is that it could just be a simple misunderstood and bastardized phrase. It certainly wouldn't be the first. But I could care less about it. (= (BTW, I mean it literally.)
Ok, it might happened if the "spyware" became part of windows, but it will never happen linux.
Hey, now there's a good way to get people to switch to Linux. We should all lobby to get this "spyware" as part of windows, then advertise that Linux does not have this P2P limitation. Most P2P users would switch, if they already haven't.
You're right, nothing comes close to an iPod. Everything else is pretty cheap after the initial purchase. The iPod, on the other hand, costs about $200 every 18 months for a new battery. Woo hoo!
Well, I'm obviously getting something wrong, or you were smoking something. What's up with the URL? It's a site for references. What reference was I supposed to look up?
BTW, I'm in the 50% that get it right. So much so, my wife keeps hitting me when I correct her. (That, and saying "supposably" instead of "supposedly".) (=
No offense, but I could care less if students cheat.
Why would anyone be offended by you caring if students cheat. Unless you meant you don't care, in which case you should have said, "I couldn't care less." (Don't feel bad, it seems about 50% of people get this saying wrong.)
This was proposed in the 1970s by an astronaut who volunteer to go and not come back. It was discussed, but he was turned down. I was just reading about this last week, I wish I could find his name.
I don't any of those descriptions are correct. Science is about modeling reality and improving the models by learning (observation and testing). Religion is about dogma, i.e., "This is the way it is and don't question it, because I said so. If observations disagree it is because the observations are wrong."
Now, the implementation of science and religion have additional baggage, such as pseudo-science, poor methodology, and poor interpretation of results for much of science these days, and corruption, power hunger, prejudice, oppression, violence, hatred, and wars in throughout the history of religion.
That's not how it works. In our case, none of the terrestrial applications of our technology would have funded the development of technology, nor would most of them have looked into developing this specific technology anyway. Space exploration is expensive because it has to pay for the development of the technologies, it can't use off-the-shelf solutions. But once the technologies are developed for NASA, it is relatively cheap to spin them off for terrestrial applications.
If space exploration stopped, and we still wanted to get the development, we'd have to replace NASA's budget with about the same budget put into paying for the development of technologies for terrestrial applications, or else the technologies would just not get developed or at a slower rate. In that sense, we're getting the space exploration for free. You can think of it as a funding or investment program for the development of terrestrial technologies and their economic spinoff, and at the same time get some knew scientific knowledge and understanding out of it.
You seem to separate the two, as in "Why no try to invent these advanced technologies without spending billions attempting to shoot people into space?" Where do you think the money goes? It primarily goes to pay for the development of the technologies. True, there's some inefficiency in NASA, but that's because of the organization, not the concept of spending money on space exploration.
The answer for that would take many hours to list. The ISS has generated a ton of new technology developments. I work for a NASA contractor with expertise in vision systems, from using 2D cameras for tracking and pose estimation for assembly to now 3D scanners for inspection, collision avoidance, and a variety of other tasks. We have just begun to spin this technology off into terrestrial applications and they are pouring in, from automated mining vehicles to geomaterial classification and automated plant growth monitoring, to name a few. And that's just one small company from one small component of the ISS. A study we'd previously done showed that every $1 invested in developing the technology has spun off into $40 for the economy.
I would invest in better training of security personnel, improved scanning technology, make the security measures more secretive, and perform random searches rather than profile based ones (which actually increase the risk). All of these suggestions, along with the analysis to demonstrate them can be found here, as referred in the parent article. Read it, it is a very good demonstration of the counter-intuitiveness of probability and risk. (I work with statistics and probability, so I'm aware of this in a number of other situations.)
Hey, you'd better watch it. I live in Ottawa too, not far from Algonquin College. You wouldn't want me to come down there with my fiddle and play a tune on you. (=
Also, for your information:
Halifax is more of an alt-rock scene, little fiddling
As far as I know, Ontario has far more pedophiles per capita than Nova Scotia.
There is no such thing as a good Rita McNeil performance, so there can't be a best one.
And Ontario & Quebec is considered as the "East" of Canada.
Yes, they are part of "Eastern" Canada, meaning the east half. But they are certainly not considered the "East Coast" as the parent post refers to them. The East Coast is synonymous with the Maritimes and/or the Atlantic Provinces. (We even have the East Coast Music Awards there, which definitely exclude Ontario and Quebec, and anything further west.)
Um, no. Did you ever hear of group rates, bulk buying, volume selling, etc? The more customers there are, the more the overhead costs and profit can be divided among them to get the same total. That is, if my overhead costs me $1000, I can sell 100 items at the manufacture cost plus $10, or I can sell 1000 items at cost plus $1, making them each $9 cheaper with no loss to me. That's a bit simplistic, but is the basis for why bulk purchases are cheaper per unit. Then there's manufacturing costs. High volume means using mass production methods, which is cheaper per unit. Low volume means more expensive methods such as hand-building the products.
Competition means that I should (a) try to minimize my overhead and manufacture costs, and (b) keep my profit modest to keep the price competitive. If I have lots of customers and raise my prices, I'm just making more profit, so a competitor can come in and sell at a lower price with a more modest profit and put me out of business.
Imagine applying this technique to non-computer products. Suppose you order a Chevy Cavalier and give you a Pontiac Sunfire. Essentially the same car with the same performance. Do you think that would be fine?
For the people who will inevitably point out minor and superfluous differences, imagine then two cars that are even closer in design, but still two different cars. The point is to get what you thought you were buying, not something that is "functionally equivalent".
I pay about $35/mo (CDN) for my 1.53mbps/640kbps ADSL in British Columbia...
It's about the same or less here in "Eastern" Canada. (I use the quotes because I am in Ontario, which considers itself "East", even though I'm from Nova Scotia which is a full day's drive further East of here.)
We have (monopolist Roger's) cable at ~$40+/month. DSL is generally $30 to $40 depending on whether you go with a small or large company.
But, it gets cobbled together to 'work'. Then, it becomes the standard..and more things are hooked to it...also kludged to work..and systems kludged to work with those systems...ad nauseum.
I had to stop and check again that this was referring to government databases. It sounds like a very accurate description of NASA technology and analyses that I have to work with regularly. I guess that comment can apply to many things though.
You should have begun by reading the parent posts, the ones that talked about how due process and ignoring international law are being denied to people, and the (probably sarcastic) response that "due process is for citizens accused of crimes, not enemy combatants." That's the context of my (sarcastic) comments. You've taken them out of context.
You assume that the concept does not apply to enemy combantants. I disagree.
Well, if you don't consider indefinite incarceration without trial as violating this principle, that's your prerogative. It's interesting that semantics seem to trump human rights in some people's minds.
You dont know how much stupid crap references to startrek and the simpsons hurt your logical argument...
Perhaps in your mind, but your mind isn't everybody and it doesn't decide what makes a sound argument. The analogy is very appropriate and logical. The parent post I was responding to stated that "due process is for citizens accused of crimes...". Even though it was probably sarcastic, there are people who believe that way, and my response was pointing out the lack of logic behind this, since there is no logical reason why concepts of human rights (including due process and presumption of innocence) would only apply to American citizens. Anyone who knows the Star Trek Corbomite reference would understand that the property that entitles them to more rights than others is a made up property. The reference was good, appropriate, logical, and short so that I didn't have to explain things out in a long paragraph like I have had to here for you.
Why should they care if P2P usage is decreasing? It doesn't mean they are making more money. In fact, the lawsuits are costing them money in the long run (lawyers fees, propaganda campaign, etc.).
If they had shown that CD sales had gone up, that would be useful to them. But if P2P usage goes down and CD sales are still slumping, that can mean several things:
Their arguments about P2P causing drops in CD sales holds less water.
Their artists are getting less exposure, not more.
The "benefits" they receive from P2P, despite the fact they have not acknowledged them, are reduced.
They aren't making any more money.
Today's music is getting crappier and crappier.
It looks to me like the RIAA should be disappointed in these results. I don't see any actual direct benefit to the RIAA or its members from this.
Of course. The concept of innocent until proven guilty only makes logical and ethical sense based on nationality. You see, American citizens have this special property, called Corbomite, that makes them special and deserving of the presumption of innocence.
And, of course, "enemy combatant" refers to anyone the American government thinks is guilty of a crime against Americans. So, if the government thinks they are guilty, they are guilty until proven innocent. If the government thinks they are innocent, then they get protection of innocence until proven guilty. It only makes logical sense. Vote Quimby!
Slashdot Mirror
Um, this is already partially implemented in Canada. We pay a levy on recordable media, and as a result downloading is legal. Supposedly, the levy is supposed to go to the artists and recording industry. The only thing missing is the "central office", otherwise it is very much like Fisher's concept. And I hardly think Canada qualifies as a second world country.
What do Britons know about proper spelling in English? (=
I'm not sure how that would be possible. GPL is just a licensing scheme that lists conditions under which the software can be used. It doesn't say anything about price (you can charge for GPL software). To outlaw it means you'd have to change copyright law to say that the copyright holders can't decide what to do with their work -- they must sell it or keep it secret. I'm not sure such a law would even be constitutional.
Both articles suggest, without evidence, that the "could" version is meant sarcastically, with the second article stating that the intonation is different. However, that's the problem. I have never heard "I could care less" with a sarcastic intonation (as in the "Tell me about it" example they use). I've always heard it in the same intonation as "I couldn't care less", sometimes even in an angry intonation. And the example they use of it meaning "As if there was something in the world that I care less about? is really reaching. In this sense, the "care less" refers to the "something else" rather than the topic being discussed, which just doesn't fit well at all.
What both articles miss is that it could just be a simple misunderstood and bastardized phrase. It certainly wouldn't be the first. But I could care less about it. (= (BTW, I mean it literally.)
Hey, now there's a good way to get people to switch to Linux. We should all lobby to get this "spyware" as part of windows, then advertise that Linux does not have this P2P limitation. Most P2P users would switch, if they already haven't.
You're right, nothing comes close to an iPod. Everything else is pretty cheap after the initial purchase. The iPod, on the other hand, costs about $200 every 18 months for a new battery. Woo hoo!
BTW, I'm in the 50% that get it right. So much so, my wife keeps hitting me when I correct her. (That, and saying "supposably" instead of "supposedly".) (=
Why would anyone be offended by you caring if students cheat. Unless you meant you don't care, in which case you should have said, "I couldn't care less." (Don't feel bad, it seems about 50% of people get this saying wrong.)
This was proposed in the 1970s by an astronaut who volunteer to go and not come back. It was discussed, but he was turned down. I was just reading about this last week, I wish I could find his name.
Now, the implementation of science and religion have additional baggage, such as pseudo-science, poor methodology, and poor interpretation of results for much of science these days, and corruption, power hunger, prejudice, oppression, violence, hatred, and wars in throughout the history of religion.
If space exploration stopped, and we still wanted to get the development, we'd have to replace NASA's budget with about the same budget put into paying for the development of technologies for terrestrial applications, or else the technologies would just not get developed or at a slower rate. In that sense, we're getting the space exploration for free. You can think of it as a funding or investment program for the development of terrestrial technologies and their economic spinoff, and at the same time get some knew scientific knowledge and understanding out of it.
You seem to separate the two, as in "Why no try to invent these advanced technologies without spending billions attempting to shoot people into space?" Where do you think the money goes? It primarily goes to pay for the development of the technologies. True, there's some inefficiency in NASA, but that's because of the organization, not the concept of spending money on space exploration.
The answer for that would take many hours to list. The ISS has generated a ton of new technology developments. I work for a NASA contractor with expertise in vision systems, from using 2D cameras for tracking and pose estimation for assembly to now 3D scanners for inspection, collision avoidance, and a variety of other tasks. We have just begun to spin this technology off into terrestrial applications and they are pouring in, from automated mining vehicles to geomaterial classification and automated plant growth monitoring, to name a few. And that's just one small company from one small component of the ISS. A study we'd previously done showed that every $1 invested in developing the technology has spun off into $40 for the economy.
I would invest in better training of security personnel, improved scanning technology, make the security measures more secretive, and perform random searches rather than profile based ones (which actually increase the risk). All of these suggestions, along with the analysis to demonstrate them can be found here, as referred in the parent article. Read it, it is a very good demonstration of the counter-intuitiveness of probability and risk. (I work with statistics and probability, so I'm aware of this in a number of other situations.)
Or see if she weighs the same as a duck. Come to think of it, I prefer the thought of throwing her in a lake and seeing if she floats.
Also, for your information:
Halifax is more of an alt-rock scene, little fiddling
As far as I know, Ontario has far more pedophiles per capita than Nova Scotia.
There is no such thing as a good Rita McNeil performance, so there can't be a best one.
Yes, they are part of "Eastern" Canada, meaning the east half. But they are certainly not considered the "East Coast" as the parent post refers to them. The East Coast is synonymous with the Maritimes and/or the Atlantic Provinces. (We even have the East Coast Music Awards there, which definitely exclude Ontario and Quebec, and anything further west.)
Competition means that I should (a) try to minimize my overhead and manufacture costs, and (b) keep my profit modest to keep the price competitive. If I have lots of customers and raise my prices, I'm just making more profit, so a competitor can come in and sell at a lower price with a more modest profit and put me out of business.
For the people who will inevitably point out minor and superfluous differences, imagine then two cars that are even closer in design, but still two different cars. The point is to get what you thought you were buying, not something that is "functionally equivalent".
It's about the same or less here in "Eastern" Canada. (I use the quotes because I am in Ontario, which considers itself "East", even though I'm from Nova Scotia which is a full day's drive further East of here.)
We have (monopolist Roger's) cable at ~$40+/month. DSL is generally $30 to $40 depending on whether you go with a small or large company.
I hope you know that the RIAA has a copyright on using "AA" in a word, which you did five times, so you can expect them to sue you in the near future.
I had to stop and check again that this was referring to government databases. It sounds like a very accurate description of NASA technology and analyses that I have to work with regularly. I guess that comment can apply to many things though.
You should have begun by reading the parent posts, the ones that talked about how due process and ignoring international law are being denied to people, and the (probably sarcastic) response that "due process is for citizens accused of crimes, not enemy combatants." That's the context of my (sarcastic) comments. You've taken them out of context.
You assume that the concept does not apply to enemy combantants. I disagree.
Well, if you don't consider indefinite incarceration without trial as violating this principle, that's your prerogative. It's interesting that semantics seem to trump human rights in some people's minds.
You dont know how much stupid crap references to startrek and the simpsons hurt your logical argument...
Perhaps in your mind, but your mind isn't everybody and it doesn't decide what makes a sound argument. The analogy is very appropriate and logical. The parent post I was responding to stated that "due process is for citizens accused of crimes...". Even though it was probably sarcastic, there are people who believe that way, and my response was pointing out the lack of logic behind this, since there is no logical reason why concepts of human rights (including due process and presumption of innocence) would only apply to American citizens. Anyone who knows the Star Trek Corbomite reference would understand that the property that entitles them to more rights than others is a made up property. The reference was good, appropriate, logical, and short so that I didn't have to explain things out in a long paragraph like I have had to here for you.
If they had shown that CD sales had gone up, that would be useful to them. But if P2P usage goes down and CD sales are still slumping, that can mean several things:
Their arguments about P2P causing drops in CD sales holds less water.
Their artists are getting less exposure, not more.
The "benefits" they receive from P2P, despite the fact they have not acknowledged them, are reduced.
They aren't making any more money.
Today's music is getting crappier and crappier.
It looks to me like the RIAA should be disappointed in these results. I don't see any actual direct benefit to the RIAA or its members from this.
badump bump! (Good one, though probably unintended.)
And, of course, "enemy combatant" refers to anyone the American government thinks is guilty of a crime against Americans. So, if the government thinks they are guilty, they are guilty until proven innocent. If the government thinks they are innocent, then they get protection of innocence until proven guilty. It only makes logical sense. Vote Quimby!