I have to quibble with your.sig (re: In Indiana, "copyright infringement is theft"), for language in not law, and word like "theft" and "copyright infringement" have a linguistic as well as legal meaning.
I understand what you're getting at, though. The legislative body has lost the distinction, and has created wording intended to create a strong moral statement.
I think that this is also sympomatic of bad thinking though, much as when free software advocates are accused of being opposed to intellectual property generally, when they're actually opposed to software patents specifically.
We seem to be entering an age where there are no subtle grades.
Customers need to be able to make informed choices, and in this case there is flagged a strong possibility of censorship. Or incompetence in that their engine really should have picked these up.
Either way, it's valuable information. People know that Google is less likely to be able to find images that they wish to locate, and this is the kind of feedback that consumers need to be able to make rational decisions.
I'd suggest that using an alternative image search is likely to bring you better results:-)
So you think that you should never criticise a private company because it's private?
It seems to be a strange position. Google is so ubiquitous that surely people should at least know that it's liable to censor images, and an article like this one means that many will be that much more alert to the possibility. Customers need to be able to make informed choices, and in this case there is flagged a strong possibility of censorship. Or incompetence in that their engine really should have picked these up.
Either way, it's valuable information. People know that Google is less likely to be able to find images that they wish to locate, and this is the kind of feedback that consumers need to be able to make rational decisions.
The site I linked simply published extracts from Paul's book. Paul Feyerabend is one of the big three "philosophers of science" along with Popper and Khun.
If the hosting site, rather than the content is your criterion for reliability, here's a Wikipedia link. The link that I originally gave is the top one to come up in a Google search.
It is notable that Feyerabend is not a Marxist; if anything Khun's philosophy is most congenial to Marxism, if you're looking to judge his philosophy politically.
The observer would be an intrinsic part of any existant psychic phenomena, and one cannot trust establishment scientists to be neutral, or "rigourous, but in favour", as might be required.
Belief in psychic phenomena is persistent, and although there is a high probability that this is simply because such ideas are appealing, there is also a chance that there is some real phenomenon, perhaps as weak as synchronicity*, underlying it. That one is engaged in fighting a war against all apparent superstition is a motive for irrational bias.
The funding required is only a small fraction of the total funding available, so this is no threat to science, only (possibly) to the objectors' world-views.
If there is a systematic distortion within the very structure of science, how can we expect scientists to be trusted to address it? Certainly, I think that we need to hold to the scientific method, but funding decisions are most certainly biased by pre-existing prejudice. Such funding is absolutely fine for the bulk of "normal science", but to insist that non-scientific bodies apply the same criteria is what Paul Feyerabend would call "scientific imperialism". Apologies for the link to Marxists.org; I could not find a better reference.
*Possible mechanism for synchonicity: similarity of structure in complex waveforms could be a low-energy, high-entropy state (although a particular structure would be low-entropy), much as photons seek to be in a similar state when trapped in a small cavity (which is how the LASER works).
Extremely interesting. But in section two: I love what I do, and I love nature, but I don't see the two being especially well interrelated. It's a bit like trying to rank libertarians against greens.
I feel that it's really asking me "do I believe in god?".
I seem to have scored okay, though, but I feel that many with still more developed traits will do worse. For example, a physicist might score worse than a cultist who saw design in the universe.
Your stanse wreaks of a of prejudice and hatred, invoking the spirit of anti-Christianity.
I read it more as anti-fundamentalism; vida writes specifically against fanatics. Good, moderate Christians should in fact be open-handed liberal. It is true that in a later post he comes out against religion generally, but here he focuses upon those who mistake form for substance.
You saying you're not an elitist is like Kerry saying he's been consistent.
Maybe Non-Partisan means just that. He also clearly links to a pro-Bush site. From this page:
I am a Kerry supporter. I am open about that. Despite my political preference, I have bent over backwards to be scrupulously honest about all the numbers, and have carefully designed the main page to be strictly nonpartisan. Only the third row of menu items below the map contains material that could be considered pro-Kerry (e.g., jokes about George Bush). If you are a Kerry supporter, an independent, a moderate Republican who is fed up with the President's fiscal and other policies or even a conservative Republican who feels betrayed and who has a sense of humor, you will probably enjoy them. If you want an election site that has a pro-Bush bias from beginning to end, including all over the main page, try www.electionprojection.com.
That's good news, and mitigates the problem that bit more, but my problem really is this (g1, g2 etc represent greens; l1, l2 etc represent libertarians):
g1 > g2 > g3 > g4 > g5 l1 > l2 > l3
But I can't compare the two lists! Imagine that this problem occurs in the middle of a preference order, and it gets that much worse.
As you probably know, the result is accumulated, and cycles removed (even if a particular individual inserts them!)
But there is one additional problem: partial orderings. I can even give a plausible senario: I don't know whether to vote for the libertarians or the greens, valuing both liberty and the environment. I can easily rank both sets of candidates, both find them hard to compare with one another. With Condorcet, I can form two partial chains, but not with a single ranking.
Having said that, given that I couldn't choose between them anyway, I might as well intersperse them. Cycles can be simply not written down: pick a random order. If others think remotely similarly to you and also acts at random where they cannot compare logically, then statistics will resolve the apparent bug, here.
There probably remain a few anomolies, but they're not going to be very great. I'd be interested if someone can provide a counterexample that leaves a problem, even accounting for statistical "normalisation".
The natural state for oil paintings is to be free (libre), whoever can view it can enjoy it. When I paint in my college art class the painting isn't mine, it's just the art I'm making.
Sounds a little bit crazy right? But the only difference is that there are tangible elements involved with an oil painting that maybe I had to pay for. Musicians have overhead too, marketing, instruments, studio time.
It's not the only difference. If someone took a photo of your art, the status of that photo would be analogous to the status of a music recording.
If the user can find a proxy, they'll be getting the full Google from there. If they can't access a site anyway, it's not a valid search result.
I know that there's more to this issue than algorithmic accuracy, and it's easy to say that Google shouldn't be doing China's work for them, but given that Google's a good search engine, and its availabilty is accordingly boon to free speech, even if its coverage isn't comprehensive, it's better than it not being available at all. It's notable that they've not promised to create any new censorship, only to "respect" existing censorship.
This kid was mentally developed enough to know what he was doing was wrong, and did it anyways. He's lucky to be offered a job doing anything more technical than digging holes in the dirt.
Hyppönen notes that Jaschan was trying to create a virus that "attacked other viruses written by professional virus writers working with spammers". But his efforts misfired, causing huge inconvenience for many innocent users.
"Sven's viruses removed viruses like Bagle and MyDoom and uninstalled spam proxies such as Mitglieder from infected computers. But of course, his viruses also caused huge amounts of damage - such as Sasser taking down X-Ray machines in hospitals in Sweden," Hyppönen explained. F-Secure concludes that Jaschen was "more clueless than malicious".
So it appears that most of the "this kid is evil and cannot be trusted" responses to this article are simply ill-informed. This isn't ever the poor judgement of a kid who hasn't yet determined right from wrong, but is rather the action of one who is trying to do good, but hasn't yet learnt how to do so competently.
Those who believe in these invisible beings, or else in the perfection of the state are sure to mod it down as flamebait: it's either disrespectful to believers, or to the superior subtlety and cunning of our (human) masters.
I expect the down-modders are religious, rather than political, ironically.
I've just meta-moded your "Insightful" mod with a "fair", but I felt that I ought to argue here why I don't entirely agree.
The thing is that you can dual licence code, and therefore you can charge for commercial use. You don't need to deny use of your copyrighted code; you're free to licence it in much the same way as if you'd not GPLed it.
Another point is that the GPL levels the playing field if you enlarge the context a little: you can't take code randomly from a proprietor and make arbitary use of it, at least not without a licence that would be distinct from the sale and transfer of the product containing the results of this code, and the GPL means that the reverse is also true. Just as you would have to negotiate with them, so they have to negotiate with you.
Also, you might be publishing the code in order to find paying customers. If you have no budget for advertising (say), this might be the only way to reach them.
A further point is that you might support the contension that software should be free (usual comment about speech and beer), or less radically that you wished to act in order to maximise the amount of free software in the world. If this is part of you motivation, then why would you publish your code under a licence that would result in significant quantities of proprietry code, possibly backed with software patents?
Slashdot Mirror
I understand what you're getting at, though. The legislative body has lost the distinction, and has created wording intended to create a strong moral statement.
I think that this is also sympomatic of bad thinking though, much as when free software advocates are accused of being opposed to intellectual property generally, when they're actually opposed to software patents specifically.
We seem to be entering an age where there are no subtle grades.
Indeed. Besides, if 1 were prime, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic would be false.
It seems to be a strange position. Google is so ubiquitous that surely people should at least know that it's liable to censor images, and an article like this one means that many will be that much more alert to the possibility. Customers need to be able to make informed choices, and in this case there is flagged a strong possibility of censorship. Or incompetence in that their engine really should have picked these up.
Either way, it's valuable information. People know that Google is less likely to be able to find images that they wish to locate, and this is the kind of feedback that consumers need to be able to make rational decisions.
If the hosting site, rather than the content is your criterion for reliability, here's a Wikipedia link. The link that I originally gave is the top one to come up in a Google search.
It is notable that Feyerabend is not a Marxist; if anything Khun's philosophy is most congenial to Marxism, if you're looking to judge his philosophy politically.
If there is a systematic distortion within the very structure of science, how can we expect scientists to be trusted to address it? Certainly, I think that we need to hold to the scientific method, but funding decisions are most certainly biased by pre-existing prejudice. Such funding is absolutely fine for the bulk of "normal science", but to insist that non-scientific bodies apply the same criteria is what Paul Feyerabend would call "scientific imperialism". Apologies for the link to Marxists.org; I could not find a better reference.
*Possible mechanism for synchonicity: similarity of structure in complex waveforms could be a low-energy, high-entropy state (although a particular structure would be low-entropy), much as photons seek to be in a similar state when trapped in a small cavity (which is how the LASER works).
I feel that it's really asking me "do I believe in god?".
I seem to have scored okay, though, but I feel that many with still more developed traits will do worse. For example, a physicist might score worse than a cultist who saw design in the universe.
I find your .sig ironic, given your comment.
That's good news, and mitigates the problem that bit more, but my problem really is this (g1, g2 etc represent greens; l1, l2 etc represent libertarians) :
g1 > g2 > g3 > g4 > g5
l1 > l2 > l3
But I can't compare the two lists! Imagine that this problem occurs in the middle of a preference order, and it gets that much worse.
Which ones should be ranked equally?
As you probably know, the result is accumulated, and cycles removed (even if a particular individual inserts them!)
But there is one additional problem: partial orderings. I can even give a plausible senario: I don't know whether to vote for the libertarians or the greens, valuing both liberty and the environment. I can easily rank both sets of candidates, both find them hard to compare with one another. With Condorcet, I can form two partial chains, but not with a single ranking.
Having said that, given that I couldn't choose between them anyway, I might as well intersperse them. Cycles can be simply not written down: pick a random order. If others think remotely similarly to you and also acts at random where they cannot compare logically, then statistics will resolve the apparent bug, here.
There probably remain a few anomolies, but they're not going to be very great. I'd be interested if someone can provide a counterexample that leaves a problem, even accounting for statistical "normalisation".
To my thinking you've shown a mark of real intelligence. I wish I was less stubborn, sometimes!
I know that there's more to this issue than algorithmic accuracy, and it's easy to say that Google shouldn't be doing China's work for them, but given that Google's a good search engine, and its availabilty is accordingly boon to free speech, even if its coverage isn't comprehensive, it's better than it not being available at all. It's notable that they've not promised to create any new censorship, only to "respect" existing censorship.
Indeed. It seems particularly apt in this case!
But this description doesn't describe this kid.
Umm, he acted with positive intent, maybe?
See: Relevant post.
Those who believe in these invisible beings, or else in the perfection of the state are sure to mod it down as flamebait: it's either disrespectful to believers, or to the superior subtlety and cunning of our (human) masters.
I expect the down-modders are religious, rather than political, ironically.
I've just meta-moded your "Insightful" mod with a "fair", but I felt that I ought to argue here why I don't entirely agree.
The thing is that you can dual licence code, and therefore you can charge for commercial use. You don't need to deny use of your copyrighted code; you're free to licence it in much the same way as if you'd not GPLed it.
Another point is that the GPL levels the playing field if you enlarge the context a little: you can't take code randomly from a proprietor and make arbitary use of it, at least not without a licence that would be distinct from the sale and transfer of the product containing the results of this code, and the GPL means that the reverse is also true. Just as you would have to negotiate with them, so they have to negotiate with you.
Also, you might be publishing the code in order to find paying customers. If you have no budget for advertising (say), this might be the only way to reach them.
A further point is that you might support the contension that software should be free (usual comment about speech and beer), or less radically that you wished to act in order to maximise the amount of free software in the world. If this is part of you motivation, then why would you publish your code under a licence that would result in significant quantities of proprietry code, possibly backed with software patents?
Maybe Porter Goss was refering to Mike Kafka?
No good if you want EOF!
Hmmm. ^d. Isn't that EOF?