Listen up, Mr. Freeman; I'm only going to say this once:
The 1984 references are getting very, very tired. Not every bleak occurance is an appropriate occasion to invoke Orwell (or Huxley, or whoever else). Having read a classic book does not make you clever. Lamenting over our tragically totalitarian Amerikan state is not political activism, it's melodramatic whinging. Don't get me wrong; this kind of news gets me as mad as any of you, if not more so. I'm quite a rabid, volatile little libertarian. But please, your radical ideas about life imitating art have already occured to others. Get over yourselves.
Am I ranting into the wind? Sure. But dammit, I get angry.
I have read this article, and it has utterly failed to convince me. Two passages especially caught my attention:
Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification.
(in "Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant")
Astronomy has nothing to do with the issue; I am in a position to know this. And yes, "well conducted" correlational studies can "provide opportunities" for falsification, but are the referenced studies "well conducted"? This is exactly one of those places where experimenter bias tends to creep in.
Several major gaps remain in the violent video game literature. One especially large gap is the lack of longitudinal studies testing the link between habitual violent video game exposure and later aggression, while controlling for earlier levels of aggression and other risk factors. Indeed, of the four major types of empirical studies mentioned earlier, this is the only type missing. There are such studies focusing on television violence but none on video games.
(in "Unanswered Questions")
You can't call it an arch if it doesn't have a keystone. These missing "longitudinal studies" are the primary weakness of the whole theory. Calling it an "especially large gap" but relegating it to the afterthought paragraph is the kind of tactic I would expect to find in an undergraduate lab report (this is also something I am in a position to know).
I appreciate effort of referencing something like a scientific source, but it's gonna take more than this article to convince me.
Being a bitter scientist, I would like to point out that scientific method is scientific method. If you're not doing it right, then it's not scientific method. It's not "bad science", it's just not science. Now, I'm not making any claims about how purchasable people are these days. It just irritates me to see good labels being polluted.
While it's not necessarily the ideal criterion, I really like the statement "if you wouldn't trust them with a gun, they shouldn't be playing that type of video game". That's not exactly where I would draw the line but it's the right place to go looking for a line (i.e. in behavior and cognitive development). One thing I am vehemently against is the use of age barriers; I've had a sort of unusual developmental path, and I've been really inconvenienced by certain age-based regulations. And at the other end there are plenty of people at all ages who I wouldn't trust with anything more dangerous than string (and yes, some I'd keep even the string away from).
I am laughing like a stoned lunatic because I know exactly what you're talking about (this, by the way, from someone with a silver "L33T H4X0R" label under the Apple on my TiBook) --- and for some reason "please don't pwn me" really cracks me up.
Just a hypothesis: I suspect that, irrelevant of any DRM/RIAA/"The Man" issues, Apple might be reluctant to offer lossless encoding just on the basis of data transfer. You may be willing to wait a couple more minutes for your song, but on the supply side Apple would have to deal with the logistics of moving many, many more bits out of their store. That's not cheap; the consumer face of the Internet can belie the true costs of data transfer. I don't know for a fact that this is a knockout argument against lossless compression on iTMS, but it's certainly a serious concern.
I'm not speaking strictly from firsthand analysis, but it doesn't look like the hymn developers are violating the ToS. hymn is a tool that performs certain operations on standard data objects (mp4 atoms). Actually using it on music files you bought from iTMS is a ToS violation... by the user. You can maybe make arguments about the "intended purpose" of hymn, but that's a much more complicated issue.
Incidentally, as much as I dislike DRM and will probably never buy any DRM'd music (it just feels unclean), I have to second Quasar's post: Apple could have gotten their legal action on, and they deserve credit for instead doing what they did. You can't even really fault them for trying to "pull the rug" via undocumented software changes; aside from the fact that such is really standard industry practice (laugh), iTunes and iTMS belong to Apple and can be changed at their will. (This lock-in is the cause of my first objection to DRM in general, but that's a separate argument.)
that abortion of powerpoint has dumbed us down. google for edward tuft powerpoint, or space shuttle powerpoint. the results are not pretty.
(This is a rant. Pay it no heed.)
Graaaaah! Powerpoint! Powerpoint must die! Die die DIE! I despise Powerpoint. It is a vile travesty of a presentation medium! Anyone who tries to tell you something with Powerpoint is ipso facto not worth listening to. Powerpoint! Aaaaaaaaagh!
Since this is Slashdot, I will be perfectly clear: my post contained sarcasm! Yes, sarcasm! The "Me too!" refers to the other responders criticizing the parent.
I am wholly in favor of enabling users to un-DRM their music. The best situation would be to have no DRM in the first place, because of the whole only-harming-the-innocent-consumers thing. But easily-removed DRM for the sake of keeping up appearances is not too much worse.
Recall that Google's mission is to "organize all the data in the world". They want your computer too! I'm not saying that's bad, just that Google has technically laid claim to the turf.
My recollection is that Australia was used as a place for England to deport its most dangerous criminals, a long while back; Au was essentially colonized by expatriate English bandits.
I'm not sure whether this is an appropriate occasion for this discussion, but because Winterblink asked: Darwinia is an odd sort of real-time strategy game, which doesn't depend too much on amassing hordes---in fact, one of the tech development paths allows you to increase your number of simultaneous "processes" from the initial value of only 3. It has a unique interface, a unique pseudo-retro graphical style, and an absolutely amazingly original concept. Everything beyond that is said best by the demo; visit http://www.darwinia.co.uk/.
Ok, seriously now. An unreliable beta certainly does not support the conclusion that the final version will be reliable, but neither does it refute that conclusion. It just exists. The actual purpose of a beta, remember, is to give the user base a chance to beat on the proto-product and show you where the problems are. It's getting easier to forget that these days, with Google software in perpetual beta and everyone installing the "unstable" builds because they want to be bleeding-edge.
As a fun little thought exercise, think about municipal wireless and liability. For that matter, think about any public wireless and liability. We can probably dispose with reasonable expectation of privacy, since it's an open network, but what about spoofing? What if someone hijacks the municipal net and does bad things to the users? What if someone (locally) takes down the municipal net and (locally) sets up a phony replacement?
Now, think about the differences between a network maintained by the government and one maintained by a private interest. Discuss.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh. I personally would ask, "So, you run a botnet?" Followed by, "What's your home IP address? I'd like to send you something." ; )
I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my karma is going. I can feel it. I can feel it.
Listen up, Mr. Freeman; I'm only going to say this once:
The 1984 references are getting very, very tired. Not every bleak occurance is an appropriate occasion to invoke Orwell (or Huxley, or whoever else). Having read a classic book does not make you clever. Lamenting over our tragically totalitarian Amerikan state is not political activism, it's melodramatic whinging. Don't get me wrong; this kind of news gets me as mad as any of you, if not more so. I'm quite a rabid, volatile little libertarian. But please, your radical ideas about life imitating art have already occured to others. Get over yourselves.
Am I ranting into the wind? Sure. But dammit, I get angry.
Oops, that should have been a reply to Pla123's comment, not BeBoxer's. I really shouldn't be posting when I'm so tired.
That was a joke, son.
On my computer, integers are encoded as four-byte words. YMMV; consult sizeof(int) for current information.
Heh, you see that blue glow? That's the Cerenkov radiation from the punchline flying over your head just a little faster than c/n.
I have read this article, and it has utterly failed to convince me. Two passages especially caught my attention:
Astronomy has nothing to do with the issue; I am in a position to know this. And yes, "well conducted" correlational studies can "provide opportunities" for falsification, but are the referenced studies "well conducted"? This is exactly one of those places where experimenter bias tends to creep in.
You can't call it an arch if it doesn't have a keystone. These missing "longitudinal studies" are the primary weakness of the whole theory. Calling it an "especially large gap" but relegating it to the afterthought paragraph is the kind of tactic I would expect to find in an undergraduate lab report (this is also something I am in a position to know).
I appreciate effort of referencing something like a scientific source, but it's gonna take more than this article to convince me.
I think he was insulting you by implying that you yourself are a small child.
Oblig. Simpsons: That was an insult! Sock him, dad! Sock everybody!
Being a bitter scientist, I would like to point out that scientific method is scientific method. If you're not doing it right, then it's not scientific method. It's not "bad science", it's just not science. Now, I'm not making any claims about how purchasable people are these days. It just irritates me to see good labels being polluted.
While it's not necessarily the ideal criterion, I really like the statement "if you wouldn't trust them with a gun, they shouldn't be playing that type of video game". That's not exactly where I would draw the line but it's the right place to go looking for a line (i.e. in behavior and cognitive development). One thing I am vehemently against is the use of age barriers; I've had a sort of unusual developmental path, and I've been really inconvenienced by certain age-based regulations. And at the other end there are plenty of people at all ages who I wouldn't trust with anything more dangerous than string (and yes, some I'd keep even the string away from).
I am laughing like a stoned lunatic because I know exactly what you're talking about (this, by the way, from someone with a silver "L33T H4X0R" label under the Apple on my TiBook) --- and for some reason "please don't pwn me" really cracks me up.
Actually, when Knuth dies the universe ends.
She Who Must Be Obeyed
Firefox comes with an Urban Dictionary quicksearch. Type "slang foo" to get a definition of "foo".
Just a hypothesis: I suspect that, irrelevant of any DRM/RIAA/"The Man" issues, Apple might be reluctant to offer lossless encoding just on the basis of data transfer. You may be willing to wait a couple more minutes for your song, but on the supply side Apple would have to deal with the logistics of moving many, many more bits out of their store. That's not cheap; the consumer face of the Internet can belie the true costs of data transfer. I don't know for a fact that this is a knockout argument against lossless compression on iTMS, but it's certainly a serious concern.
I'm not speaking strictly from firsthand analysis, but it doesn't look like the hymn developers are violating the ToS. hymn is a tool that performs certain operations on standard data objects (mp4 atoms). Actually using it on music files you bought from iTMS is a ToS violation... by the user. You can maybe make arguments about the "intended purpose" of hymn, but that's a much more complicated issue.
Incidentally, as much as I dislike DRM and will probably never buy any DRM'd music (it just feels unclean), I have to second Quasar's post: Apple could have gotten their legal action on, and they deserve credit for instead doing what they did. You can't even really fault them for trying to "pull the rug" via undocumented software changes; aside from the fact that such is really standard industry practice (laugh), iTunes and iTMS belong to Apple and can be changed at their will. (This lock-in is the cause of my first objection to DRM in general, but that's a separate argument.)
(This is a rant. Pay it no heed.)
Graaaaah! Powerpoint! Powerpoint must die! Die die DIE! I despise Powerpoint. It is a vile travesty of a presentation medium! Anyone who tries to tell you something with Powerpoint is ipso facto not worth listening to. Powerpoint! Aaaaaaaaagh!
Since this is Slashdot, I will be perfectly clear: my post contained sarcasm! Yes, sarcasm! The "Me too!" refers to the other responders criticizing the parent.
I am wholly in favor of enabling users to un-DRM their music. The best situation would be to have no DRM in the first place, because of the whole only-harming-the-innocent-consumers thing. But easily-removed DRM for the sake of keeping up appearances is not too much worse.
Clerk: iTMS allows obtaining music legally, at an almost reasonable price. ...That's good!
...That's bad!
...That's good!
...That's bad!
...That's good!
...wha?
Homer:
Clerk: The music comes with DRM.
Homer:
Clerk: You can still listen to it on five computers and burn CDs.
Homer:
Clerk: The DRM enforces software lock-in to iTunes.
Homer:
Clerk: There is software that can remove the DRM.
Homer:
Clerk: The software provokes the RIAA and undermines authority.
Homer:
Clerk: That's bad!
Recall that Google's mission is to "organize all the data in the world". They want your computer too! I'm not saying that's bad, just that Google has technically laid claim to the turf.
Actually, that's High Altitude No Opening (the MPAA commandos forgot the parachutes): http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20010213
My recollection is that Australia was used as a place for England to deport its most dangerous criminals, a long while back; Au was essentially colonized by expatriate English bandits.
I'm not sure whether this is an appropriate occasion for this discussion, but because Winterblink asked: Darwinia is an odd sort of real-time strategy game, which doesn't depend too much on amassing hordes---in fact, one of the tech development paths allows you to increase your number of simultaneous "processes" from the initial value of only 3. It has a unique interface, a unique pseudo-retro graphical style, and an absolutely amazingly original concept. Everything beyond that is said best by the demo; visit http://www.darwinia.co.uk/.
Who modded parent insightful?
Ok, seriously now. An unreliable beta certainly does not support the conclusion that the final version will be reliable, but neither does it refute that conclusion. It just exists. The actual purpose of a beta, remember, is to give the user base a chance to beat on the proto-product and show you where the problems are. It's getting easier to forget that these days, with Google software in perpetual beta and everyone installing the "unstable" builds because they want to be bleeding-edge.
As a fun little thought exercise, think about municipal wireless and liability. For that matter, think about any public wireless and liability. We can probably dispose with reasonable expectation of privacy, since it's an open network, but what about spoofing? What if someone hijacks the municipal net and does bad things to the users? What if someone (locally) takes down the municipal net and (locally) sets up a phony replacement?
Now, think about the differences between a network maintained by the government and one maintained by a private interest. Discuss.