The alternative to providing a DRM option in the web standard is Flash/Silverlight, or something similar, can you explain how what he endorsed is any worse?
That is one of the alternatives.
Another alternative, which is even better, is in HTML5 right now: the audio and video tags. No DRM, pure functionality. 100% win. Don't use DRM, and your content gets to comply with standards, so you have the largest customer base possible. That maximizes revenue. Every deviation from this approach, should be viewed in terms of how much revenue you trade away, exchange for.. uh.. whatever-the-fuck it is, that media producers get by reducing the number of customers who can buy their product.
Yet another alternative approach would be to have an actual DRM standard, such as rot13. Since everyone would be able to implement it and it wouldn't require any weird hardware or proprietary trade secrets, you'd get maximum compatibility across all platforms and devices; it'd be just as good as not having DRM at all. Everyone wins. Had he endorsed this compromise, people wouldn't be flaming him.
However, the internet has shown that this does not happen.
Only because we're not doing it right. The problem with using billions of monkeys, is that you're required to keep the monkeys isolated from one another, in order to have their typing remain random. If the monkeys are able to read one another's typing, they will form patterns together. They'll learn, invent culture (i.e. spread memes), trade typing duties for sexual favors, cheat by photocopying previously-typed pages, etc. All these things remove much of the entropy needed to eventually recreate Shakespeare. They start working on problems of their own, seperate from the Recreate Shakespeare project. Or even if they remain loyal to the project's goals, the learning will guide them into local optima, when what we need them to do is continue to type randomly, all in parallel.
This is why I propose using simulated virtual monkeys, each in their own sandbox. The monkeys need to remain isolated and free of anything which might incentivize non-random typing. With simulated monkeys, we can do this!
(BTW, it would only be fair to point out that a competing research team claims they have found a faster and more efficient means of recreating the works of Shakespeare, using a key-reference system where using the title of the work, it is looked up in a memory bank and read out. This all sounds too complated to me, though, so I'm sticking with the simulated monkeys.)
What the fuck, exactly, is so outdated about that?
Maybe it means that the system is written in Java instead of C#, Oracle and Microsoft salespeople aren't getting big license commissions, and the CTO isn't getting an enormous kickback.
Good thing we won't see the new inflation rate for a several more months, and pollution's latency has always been a classic.
Maybe this is good idea for a political platform: don't worry about conservative/liberal principles; just look for fast indicators that you can increase at the expense of slow ones. Right and left will become obsolete labels, and debates will be between short-termers and long-termers.
While that number may seem high, consider that it costs (more or less) $9.99 a month to stream tens of thousands of songs, as opposed to dropping $10-15 on a single album to own it, either physically or digitally.
I think I see the problem here, and might know just what you need. Here at Cajun Hell Enterprises, we have developed a proprietary unit of measure which fits your case perfectly.
We call it "Dollar" (TM). Instead of counting arbitrary "units" and then defining various other sub-unit types as being equivalent to a fraction of a unit in proportion to their revenue, we just measure the revenue itself. We can them combine measurements of these dollars from various sources, into a total for the time period in question, using a special arithmetic operator developed just for this task.
If you think you already have Dollars, please contact our sales department.
The root problem is TANSTAAFL. Everyone (quite reasonably and understandably) wants more for less. But as a whole, or on average, they can't have it.
Realtime traffic databases offer a short-term advantage, where you can come out ahead . . . until enough people know about it, until those who bear the costs of the new traffic patterns react, etc. Like the traffic itself, lunch seeks an equilibrium, and it ain't free.
Perhaps the "filesystem of the ages" includes hardware migration every 5-10 years. Didn't make the committment to periodically review and possibly renew the hardware? Then according to the filesystem specs, you did not format the volume correctly.
Could it be that "social media" causes extraverts to become more lonely, due to the communication being slower and more deliberate (and oftentimes terminated by "awkward silence" which never ends (dead threads)) compared to what they're used to in interactive f2f chat?
There's some famous quote about CS having two hard problems: naming things, and cache-invalidation functions. This is an example of getting a cache-invalidation function wrong.
By formatting the card foolishly, the announcers used a bad cache value (they read quickly, saw a movie title and concluded that the movie title was the desired value) instead of doing the more expensive thing (saying "Oops, cache miss. We have the best actress card here but we need the best picture one"). Font and layout geeks are telling us that the cache could have been correctly invalidated, by using the things that (within their art) are obvious common sense. "This is easy to do right!" they are screaming.
Are you sure that you are not actually seeing this very problem in everything you ever work on? Might not a sufficiently-stoned person realize that this is the essense of every logic gate in the infinitely-dimensional fractal tree of reality? (And might he also say, that by being clear about what level of abstraction you're working at, you may also see how to correctly name things?)
People geek out on things. Yes, those people geek out on Oscars, which is silly. Silly to you, [here I use my Great! Acting! Talent! to make a sneer appear on my face before I dramatically recite the next word in my speech] nerd!
I now work in a low paid part-time job, and while I have no money and no retirement plan, at least I can spend most of my time on projects that interest me.
You damned fool!!
All you have to do, is work long, hard hours doing boring things for lots of money. Do this long enough, and then eventually you'll be able to retire. Then you'll finally have the time to spend on projects that interest you, with all that creative energy that old people are so well known for having.
But noooo, you're doomed such that when you turn 72, you won't be able to afford retirement. You'll have nothing, except memories of a life wasted on things you enjoy, instead of being spent on responsibly preparing for your future (assuming you win the cointoss of fate, which reaps about half the population before retirement age).
Did a libertarian straw man kill your parents or something?
That would be be insightful if it hadn't killed about 20-thousand Chilean's parents...
Which libertarian did that? Was that the libertarian who took signed the order to take USA off the gold standard, or was it the libertarian who was called "The Imperial President" because of his assertion of limitless power, culminating in thinking he was truly above the law? Was it the libertarian who started the Drug War as we know it, or was it the libertarian who so sickened Americans that they literally formed a big-L Libertarian Party during his administration in order to try to Do Something about him and his kind?
The property of being placed within a shrine, such as when a thing is placed within a display (a shrine) at the National Archives.
Also, figuratively: almost all Americans know what the document says (basically, if not all the details of the grievances with the king) and its first sentence in particular is well-known as an explanation, from an American perspective, as to how (and why) people can legitimately form a new government. If an American ever writes another document with that document's purpose, it's highly likely they'll borrow some of the form of that one, and maybe even some verbatim phrases if the writer is smart. It is an excellent model, and this opinion (I think) is shared by a majority of Americans. Thus, figuratively enshrined. It has a special place in our hearts. Brainwashing.. or identity? I'll let others decide.
the declaration of independence isn't a legally binding document within the scope of US law.
The document was intended to be illegal yet (not perversely!) legitimate document within British law. Talking about it within US law doesn't even make sense. It's part of the country, but not really part of the government; it might best help to think of it as the government's "mother" or something like that. You don't have to do what mom says, but you can't really deny her importance.
Facebook is not your neighbor's house. I totally don't understand how anyone can see it as even faintly analogous to that. I'm serious. This is 2+2=5 territory to me.
It's natural to some of us. It's apparently not natural to some other people, which is why they broadcast their stuff to the Internet.
If you're fucking your wife in your bedroom, you expect privacy. If you're fucking her in the town square, while occasionally making eye contract with strangers and saying, "hey, check out what we're doing," then that suggests that you don't expect privacy.
I think the better rhetorical question is: why are some people so amazingly stupid, that they are incapable of telling the difference between these two scenarios? What is causing this stupidity? Is there anything we can do about it, and if there is, should we do it?
The real problem for the facebook posters is that on the internet, human culture doesn't apply, and they have yet to come to terms with that.
No, the problem is that some users don't know the difference between fucking in the town square (uploading to facebook) vs their bedrooms (sending encrypted email).
If you compare legitimately you find that adding a solar deployment typically takes about 3 people.
Your home-made PV panels manufactured by 3 people, aren't nearly as efficient as the factory-made ones that you can buy. The ones you buy had to be made by a lot of other people (far more than merely 3) but they are way better. Just make sure you don't compare your 3-person-manufactured panel's cost, with the factory-manufactured panel's energy output, or you'll accidentally misrepresent the tech's overall effectiveness.
Comparing installation labour to running labour is fallacious at best.
You're right. The key is to "simply"(*) add them. The best analysis is going to comprehensively compare total man-seconds for solar to total man-seconds for coal (or nuclear, wind, etc).
(*) Some people might say that man-seconds sometimes don't compare to one another (e.g. skilled vs unskilled labor) but education itself contains many man-seconds of effort within it. This is getting to be a damn complicated spreadsheet...
Yes, that's what they're saying. This story is about how solar isn't competitive yet.
Ultimately, the cost of any commodity is derived from it having used up peoples' time. The more jobs something requires, the more expensive it will generally be. When solar can get its total jobs per kWh to below coal's, it will finally be winning. But apparently that's still a long way off.
I can imagine Facebook, Twitter etc. blowing up over this.
Me too, except "blowing up" in the sense of suddenly having lots of new account signups. I imagine a desk at airports, with public computer everyone uses to sign up for accounts on these websites, in order to have a password to hand over.
"Uh, yeah, my account is throwaway12345@gmail.com. My password is 12345."
how can they use ANYTHING they find as evidence of anything?
This isn't for purposes of finding evidence. It's for theater. Someone got the idea that American voters want visitors to be humiliated and insulted, and this is their idea for how to best do it.
How the idea of anal pattern photographs got shot down, I have no idea. Cowards!!
CEOs? How about everybody? Am I really the only person who "shops around" and tends to favor lower prices?
One of the reasons I'm pro-free-market, is that I like cheap, affordable stuff. I'm happy to buy local (and on average it ought to be cheaper, since transportation isn't free), but I'm not willing to sacrifice much for it. Any time you people try to force everyone to buy more expensive shit, you create create black markets, externalized costs, lower quality, etc.
(And perversely, people are willing to make a few sacrifices for black markets. Something about sticking it to The Man...)
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, price fix you!
If you form a union, one of the first demands will be that the company will no longer be allowed to play ads in your app.
I'm generally neutral or slightly anti-union, but this is just the sort of thing that would persuade me to join a union.
That is one of the alternatives.
Another alternative, which is even better, is in HTML5 right now: the audio and video tags. No DRM, pure functionality. 100% win. Don't use DRM, and your content gets to comply with standards, so you have the largest customer base possible. That maximizes revenue. Every deviation from this approach, should be viewed in terms of how much revenue you trade away, exchange for .. uh .. whatever-the-fuck it is, that media producers get by reducing the number of customers who can buy their product.
Yet another alternative approach would be to have an actual DRM standard, such as rot13. Since everyone would be able to implement it and it wouldn't require any weird hardware or proprietary trade secrets, you'd get maximum compatibility across all platforms and devices; it'd be just as good as not having DRM at all. Everyone wins. Had he endorsed this compromise, people wouldn't be flaming him.
Only because we're not doing it right. The problem with using billions of monkeys, is that you're required to keep the monkeys isolated from one another, in order to have their typing remain random. If the monkeys are able to read one another's typing, they will form patterns together. They'll learn, invent culture (i.e. spread memes), trade typing duties for sexual favors, cheat by photocopying previously-typed pages, etc. All these things remove much of the entropy needed to eventually recreate Shakespeare. They start working on problems of their own, seperate from the Recreate Shakespeare project. Or even if they remain loyal to the project's goals, the learning will guide them into local optima, when what we need them to do is continue to type randomly, all in parallel.
This is why I propose using simulated virtual monkeys, each in their own sandbox. The monkeys need to remain isolated and free of anything which might incentivize non-random typing. With simulated monkeys, we can do this!
(BTW, it would only be fair to point out that a competing research team claims they have found a faster and more efficient means of recreating the works of Shakespeare, using a key-reference system where using the title of the work, it is looked up in a memory bank and read out. This all sounds too complated to me, though, so I'm sticking with the simulated monkeys.)
Maybe it means that the system is written in Java instead of C#, Oracle and Microsoft salespeople aren't getting big license commissions, and the CTO isn't getting an enormous kickback.
Good thing we won't see the new inflation rate for a several more months, and pollution's latency has always been a classic.
Maybe this is good idea for a political platform: don't worry about conservative/liberal principles; just look for fast indicators that you can increase at the expense of slow ones. Right and left will become obsolete labels, and debates will be between short-termers and long-termers.
I think I see the problem here, and might know just what you need. Here at Cajun Hell Enterprises, we have developed a proprietary unit of measure which fits your case perfectly.
We call it "Dollar" (TM). Instead of counting arbitrary "units" and then defining various other sub-unit types as being equivalent to a fraction of a unit in proportion to their revenue, we just measure the revenue itself. We can them combine measurements of these dollars from various sources, into a total for the time period in question, using a special arithmetic operator developed just for this task.
If you think you already have Dollars, please contact our sales department.
The root problem is TANSTAAFL. Everyone (quite reasonably and understandably) wants more for less. But as a whole, or on average, they can't have it.
Realtime traffic databases offer a short-term advantage, where you can come out ahead . . . until enough people know about it, until those who bear the costs of the new traffic patterns react, etc. Like the traffic itself, lunch seeks an equilibrium, and it ain't free.
Perhaps the "filesystem of the ages" includes hardware migration every 5-10 years. Didn't make the committment to periodically review and possibly renew the hardware? Then according to the filesystem specs, you did not format the volume correctly.
By being in control of the code that "your" computer executes.
Could it be that "social media" causes extraverts to become more lonely, due to the communication being slower and more deliberate (and oftentimes terminated by "awkward silence" which never ends (dead threads)) compared to what they're used to in interactive f2f chat?
Sorry, man, I forgot that one. My memory just isn't what it used to be, for some reason.
There's some famous quote about CS having two hard problems: naming things, and cache-invalidation functions. This is an example of getting a cache-invalidation function wrong.
By formatting the card foolishly, the announcers used a bad cache value (they read quickly, saw a movie title and concluded that the movie title was the desired value) instead of doing the more expensive thing (saying "Oops, cache miss. We have the best actress card here but we need the best picture one"). Font and layout geeks are telling us that the cache could have been correctly invalidated, by using the things that (within their art) are obvious common sense. "This is easy to do right!" they are screaming.
Are you sure that you are not actually seeing this very problem in everything you ever work on? Might not a sufficiently-stoned person realize that this is the essense of every logic gate in the infinitely-dimensional fractal tree of reality? (And might he also say, that by being clear about what level of abstraction you're working at, you may also see how to correctly name things?)
People geek out on things. Yes, those people geek out on Oscars, which is silly. Silly to you, [here I use my Great! Acting! Talent! to make a sneer appear on my face before I dramatically recite the next word in my speech] nerd!
Create it, and then it will exist.
You damned fool!!
All you have to do, is work long, hard hours doing boring things for lots of money. Do this long enough, and then eventually you'll be able to retire. Then you'll finally have the time to spend on projects that interest you, with all that creative energy that old people are so well known for having.
But noooo, you're doomed such that when you turn 72, you won't be able to afford retirement. You'll have nothing, except memories of a life wasted on things you enjoy, instead of being spent on responsibly preparing for your future (assuming you win the cointoss of fate, which reaps about half the population before retirement age).
Look at mister fancy-pants formal development process here, where requirements eventually get written. Braggart!
Which libertarian did that? Was that the libertarian who took signed the order to take USA off the gold standard, or was it the libertarian who was called "The Imperial President" because of his assertion of limitless power, culminating in thinking he was truly above the law? Was it the libertarian who started the Drug War as we know it, or was it the libertarian who so sickened Americans that they literally formed a big-L Libertarian Party during his administration in order to try to Do Something about him and his kind?
The property of being placed within a shrine, such as when a thing is placed within a display (a shrine) at the National Archives.
Also, figuratively: almost all Americans know what the document says (basically, if not all the details of the grievances with the king) and its first sentence in particular is well-known as an explanation, from an American perspective, as to how (and why) people can legitimately form a new government. If an American ever writes another document with that document's purpose, it's highly likely they'll borrow some of the form of that one, and maybe even some verbatim phrases if the writer is smart. It is an excellent model, and this opinion (I think) is shared by a majority of Americans. Thus, figuratively enshrined. It has a special place in our hearts. Brainwashing .. or identity? I'll let others decide.
The document was intended to be illegal yet (not perversely!) legitimate document within British law. Talking about it within US law doesn't even make sense. It's part of the country, but not really part of the government; it might best help to think of it as the government's "mother" or something like that. You don't have to do what mom says, but you can't really deny her importance.
Detecting fallacies is fine, but castigation presumes a certain value judgement. Get out of my safe space with your obvious pro-truth bias!
Facebook is not your neighbor's house. I totally don't understand how anyone can see it as even faintly analogous to that. I'm serious. This is 2+2=5 territory to me.
It's natural to some of us. It's apparently not natural to some other people, which is why they broadcast their stuff to the Internet.
If you're fucking your wife in your bedroom, you expect privacy. If you're fucking her in the town square, while occasionally making eye contract with strangers and saying, "hey, check out what we're doing," then that suggests that you don't expect privacy.
I think the better rhetorical question is: why are some people so amazingly stupid, that they are incapable of telling the difference between these two scenarios? What is causing this stupidity? Is there anything we can do about it, and if there is, should we do it?
No, the problem is that some users don't know the difference between fucking in the town square (uploading to facebook) vs their bedrooms (sending encrypted email).
Your home-made PV panels manufactured by 3 people, aren't nearly as efficient as the factory-made ones that you can buy. The ones you buy had to be made by a lot of other people (far more than merely 3) but they are way better. Just make sure you don't compare your 3-person-manufactured panel's cost, with the factory-manufactured panel's energy output, or you'll accidentally misrepresent the tech's overall effectiveness.
You're right. The key is to "simply"(*) add them. The best analysis is going to comprehensively compare total man-seconds for solar to total man-seconds for coal (or nuclear, wind, etc).
(*) Some people might say that man-seconds sometimes don't compare to one another (e.g. skilled vs unskilled labor) but education itself contains many man-seconds of effort within it. This is getting to be a damn complicated spreadsheet...
Yes, that's what they're saying. This story is about how solar isn't competitive yet.
Ultimately, the cost of any commodity is derived from it having used up peoples' time. The more jobs something requires, the more expensive it will generally be. When solar can get its total jobs per kWh to below coal's, it will finally be winning. But apparently that's still a long way off.
Me too, except "blowing up" in the sense of suddenly having lots of new account signups. I imagine a desk at airports, with public computer everyone uses to sign up for accounts on these websites, in order to have a password to hand over.
"Uh, yeah, my account is throwaway12345@gmail.com. My password is 12345."
This isn't for purposes of finding evidence. It's for theater. Someone got the idea that American voters want visitors to be humiliated and insulted, and this is their idea for how to best do it.
How the idea of anal pattern photographs got shot down, I have no idea. Cowards!!
CEOs? How about everybody? Am I really the only person who "shops around" and tends to favor lower prices?
One of the reasons I'm pro-free-market, is that I like cheap, affordable stuff. I'm happy to buy local (and on average it ought to be cheaper, since transportation isn't free), but I'm not willing to sacrifice much for it. Any time you people try to force everyone to buy more expensive shit, you create create black markets, externalized costs, lower quality, etc.
(And perversely, people are willing to make a few sacrifices for black markets. Something about sticking it to The Man...)