This modeal does NOTHING for an unknown band. How do you complete the bridge to the future? You let the music industry do what it was supposed to do in the first place: scout and promote talent, book gigs, and front costs, for a small fee.
This whole "oligopoly with armies of lawyers demanding 90% royalties and suing old ladies" is not part of the record industry service model. Now that lots of bands will be leaving the established companies in droves, I expect to see many more smaller, artist-oriented companies springing up, who will do everything the old players did minus the litigation and ass-raping.
Call it the democratization of the service side of the music industry.
You're right, Wikipedia is not a very good example, for the reasons you mentioned. The data set is not a pure "crowd" in the sense that not all parties are participating equally. It's only used as an example because it's a popular site right now.
However, the most convincing example given in the book is Vegas odds. The odds are determined by people placing bets, based on both what the odds are at the moment and who they think will actually win. The statistics shown in the book clearly confirm that the Vegas odds are disturbingly correct. By the time the game or race starts, the odds have already determined, with startling accuracy, what the outcome will be. And all the data that went into making this decision came from equally participating people of diverse backgrounds, all making small, independent decisions about the outcome. The aggregate is smarter than the individual.
Of course, these types of ideal situations rarely happen in the real world. Elections are not a good example of crowd wisdom... the voters are not choosing who they think will win, they are choosing who they want to win. There's a big difference there, and means that the decision is not showing aggregate wisdom, it's showing aggregate desire (whether or not choosing one candidate over another is a "wise" choice is merely a game of semantics, since it's a matter of opinion).
The Wisdom of Crowds, like so many buzzwords today, is frequently taken out of context and used in situations where it really does not apply. But it is a fascinating study of practical statistics, and has some merit in the set of situations where it is appropriate. Wikipedia is a weak but popular example, and elections don't apply at all, but that doesn't mean we should discount the mathematical value altogether.
These people clearly have a very dim understanding of what copyright is and how it works. I'm not sure I'd want them representing me in a court case involving nuances of copyright if they don't even understand the fundamentals.
Copyright is about publishing, not viewing. Infringement is defined as someone other than the copyright holder publishing the copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. That's all. Restrictions on viewing can only come from not publishing. Once it's published, game over. The purchaser of the published copy has every right to view the contents. Incidentally, this is why the RIAA goes after only uploaders, not downloaders.
By placing their copyrighted work on a public webserver, they have effectively published it to the web, and by not placing it behind a registration or payment wall, they have also effectively offered it for sale to the public in published form for $0. They are essentially handing out free pamphlets on a street corner, which they then forbid you from reading. There are no protection schemes (i.e., DRM) in use, so the DMCA circumvention provision doesn't even apply (it wouldn't apply anyway to mere viewing, only to infringement, which means publishing).
However, were I to copy their source code wholesale and use it for my site (including the design and/or layout), then they have a legal leg to stand on, and can sue me for infringement. Until that happens, any court in the country would give them a hearty "fuck you" if they tried to sue someone on the grounds that the source code was read in a browser.
Also, I found this gem on their site:
"Thank goodness for John and his team. These big law firms just don't understand how to handle technology litigation. With their trial record, technology expertise, and legal and business perspective, they have been a godsend...."
-- Internet Content Company CEO. Apparently the little companies don't understand how to handle technology litigation, either. To call them shady would be an insult to used car dealers everywhere.
Just to play Devil's advocate here for a minute (funny, coming from an agnostic...) but you're venturing into some seriously interesting philosophical waters here.
You claim that experience of an event or object does not give conclusive proof of the event or object, and you cite mirages and computer generated creatures as examples. Just because my eyes are experiencing the water on the road does not mean it is actually there; I would need independent verification.
However, how will I obtain independent verification if not by experiencing it with my senses? If I'm wandering in the desert and see water, I can test that it's not there by walking up to it, and seeing that it's dry road. But I can also see a lake in the distance, and by walking up to it I will see that it *is* there. What is the difference between seeing it far away and seeing it close up that is different about the experience? In both cases, my eyes are giving me an experience (seeing the object) and that experience may or may not be true (I see both the mirage and the lake, but only one has actual water). This experience can also be recreated in the laboratory, with projection screens or VR goggles or whatever.
My point is that independent verification (through senses alone) is not enough to prove the validity of the experience. Our entire worldview is (or should be) constructed around making predictions about situations similar to observations we have made. Just because I have seen the ball be thrown in the air doesn't necessarily mean the ball *is* there, but I know from my many other observations that when the ball falls back down again and bonks me on the head, it will hurt. Therefore, the next time I see a similar situation of a ball being thrown in the air, I will make a prediction about the outcome (it will fall back down and bonk me in the head) and I will take an action based on that prediction (catch the ball). Since my predictions are consistent with my previous observations, I feel pretty confident that the ball will not fly off into space, and that I will be able to feel it in my hand when I catch it.
It is not just the observations that makes these things and experiences real, it is the sum total of observations and correct predictions of outcomes based on observations that makes things real. When I see the water ahead in the desert, I make a prediction (based on previous observations of lakes) that I will soon be enjoying a refreshing handful of cool, clear water. When I walk toward the mirage in my hopeful and frankly quite parched state, only to find no water, I see that my prediction of the outcome was incorrect (not to mention disappointing). I therefore conclude that my original observation was false, and that the image I saw was not water. It only looked similar to water. As a result, I update my internal observation database, and it helps me recognize mirages in the future. If I'm particularly scholarly, I may be curious about exactly what I *did* see, and look it up to find out that it was merely a reflection of the sky caused by the differing refractive indexes of various temperatures of air (which was discovered by other people making predictions and observations about the same phenomenon).
However, this scientific ideal of observation -> prediction -> verification doesn't actually occur that often, and certainly doesn't come naturally to people without giant piles of supporting evidence. Most people can easily employ selective observation, and choose to accept those observations that fit their own internal model and reject those that do not. Some of this selective observation is considered "good" (optimism, hope, "feel good" divinity), and some of it is "bad" (denial, addiction, intolerance). Religious folk will ignore the times when they prayed and nothing happened, and focus on the times when they prayed and something good happened. This creates a false observation -> prediction -> verification loop, because their verifications (the ones they remember, or pay attention to) are always
Is it too much to ask to have a date of publication listed at the start of the article? I thought this was old news the instant I read the first paragraph. The description of Homo floresiensis was first published in October 2004. (Yes, I realize that EW.com was referring to the Science article which was published last month, but they make it sound like Science broke the story.)
Except that a proper evoting system would solve the problems inherent in both the fully analog and fully digital worlds.
A fully analog system has problems such as:
Over/Under voting - two presidential candidates are marked. Vote is thrown out.
Unclear voting - the pencil mark falls between two circles. Which is it? Vote is thrown out.
Language barriers - it is expensive to print extra ballots in lots of different languages for every election
Disability barriers - providing provisions for various disabilities (blindness, muscle control, illiteracy, etc.) is very difficult with only paper and pencil.
A fully digital system has problems such as:
Unverifiable processes - methods of counting are hidden in software and hardware and are difficult to understand without expert knowledge
Single-point mass changes - one person working along can vastly affect the outcome of elections from one location
No auditability - once the votes are cleared, they're gone.
The ideal voting system would solve all of these problems by being a combination of digital and analog. I propose a system where the voter uses a computer to cast votes, but all counting is done by hand. These machines would be touch-screen with multi-language text and speech (via headphones) ability. The voter would use the machine to make their choices, and the machine would verify that no over, under, or unclear voting has taken place. Then the machine would display the voting choices on the screen for the voter to review. Once the voter has confirmed that the choices are correct, the machine prints out a ballot with the voter's choices clearly written out next to a machine-readable code, such as a bar code or a bubble system. The voter reviews the ballot one more time for accuracy, then drops it in the ballot box at the front of the room. If the ballot is incorrect, the voter can print another one, and the old one is immediately shredded by the proctor. The proctor will also ensure that only one ballot is dropped in the box (using the same sign-in system we have today).
The paper ballot is machine-readable, so the votes could be counted quickly, but the actual choices are printed in plain text so that audits and recounts have no ambiguity. The ballot itself is anonymous, but the counting is done right out in the open. This preserves the Private Vote, Public Count concept that is so very important to democracy. Tampering with the ballots being counted would require physical access to the paper ballots, and the replacement of hundreds, if not thousands, of them in many different locations. This would likely require the cooperation of many people and would be much more difficult to orchestrate than an attack on a digital device.
Why would we take a knee-jerk reaction to the problems of digital voting by reverting to a fully analog system with problems of its own? With a smart combination of the two, we can eliminate many of the problems of both.
Re:what about the DRM "feature"?
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 1
Some of us say "screw you" to both, buy physical CDs which conform to the RedBook Spec, and rip to FLAC. Free media for the win.
Apple is forgiven because they're trendy*. Everyone wants to fit in.
*Note: some people try to fit in with the anti-Mac crowd, but then you're lumped with all the nutjob Windows Fanboi 1337 Gam3r Noobz. And who wants that?
Yeah, but that assumes the page won't change in five years. Better to just do this:
0 0 1 1 * echo "Don't forget to update your numbers here: https://www.donotcall.gov/Register/Reg.aspx - Yourself" > tmp && mail -s "Renew your Do-Not-Call registry!" <your-email> < tmp
For people who only follow 2-3 shows (total of 15 episodes a month-ish) this is still affordable, for many others it becomes prohibitively expensive. And bookstores everywhere cheer!
I also want an a la carte newspaper. I don't care about the sport section so stop charging me for it. Why is this so hard to understand? The newspaper is not a government-granted monopoly. If someone else wanted to start selling a different newspaper with a la carte sections, they can. No one is stopping them, and if there was a market for it, someone would.
However, there are laws preventing other companies from offering cable in a certain geographic location. The cable companies are government-sponsored monopolies, and therefore do not have the same freedoms to sell whatever the hell they want however the hell they want it that a company in a free competitive market does. Bundling in competitive markets is not bad. Forced monopolistic bundling is bad.
If I and everyone only send money to the channels that we actually watch, then the channels themselves become part of a competitive market. The products with smaller markets are more expensive, the popular ones are cheap, and the ones that literally no one watches die out because they can't compete in the market. In this model, it's not just the advertisers who are the customers anymore; it's also the viewers.
So you dig through.dll files and rename them to create a dirty hack to disable flash (and of course restart your browser every time you want to see the flash, and restart it again when you're done), instead of just installing one elegant extension with one-click flash viewing and whitelisting capabilities?
I just viewed the WIRED article, and it shows a computer rendering of a 787 Dreamliner with the Aeroflot livery. Perhaps they realized their mistake and changed it.
BS - the FAA does not examine the plane and "decide" if it is airworthy. Well, they do, but not only while the plane is sitting on the tarmac, fully built. Certification happens all through the design process.
The FAA has a number of Airworthiness Representatives (ARs) who work for Boeing and report directly to the FAA. Each of the ARs has a different area of specialization, and is in charge of signing off on the designs the engineers release to make sure they conform directly to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). They also witness tests to ensure they are conducted properly, and work with the engineers to make good design decisions and ensure a safe aircraft.
These ARs report directly to the FAA (not Boeing), and they take their jobs very seriously. Their signature is right there on a piece of paper that says "safe to fly", and if there is a failure, their careers are essentially over. An engineer can only become an AR after completing an FAA training period and getting licensed by the FAA.
Once the plane has been built, the FAA collects all the signatures from all the ARs and all the completed test data that has been signed acceptable by the ARs, and when everyone involved is satisfied that the airplane was built in conformance with the FARs, the FAA "tickets" the plane, and certifies it for flight. (Some of those tests are conducted in isolation, like flammability tests of materials or electromagnetic interference tests; others are conducted after rollout, such as your brake test example, or avionics tests).
As a result of this rigorous signoff process, absolutely every single nut, bolt, and part on the airplane satisfies the FARs. Modification and repair shops have similar methods of ensuring compliance with the regulations.
In the case of the 787, the ARs would be signing off against Part 25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, which governs large commercial passenger aircraft.
The 787 has not yet had wing tests conducted. The "touch over the cabin" part of your statement comes from the fact that many of the engineers at Boeing believe that to be possible; carbon fiber is so much more flexible than aluminum that it is, in theory, possible to bend the wings up over the fuselage until the two wingtips touch. Boeing will not perform the stress test to that extreme, however. Boeing will test the wings to the design maximum and then stop. They will not test to failure.
The reason for this is twofold: first, it doesn't matter after the design max. If the plane actually experienced design max stresses in flight, several other components (like the fuselage, or the vertical stabilizer) would fail first, so as long as the wing reaches that maximum without a problem, there's no need to test further. It doesn't matter how strong your wings are if your fuselage snaps in half first. Second, carbon fiber does not have a plastic strain region; it's all elastic strain before failure. That means that it will just continue to bend farther and farther without damage to the wing right up until failure (contrast with metal... when you bend far enough, it doesn't return to it's original shape anymore, but it has not yet failed). But, when it does finally fail, it doesn't snap, it shatters. That means clouds of hazardous carbon fiber dust and shards would be sent flying around in the factory. Not good.
The video on YouTube is of the 777 wing stress test conducted in the 90s. It was designed to reach 150% of max in-flight loading before snapping. It actually snapped at 154% (which is impressive... if it breaks too far beyond the design limit, it means you made it too heavy).
On the other hand, the sheer number of people these things will carry means the first such crash will be the most fatal - not counting people in buildings crashed into - ever. You are confusing the Boeing 787 with the Airbus A380.
Boeing is not developing the 787 to compete with the A380. It is a smaller plane with a long, long range. Airbus bet that the industry wanted to focus more on hub-to-hub travel, and developed a plane that carries a whole lot of people from one major airport to another. Boeing took the opposite track, and bet that the industry wanted to focus more on point-to-point travel. This led them to develop a small plane with a long range that can go from minor airport to minor airport without a stop at a hub in between.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole "oligopoly with armies of lawyers demanding 90% royalties and suing old ladies" is not part of the record industry service model. Now that lots of bands will be leaving the established companies in droves, I expect to see many more smaller, artist-oriented companies springing up, who will do everything the old players did minus the litigation and ass-raping.
Call it the democratization of the service side of the music industry.
You need to read the book.
You're right, Wikipedia is not a very good example, for the reasons you mentioned. The data set is not a pure "crowd" in the sense that not all parties are participating equally. It's only used as an example because it's a popular site right now.
However, the most convincing example given in the book is Vegas odds. The odds are determined by people placing bets, based on both what the odds are at the moment and who they think will actually win. The statistics shown in the book clearly confirm that the Vegas odds are disturbingly correct. By the time the game or race starts, the odds have already determined, with startling accuracy, what the outcome will be. And all the data that went into making this decision came from equally participating people of diverse backgrounds, all making small, independent decisions about the outcome. The aggregate is smarter than the individual.
Of course, these types of ideal situations rarely happen in the real world. Elections are not a good example of crowd wisdom... the voters are not choosing who they think will win, they are choosing who they want to win. There's a big difference there, and means that the decision is not showing aggregate wisdom, it's showing aggregate desire (whether or not choosing one candidate over another is a "wise" choice is merely a game of semantics, since it's a matter of opinion).
The Wisdom of Crowds, like so many buzzwords today, is frequently taken out of context and used in situations where it really does not apply. But it is a fascinating study of practical statistics, and has some merit in the set of situations where it is appropriate. Wikipedia is a weak but popular example, and elections don't apply at all, but that doesn't mean we should discount the mathematical value altogether.
Compressing a bitmap that much is easy.
It's decompressing that's the problem.
Don't point them to the OpenOffice website; that's rude. Just point them to Sun's ODF Plugin for MS Office.
Personally, I don't care what they hell lame-ass word processor they're using, as long as the documents they save in are in an open format.
That's because your analogy didn't include a car.
Copyright is about publishing, not viewing. Infringement is defined as someone other than the copyright holder publishing the copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. That's all. Restrictions on viewing can only come from not publishing. Once it's published, game over. The purchaser of the published copy has every right to view the contents. Incidentally, this is why the RIAA goes after only uploaders, not downloaders.
By placing their copyrighted work on a public webserver, they have effectively published it to the web, and by not placing it behind a registration or payment wall, they have also effectively offered it for sale to the public in published form for $0. They are essentially handing out free pamphlets on a street corner, which they then forbid you from reading. There are no protection schemes (i.e., DRM) in use, so the DMCA circumvention provision doesn't even apply (it wouldn't apply anyway to mere viewing, only to infringement, which means publishing).
However, were I to copy their source code wholesale and use it for my site (including the design and/or layout), then they have a legal leg to stand on, and can sue me for infringement. Until that happens, any court in the country would give them a hearty "fuck you" if they tried to sue someone on the grounds that the source code was read in a browser.
Also, I found this gem on their site: "Thank goodness for John and his team. These big law firms just don't understand how to handle technology litigation. With their trial record, technology expertise, and legal and business perspective, they have been a godsend...."
-- Internet Content Company CEO. Apparently the little companies don't understand how to handle technology litigation, either. To call them shady would be an insult to used car dealers everywhere.
Youtube posting of modified iPod commercial showing dancers on fire in 3... 2... 1...
Just to play Devil's advocate here for a minute (funny, coming from an agnostic...) but you're venturing into some seriously interesting philosophical waters here.
You claim that experience of an event or object does not give conclusive proof of the event or object, and you cite mirages and computer generated creatures as examples. Just because my eyes are experiencing the water on the road does not mean it is actually there; I would need independent verification.
However, how will I obtain independent verification if not by experiencing it with my senses? If I'm wandering in the desert and see water, I can test that it's not there by walking up to it, and seeing that it's dry road. But I can also see a lake in the distance, and by walking up to it I will see that it *is* there. What is the difference between seeing it far away and seeing it close up that is different about the experience? In both cases, my eyes are giving me an experience (seeing the object) and that experience may or may not be true (I see both the mirage and the lake, but only one has actual water). This experience can also be recreated in the laboratory, with projection screens or VR goggles or whatever.
My point is that independent verification (through senses alone) is not enough to prove the validity of the experience. Our entire worldview is (or should be) constructed around making predictions about situations similar to observations we have made. Just because I have seen the ball be thrown in the air doesn't necessarily mean the ball *is* there, but I know from my many other observations that when the ball falls back down again and bonks me on the head, it will hurt. Therefore, the next time I see a similar situation of a ball being thrown in the air, I will make a prediction about the outcome (it will fall back down and bonk me in the head) and I will take an action based on that prediction (catch the ball). Since my predictions are consistent with my previous observations, I feel pretty confident that the ball will not fly off into space, and that I will be able to feel it in my hand when I catch it.
It is not just the observations that makes these things and experiences real, it is the sum total of observations and correct predictions of outcomes based on observations that makes things real. When I see the water ahead in the desert, I make a prediction (based on previous observations of lakes) that I will soon be enjoying a refreshing handful of cool, clear water. When I walk toward the mirage in my hopeful and frankly quite parched state, only to find no water, I see that my prediction of the outcome was incorrect (not to mention disappointing). I therefore conclude that my original observation was false, and that the image I saw was not water. It only looked similar to water. As a result, I update my internal observation database, and it helps me recognize mirages in the future. If I'm particularly scholarly, I may be curious about exactly what I *did* see, and look it up to find out that it was merely a reflection of the sky caused by the differing refractive indexes of various temperatures of air (which was discovered by other people making predictions and observations about the same phenomenon).
However, this scientific ideal of observation -> prediction -> verification doesn't actually occur that often, and certainly doesn't come naturally to people without giant piles of supporting evidence. Most people can easily employ selective observation, and choose to accept those observations that fit their own internal model and reject those that do not. Some of this selective observation is considered "good" (optimism, hope, "feel good" divinity), and some of it is "bad" (denial, addiction, intolerance). Religious folk will ignore the times when they prayed and nothing happened, and focus on the times when they prayed and something good happened. This creates a false observation -> prediction -> verification loop, because their verifications (the ones they remember, or pay attention to) are always
First Rule of Internet Security:
People will install anything if it promises naked pictures.
Is it too much to ask to have a date of publication listed at the start of the article? I thought this was old news the instant I read the first paragraph. The description of Homo floresiensis was first published in October 2004. (Yes, I realize that EW.com was referring to the Science article which was published last month, but they make it sound like Science broke the story.)
The EW.com article was published October 4, 2007.
Oh, yes. Only good. No one would ever corrupt humanitarian programs.
A fully analog system has problems such as:
A fully digital system has problems such as:
The ideal voting system would solve all of these problems by being a combination of digital and analog. I propose a system where the voter uses a computer to cast votes, but all counting is done by hand. These machines would be touch-screen with multi-language text and speech (via headphones) ability. The voter would use the machine to make their choices, and the machine would verify that no over, under, or unclear voting has taken place. Then the machine would display the voting choices on the screen for the voter to review. Once the voter has confirmed that the choices are correct, the machine prints out a ballot with the voter's choices clearly written out next to a machine-readable code, such as a bar code or a bubble system. The voter reviews the ballot one more time for accuracy, then drops it in the ballot box at the front of the room. If the ballot is incorrect, the voter can print another one, and the old one is immediately shredded by the proctor. The proctor will also ensure that only one ballot is dropped in the box (using the same sign-in system we have today).
The paper ballot is machine-readable, so the votes could be counted quickly, but the actual choices are printed in plain text so that audits and recounts have no ambiguity. The ballot itself is anonymous, but the counting is done right out in the open. This preserves the Private Vote, Public Count concept that is so very important to democracy. Tampering with the ballots being counted would require physical access to the paper ballots, and the replacement of hundreds, if not thousands, of them in many different locations. This would likely require the cooperation of many people and would be much more difficult to orchestrate than an attack on a digital device.
Why would we take a knee-jerk reaction to the problems of digital voting by reverting to a fully analog system with problems of its own? With a smart combination of the two, we can eliminate many of the problems of both.
Some of us say "screw you" to both, buy physical CDs which conform to the RedBook Spec, and rip to FLAC. Free media for the win.
Apple is forgiven because they're trendy*. Everyone wants to fit in.
*Note: some people try to fit in with the anti-Mac crowd, but then you're lumped with all the nutjob Windows Fanboi 1337 Gam3r Noobz. And who wants that?
..."Golden" Wine... Chardonnay?http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/08/15/1933254.shtml
However, there are laws preventing other companies from offering cable in a certain geographic location. The cable companies are government-sponsored monopolies, and therefore do not have the same freedoms to sell whatever the hell they want however the hell they want it that a company in a free competitive market does. Bundling in competitive markets is not bad. Forced monopolistic bundling is bad.
See the difference?
Smarter Person:
If I and everyone only send money to the channels that we actually watch, then the channels themselves become part of a competitive market. The products with smaller markets are more expensive, the popular ones are cheap, and the ones that literally no one watches die out because they can't compete in the market. In this model, it's not just the advertisers who are the customers anymore; it's also the viewers.
So you dig through .dll files and rename them to create a dirty hack to disable flash (and of course restart your browser every time you want to see the flash, and restart it again when you're done), instead of just installing one elegant extension with one-click flash viewing and whitelisting capabilities?
Sheesh.
I just viewed the WIRED article, and it shows a computer rendering of a 787 Dreamliner with the Aeroflot livery. Perhaps they realized their mistake and changed it.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/images/2007/09/20/aeroflot.jpg
The FAA has a number of Airworthiness Representatives (ARs) who work for Boeing and report directly to the FAA. Each of the ARs has a different area of specialization, and is in charge of signing off on the designs the engineers release to make sure they conform directly to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). They also witness tests to ensure they are conducted properly, and work with the engineers to make good design decisions and ensure a safe aircraft.
These ARs report directly to the FAA (not Boeing), and they take their jobs very seriously. Their signature is right there on a piece of paper that says "safe to fly", and if there is a failure, their careers are essentially over. An engineer can only become an AR after completing an FAA training period and getting licensed by the FAA.
Once the plane has been built, the FAA collects all the signatures from all the ARs and all the completed test data that has been signed acceptable by the ARs, and when everyone involved is satisfied that the airplane was built in conformance with the FARs, the FAA "tickets" the plane, and certifies it for flight. (Some of those tests are conducted in isolation, like flammability tests of materials or electromagnetic interference tests; others are conducted after rollout, such as your brake test example, or avionics tests).
As a result of this rigorous signoff process, absolutely every single nut, bolt, and part on the airplane satisfies the FARs. Modification and repair shops have similar methods of ensuring compliance with the regulations.
In the case of the 787, the ARs would be signing off against Part 25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, which governs large commercial passenger aircraft.
IAABE, but I don't work on the 787 program.
You have several things confused.
... if it breaks too far beyond the design limit, it means you made it too heavy).
The 787 has not yet had wing tests conducted. The "touch over the cabin" part of your statement comes from the fact that many of the engineers at Boeing believe that to be possible; carbon fiber is so much more flexible than aluminum that it is, in theory, possible to bend the wings up over the fuselage until the two wingtips touch. Boeing will not perform the stress test to that extreme, however. Boeing will test the wings to the design maximum and then stop. They will not test to failure.
The reason for this is twofold: first, it doesn't matter after the design max. If the plane actually experienced design max stresses in flight, several other components (like the fuselage, or the vertical stabilizer) would fail first, so as long as the wing reaches that maximum without a problem, there's no need to test further. It doesn't matter how strong your wings are if your fuselage snaps in half first. Second, carbon fiber does not have a plastic strain region; it's all elastic strain before failure. That means that it will just continue to bend farther and farther without damage to the wing right up until failure (contrast with metal... when you bend far enough, it doesn't return to it's original shape anymore, but it has not yet failed). But, when it does finally fail, it doesn't snap, it shatters. That means clouds of hazardous carbon fiber dust and shards would be sent flying around in the factory. Not good.
The video on YouTube is of the 777 wing stress test conducted in the 90s. It was designed to reach 150% of max in-flight loading before snapping. It actually snapped at 154% (which is impressive
IAABE, but I don't work on the 787.
A380: 525 seats. Two levels. Frikkin' huge.
B787: 210-330 seats, depending on dash number. 767 replacement.
Boeing is not developing the 787 to compete with the A380. It is a smaller plane with a long, long range. Airbus bet that the industry wanted to focus more on hub-to-hub travel, and developed a plane that carries a whole lot of people from one major airport to another. Boeing took the opposite track, and bet that the industry wanted to focus more on point-to-point travel. This led them to develop a small plane with a long range that can go from minor airport to minor airport without a stop at a hub in between.