"...You are grossly overestimating the appeal of video games..."
I think you're wrong. The way I see it, it's more a matter of variety. Most video games are the same. FPS, empire, and a few others. The rules change subtly, but they act about the same.
Music, OTOH, has an incredable variety outside of the mainstream radio world. Even in a given genre, artists can have a completely different sound. Then there are the artists that don't fall into any genre except the catch-all "alternative-electronica-whatever."
So, it only takes a few games to give me a good sampling of the industry - civIII, OFP, solitaire, and a MUD. But even if I spent my entire day listening to music - Radiohead, Cabaret Voltaire, Pearl Jam, Beethoven, Mozart, F/C kahuna, whatever - I wouldn't scratch the surface....So I think you're a bit off.
That's why it's the DoD way for me: scramble the data with many passes accross the media with a stong magnet, followed by hammer strikes until it's in small pieces.
You may find this lowers its value slightly in the "Computers & Office Products" category, while raising it dramatically in the "Art - Sculpture, Carvings" category (as glue as needed).
"The reason teachers and engineers make so little money is because there are so many of them that can do equivalent jobs."
I think that's the biggest myth (I wanted to say "load of crap", but...) floating around these days. Teachers are *far* from interchangable, as are engineers and scientists. Here on slashdot, many readers will note that a bad programmer/engineer will not only not add to production, but cut it.
Likewise, a bad teacher can cause serious harm to the educational advancement of students. Annecdotally, we've al had a teacher is (insert subject) that put us off of it. Ironically, mine was in physics...
But in the end, I don't disagree that athletes make as much money as they do because people will pay to see them.
Yeah, but the laws of thermodynamics demand that you'll alway lose energy in the transfer... Something like 10% of the energy that goes into a criter ends up as usable tissue energy... So once again, Where are they getting the energy to create the food?
I try to tell myself that the battery plot line was just the humans' best guess - not necessarily the truth(tm). Just like Agent Smith's theory that humans are actually viruses... born out of hatred for the enemy, not an actual attatchment to the truth.
But then, knowing a few screen writers, I'm not suprised that the physics of it is screwy. I don't think many writers know the laws of thermodynamics...
The ad was small and un obtrusive. The one I clicked on actually advertised an *obvious product* (I think it was a mug or a tie). Just about every other add I've seen in my 8 years on the internet has been utter crap. If you're selling somthing, come out and say it. If I want it, I'll buy it. Otherwise fsck off!
You're right, though. Even if I saw the Coolest Thing in the World(tm) in a popup ad I would never buy it because it violates my sense of control over my environment (ie. computer).
When I worked at a small (not defunct) ISP, we had a similar story. Back in 1996(?) when the west coast had a major power outage; we were part of it. We had users calling up saying "I can't dial into the internet anymore." The tech would then ask "well, can you turn on your lights? There's been a power outage. It's affecting the whole west coast." To which a number of customers would then ask "really? When's it going to be over?"
But then everything about that company fits into this topic. When the admin had to take down the servers experienced the futility of having servers on UPS's without monitors ("Well, it should be down my now").
If they had no benefit and only harm, they'd remove themselves from the pool eventually.
Interesting thing. If a gene is all bad, but doesn't kill you until a bit after the typical breeding age, I imaging it has a good chance of staying in the population (at least until modern times). Think about a ficticious gene that causes males with it to die around age 30 with a high probability. Until *very* recently (20th century), most of the fatherly duties would be over by then and the offspring would survive (until the gene kills them).
As for females, I'm sure a longer lived mother would be a better competator than a shorter lived one. But even then, as long as the genes was less likely to kill the female than child birth and other factors it could continue to exist in the pool.
Even so, as long as the prob that you die from your genes can be reduced by environmental factors, all bad genes can still exist in a population as long as they tend to be linked to worth while genes.
In responce to a previous post about red hair becoming extinct, it probably won't go away (and the genes linked to it) due to preferential breeding status. Considering that red hair is twice as likely to show up in playboy then in the wild population, I don't think the red heads will be extinct.
They can go after you using the local laws, or after your upstream provider in the US--or they can just buy you out.
IANAL, but I believe that the US courts tend to think that if you live in the US or make your 'product' available to US citizens then you come under their power. So if you live here (US), like me, you'd still have to go underground to broadcast.
I'm all for the unsigned stuff, though.. I think it's about time we hear some music that isn't on the air due to payola.
...to imply that...webcasters should pay absolutly nothing is just wrong.
I think you've missed it. Just because the costs of web casting may be smaller does not imply that IP owners are entitled to more money. That runs counter to the philosophy of copyright in America (although IANAL). Royalties should not be robbery only limited by the broadcaster's pocket book.
What happens when factories are no longer necessary to provide complex goods?...when the full set of artificial organs are available?...when anyone can afford the boost into orbit?...when computers stop sucking and start working?
Well, if the powers-that-be in 20 years are anything like they are now; they'll probably have laws passed to make it illegal to use these new technologies (at least without paying them each time you uses your personal make-omatic =)
I'm a mathematician who just wrestled his BS from the UC regents who has also been programming for the last 7 years; and I agree that it's a shame that discrete math isn't taught to pre college students. It really is a wonderful foundation to the structured proofs in much higher math in (what I think is) a friendly form as well as the foundation of programming.
I find it's also true that there isn't much math involved in general programming; be it abstract algebra, topology, or analysis. Crap, even linear algebra doesn't come up explicitly that often unless you're writing a numeric package (or graphics, or interpolation, or sim.).
I say this with a tear in my eye b/c I'm in the middle of hunting for a more rewarding way to spend my math knowledge (not a lot of open spaces in crypto or AI programs). Grad school is the only option (if I can get in).
The one thing I do think higher math helps with is understanding the structure of problems. Math really is the science of patterns. It may take a long time to understand what topic in higher math applies, but I guarantee that there is an area of math that fits your problem.
Re:I'll support anything that gets rid of Billy Ba
on
Fritz's Hit List
·
· Score: 2
(begin quote)
Your land line telephone isn't digital... (end quote)
True, but if you have a digital cell phone, then you have a digital circuit to send music over (eg. Sprint) and therefore, would be regulated.
That would more or less take care of American spam...
But unfortunately, it would have little effect on the spam you get in America. As you noted, most spam is sent through open relays. From my experience, most of these are found in Asia. Why not America? Heh. I don't know. So, even if the spammers are in America, one spoofed IP address and an Asia helper and they're free...
I fail to see how the problem of spam could be much worse...
Funny you should mention that. I just got a bounced email with my address on it. It was sent from South Korea, OXLED.COM going through HANANET to be exact. I can easily imagine the same happening from China with kiddyporn, copyright violation offers, or general fraud.
The way the US legislature has been writing laws, it's also easy to imagine a bill being passed that would land me in jail until I prove my innocence or the SC shoots it down eight to ten years later.
So, while I think spam is bad, I don't think the US Congress is capable of making a law that wouldn't screw over the innocent while restricting the guilty.
...if I'm that ONE person who downloaded that ONE song, and as a result went out an purchased the CD...
Ironically, if you DID go out and buy that CD, you'd be allowed to have the copies on your 'puter:) I wonder how much "theft" there is if you remove the people how currently own copies of the mp3's on their drives.
It's up to the copyright holder to decide if they want to use this oh-so-l33t new promotion method.
You're assuming that the current copyright laws are fair and just. Bribery and rigged electoral and legislative processes are largely not recognized as ligitimate government. So, although every other judge in America(tm) may agree with you, that doesn't invalidate the right of the people to rebel against laws that were not passed in their best interest.
Indeed, many people think copyright law has gone way too far in the US. The fight has moved into the courts. Whether you believe the law should follow the Framers' intent or the good of today's society, copyright law as it stands now is working far beyond the pale.
Actually, depending on what "manner..the Attorney General shall specify," it may still be unequal protection.
As for whether or not DoS attacks should be illegal, that is a philosophical point. On one hand, the internet is global, so many (of us/.ers) think it shouldn't be policed by local governments. But on the other hand, you can be arrested for blocking traffic or sidewalks...
-RB
Title 17, Chapter 10, Subchapter D, Section 1008
on
The Culture of CD Burning
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings
I haven't seen anything recently that comes near this in terms of killing innovation.
That's an interesting point. The one thing I keep thinking of, while I code away at a lab notebook for the TB consortium, is how this would kill off non-commercial software projects because the technology's cost is "not cost prohibitive," instead of free. I realize that this would end upgrades to the beowulf cluster upstairs that protein folding, protein interaction, sequence alignment, etc. is being done on. This may end the lab notebook because it runs on software that could "reproduce copyright material." This may end most of the low cost Bioinformatics software projects around the country.
Although it's probably possible to make the standards work with the technology in use, I doubt that the industry leaders involved will let that heppen.
Bioinfomatics has nothing to do with Hollywood, the record industry, or Napsterization; but it will get killed so that the Dizzy corp can make another million on taking peoples' rights away.
This is especially bad considering the affidavit of JOHN V. TUNNEY that was submitted concerning Congress' intentions regarting said Act.
I especially like:
"It is clear that Congress intended that there show be full disclosure of all communications by a defendant or on behalf defendant with any officer or employee of the United States, except for communications made by counsel of record alone with the Attorney General or the employees of the Department of Justice."
And the grand finally:
"The language of the Act was clearly drawn and was intended to be inclusive and not exclusive. In my opinion, the filing of "Written or Oral Communications" by Microsoft Corporation, referred to in paragraph, 5, above, is inadequate to satisfy the clear language and intent of the Tunney Act"
I like "That very special connection between the fan and the artist is an historically important partnership, one which enriches [me and my associates]..." Last I checked, he wasn't an artist:)
Re:The problem behind the problem
on
Biohackathon
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ultimately, the question is whether it is more efficient to teach a computer science student biology or teach programming to a biology student.
As a student persuing Bioinformatics at UCLA, I must agree with a previous reply saying that your statement is a bit too narrow. However, I'll go so far as to say that we need to do both at the same time. I believe it was either Dr. Fox or Dr Eisenberg who said that no one can know every part of the problem at the same time. One *MAJOR* problem I've run into is that Biologist don't state many of their assumptions about a biological system when speaking to a non-biologist; while mathematicians and CS people don't know enough about biology to understand that any solution to a bioinformatics problem needs to have "biological relevance." From what I can see, this means it needs to conform to all the unspoken presuppositions that biologists and biochemist take for granted. This is not insignificant.
As my boss Parag Mallick pointed out, either we (math/CS people) come up with a solution that's formally correct but takes longer than the biologist's hacks that aproximate the system; or we find the solution to a problem that no one cares about.
Another major barrier is the vocabulary. There's a reason that mathematicians and chemists are often at eachothers' throats. The math they use is the same, but the vocabulary and notations are very different, so it's like working in a foreign language. Take this to the nth degree when you're a mathematician listening to a biologist give a presentation. The breadth of knowledge is huge, even though the depth to any one part of biology can be rather shallow (relative).
By comparison, it's brutal to watch the biologist tack a probability/statistics class. Don't even bother with a topology/measure theory class. The breadth of knowledge isn't that big, but the depth of the theorems is massive. I've noticed that this leads to a "if it doesn't look like a tool I already know, then I'm not going to use it" attitude among many biologists. After remembering my boughts with algebraic topology, combinatorics, and advanced linear algebra (and listening to myself when I try and explain my Newest Idea(tm)), I can't blame them.
So we need education in both directions. The problem is way too big to be tackled by any one mindset.
My father was an accountant for 20Th Century Fox for about 30years. He once told me that a movie's "costs" included a long list of kick backs to just about every body who worked on a film, or handled the business of distribution. So people are pocketing vast sums of dough before the movie officially "broke even." The idea that only 1 in 10 movies makes money is rediculous.
I found a brief mention of it here in the Differential Cryptanalysis section. Also, in "Applied Cryptography, 2nd ed." (Schneier) on page 290, it quote IBM's Don Coppersmith as saying:
The design took advantage of certain cryptanalytic techniques, most prominently the technique of "differential cryptanalysis," which were not known in the published literature. After discussions with NSA, it was decided that disclosure of the design consideration would reveal the technique of differential cryptanalysis, a powerful technique that can be used against many ciphers. This in turn would weaken the competitive advantage the United States enjoyed over other countries in the field of cryptography.
I've heard about it in other places, but I can't remember where at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
"...You are grossly overestimating the appeal of video games..."
...So I think you're a bit off.
I think you're wrong. The way I see it, it's more a matter of variety. Most video games are the same. FPS, empire, and a few others. The rules change subtly, but they act about the same.
Music, OTOH, has an incredable variety outside of the mainstream radio world. Even in a given genre, artists can have a completely different sound. Then there are the artists that don't fall into any genre except the catch-all "alternative-electronica-whatever."
So, it only takes a few games to give me a good sampling of the industry - civIII, OFP, solitaire, and a MUD. But even if I spent my entire day listening to music - Radiohead, Cabaret Voltaire, Pearl Jam, Beethoven, Mozart, F/C kahuna, whatever - I wouldn't scratch the surface.
"Even broken hard drives can be recovered..."
That's why it's the DoD way for me: scramble the data with many passes accross the media with a stong magnet, followed by hammer strikes until it's in small pieces.
You may find this lowers its value slightly in the "Computers & Office Products" category, while raising it dramatically in the "Art - Sculpture, Carvings" category (as glue as needed).
-RB
"The reason teachers and engineers make so little money is because there are so many of them that can do equivalent jobs."
I think that's the biggest myth (I wanted to say "load of crap", but...) floating around these days. Teachers are *far* from interchangable, as are engineers and scientists. Here on slashdot, many readers will note that a bad programmer/engineer will not only not add to production, but cut it.
Likewise, a bad teacher can cause serious harm to the educational advancement of students. Annecdotally, we've al had a teacher is (insert subject) that put us off of it. Ironically, mine was in physics...
But in the end, I don't disagree that athletes make as much money as they do because people will pay to see them.
-RB
"The food source was liquified humans, IIRC."
Yeah, but the laws of thermodynamics demand that you'll alway lose energy in the transfer... Something like 10% of the energy that goes into a criter ends up as usable tissue energy... So once again, Where are they getting the energy to create the food?
I try to tell myself that the battery plot line was just the humans' best guess - not necessarily the truth(tm). Just like Agent Smith's theory that humans are actually viruses... born out of hatred for the enemy, not an actual attatchment to the truth.
But then, knowing a few screen writers, I'm not suprised that the physics of it is screwy. I don't think many writers know the laws of thermodynamics...
-RB
...a banner ad:
thinkgeek.com
The ad was small and un obtrusive. The one I clicked on actually advertised an *obvious product* (I think it was a mug or a tie). Just about every other add I've seen in my 8 years on the internet has been utter crap. If you're selling somthing, come out and say it. If I want it, I'll buy it. Otherwise fsck off!
You're right, though. Even if I saw the Coolest Thing in the World(tm) in a popup ad I would never buy it because it violates my sense of control over my environment (ie. computer).
When I worked at a small (not defunct) ISP, we had a similar story. Back in 1996(?) when the west coast had a major power outage; we were part of it. We had users calling up saying "I can't dial into the internet anymore." The tech would then ask "well, can you turn on your lights? There's been a power outage. It's affecting the whole west coast." To which a number of customers would then ask "really? When's it going to be over?"
But then everything about that company fits into this topic. When the admin had to take down the servers experienced the futility of having servers on UPS's without monitors ("Well, it should be down my now").
Good admins, bad management. A plan for disaster.
If they had no benefit and only harm, they'd remove themselves from the pool eventually.
Interesting thing. If a gene is all bad, but doesn't kill you until a bit after the typical breeding age, I imaging it has a good chance of staying in the population (at least until modern times). Think about a ficticious gene that causes males with it to die around age 30 with a high probability. Until *very* recently (20th century), most of the fatherly duties would be over by then and the offspring would survive (until the gene kills them).
As for females, I'm sure a longer lived mother would be a better competator than a shorter lived one. But even then, as long as the genes was less likely to kill the female than child birth and other factors it could continue to exist in the pool.
Even so, as long as the prob that you die from your genes can be reduced by environmental factors, all bad genes can still exist in a population as long as they tend to be linked to worth while genes.
In responce to a previous post about red hair becoming extinct, it probably won't go away (and the genes linked to it) due to preferential breeding status. Considering that red hair is twice as likely to show up in playboy then in the wild population, I don't think the red heads will be extinct.
Just my $.02
They can go after you using the local laws, or after your upstream provider in the US--or they can just buy you out.
IANAL, but I believe that the US courts tend to think that if you live in the US or make your 'product' available to US citizens then you come under their power. So if you live here (US), like me, you'd still have to go underground to broadcast.
I'm all for the unsigned stuff, though.. I think it's about time we hear some music that isn't on the air due to payola.
I think you've missed it. Just because the costs of web casting may be smaller does not imply that IP owners are entitled to more money. That runs counter to the philosophy of copyright in America (although IANAL). Royalties should not be robbery only limited by the broadcaster's pocket book.
Well, if the powers-that-be in 20 years are anything like they are now; they'll probably have laws passed to make it illegal to use these new technologies (at least without paying them each time you uses your personal make-omatic =)
I'm a mathematician who just wrestled his BS from the UC regents who has also been programming for the last 7 years; and I agree that it's a shame that discrete math isn't taught to pre college students. It really is a wonderful foundation to the structured proofs in much higher math in (what I think is) a friendly form as well as the foundation of programming.
I find it's also true that there isn't much math involved in general programming; be it abstract algebra, topology, or analysis. Crap, even linear algebra doesn't come up explicitly that often unless you're writing a numeric package (or graphics, or interpolation, or sim.).
I say this with a tear in my eye b/c I'm in the middle of hunting for a more rewarding way to spend my math knowledge (not a lot of open spaces in crypto or AI programs). Grad school is the only option (if I can get in).
The one thing I do think higher math helps with is understanding the structure of problems. Math really is the science of patterns. It may take a long time to understand what topic in higher math applies, but I guarantee that there is an area of math that fits your problem.
(begin quote)
Your land line telephone isn't digital...
(end quote)
True, but if you have a digital cell phone, then you have a digital circuit to send music over (eg. Sprint) and therefore, would be regulated.
-RB
But unfortunately, it would have little effect on the spam you get in America. As you noted, most spam is sent through open relays. From my experience, most of these are found in Asia. Why not America? Heh. I don't know. So, even if the spammers are in America, one spoofed IP address and an Asia helper and they're free...
Funny you should mention that. I just got a bounced email with my address on it. It was sent from South Korea, OXLED.COM going through HANANET to be exact. I can easily imagine the same happening from China with kiddyporn, copyright violation offers, or general fraud.
The way the US legislature has been writing laws, it's also easy to imagine a bill being passed that would land me in jail until I prove my innocence or the SC shoots it down eight to ten years later.
So, while I think spam is bad, I don't think the US Congress is capable of making a law that wouldn't screw over the innocent while restricting the guilty.
Ironically, if you DID go out and buy that CD, you'd be allowed to have the copies on your 'puter :) I wonder how much "theft" there is if you remove the people how currently own copies of the mp3's on their drives.
You're assuming that the current copyright laws are fair and just. Bribery and rigged electoral and legislative processes are largely not recognized as ligitimate government. So, although every other judge in America(tm) may agree with you, that doesn't invalidate the right of the people to rebel against laws that were not passed in their best interest.
Although we've have numerous laws put on the books extending the power of copyright, the burden of these injunctions on society may well by too costly to bear. If the people don't have a valid means of changing the law within the system, they have the inalienable right to choose a new law (or government if necessary)
Indeed, many people think copyright law has gone way too far in the US. The fight has moved into the courts. Whether you believe the law should follow the Framers' intent or the good of today's society, copyright law as it stands now is working far beyond the pale.
Actually, depending on what "manner..the Attorney General shall specify," it may still be unequal protection.
/.ers) think it shouldn't be policed by local governments. But on the other hand, you can be arrested for blocking traffic or sidewalks...
As for whether or not DoS attacks should be illegal, that is a philosophical point. On one hand, the internet is global, so many (of us
-RB
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings
That's an interesting point. The one thing I keep thinking of, while I code away at a lab notebook for the TB consortium, is how this would kill off non-commercial software projects because the technology's cost is "not cost prohibitive," instead of free. I realize that this would end upgrades to the beowulf cluster upstairs that protein folding, protein interaction, sequence alignment, etc. is being done on. This may end the lab notebook because it runs on software that could "reproduce copyright material." This may end most of the low cost Bioinformatics software projects around the country.
Although it's probably possible to make the standards work with the technology in use, I doubt that the industry leaders involved will let that heppen.
Bioinfomatics has nothing to do with Hollywood, the record industry, or Napsterization; but it will get killed so that the Dizzy corp can make another million on taking peoples' rights away.
I'm rather pissed-off about that...
This is especially bad considering the affidavit of JOHN V. TUNNEY that was submitted concerning Congress' intentions regarting said Act.
I especially like:
"It is clear that Congress intended that there show be full disclosure of all communications by a defendant or on behalf defendant with any officer or employee of the United States, except for communications made by counsel of record alone with the Attorney General or the employees of the Department of Justice."
And the grand finally:
"The language of the Act was clearly drawn and was intended to be inclusive and not exclusive. In my opinion, the filing of "Written or Oral Communications" by Microsoft Corporation, referred to in paragraph, 5, above, is inadequate to satisfy the clear language and intent of the Tunney Act"
I like "That very special connection between the fan and the artist is an historically important partnership, one which enriches [me and my associates]..." Last I checked, he wasn't an artist :)
The problem I can see right now is that we don't know how the presence or absence of a gene can effect other things in a given pathway. For example, the gene in mice that's responsible for aging also resonsible for cancer resistance. This is a well known problem that is only now being able to be explored in prokaryotes.
As a student persuing Bioinformatics at UCLA, I must agree with a previous reply saying that your statement is a bit too narrow. However, I'll go so far as to say that we need to do both at the same time. I believe it was either Dr. Fox or Dr Eisenberg who said that no one can know every part of the problem at the same time. One *MAJOR* problem I've run into is that Biologist don't state many of their assumptions about a biological system when speaking to a non-biologist; while mathematicians and CS people don't know enough about biology to understand that any solution to a bioinformatics problem needs to have "biological relevance." From what I can see, this means it needs to conform to all the unspoken presuppositions that biologists and biochemist take for granted. This is not insignificant.
As my boss Parag Mallick pointed out, either we (math/CS people) come up with a solution that's formally correct but takes longer than the biologist's hacks that aproximate the system; or we find the solution to a problem that no one cares about.
Another major barrier is the vocabulary. There's a reason that mathematicians and chemists are often at eachothers' throats. The math they use is the same, but the vocabulary and notations are very different, so it's like working in a foreign language. Take this to the nth degree when you're a mathematician listening to a biologist give a presentation. The breadth of knowledge is huge, even though the depth to any one part of biology can be rather shallow (relative).
By comparison, it's brutal to watch the biologist tack a probability/statistics class. Don't even bother with a topology/measure theory class. The breadth of knowledge isn't that big, but the depth of the theorems is massive. I've noticed that this leads to a "if it doesn't look like a tool I already know, then I'm not going to use it" attitude among many biologists. After remembering my boughts with algebraic topology, combinatorics, and advanced linear algebra (and listening to myself when I try and explain my Newest Idea(tm)), I can't blame them.
So we need education in both directions. The problem is way too big to be tackled by any one mindset.
Just my 2 pessos.
My father was an accountant for 20Th Century Fox for about 30years. He once told me that a movie's "costs" included a long list of kick backs to just about every body who worked on a film, or handled the business of distribution. So people are pocketing vast sums of dough before the movie officially "broke even." The idea that only 1 in 10 movies makes money is rediculous.
I found a brief mention of it here in the Differential Cryptanalysis section. Also, in "Applied Cryptography, 2nd ed." (Schneier) on page 290, it quote IBM's Don Coppersmith as saying:
I've heard about it in other places, but I can't remember where at the moment.