Sorry; I wasn't thinking clearly. But even so, how would the RIAA know if the copy I had on my computer was fair use or not? In my situation my two albums are fair use, but only I know that. The RIAA would have no way of telling.
The copyright industry could easily come after you for every infringing song or movie on your hard drive.
How exactly? How do they know that they're on your HD in the first place? And even if they could magically sense it, how do they know they're illegal? I have two albums on my drive that I ripped for convenience and put the origonals away as backup. The origonals were accidentally thrown out, but I retain liscence to the albums (not that I have any proof). Possession of copyrighted work is difficult to criminalize.
I did restart Firefox and I did check the spoof site. The disrepency may come from it being r3, though I don't know if that is something internal to Gentoo or not. There may also be something different about the Mac version.
Yup, except that the clear workaround does not fix the problem at all. The setting stays set to false in about:config after retstarting the browser, but in reality it goes back to enabling IDNs, and the paypal spoof referenced in this story still works.
That's strange; I just tried it (in FF/1.0) and it remembered the setting and still had the site fail. Now the site still does render as "http://www.paypal.com/" in the status bar, but when I click on it I get a message saying "http://www.paypal.com/ was not found".
This is one case where I like Linux's font support is not perfect. On the Mac the 'a' and the 'a' are indestinguishable, while here the latter is short and squat.
Who says it only fails when somebody is trying demonstrate that it doesn't work? What if somebody is trying to manipulate it for their own profit, or is just producing sloppy work? How are the editors going to distinguish between such articles and genuinely worthwhile ones? (They can't, is Sokal's point.)
I'm not saying that the system isn't vulnerable[1], just that this doesn't prove it so. This is the same reason we have entrapment legislation.
Science does not progress by taking people at their word, and nor do any humanities worth a damn.
What you say is true, but not at issue. People should not take everyone at their word, but there is a difference between being published in a journal and accepted everywhere as finished and official.
Peer review can be abused too, but it's considerably more robust than the alternatives. If Social Text is trying to make a point by discarding peer-review, then they're not making a very good one.
There can be value in having a lower threshold. While some junk may get in (which then should be noticed by the readership) so could controversial, unorthodox, or unpopular ideas.
[1] Though I suspect it doesn't usually work very well.
[2] I also suspect that the politics and philosophy of the editors at this particular hournal also have an effect, and this slanting needs to be taken into account.
It's a system based on trust and reputation, and is not designed to stand up to abuse. A system that it only fails when someone is trying to demonstrate that it doesn't work would not be bad. Imagine we are walking along the road. I say "you really should be wearing boots; if someone pushed you into the snow you'd get cold" and then push you into the snow to prove my point. Was I in the right?
And look what it got them. An article full of (purposeful) contradictions that any scientist with a modicum of knowledge would have seen as such. As a result they were laughed at by their peers and by scientists as well, and then they mounted a wounded, chip-on-the-shoulder defense in various media.
Their response was that their non-peer-reviewed process was fine and that the only reason it failed was that people were deliberately trying to subvert it.
You're buying into ideological fundamentalism that is just as corrupt as the Christian or Islamic equivalents.
Your misuse of language is nearly as bad as these LitCrit people's. Religious fundamentalism is about literal interpretation of and strict adherance to religious texts. These people are in favor of literal interpretation of and adherance to nothing.
Do you understand that the behavior that you're describing from the _Social Text_ editors is the very antithesis of peer review?
_Social Text_ is not peer reviewed for a reason. They believe (and still do) that by not having a peer review process they will get more creative and innovative articles published, because the peer review process is just a mechanism for protecting and extending current scientific orthodoxy.
While anyone can learn how to use the command line, the problem is you have to know already what PROGRAMX is. If I want a word processor, how do I know OO.o or AbiWord are even choices? The advantage of Linspire's CnR is that just by knowing the type of program I can see pictures and descriptions. And if it doesn't have reviews it probably should.
By the time you start compiling your kernel before you even boot gentoo the first time, I'll have my users working on a file/print/mail server already.
In setting up a server to be used by large numbers of people over long periods of time, installation speed really doesn't matter much. It's the ongoing administration, the efficiency for the admin of the configuration and upgrading process that matters most.
Pipelining only came in on the 586 (i.e. Pentium).
Nope. The SPARC 1 had pipelinging as early as 1992. The main problem with it was it did no branch prediction and had no way to flush the pipeline if it went the wrong way. So binaries got much bigger as compilers had to add extra empty instructions after jumps to make sure the chip didn't excecute code on the wrong side of the branch.
The real irony here is that most of the flagship processors for an architecture ostensibly designed for pumping up clockspeeds (RISC) don't actually have particularly high clock speeds.
They don't? 2.5Ghz isn't a high clock rate? 2.5Ghz is an instruction every 2.5 billionths of a second[1]. In 2.5x10^-9 s, light (at 3x10^8 s/m) moves 3/4 of a meter. And electrons are substantially slower than light.
[1] There is a (1024/1000)^3 ratio but I have ignored it.
I had the same mouse, and I liked it very much. The right mouse button was under the trackball and you got it with your thumb. They were such nice mice, I wonder why they stopped making them?
Imagine I made a special luxury prison with luxurious bed and excellent food. Now your logic would imply that I would have to then pay the jail to be wrongfully imprisoned. To use your analogy, imagine the "free lunch" offered by your work was both mandatory and amazingly fancy. And working for your employer was also mandatory. Does this not seem unjust?
We could make a pretty spiffy analog computer out of a truck and a large number of computers. Imagine we want to sort our range of computers by strength to find the set strong enough to stand being run over by a truck. With a traditional computing system we'd have an O(n) task of of measuring the strength of each computer, an O(1) task of measuring the crushing power of the truck, and an O(nlog(n)) task of sorting them. With our new method, we can line up the computers in any order, O(n), and then run the truck over them, O(n), and read off the results O(n). So the traditional method is O(nlog(n)) while our new one is O(n). Ours does happen to be a destructive sort, but we can live with that.
"public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing..." - TFA
The article description misquotes the article pretty badly. Taking "public morality is not a legitamate state interest" on its own is like hearing "if you have to see this movie, bring a book" and quoting as "you have to see this movie".
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry; I wasn't thinking clearly. But even so, how would the RIAA know if the copy I had on my computer was fair use or not? In my situation my two albums are fair use, but only I know that. The RIAA would have no way of telling.
You've been watching too much Ocean's Eleven
How exactly? How do they know that they're on your HD in the first place? And even if they could magically sense it, how do they know they're illegal? I have two albums on my drive that I ripped for convenience and put the origonals away as backup. The origonals were accidentally thrown out, but I retain liscence to the albums (not that I have any proof). Possession of copyrighted work is difficult to criminalize.
I did restart Firefox and I did check the spoof site. The disrepency may come from it being r3, though I don't know if that is something internal to Gentoo or not. There may also be something different about the Mac version.
It is working for me. I'm using the Gentoo firefox 1.0 r3 build. What are you using?
Yup. I closed it, reopened it, and idn support stayed off.
That's strange; I just tried it (in FF/1.0) and it remembered the setting and still had the site fail. Now the site still does render as "http://www.paypal.com/" in the status bar, but when I click on it I get a message saying "http://www.paypal.com/ was not found".
This is one case where I like Linux's font support is not perfect. On the Mac the 'a' and the 'a' are indestinguishable, while here the latter is short and squat.
You're right; the Social Text people are pretty hard to defend.
I'm not saying that the system isn't vulnerable[1], just that this doesn't prove it so. This is the same reason we have entrapment legislation.
Science does not progress by taking people at their word, and nor do any humanities worth a damn.
What you say is true, but not at issue. People should not take everyone at their word, but there is a difference between being published in a journal and accepted everywhere as finished and official.
Peer review can be abused too, but it's considerably more robust than the alternatives. If Social Text is trying to make a point by discarding peer-review, then they're not making a very good one.
There can be value in having a lower threshold. While some junk may get in (which then should be noticed by the readership) so could controversial, unorthodox, or unpopular ideas.
[1] Though I suspect it doesn't usually work very well.
[2] I also suspect that the politics and philosophy of the editors at this particular hournal also have an effect, and this slanting needs to be taken into account.
It's a system based on trust and reputation, and is not designed to stand up to abuse. A system that it only fails when someone is trying to demonstrate that it doesn't work would not be bad. Imagine we are walking along the road. I say "you really should be wearing boots; if someone pushed you into the snow you'd get cold" and then push you into the snow to prove my point. Was I in the right?
Their response was that their non-peer-reviewed process was fine and that the only reason it failed was that people were deliberately trying to subvert it.
Your misuse of language is nearly as bad as these LitCrit people's. Religious fundamentalism is about literal interpretation of and strict adherance to religious texts. These people are in favor of literal interpretation of and adherance to nothing.
_Social Text_ is not peer reviewed for a reason. They believe (and still do) that by not having a peer review process they will get more creative and innovative articles published, because the peer review process is just a mechanism for protecting and extending current scientific orthodoxy.
"Incessent prattle" is bothersome only if you have to listen to it. In the case of blogs you don't.
While anyone can learn how to use the command line, the problem is you have to know already what PROGRAMX is. If I want a word processor, how do I know OO.o or AbiWord are even choices? The advantage of Linspire's CnR is that just by knowing the type of program I can see pictures and descriptions. And if it doesn't have reviews it probably should.
In setting up a server to be used by large numbers of people over long periods of time, installation speed really doesn't matter much. It's the ongoing administration, the efficiency for the admin of the configuration and upgrading process that matters most.
Nope. The SPARC 1 had pipelinging as early as 1992. The main problem with it was it did no branch prediction and had no way to flush the pipeline if it went the wrong way. So binaries got much bigger as compilers had to add extra empty instructions after jumps to make sure the chip didn't excecute code on the wrong side of the branch.
They don't? 2.5Ghz isn't a high clock rate? 2.5Ghz is an instruction every 2.5 billionths of a second[1]. In 2.5x10^-9 s, light (at 3x10^8 s/m) moves 3/4 of a meter. And electrons are substantially slower than light.
[1] There is a (1024/1000)^3 ratio but I have ignored it.
I had the same mouse, and I liked it very much. The right mouse button was under the trackball and you got it with your thumb. They were such nice mice, I wonder why they stopped making them?
Imagine I made a special luxury prison with luxurious bed and excellent food. Now your logic would imply that I would have to then pay the jail to be wrongfully imprisoned. To use your analogy, imagine the "free lunch" offered by your work was both mandatory and amazingly fancy. And working for your employer was also mandatory. Does this not seem unjust?
In my town the delivery truck for a curtain and venitian blind company says "Caution: blind driver!".
What would a blind person care if the money was all green or not?
We could make a pretty spiffy analog computer out of a truck and a large number of computers. Imagine we want to sort our range of computers by strength to find the set strong enough to stand being run over by a truck. With a traditional computing system we'd have an O(n) task of of measuring the strength of each computer, an O(1) task of measuring the crushing power of the truck, and an O(nlog(n)) task of sorting them. With our new method, we can line up the computers in any order, O(n), and then run the truck over them, O(n), and read off the results O(n). So the traditional method is O(nlog(n)) while our new one is O(n). Ours does happen to be a destructive sort, but we can live with that.
Of course; a special exception for Debain would be no use to the Debian project.
The article description misquotes the article pretty badly. Taking "public morality is not a legitamate state interest" on its own is like hearing "if you have to see this movie, bring a book" and quoting as "you have to see this movie".