I think the standard Tufte line on this, is that if a 'few words' are all you're going to get up there, then why not just say the words and leave the screen blank?
Not everyone pays attention to the speaker all the time, never missing a single word or meaning.
Also, pretty pictures keep people from deciding their text messages are worth more attention than your presentation or so a professor of mine says.
Christ, you're such an idiot you can't even comprehend simple English. Transcripts are worthless as I said, you can mangle and change things a lot without anyone noticing. Only an idiot would not realize that. Not to mention that quotes are equally worthless, you can find dozens of people who are equally intelligent and say the opposite.
And as I said, these people make the same claims outside of the movie, in papers and in other interviews.
And yet you fail to provide any of them.
Single movie?? Talk about putting words in my mouth.
You're the one who quoted only a single movie, not me.
You evidence is a movie with an agenda... Have you seen anything Michael Moore has ever made, ever? It's fucking trivial to make quotes say anything you want with some creative splicing and dicing.
Only an utter nitwit would ever use a single movie for evidence of anything.
That's one of many options. If there a lot options, usually a free market can make the right decision (not the best, just the right). Let's get rid of the state-enforced monopoly that is copyright and see with what option businesses come up with. Try DRM? Fine with me. But don't legislate it.
Well if we're going to remove artificially create rights and restrictions we also need to get rid of most laws. Or are you being hypocritical? Why do YOU have a monopoly on your property? I should be able to take whatever I want, sure you can stop me or try to but I should be able to freely shoot you dead as well.
Good idea in theory. In practice, that's communism.
Huh? By that reasoning all artificial rights are communism. Everything short of total anarchy is communism.
Not my problem if you're and idiot and can't understand how science works (note the word study), or are so incapable of understanding the science and statistics involved as to have to flag a whole field as "shit" to cover your own inability to analyze each papers individual worth.
but what if she actually did and happened to be a relatively mature and well informed child (and even, shock horror, enjoyed it!) ?
Children are neurologically immature, they physically cannot be as mature as an adult as their minds are not wired as such. The main justification is that children really cannot say no, it's easy to convince them to do something and it will probably screw them up mentally in the future. It's akin to saying date rape is OK if you get the other person so drunk they cannot say no.
The only reason this is unthinkable is because of irrational taboo, not because of reason.
See below.
The puritancial right want to restrict sex as much as possible, and they start with young adults/children because it's easier.
It's mostly since children lack the mental ability to make proper rational decisions and can easily be misled. Allowing such actions would make it impossible to track the vast majority of such actions which the child neither wants nor enjoys but as an immature being doesn't know how to fight off or say no to. I've seen the effects of such things first hand and the resulting mental problems in them as adults are not fun to watch.
If you're going to argue, please use reason and not emotive rhetoric.
Since you want to be so scientific about it and use reason, please link to peer reviewed psychological and social studies which justify your point. You should have dozens on hand, otherwise you're a hypocrite.
All you've done is stated unjustified opinions and used ad hominem attacks, you're the one being emotional and not using reason.
so in that case you dont use it right? or do you just take it and say fuck the developer?
I'm not the most ethical of people which is a somewhat separate issue.
do you send him the money you think its worth?
Well now that I'm getting money I've been buying various pieces of software that I've been using already. Well except the annoying ones which charge too much for me to justify it yet. I'll either move to something else or pay sooner or later.
There are a few that I would not even consider buying, and probably will now, were it not for the extended trials I got (IDEs require me at least one decent project to feel up and I don't code that often).
I love the way pirates always claim that its not a lost sale, even when its photoshop and they use it every day.
I love photoshop as an example. How many people would ever buy it? How much popularity does it get by being on every pirates computer? How many extra sales does it get to pirates turned professional graphic artists or pirates working for a company? It's like free advertising for Adobe with a generally minimal loss of sales. It's THE graphics program and everyone "knows" it, you can't buy better advertising than that. If I was at Adobe the last thing I'd want is to cause a massive migration that leads to people calling things "Gimp Contests" instead of "Photoshop Contests."
As an example, my friend decided he didn't like piracy anymore so he now runs mostly free software for his main apps. Companies need to be aware that there are alternatives and pissing off potential future customers (you know when they get jobs and money) is not a good idea.
I also love how yet again my position is somehow assumed despite me never stating it. On that note I fully sympathize with developers but accept my actions as being hypocritical and unethical. Honestly my own view is that f you're going to steal at least admit it to yourself and don't try to justify your actions to yourself. Anyway this is all a random train of mental thoughts and devil's advocate statements.
I find it amusing how neither one of us is proving anything to back up our claims. Granted since you said "demonstrably wrong" feel free to do just that.
Relaxation does not mean the activity cannot help ones finances and extra savings are usually a good thing given the fluctuating economy. That money may be the difference between spending 20 hours on the hobby and spending 10 of those hours at work instead to make up the difference. In some cases hobbies can lead to decent payoffs.
As for giving back, well I'd first want to give back to all the companies I pirated from.
I see, but someone IS born with the right to complain if they make some furniture and you take it right?
As can the software developer, they have the inherent freedom to do whatever they want. My point is that there is no inherent right for anyone to care in either case. I simply find people talking about inherent rights to be silly.
So on the one hand, the carpenter has a business model, and a salary and can feed his kids (if he makes good furniture), but the software developer does not (even if his software is wildly popular).
Neither one does inherently as another other party can simply kill them and take their stuff. Society has had a long time to deal with the physical possessions and from on such behavior relating to them. It's also much easier to frown on such things due to their direct negative impact and the much easier methods of tracking such thefts.
Please explain why you hold software devs in lower esteem than a toilet cleaner, as you seem to advocate them earning less.
Where exactly do I say any of this, you're simply jumping to conclusions. I simply noted the difference between digital and physical items. Anyway piracy does not inherently hurt a developer as he loses nothing directly from it. He may lose potential sales however not every piracy is a potential sale. In some cases he may gain sales from piracy due to evaluations and for example future usage in say a company the pirate works for.
It needs to be noted that these excessive anti-piracy measures simply result in more entrenched pirates who gain a dislike for copyrights in general. I don't know what the solution is however the current methods are probably not productive in the long term. We all lose rights to draconian DRM schemes and there is a large group of now grown adults who grew up disliking copyrights. Also shareware costs too much imho, and often enough I just can't justify spending the money on it as a result.
Guess what? Many of those "developers" work as paid programmers to develop the free software and pay the bills.
If by many you mean a few then yes they are. I doubt a majority of all the free software developers make money on it. A few big projects get companies to pay some developers, a few other projects make some money off support or other means (ads, etc.). However in the end it's a fraction of all the free software devs, especially those working on smaller projects.
Ah but you also don't take them away from anyone as they still have a copy.
Nobody is born with an inate right to enjoy all episodes of "24" for free.
Ah but neither is anyone born with the inherent right to make you pay to get a copy of all the episodes of 24. It's all human social constructs in the end, as are all other "inherent" "rights" really (except anarchism, ie: the right to do anything you want and for everyone else to do likewise to you).
Why don't you make your software free for others to use, if you use anyone else's free software?
Because then you won't have much free software. Guess what? Many of those "developers" work as programmers on paid software to pay the bills.
So you can pay the community back by contributing your own stuff. It is true that you don't become rich, but you do have all the software/info you want - and that's what you'd do with the money anyway, right?
Piracy has become such an overrated "controversy" lately that it's unbarable. Look at the price of blank CDs. Did you know that you have to pay a "piracy tax" for these? Yep. All because some higher-ups think that an extra buck or two will help save a movie studio or a record company. It's batty. What if I just want to burn copies of pictures from my family vacation? Now I've gotta pay the MPAA and RIAA some extra cash for something that they don't deserve? Get real.
No, unlike many nations (like say Canada) only music cds have such a tax in the US.
The potential for $10k given 3 hours of work, just like the lottery is the potential for $x million given $1 and 30 seconds of work. Also without preparing (a lot possibly) before hand the chances of getting that are fairly slim.
I'd argue that in the case of a computer playing chess, it was instructed how to play by humans.
I agree, my point was simply that AI research has a long history of extravagant claims of things happening "soon" which never pan out.
A better analogy would be a computer that is able to take the rules of chess as it's only input and figure out how to play and beat humans on it's own.
Even with human coding the field isn't doing well, as the best methods can only work on a subset of problems. Deep Blue had its hardware optimized to play chess, without that it would not do well at all. It didn't even play chess as most humans would but rather brute forced the problem. In more complex games AIs fare even worse with 12 years old (very good 12 year olds but 12 year old nonetheless) kicking their digital backsides in Go (too many possible moves for the algorithms used by Deep Blue, for example, to work). The board game Settler of Catan had a PhD thesis AI made for it, and the AI can be easily beat by decent players from what I hear.
And 40 years ago they said it'd be only a few years to a decade before a computer is the world champion in chess. AI is crappy right now, and it can solve certain problems but fails at many others.
College students have time to burn and the people who enter probably consider this to be fun (personally I find interesting problems to be fun). Some people choose to value their life by how much they enjoy it and not by how much money they can make. Others may view this as a good way of making connections, a name for oneself or to impress potential future employers.
If I was a true coder and didn't already have plans for the dates in question I would strongly consider it. Seems like a fun and interesting thing to do.
You are right in some ways, note that many of the winners were from the former USSR where the standard of living is lower, unemployment higher (especially among the youth) but education is still strong. To them this is probably both much more fun and provides a better payoff (including a US work visa potentially) than the alternatives.
Well the thing with a license is that it's a legal document, and there is a reason legal documents are so pedantically explicit. Ambiguity simply means that someone will get screwed when a half decent lawyer gets involved. Given the sheer amount of lawsuit-happiness in the US I would never want to use software that is so full of potential legal landmines. It even fails in its desired goal as the ambiguity could probably be used by someone to defend themselves from a lawsuit for breaching the license.
Remember in the US court system it's not about who is right but about who runs out of money first. Last I checked the government has a lot of money.
So let's see what their program cannot be used for. The first obvious one is military work however that is simply the direct harm part. Now the inaction part is the fun one, what is defined as inaction? Is inaction using the program for something that doesn't prevent harm? If one prevents some harm but doesn't work to prevent greater harm is one violating the clause? Is harm quantitative as a result? There is always a use that prevents harm to someone, are all other uses barred? So can I use it for cancer research but not for making a work of entertainment, the later arguably wastes resources that could be sued for work like the former?
Then it becomes even more amusing, what about harm to prevent greater harm. Cancer drugs cause harm yet are potentially voluntary and possibly prevent a greater harm. Is cancer research barred as it will cause harm to people? Are all drugs with any side effects barred as well as they too may cause harm to people?
How direct does the harm have to be? The program itself doesn't harm people usually, even in a military role, but may lead to other events that harm people. Is all university robotics research barred? It's results may lead to robots for the military.
I assume that they first got to the cockpit and given surprise and numbers I doubt overpowering the pilot + co-pilot was difficult. In addition given prior knowledge, surprise, fear and some talking on their part you'd probably assume they had other weapons and in general be rather scared.
So now the question on your mind as a passenger when you finally got your wits (and they already got the plane) would be: "can I stop them and regain control of the plane before they crash it into the ground." Keep in mind that if you fail you will have led to the death of 100+ people who you would think would probably live if you don't do anything (prior to 9/11 most hijacked planes didn't land inside buildings). Also keep in mind that the hijackers could do anything they wanted to the plane including a very steep dive if they thought they would be overpowered, and I doubt it's easy to pull up from that one.
As the Pennsylvania flight showed the answer to that question is most likely "no."
So instead of having the Chinese be able to access a search engine with rather minimal restrictions run by a US company which is decently likely to not bow to every whim of the Chinese government you instead want the Chinese to only have access to a Chinese search engine run by a Chinese company which is very likely to not confront the government on issues (and who possibly fully agree with the Chinese government in what it does).
His point is hypocrisy: pretending to have a virtue you don't.
No it's not.
The parent should still tell his child not to lie. What he shouldn't do is pretend to be honest when he isn't.
No that isn't his point: "We should not assume the American system is best and that we should force our political systems on others, that's how things like Iraq happen. These businesses are in other countries and we should not expect them to act differently than other companies on the region."
By his logic the parent should not tell their child to not lie if they themselves have ever lied.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the standard Tufte line on this, is that if a 'few words' are all you're going to get up there, then why not just say the words and leave the screen blank?
Not everyone pays attention to the speaker all the time, never missing a single word or meaning.
Also, pretty pictures keep people from deciding their text messages are worth more attention than your presentation or so a professor of mine says.
Nice try. I provided a transcript.
Christ, you're such an idiot you can't even comprehend simple English. Transcripts are worthless as I said, you can mangle and change things a lot without anyone noticing. Only an idiot would not realize that. Not to mention that quotes are equally worthless, you can find dozens of people who are equally intelligent and say the opposite.
And as I said, these people make the same claims outside of the movie, in papers and in other interviews.
And yet you fail to provide any of them.
Single movie?? Talk about putting words in my mouth.
You're the one who quoted only a single movie, not me.
You evidence is a movie with an agenda... Have you seen anything Michael Moore has ever made, ever? It's fucking trivial to make quotes say anything you want with some creative splicing and dicing.
Only an utter nitwit would ever use a single movie for evidence of anything.
That's one of many options. If there a lot options, usually a free market can make the right decision (not the best, just the right). Let's get rid of the state-enforced monopoly that is copyright and see with what option businesses come up with. Try DRM? Fine with me. But don't legislate it.
Well if we're going to remove artificially create rights and restrictions we also need to get rid of most laws. Or are you being hypocritical? Why do YOU have a monopoly on your property? I should be able to take whatever I want, sure you can stop me or try to but I should be able to freely shoot you dead as well.
Good idea in theory. In practice, that's communism.
Huh? By that reasoning all artificial rights are communism. Everything short of total anarchy is communism.
Peer reviewed soft science -- what shit.
Not my problem if you're and idiot and can't understand how science works (note the word study), or are so incapable of understanding the science and statistics involved as to have to flag a whole field as "shit" to cover your own inability to analyze each papers individual worth.
but what if she actually did and happened to be a relatively mature and well informed child (and even, shock horror, enjoyed it!) ?
Children are neurologically immature, they physically cannot be as mature as an adult as their minds are not wired as such. The main justification is that children really cannot say no, it's easy to convince them to do something and it will probably screw them up mentally in the future. It's akin to saying date rape is OK if you get the other person so drunk they cannot say no.
The only reason this is unthinkable is because of irrational taboo, not because of reason.
See below.
The puritancial right want to restrict sex as much as possible, and they start with young adults/children because it's easier.
It's mostly since children lack the mental ability to make proper rational decisions and can easily be misled. Allowing such actions would make it impossible to track the vast majority of such actions which the child neither wants nor enjoys but as an immature being doesn't know how to fight off or say no to. I've seen the effects of such things first hand and the resulting mental problems in them as adults are not fun to watch.
If you're going to argue, please use reason and not emotive rhetoric.
Since you want to be so scientific about it and use reason, please link to peer reviewed psychological and social studies which justify your point. You should have dozens on hand, otherwise you're a hypocrite.
All you've done is stated unjustified opinions and used ad hominem attacks, you're the one being emotional and not using reason.
I'm sure that 8 year old really wanted to have sex with her uncle...
Could you provide a link, everything I've read has said that only blank cds labeled as music cds (ie: music cd-rs) got the tax.
so in that case you dont use it right?
or do you just take it and say fuck the developer?
I'm not the most ethical of people which is a somewhat separate issue.
do you send him the money you think its worth?
Well now that I'm getting money I've been buying various pieces of software that I've been using already. Well except the annoying ones which charge too much for me to justify it yet. I'll either move to something else or pay sooner or later.
There are a few that I would not even consider buying, and probably will now, were it not for the extended trials I got (IDEs require me at least one decent project to feel up and I don't code that often).
I love the way pirates always claim that its not a lost sale, even when its photoshop and they use it every day.
I love photoshop as an example. How many people would ever buy it? How much popularity does it get by being on every pirates computer? How many extra sales does it get to pirates turned professional graphic artists or pirates working for a company? It's like free advertising for Adobe with a generally minimal loss of sales. It's THE graphics program and everyone "knows" it, you can't buy better advertising than that. If I was at Adobe the last thing I'd want is to cause a massive migration that leads to people calling things "Gimp Contests" instead of "Photoshop Contests."
As an example, my friend decided he didn't like piracy anymore so he now runs mostly free software for his main apps. Companies need to be aware that there are alternatives and pissing off potential future customers (you know when they get jobs and money) is not a good idea.
I also love how yet again my position is somehow assumed despite me never stating it. On that note I fully sympathize with developers but accept my actions as being hypocritical and unethical. Honestly my own view is that f you're going to steal at least admit it to yourself and don't try to justify your actions to yourself. Anyway this is all a random train of mental thoughts and devil's advocate statements.
I find it amusing how neither one of us is proving anything to back up our claims. Granted since you said "demonstrably wrong" feel free to do just that.
Relaxation does not mean the activity cannot help ones finances and extra savings are usually a good thing given the fluctuating economy. That money may be the difference between spending 20 hours on the hobby and spending 10 of those hours at work instead to make up the difference. In some cases hobbies can lead to decent payoffs.
As for giving back, well I'd first want to give back to all the companies I pirated from.
I see, but someone IS born with the right to complain if they make some furniture and you take it right?
As can the software developer, they have the inherent freedom to do whatever they want. My point is that there is no inherent right for anyone to care in either case. I simply find people talking about inherent rights to be silly.
So on the one hand, the carpenter has a business model, and a salary and can feed his kids (if he makes good furniture), but the software developer does not (even if his software is wildly popular).
Neither one does inherently as another other party can simply kill them and take their stuff. Society has had a long time to deal with the physical possessions and from on such behavior relating to them. It's also much easier to frown on such things due to their direct negative impact and the much easier methods of tracking such thefts.
Please explain why you hold software devs in lower esteem than a toilet cleaner, as you seem to advocate them earning less.
Where exactly do I say any of this, you're simply jumping to conclusions. I simply noted the difference between digital and physical items. Anyway piracy does not inherently hurt a developer as he loses nothing directly from it. He may lose potential sales however not every piracy is a potential sale. In some cases he may gain sales from piracy due to evaluations and for example future usage in say a company the pirate works for.
It needs to be noted that these excessive anti-piracy measures simply result in more entrenched pirates who gain a dislike for copyrights in general. I don't know what the solution is however the current methods are probably not productive in the long term. We all lose rights to draconian DRM schemes and there is a large group of now grown adults who grew up disliking copyrights. Also shareware costs too much imho, and often enough I just can't justify spending the money on it as a result.
Guess what? Many of those "developers" work as paid programmers to develop the free software and pay the bills.
If by many you mean a few then yes they are. I doubt a majority of all the free software developers make money on it. A few big projects get companies to pay some developers, a few other projects make some money off support or other means (ads, etc.). However in the end it's a fraction of all the free software devs, especially those working on smaller projects.
Ah but you also don't take them away from anyone as they still have a copy.
Nobody is born with an inate right to enjoy all episodes of "24" for free.
Ah but neither is anyone born with the inherent right to make you pay to get a copy of all the episodes of 24. It's all human social constructs in the end, as are all other "inherent" "rights" really (except anarchism, ie: the right to do anything you want and for everyone else to do likewise to you).
Why don't you make your software free for others to use, if you use anyone else's free software?
Because then you won't have much free software. Guess what? Many of those "developers" work as programmers on paid software to pay the bills.
So you can pay the community back by contributing your own stuff. It is true that you don't become rich, but you do have all the software/info you want - and that's what you'd do with the money anyway, right?
Eat. Pay bills. Save it for a rainy day.
Piracy has become such an overrated "controversy" lately that it's unbarable. Look at the price of blank CDs. Did you know that you have to pay a "piracy tax" for these? Yep. All because some higher-ups think that an extra buck or two will help save a movie studio or a record company. It's batty. What if I just want to burn copies of pictures from my family vacation? Now I've gotta pay the MPAA and RIAA some extra cash for something that they don't deserve? Get real.
No, unlike many nations (like say Canada) only music cds have such a tax in the US.
The potential for $10k given 3 hours of work, just like the lottery is the potential for $x million given $1 and 30 seconds of work. Also without preparing (a lot possibly) before hand the chances of getting that are fairly slim.
I'd argue that in the case of a computer playing chess, it was instructed how to play by humans.
I agree, my point was simply that AI research has a long history of extravagant claims of things happening "soon" which never pan out.
A better analogy would be a computer that is able to take the rules of chess as it's only input and figure out how to play and beat humans on it's own.
Even with human coding the field isn't doing well, as the best methods can only work on a subset of problems. Deep Blue had its hardware optimized to play chess, without that it would not do well at all. It didn't even play chess as most humans would but rather brute forced the problem. In more complex games AIs fare even worse with 12 years old (very good 12 year olds but 12 year old nonetheless) kicking their digital backsides in Go (too many possible moves for the algorithms used by Deep Blue, for example, to work). The board game Settler of Catan had a PhD thesis AI made for it, and the AI can be easily beat by decent players from what I hear.
And 40 years ago they said it'd be only a few years to a decade before a computer is the world champion in chess. AI is crappy right now, and it can solve certain problems but fails at many others.
College students have time to burn and the people who enter probably consider this to be fun (personally I find interesting problems to be fun). Some people choose to value their life by how much they enjoy it and not by how much money they can make. Others may view this as a good way of making connections, a name for oneself or to impress potential future employers.
If I was a true coder and didn't already have plans for the dates in question I would strongly consider it. Seems like a fun and interesting thing to do.
You are right in some ways, note that many of the winners were from the former USSR where the standard of living is lower, unemployment higher (especially among the youth) but education is still strong. To them this is probably both much more fun and provides a better payoff (including a US work visa potentially) than the alternatives.
Well the thing with a license is that it's a legal document, and there is a reason legal documents are so pedantically explicit. Ambiguity simply means that someone will get screwed when a half decent lawyer gets involved. Given the sheer amount of lawsuit-happiness in the US I would never want to use software that is so full of potential legal landmines. It even fails in its desired goal as the ambiguity could probably be used by someone to defend themselves from a lawsuit for breaching the license.
Remember in the US court system it's not about who is right but about who runs out of money first. Last I checked the government has a lot of money.
So let's see what their program cannot be used for. The first obvious one is military work however that is simply the direct harm part. Now the inaction part is the fun one, what is defined as inaction? Is inaction using the program for something that doesn't prevent harm? If one prevents some harm but doesn't work to prevent greater harm is one violating the clause? Is harm quantitative as a result? There is always a use that prevents harm to someone, are all other uses barred? So can I use it for cancer research but not for making a work of entertainment, the later arguably wastes resources that could be sued for work like the former?
Then it becomes even more amusing, what about harm to prevent greater harm. Cancer drugs cause harm yet are potentially voluntary and possibly prevent a greater harm. Is cancer research barred as it will cause harm to people? Are all drugs with any side effects barred as well as they too may cause harm to people?
How direct does the harm have to be? The program itself doesn't harm people usually, even in a military role, but may lead to other events that harm people. Is all university robotics research barred? It's results may lead to robots for the military.
I assume that they first got to the cockpit and given surprise and numbers I doubt overpowering the pilot + co-pilot was difficult. In addition given prior knowledge, surprise, fear and some talking on their part you'd probably assume they had other weapons and in general be rather scared.
So now the question on your mind as a passenger when you finally got your wits (and they already got the plane) would be: "can I stop them and regain control of the plane before they crash it into the ground." Keep in mind that if you fail you will have led to the death of 100+ people who you would think would probably live if you don't do anything (prior to 9/11 most hijacked planes didn't land inside buildings). Also keep in mind that the hijackers could do anything they wanted to the plane including a very steep dive if they thought they would be overpowered, and I doubt it's easy to pull up from that one.
As the Pennsylvania flight showed the answer to that question is most likely "no."
So instead of having the Chinese be able to access a search engine with rather minimal restrictions run by a US company which is decently likely to not bow to every whim of the Chinese government you instead want the Chinese to only have access to a Chinese search engine run by a Chinese company which is very likely to not confront the government on issues (and who possibly fully agree with the Chinese government in what it does).
His point is hypocrisy: pretending to have a virtue you don't.
No it's not.
The parent should still tell his child not to lie. What he shouldn't do is pretend to be honest when he isn't.
No that isn't his point: "We should not assume the American system is best and that we should force our political systems on others, that's how things like Iraq happen. These businesses are in other countries and we should not expect them to act differently than other companies on the region."
By his logic the parent should not tell their child to not lie if they themselves have ever lied.