Are you serious? Perhaps my sarcasm detector's askew, here.
How many examples of Communism do you have? A handful. You can't even hope to make a blanket statement with so few examples. I think any sensible Commie (I can't say I've read Marx, here, so this view probably won't be purist) will tell you that Communism means the production is owned by the PEOPLE, not the state.
Economic policy does not have to relate to civil liberties. Incidentally, there are enough restrictions going on in the US anyway that your implications don't stand and, as has been previously pointed out, China's hardly communist anyway.
If anything is happening in linux, then there's nothing to stop anyone recording what's happening on the screen, so closed-source GPL is pointless anyway. Basically, if the DRM still allows you to play back your files, you can circumvent it.
The reason they are taking action is because they believe they are losing money through people illegally downloading music.
Fair enough, however, your point about respect I still don't agree with. For me, where I control my actions, I know that I'm doing nothing morally wrong if I download a song, like it and pay for it. I also know I'm doing nothing "financially" wrong, since I have increased their revenue.
If I go into a bookshop I can read the blurb and a few pages to see if I like a book. I see this the same way. There's nothing like blurb for a song - a review can't tell you whether or not you'll like it. A quick listen will - whether I do this with p2p, at a music store, or more likely these days, with last.fm.
I find it unlikely that the artists themselves would mind particularly that I checked whether or not I liked their music before I bought it. If they are decent people, they'd appreciate that it is not their right to have my money, and should also be happy that I'm enjoying their work. Perhaps their label would get shirty, but the actual human beings I have difficulty imagining getting in a flap.
I'm no neuroscientist, but I'm pretty sure a lot of this adaptation is developed in children out of the hardwiring, in other words, a baby has a scaffold for building a visual-processing centre, and this requires the influx of data to be built properly.
Presumably this technology would allow someone who had sight as a baby to see, even see well, as once one has the framework, the brain should be able to shuffle the other bits and pieces around. The key problem that you point out is that those who never had sight in the first place will not have performed the initial 'building' and will thus not be able to create a coherent visual centre.
Any neuroscientists please feel free to correct what I've written, it's mostly guesses.
I can see your point about legality, but respect? If anything, he's doing more respect to the artists, because he's buying their stuff, which otherwise he would not. The point is a fair one - if it increases revenue to the industry, why are they taking action? Because they're immoral, and apparently want to capitalise on something that has already made them money.
Maybe we can't 'dictate' their business model, but we can certainly pass judgement. My judgement is that it sucks, and I'm happy that I've thought this through.
I believe current opinion from informed folks is that most downloaders buy the music afterwards. At least, enough to make it worth the industry's while.
This is not the point. The issue at hand is that revenue for the record industry is being increased, so statistics and proponents suggest, so they shouldn't damn well be complaining. It may be illegal, but people have a good point when they say it's (possibly, currently) illogical.
If steal the song from the shop, you're committing a crime. If you buy the song from some guy selling fake CDs on the street, and are somehow proven to know what you bought was stolen, I believe that is a crime. At the very least, they can take the goods.
The difference is that a mutation to most pieces of (functional) code will make the code stop working - for example, a change to a variable name, or register or operation will almost certainly drastically impair the program's function, or produce something undesirable.
In a gene, a change like this may produce a non-functional protein, or it may produce a protein that folds very slightly differently, and hence allow for evolution. It is the acceptance of small, incremental change that allows non-destructive variation in nature.
Simultaneously, due to the reactions being chemical, chance frameshifts such as nylonase can be useful, whilst in a computer, the language is too restrictive to allow for such a lucky result.
If you listen to people like theravingathiest (.com) such belief is well described as religious. Atheism clearly isn't religion in the sense of organised, as usually an atheist is an atheist alone. However, they can have just as much religious belief as a theist.
Often, an atheist simply doesn't believe, and that is that. It's difficult to label this as religious belief as there is no 'positive affirmation' that God does not exist. There is simply a lack of belief.
The key word is pragmatic. It is invaluable in that it prevents us believing in any old spurious piece of claptrap (as some would label God) but nonetheless does not produce concrete knowledge. Taking the classic toys in the cupboard example, by the burden of proof principle, noone needs to believe that the toys in the cupboard come alive once the door is closed, as long as noone has any chance of discovering them. However, it does not mean that you know that the toys do not come alive, it is merely an abstraction of the way we reject blatantly stupid things, in such a way as to apply to more serious propositions.
Looking back, it probably is a 'solid argument,' what I should have said was something more like proof. In my mind, the principle is weightier than someone who says God is necessary for order in the Universe. I can say, "yes, but it's perfectly possible it all happened by chance." They can say, "yes, but it's possible God exists without proof."
The point being made is that atheist do not know there is no God any more than theists know there is one. As such, belief that there is no God requires just as much faith as any other religion. The "burden of proof" argument has already been raised, but that only applies to those simply do not believe in God, not those who believe there is none. Also, the burden of proof argument is not a solid argument by any means, merely the basis of our own scientific method.
I mean basically the company is spying on you, its similar to if Walmart hired someone to constantly stalk you and take notes on what kind of shampoo you buy...it just does not seem logical.
I'm assuming you don't own any supermarket loyalty cards.
All I can say is that I remain unconvinced until I see the algorithm in front of me. It seems reasonable to assume you personally don't know it, as you would surely have produced it in evidence of your case if that were so.
What we actually know is some of the things that contribute to PageRank - links from other sites, for example.
While it's true that, even with the exact algorithm, it would be difficult to trick the system, it would almost certainly be easier than now - it's easier to get a desirable output if you know all the inputs and their weights and effects. It would also likely be less detectable, as the need for obvious tactics would be reduced if other, more subtle ones were uncovered.
I'd be very interested to know "exactly" what Google is doing behind the scenes, as you put it.
No, the truth is that these people have some idea of what's going on, and as such can neither guarantee results nor non-detection. If the actual algorithm were known, as you claim, then it would be much more trivial to design a page to be undetectably ranked highly.
This hack does not enable homebrew anything, and nor is it necessary for homebrew code. It can only be used for making backups - whether that is legitimate is the issue.
You don't need this hack to run arbitrary code, only the signature hack. In fact, if there were a signature hack, you wouldn't need this, as you could change the flag telling the XBox what media the executable should be run off, and then recompute the signature, or perhaps find a collision.
For arbitrary code, you compute the signature for whatever you want - media flag and all.
Even on X the main WMs are Metacity and KWM. Do they have the features you want? If not, then GIMP needs to do something, because it's pointless saying "well if you used a decent WM..." to the majority of the audience. Likewise, when designing a site, you still have to code for IE, even if it sucks.
Firstly, not on Windows. Secondly, it doesn't have other advantages, such as not hiding the tool menu/layers dialog (which can then fold up when not needed)
Slashdot Mirror
How many examples of Communism do you have? A handful. You can't even hope to make a blanket statement with so few examples. I think any sensible Commie (I can't say I've read Marx, here, so this view probably won't be purist) will tell you that Communism means the production is owned by the PEOPLE, not the state.
Economic policy does not have to relate to civil liberties. Incidentally, there are enough restrictions going on in the US anyway that your implications don't stand and, as has been previously pointed out, China's hardly communist anyway.
In this instance, Communism has led to disgusting violations of human rights, but so has Capitalism; it can't be equated with an economic system.
If anything is happening in linux, then there's nothing to stop anyone recording what's happening on the screen, so closed-source GPL is pointless anyway. Basically, if the DRM still allows you to play back your files, you can circumvent it.
Given that linux can run on an iPod, you'd think it could run on a 500MHz laptop. The only issue should be space.
How is this relevant? He said per capita.
Fair enough, however, your point about respect I still don't agree with. For me, where I control my actions, I know that I'm doing nothing morally wrong if I download a song, like it and pay for it. I also know I'm doing nothing "financially" wrong, since I have increased their revenue.
If I go into a bookshop I can read the blurb and a few pages to see if I like a book. I see this the same way. There's nothing like blurb for a song - a review can't tell you whether or not you'll like it. A quick listen will - whether I do this with p2p, at a music store, or more likely these days, with last.fm.
I find it unlikely that the artists themselves would mind particularly that I checked whether or not I liked their music before I bought it. If they are decent people, they'd appreciate that it is not their right to have my money, and should also be happy that I'm enjoying their work. Perhaps their label would get shirty, but the actual human beings I have difficulty imagining getting in a flap.
Presumably this technology would allow someone who had sight as a baby to see, even see well, as once one has the framework, the brain should be able to shuffle the other bits and pieces around. The key problem that you point out is that those who never had sight in the first place will not have performed the initial 'building' and will thus not be able to create a coherent visual centre.
Any neuroscientists please feel free to correct what I've written, it's mostly guesses.
I can see your point about legality, but respect? If anything, he's doing more respect to the artists, because he's buying their stuff, which otherwise he would not. The point is a fair one - if it increases revenue to the industry, why are they taking action? Because they're immoral, and apparently want to capitalise on something that has already made them money.
Maybe we can't 'dictate' their business model, but we can certainly pass judgement. My judgement is that it sucks, and I'm happy that I've thought this through.
In fact, if he doesn't listen to it but doesn't delete it, he's technically done nothing wrong, even if it is still illegal.
I believe current opinion from informed folks is that most downloaders buy the music afterwards. At least, enough to make it worth the industry's while.
This is not the point. The issue at hand is that revenue for the record industry is being increased, so statistics and proponents suggest, so they shouldn't damn well be complaining. It may be illegal, but people have a good point when they say it's (possibly, currently) illogical.
If steal the song from the shop, you're committing a crime. If you buy the song from some guy selling fake CDs on the street, and are somehow proven to know what you bought was stolen, I believe that is a crime. At the very least, they can take the goods.
Oh, come on, EVERYONE knows how the email goes.
The difference is that a mutation to most pieces of (functional) code will make the code stop working - for example, a change to a variable name, or register or operation will almost certainly drastically impair the program's function, or produce something undesirable. In a gene, a change like this may produce a non-functional protein, or it may produce a protein that folds very slightly differently, and hence allow for evolution. It is the acceptance of small, incremental change that allows non-destructive variation in nature. Simultaneously, due to the reactions being chemical, chance frameshifts such as nylonase can be useful, whilst in a computer, the language is too restrictive to allow for such a lucky result.
If you listen to people like theravingathiest (.com) such belief is well described as religious. Atheism clearly isn't religion in the sense of organised, as usually an atheist is an atheist alone. However, they can have just as much religious belief as a theist.
Often, an atheist simply doesn't believe, and that is that. It's difficult to label this as religious belief as there is no 'positive affirmation' that God does not exist. There is simply a lack of belief.
The key word is pragmatic. It is invaluable in that it prevents us believing in any old spurious piece of claptrap (as some would label God) but nonetheless does not produce concrete knowledge. Taking the classic toys in the cupboard example, by the burden of proof principle, noone needs to believe that the toys in the cupboard come alive once the door is closed, as long as noone has any chance of discovering them. However, it does not mean that you know that the toys do not come alive, it is merely an abstraction of the way we reject blatantly stupid things, in such a way as to apply to more serious propositions.
Looking back, it probably is a 'solid argument,' what I should have said was something more like proof. In my mind, the principle is weightier than someone who says God is necessary for order in the Universe. I can say, "yes, but it's perfectly possible it all happened by chance." They can say, "yes, but it's possible God exists without proof."
The point being made is that atheist do not know there is no God any more than theists know there is one. As such, belief that there is no God requires just as much faith as any other religion. The "burden of proof" argument has already been raised, but that only applies to those simply do not believe in God, not those who believe there is none. Also, the burden of proof argument is not a solid argument by any means, merely the basis of our own scientific method.
What we actually know is some of the things that contribute to PageRank - links from other sites, for example.
While it's true that, even with the exact algorithm, it would be difficult to trick the system, it would almost certainly be easier than now - it's easier to get a desirable output if you know all the inputs and their weights and effects. It would also likely be less detectable, as the need for obvious tactics would be reduced if other, more subtle ones were uncovered.
No, the truth is that these people have some idea of what's going on, and as such can neither guarantee results nor non-detection. If the actual algorithm were known, as you claim, then it would be much more trivial to design a page to be undetectably ranked highly.
This hack does not enable homebrew anything, and nor is it necessary for homebrew code. It can only be used for making backups - whether that is legitimate is the issue.
You don't need this hack to run arbitrary code, only the signature hack. In fact, if there were a signature hack, you wouldn't need this, as you could change the flag telling the XBox what media the executable should be run off, and then recompute the signature, or perhaps find a collision.
For arbitrary code, you compute the signature for whatever you want - media flag and all.
Even on X the main WMs are Metacity and KWM. Do they have the features you want? If not, then GIMP needs to do something, because it's pointless saying "well if you used a decent WM..." to the majority of the audience. Likewise, when designing a site, you still have to code for IE, even if it sucks.
Firstly, not on Windows. Secondly, it doesn't have other advantages, such as not hiding the tool menu/layers dialog (which can then fold up when not needed)
Then put 33 cents in another envelope and complain that you want it back. And then post it to bash.org