I think ADA is finally on its way out. COBOL and Fortran will still be around for years though. and anyone who knows their way around MATLAB will also be in high demand for years to come. Pick any language on which deployed hardware depends, and you've got a language that will need people who understand it for years to come.
I once new someone who helped a Telecom deploy their COBOL stack -- she was pulled out of retirement some 20 years later to help them migrate it to a more modern platform, as she was the only person from the team left alive who actually understood how it all worked.
I remember when ECHELON was the big 5-eyes project that everyone was up in arms about, and someone circulated a list of key words they were supposedly flagging on, so everyone started using those in phone calls / email / web sites / etc. Eventually we discovered ECHELON wasn't as capable as thought, and was much more focused... until it got replaced by the current system.
I wonder how many of us there are on here with that exact same story. For some odd reason, I decided to only use Eraser Mates -- and I always came home from school with blue all up the outside of my left hand. I think I must have decided on Eraser Mates because even though the ink smeared more easily, it actually washed off at the end of the day. But I sure don't miss the cramped hand.
I was writing software f by the time I was 8, and that sped up my touch typing considerably. Of course, computers were hard to come by, so I also practiced my typing on a hand-drawn qwerty keyboard and an old manual typewriter (the kind where there was no "1" key, because you already had a perfectly usable "l" key.
Yeah; you should have left it at the first sentence:D
Considering the current up-and-coming generation thinks Facebook belongs to the land of decrepit 30-somethings, integrating those sites is a dead-end.
I'm going to do something totally new and unthought-of -- like creating a new platform where you can post news articles, play networked games, upload and download files, and participate in live chat. It will be free to connect to, but you'll need to pay for an account (yeah, freemium here we come!) with more capabilities the more you pay. It will be run over Tor, and have no central host (yeah, the clients will be the hosts, and I won't have to pay for infrastructure!)
Oh, and it'll be fast, as distributed systems are when you throw enough 18/yo programmers at them.
If you're 50 and you are doing state programs and interviews, you're doing it wrong. I know, I went that route too, before my social network finally kicked in despite my efforts to use "traditional" job search techniques.
If you're 50 and you've been in the same industry most of your life, you probably know a LOT of people in decision making positions at good companies. Don't sift through the jobs HR is advertizing; make contact with all those people you used to know, and get one of them to create a position specifically for you, using your specific skill set as the template. By the time you're 50, you have a very honed and particular skill set that differentiates you from everyone else. If they build a job request for HR based around that, you may find you're the only suitable candidate. At which point, you get the job no matter what age you are.
You'll also find that this means you have a better working relationship with everyone else (as they know they need YOU to do the job) and your job security will be way better. But don't target just one company with this tactic; figure out what makes you unique, then investigate all the companies out there that you think might need that blend, then find out which ones DO need that blend -- and then figure out which of those you can use your social network (usually friend of friend or friend of friend of friend) to make contact outside of HR. Submitting your resume should be one of the last things that gets done, after you're already on radar, and they just have to go through the formalities.
No idea; I entered the digital world in the early 80's, and never set up a Facebook account, twitter account, or Instagram account. However, I wrote MUDs in the 90's and was doing the BBS thing in the 80's. Yeah, I remember FidoNet. I'm not only a digital native (never really got the hang of handwriting, switched to using a computer keyboard whenever possible as I was learning to write), but I was using social media before the people they're referring to as "digital natives" were even born.
I took my first "digital selfie" back around 1998, on a Sony Digital Camera that took 640x480 shots and stored them on a 3.5" floppy disk. And yes, I even uploaded those shots to my social media sites of the time (which included a FirstClass BBS).
If the question of "digital native" came up in hiring, I wouldn't have even thought twice about answering "yes" -- even though my first phone was a rotary dial variety, back when you could still whistle into the receiver to get on the local loop.
Who would pay you to produce software and music if "the next level up" couldn't sell it on?
The consumers. You don't need a "next level up". Also, advertisers, corporations that want works for hire, any anyone else. Would you end up with individuals making millions off of one hit song? Probably not. But you'd end up with many more musicians than now actually able to make a living producing music.
What you don't understand is that music production is expensive and if you want to be a musician you should be able to make a living at it without having to play I. Clubs every night. There is only one Mona Lisa by davinci, would you pay a lot for a copy? Just because it can be copied and distributed daily doesn't make it right. The artist and the label should be paid. How do you people live in a capitalist society and not understand the basic principal of our economic system. An artist mushy spend $100000 in studio expenses and instruments along with weeks of work and tons of creative effort. And you think you should just be able to get that stuff for free? You think the studio should provide a million dollar recording studio for free? Music and art are a business and just be user distribution mean gods changed doesn't change how the business works.
Let's take this assertion by assertion.
1) What you don't understand....
Are you sure I don't understand? Or maybe you're not getting part of what I was saying?
2) Music production is expensive
It doesn't have to be. As I said, I've produced music. I've also performed music and recorded music. I've never spent more than $100/sitting for studio time; if you don't go with the major labels, you don't have to pay the major fees -- and the equipment has got to the point where recording and production doesn't really cost all that much in real expenses -- even Garage Band can handle basic production tasks (but doesn't have the recording room, which IS a major sunk expense). These days, I just trade studio time for services, and it costs me nothing but my time (and keeps my ears sharp).
3) If you want to be a musician you should be able to make a living at it without having to play I. Clubs every night.
I've never played I. Clubs. Of course, as a musician, I've never made it my day job either. But I could easily do so simply using an indy producer and social media, and not sell myself to the major labels, who might or might not decide to promote me. There's lots of ways to make a living as a musician; just not as a pop star -- because just like sports stars, there's only room for a few of those. Entitlement doesn't put food on the table.
4) There is only one Mona Lisa....
I personally wouldn't pay for a copy. I can see it online, I can make duplicates, take photos of it, etc. Copies are in the public domain. And da Vinci isn't going to be making any money off it anyway -- and didn't have copyright on his side back in the day; people copied his work freely, and yet people still appreciate it. So how did he make a living? He was a good painter, and people paid him to paint things. I think this example kind of proves my point much better than it proves yours.
5) Just because it can be copied and distributed daily doesn't make it right.
So you think it's wrong that I can copy and distribute the Mona Lisa daily? Do you think it's wrong that Disney can copy and distribute such titles as Cinderella, Mulan, Pocohantas, etc. daily, and even charge money for them? Because that's also copying the works of others. Or is your problem only with works that were produced by people still alive, who are expecting a certain level of remuneration for what they created?
6) The artist and the label should be paid.
Time to review my comments you replied to. Personally, I think the artist should be paid a lot MORE. I think labels should for the most part be abolished. I think recording studios should get paid what they charge the musicians, and if demand drops because someone can do it for less, then they don't deserve to be paid more, just because they want it. Right now, the labels only use specific studios, and so the studios have a monopoly on the labels' musicians, and can charge what they want (which gets paid by the labels, and docked against the musicians' contract).
The bigger question, and the point I was raising is WHO should pay the artist? In my view
On the other side, it seems like this should fund more research into methods to deflect the path of gamma radiation or transform its state. We know the Earth's atmosphere can do it, so why not develop our own deflection field? After all, we know where most of the gamma rays are coming from, and the rest of them would be just as random as they are here on earth. No need to "block" gamma radiation with something earth-sized; just deflect it enough that it is much less likely to hit a human, and provide a mechanism that will also render some of it non-ionizing by adjusting its moment or frequency. We know that energy can phase shift into matter and back, so why not use this knowledge to our advantage? Shift, bend, and let it shift back, pointing in a safer direction.
I think you misunderstood "acceptance" -- the GP was talking about accepting it for publishing; even if the methodology was not at the appropriate level to publish it. So now the only choice is to publish it, at which point the researchers will be judged based on work that likely needed refinement and so isn't up to the level of other published work, and the publishers will be judged on releasing a lower quality of research.
But it's possible that the research can stand on its own, and that a new reviewer is all it needs to get tweaked and ready for publication -- in which case, science will roll on as usual.
That's a good link -- and to me it highlights something different: selection bias. Not of the people in the experiment, but of the people designing the experiment.
Instead of looking at it as "this person's a feminist, they're going to be biased to feminist results," look at it as "people who think to ask questions in this way tend to get this set of results, repeatedly. This will likely lead to them accepting the associated ideology." So instead of the studies proving the pre-conceived notions of the experimenters, what we could be seeing is the experiments selecting the appropriate experimenters. Since someone is unlikely to widely vary their methodology from one study to the next, they are likely to replicate the same "bias" purely because they are the same person going about things the same way.
To really break this cycle, you need to add some randomness from some outside force, such that a single person or group of people does not control the entire methodology of the study. Even if they are using methods to avoid bias, they are likely to always use the same methods, and so always get "affirming" results. In this, the single reviewer was correct, even though his assumptions of WHY he was correct are likely way off.
And yes, this line of thought completely affirms your comment about male vs female being incredibly stupid. If there's selection bias based on methodology, you're going to find men and women coming down on both sides -- there might be some clustering based on social norms of men vs. women, but that's a really fuzzy boundary at the best of times.
Has most console cheating actually been eradicaated, or is it just that people aren't being caught anymore?
Also, consoles are closed systems, whereas a desktop computer is an open system. I see eSports going the way of car racing: different events test different skills. We all know that cars can go faster than human reflexes can manage. Enter Formula racing, which is kind of analogous to console racing: everyone gets the same basic hardware, and can only tweak within those constraints. By comparison, PC eSports are more like a cannonball run, where everything goes as long as you can afford it and don't get caught.
I can actually see mobile gaming becoming more of a sport, as the hardware is both more limited and more standardized. Then, of course, you'll get people running Android under emulation under some supercomputer with a bunch of system-level tweaks. But stuff like this can be investigated for winners (just like sports drug testing). And if they're not winning, why is it a problem?
...and then the country with less population, land mass, and wealth that's going to be completely flooded by what everyone else wants to do decides to stop the plans -- because they've got nuclear arms.
See, the thing is, they have nothing to lose, and no reason to play the voting game, which they know they will always lose. Sure, the entire country could move somewhere else -- but people tend to be resistant to that sort of idea unless it's backed with force.
This is why you see major dams flooding areas of countries that don't hold the power to topple the government. But the world is big enough that you're going to find people with the capabilities to destroy large parts of it pretty much everywhere.
I haven't traced back what the GP said, so I'm not exactly sure of the point of the parent.
However, where I come from, forests are for the most part public property. I grew up not only picking berries, but also picking mushrooms, and selling those on to distributors. Does this mean I was stealing for profit? Others were unable to pick those mushrooms after I did. However, I made sure to cut them appropriately so that a new bunch would grow back, and I put in the actual work of picking, sorting and transporting the mushrooms. My picking was only depriving other people of immediate mushroom gratification/profits from doing what I had done.
Now, if you live in a place where all forests are owned by individuals and corporations, then picking berries/mushrooms would indeed be theft/poaching. But I'd argue that "owning" that forest could be considered theft from people at large as well -- just like "owning" a public event such that any re-depiction of that event afterwards by anyone other than you is cultural theft. Yes, I'm talking about DIsney/IOC/etc. here.
It was his decision to record music and sell it to the public.
Fixed.
If you enjoyed his work, he happens to have a sale going on...$10 for the album and you can enjoy it anytime you want. You can put it on your computer, ipod, cell phone and enjoy it anywhere.
But if you just download it and do the same, then you are taking money out of his pocket just the same as if you lifted a bag of chips from 7-11.
Really? First part is false if you live in the UK: format shifting is considered infringement, as it deprives the author of funds they could have gathered by providing it to you in that format.
"Just download it and do the same" -- are you saying that my iTunes downloads don't give me the same freedom to format shift as if I bought a CD?
"you are taking money out of his pocket just the same as if you lifed a bag of chips from 7-11" -- No. If I downloaded something without paying when I would have gladly paid $10 if the free version hadn't been available, I am depriving the author of potential profit. If I walk out of 7-11 without paying for physical goods, I've taken something with tangible value and deprived the store of it (and deprived them of selling it to someone else who would be willing to pay the $2.50).
Look at it this way: if an audio track is on a website next to a "donate" icon, anyone in the world can download it and donate. The cost is the cost to serve the bits, plus the sunk cost of producing the audio track.
If a bag of chips is sitting on a shelf next to a "donate" jar, anyone who is locally present can take the bag of chips. Once that's done, all that is left is the jar, possibly with some money in it.
Where things break down is that we have a concept built around the exchange of value. I might have a bag of chips, you might know how to fix a leaky faucet. In exchange for the bag of chips, I could a) fix your leaky faucet (this is exchange of goods for services) or b) tell you how to fix your faucet (exchange of goods for information). Music is exactly like the second one of these, even though some people conflate it with the first.
If I told you "you can't tell anyone else how to fix a leaky faucet without paying me first" you'd probably just ignore me.
Many music contracts are, however, written up this way, so that the distributor gets the right to say who can tell who (and how) how to fix that faucet. If someone breaks their agreement not to tell, and then tells a bunch of other people how to fix the faucet, are those other people suddenly taking money out of the pocket of the guy who sold this information to the distributor?
And as someone who has produced both software and music, I agree 100% with the parent on this. And I'm not posting AC:)
I get paid for what I produce, not for what other people experience/consume. This is the case for most developers of intellectual property. It's the next level up: the lawyers/distributors/vendors that require payment for distribution of intellectual property. A lot of their work would vanish if Congress made such a move, because their jobs are artificially created.
Anyone who actually produces intellectual property who would feel threatened by things becoming free needs to take a hard look at why they feel threatened. Do they feel like they are currently being paid more than what they develop is actually worth on an open market?
You forgot about recording, producing, post-producing and distributing -- these all have copyright law attached to them too.
This is actually why recording companies exist -- they navigate the legal morass so that individuals don't have to.
However, it seems to me it'd make more sense these days to incorporate an entity for each album you produce, so that if someone takes umbrage with your composition/writing/performance/format/recording/production/post-production/distribution, you can just dissolve that incorporation and your own livelihood and the fate of all other music is still protected. And you wouldn't end up being beholden to a recording company who does pretty much the same thing, but takes most of the profits.
I think people are coming at this from two sides. On the one side, there's the possibility of trusted CAs issuing duplicate certs for the same namespace. You can't really avoid this if you accept those CAs as trusted; the risk is the same no matter which CA you actually use.
However, on the other side, you have CAs being beholden to a local government, looking at rejection of certs, not acceptance. If I have a cert signed by a CA in a country that disagrees with something I post on my website, they can revoke my cert, preventing all access to my site without even going through the domain registrars.
And if you look at it this way, you can see that the upcoming CA issues will go down the exact same path Domain Registrars have walked for the past 20 years. From a deployment standpoint, there's really no difference between the two: they both involve a federated central authority that assigns a specific value to a specific grantee, to enable others to access said grantee. As the cost decreases, the abuse increases, as seen recently with such things as.ninja domains and their abuse. Free certs will be abused in similar ways.
So the only real benefit is that your encrypted data will be hidden amongst other encrypted data in transit, making on-the-wire (or on-the-wifi) analysis much more difficult. Verifying the endpoints and avoiding certificate abuse will become much more difficult, as there will be much more data to sort through. Even crowd-sourcing the reputation of certs can be gamed, if the abusers are anticipating it.
Yeah; I never said it was a good thing; just exploring possible reasoning for doing it.
However, in this case it would be more like "we called up some German doctors" -- knowing that there was a strong likelihood they had Nazi ties, but focusing on their shared research instead of actively searching out those who are outside their ethical boundaries.
More likely they worked together to develop various psychological models that had nothing to do with torture, but could easily be applied to them. They could also have been working together to answer the question "Where is the line in the sand between interrogation and torture?" This would be important to the APA as well, as they have very specific rules about what kind of experiments can be run by their members. Defining that border area by consulting with a group that doesn't have their restrictions would allow them to be clearer in laying out their own guidelines, to prevent their members from doing things that could cause lasting psychological or physical harm to those they're testing.
Which raises the question: Why do they have two products that are free? One that they market, and one that they test, and pawn off as the marketed item?
The problem here is that they were submitting one product for testing, and using the certification gained by that testing to represent another product.
My guess is that this was done so that the product they distribute in China is 100% Chinese, but they get the one that's essentially BitDefender certified to raise acceptance.
Slashdot Mirror
I think ADA is finally on its way out. COBOL and Fortran will still be around for years though. and anyone who knows their way around MATLAB will also be in high demand for years to come. Pick any language on which deployed hardware depends, and you've got a language that will need people who understand it for years to come.
I once new someone who helped a Telecom deploy their COBOL stack -- she was pulled out of retirement some 20 years later to help them migrate it to a more modern platform, as she was the only person from the team left alive who actually understood how it all worked.
I remember when ECHELON was the big 5-eyes project that everyone was up in arms about, and someone circulated a list of key words they were supposedly flagging on, so everyone started using those in phone calls / email / web sites / etc. Eventually we discovered ECHELON wasn't as capable as thought, and was much more focused... until it got replaced by the current system.
Go really retro and have token ring and round robin instead of ethernet.... or go niche and support PhoneNet.
And yeah; I had computers long before they had ethernet ports. Imagine an RS485 cluster of computers....
I wonder how many of us there are on here with that exact same story. For some odd reason, I decided to only use Eraser Mates -- and I always came home from school with blue all up the outside of my left hand. I think I must have decided on Eraser Mates because even though the ink smeared more easily, it actually washed off at the end of the day. But I sure don't miss the cramped hand.
I was writing software f by the time I was 8, and that sped up my touch typing considerably. Of course, computers were hard to come by, so I also practiced my typing on a hand-drawn qwerty keyboard and an old manual typewriter (the kind where there was no "1" key, because you already had a perfectly usable "l" key.
Yeah; you should have left it at the first sentence :D
Considering the current up-and-coming generation thinks Facebook belongs to the land of decrepit 30-somethings, integrating those sites is a dead-end.
I'm going to do something totally new and unthought-of -- like creating a new platform where you can post news articles, play networked games, upload and download files, and participate in live chat. It will be free to connect to, but you'll need to pay for an account (yeah, freemium here we come!) with more capabilities the more you pay. It will be run over Tor, and have no central host (yeah, the clients will be the hosts, and I won't have to pay for infrastructure!)
Oh, and it'll be fast, as distributed systems are when you throw enough 18/yo programmers at them.
If you're 50 and you are doing state programs and interviews, you're doing it wrong. I know, I went that route too, before my social network finally kicked in despite my efforts to use "traditional" job search techniques.
If you're 50 and you've been in the same industry most of your life, you probably know a LOT of people in decision making positions at good companies. Don't sift through the jobs HR is advertizing; make contact with all those people you used to know, and get one of them to create a position specifically for you, using your specific skill set as the template. By the time you're 50, you have a very honed and particular skill set that differentiates you from everyone else. If they build a job request for HR based around that, you may find you're the only suitable candidate. At which point, you get the job no matter what age you are.
You'll also find that this means you have a better working relationship with everyone else (as they know they need YOU to do the job) and your job security will be way better. But don't target just one company with this tactic; figure out what makes you unique, then investigate all the companies out there that you think might need that blend, then find out which ones DO need that blend -- and then figure out which of those you can use your social network (usually friend of friend or friend of friend of friend) to make contact outside of HR. Submitting your resume should be one of the last things that gets done, after you're already on radar, and they just have to go through the formalities.
My teething ring was loop of 10Base5 cable. My see-and-say was a circular slide rule.
Lucky you... I wasn't so privileged and only had a token ring.
The bell bottoms and sideburns are a dead giveaway.
Get with the times -- 70's clothing was out a couple of years ago; we're re-living the 80's with its hot pink Vuarnet shirts and argyle sweaters now.
No idea; I entered the digital world in the early 80's, and never set up a Facebook account, twitter account, or Instagram account. However, I wrote MUDs in the 90's and was doing the BBS thing in the 80's. Yeah, I remember FidoNet. I'm not only a digital native (never really got the hang of handwriting, switched to using a computer keyboard whenever possible as I was learning to write), but I was using social media before the people they're referring to as "digital natives" were even born.
I took my first "digital selfie" back around 1998, on a Sony Digital Camera that took 640x480 shots and stored them on a 3.5" floppy disk. And yes, I even uploaded those shots to my social media sites of the time (which included a FirstClass BBS).
If the question of "digital native" came up in hiring, I wouldn't have even thought twice about answering "yes" -- even though my first phone was a rotary dial variety, back when you could still whistle into the receiver to get on the local loop.
Who would pay you to produce software and music if "the next level up" couldn't sell it on?
The consumers. You don't need a "next level up". Also, advertisers, corporations that want works for hire, any anyone else. Would you end up with individuals making millions off of one hit song? Probably not. But you'd end up with many more musicians than now actually able to make a living producing music.
What you don't understand is that music production is expensive and if you want to be a musician you should be able to make a living at it without having to play I. Clubs every night. There is only one Mona Lisa by davinci, would you pay a lot for a copy? Just because it can be copied and distributed daily doesn't make it right. The artist and the label should be paid. How do you people live in a capitalist society and not understand the basic principal of our economic system. An artist mushy spend $100000 in studio expenses and instruments along with weeks of work and tons of creative effort. And you think you should just be able to get that stuff for free? You think the studio should provide a million dollar recording studio for free? Music and art are a business and just be user distribution mean gods changed doesn't change how the business works.
Let's take this assertion by assertion.
1) What you don't understand....
Are you sure I don't understand? Or maybe you're not getting part of what I was saying?
2) Music production is expensive
It doesn't have to be. As I said, I've produced music. I've also performed music and recorded music. I've never spent more than $100/sitting for studio time; if you don't go with the major labels, you don't have to pay the major fees -- and the equipment has got to the point where recording and production doesn't really cost all that much in real expenses -- even Garage Band can handle basic production tasks (but doesn't have the recording room, which IS a major sunk expense). These days, I just trade studio time for services, and it costs me nothing but my time (and keeps my ears sharp).
3) If you want to be a musician you should be able to make a living at it without having to play I. Clubs every night.
I've never played I. Clubs. Of course, as a musician, I've never made it my day job either. But I could easily do so simply using an indy producer and social media, and not sell myself to the major labels, who might or might not decide to promote me. There's lots of ways to make a living as a musician; just not as a pop star -- because just like sports stars, there's only room for a few of those. Entitlement doesn't put food on the table.
4) There is only one Mona Lisa....
I personally wouldn't pay for a copy. I can see it online, I can make duplicates, take photos of it, etc. Copies are in the public domain. And da Vinci isn't going to be making any money off it anyway -- and didn't have copyright on his side back in the day; people copied his work freely, and yet people still appreciate it. So how did he make a living? He was a good painter, and people paid him to paint things. I think this example kind of proves my point much better than it proves yours.
5) Just because it can be copied and distributed daily doesn't make it right.
So you think it's wrong that I can copy and distribute the Mona Lisa daily? Do you think it's wrong that Disney can copy and distribute such titles as Cinderella, Mulan, Pocohantas, etc. daily, and even charge money for them? Because that's also copying the works of others. Or is your problem only with works that were produced by people still alive, who are expecting a certain level of remuneration for what they created?
6) The artist and the label should be paid.
Time to review my comments you replied to. Personally, I think the artist should be paid a lot MORE. I think labels should for the most part be abolished. I think recording studios should get paid what they charge the musicians, and if demand drops because someone can do it for less, then they don't deserve to be paid more, just because they want it. Right now, the labels only use specific studios, and so the studios have a monopoly on the labels' musicians, and can charge what they want (which gets paid by the labels, and docked against the musicians' contract).
The bigger question, and the point I was raising is WHO should pay the artist? In my view
On the other side, it seems like this should fund more research into methods to deflect the path of gamma radiation or transform its state. We know the Earth's atmosphere can do it, so why not develop our own deflection field? After all, we know where most of the gamma rays are coming from, and the rest of them would be just as random as they are here on earth. No need to "block" gamma radiation with something earth-sized; just deflect it enough that it is much less likely to hit a human, and provide a mechanism that will also render some of it non-ionizing by adjusting its moment or frequency. We know that energy can phase shift into matter and back, so why not use this knowledge to our advantage? Shift, bend, and let it shift back, pointing in a safer direction.
I think you misunderstood "acceptance" -- the GP was talking about accepting it for publishing; even if the methodology was not at the appropriate level to publish it. So now the only choice is to publish it, at which point the researchers will be judged based on work that likely needed refinement and so isn't up to the level of other published work, and the publishers will be judged on releasing a lower quality of research.
But it's possible that the research can stand on its own, and that a new reviewer is all it needs to get tweaked and ready for publication -- in which case, science will roll on as usual.
That's a good link -- and to me it highlights something different: selection bias. Not of the people in the experiment, but of the people designing the experiment.
Instead of looking at it as "this person's a feminist, they're going to be biased to feminist results," look at it as "people who think to ask questions in this way tend to get this set of results, repeatedly. This will likely lead to them accepting the associated ideology." So instead of the studies proving the pre-conceived notions of the experimenters, what we could be seeing is the experiments selecting the appropriate experimenters. Since someone is unlikely to widely vary their methodology from one study to the next, they are likely to replicate the same "bias" purely because they are the same person going about things the same way.
To really break this cycle, you need to add some randomness from some outside force, such that a single person or group of people does not control the entire methodology of the study. Even if they are using methods to avoid bias, they are likely to always use the same methods, and so always get "affirming" results. In this, the single reviewer was correct, even though his assumptions of WHY he was correct are likely way off.
And yes, this line of thought completely affirms your comment about male vs female being incredibly stupid. If there's selection bias based on methodology, you're going to find men and women coming down on both sides -- there might be some clustering based on social norms of men vs. women, but that's a really fuzzy boundary at the best of times.
Has most console cheating actually been eradicaated, or is it just that people aren't being caught anymore?
Also, consoles are closed systems, whereas a desktop computer is an open system. I see eSports going the way of car racing: different events test different skills. We all know that cars can go faster than human reflexes can manage. Enter Formula racing, which is kind of analogous to console racing: everyone gets the same basic hardware, and can only tweak within those constraints. By comparison, PC eSports are more like a cannonball run, where everything goes as long as you can afford it and don't get caught.
I can actually see mobile gaming becoming more of a sport, as the hardware is both more limited and more standardized. Then, of course, you'll get people running Android under emulation under some supercomputer with a bunch of system-level tweaks. But stuff like this can be investigated for winners (just like sports drug testing). And if they're not winning, why is it a problem?
...and then the country with less population, land mass, and wealth that's going to be completely flooded by what everyone else wants to do decides to stop the plans -- because they've got nuclear arms.
See, the thing is, they have nothing to lose, and no reason to play the voting game, which they know they will always lose. Sure, the entire country could move somewhere else -- but people tend to be resistant to that sort of idea unless it's backed with force.
This is why you see major dams flooding areas of countries that don't hold the power to topple the government. But the world is big enough that you're going to find people with the capabilities to destroy large parts of it pretty much everywhere.
If they DO like it, then you have every right to profit from it.
Not every right, just copy right.
I haven't traced back what the GP said, so I'm not exactly sure of the point of the parent.
However, where I come from, forests are for the most part public property. I grew up not only picking berries, but also picking mushrooms, and selling those on to distributors. Does this mean I was stealing for profit? Others were unable to pick those mushrooms after I did. However, I made sure to cut them appropriately so that a new bunch would grow back, and I put in the actual work of picking, sorting and transporting the mushrooms. My picking was only depriving other people of immediate mushroom gratification/profits from doing what I had done.
Now, if you live in a place where all forests are owned by individuals and corporations, then picking berries/mushrooms would indeed be theft/poaching. But I'd argue that "owning" that forest could be considered theft from people at large as well -- just like "owning" a public event such that any re-depiction of that event afterwards by anyone other than you is cultural theft. Yes, I'm talking about DIsney/IOC/etc. here.
It was his decision to record music and sell it to the public.
Fixed.
If you enjoyed his work, he happens to have a sale going on...$10 for the album and you can enjoy it anytime you want. You can put it on your computer, ipod, cell phone and enjoy it anywhere.
But if you just download it and do the same, then you are taking money out of his pocket just the same as if you lifted a bag of chips from 7-11.
Really?
First part is false if you live in the UK: format shifting is considered infringement, as it deprives the author of funds they could have gathered by providing it to you in that format.
"Just download it and do the same" -- are you saying that my iTunes downloads don't give me the same freedom to format shift as if I bought a CD?
"you are taking money out of his pocket just the same as if you lifed a bag of chips from 7-11" -- No. If I downloaded something without paying when I would have gladly paid $10 if the free version hadn't been available, I am depriving the author of potential profit. If I walk out of 7-11 without paying for physical goods, I've taken something with tangible value and deprived the store of it (and deprived them of selling it to someone else who would be willing to pay the $2.50).
Look at it this way: if an audio track is on a website next to a "donate" icon, anyone in the world can download it and donate. The cost is the cost to serve the bits, plus the sunk cost of producing the audio track.
If a bag of chips is sitting on a shelf next to a "donate" jar, anyone who is locally present can take the bag of chips. Once that's done, all that is left is the jar, possibly with some money in it.
Where things break down is that we have a concept built around the exchange of value. I might have a bag of chips, you might know how to fix a leaky faucet. In exchange for the bag of chips, I could a) fix your leaky faucet (this is exchange of goods for services) or b) tell you how to fix your faucet (exchange of goods for information). Music is exactly like the second one of these, even though some people conflate it with the first.
If I told you "you can't tell anyone else how to fix a leaky faucet without paying me first" you'd probably just ignore me.
Many music contracts are, however, written up this way, so that the distributor gets the right to say who can tell who (and how) how to fix that faucet. If someone breaks their agreement not to tell, and then tells a bunch of other people how to fix the faucet, are those other people suddenly taking money out of the pocket of the guy who sold this information to the distributor?
Think about that.
And as someone who has produced both software and music, I agree 100% with the parent on this. And I'm not posting AC :)
I get paid for what I produce, not for what other people experience/consume. This is the case for most developers of intellectual property. It's the next level up: the lawyers/distributors/vendors that require payment for distribution of intellectual property. A lot of their work would vanish if Congress made such a move, because their jobs are artificially created.
Anyone who actually produces intellectual property who would feel threatened by things becoming free needs to take a hard look at why they feel threatened. Do they feel like they are currently being paid more than what they develop is actually worth on an open market?
You forgot about recording, producing, post-producing and distributing -- these all have copyright law attached to them too.
This is actually why recording companies exist -- they navigate the legal morass so that individuals don't have to.
However, it seems to me it'd make more sense these days to incorporate an entity for each album you produce, so that if someone takes umbrage with your composition/writing/performance/format/recording/production/post-production/distribution, you can just dissolve that incorporation and your own livelihood and the fate of all other music is still protected. And you wouldn't end up being beholden to a recording company who does pretty much the same thing, but takes most of the profits.
I think people are coming at this from two sides. On the one side, there's the possibility of trusted CAs issuing duplicate certs for the same namespace. You can't really avoid this if you accept those CAs as trusted; the risk is the same no matter which CA you actually use.
However, on the other side, you have CAs being beholden to a local government, looking at rejection of certs, not acceptance. If I have a cert signed by a CA in a country that disagrees with something I post on my website, they can revoke my cert, preventing all access to my site without even going through the domain registrars.
And if you look at it this way, you can see that the upcoming CA issues will go down the exact same path Domain Registrars have walked for the past 20 years. From a deployment standpoint, there's really no difference between the two: they both involve a federated central authority that assigns a specific value to a specific grantee, to enable others to access said grantee. As the cost decreases, the abuse increases, as seen recently with such things as .ninja domains and their abuse. Free certs will be abused in similar ways.
So the only real benefit is that your encrypted data will be hidden amongst other encrypted data in transit, making on-the-wire (or on-the-wifi) analysis much more difficult. Verifying the endpoints and avoiding certificate abuse will become much more difficult, as there will be much more data to sort through. Even crowd-sourcing the reputation of certs can be gamed, if the abusers are anticipating it.
Yeah; I never said it was a good thing; just exploring possible reasoning for doing it.
However, in this case it would be more like "we called up some German doctors" -- knowing that there was a strong likelihood they had Nazi ties, but focusing on their shared research instead of actively searching out those who are outside their ethical boundaries.
Slippery slopes, and all that.
More likely they worked together to develop various psychological models that had nothing to do with torture, but could easily be applied to them. They could also have been working together to answer the question "Where is the line in the sand between interrogation and torture?" This would be important to the APA as well, as they have very specific rules about what kind of experiments can be run by their members. Defining that border area by consulting with a group that doesn't have their restrictions would allow them to be clearer in laying out their own guidelines, to prevent their members from doing things that could cause lasting psychological or physical harm to those they're testing.
Which raises the question: Why do they have two products that are free? One that they market, and one that they test, and pawn off as the marketed item?
The problem here is that they were submitting one product for testing, and using the certification gained by that testing to represent another product.
My guess is that this was done so that the product they distribute in China is 100% Chinese, but they get the one that's essentially BitDefender certified to raise acceptance.