There is actually a series problem with animal rights extremists in the UK.
Perhaps they should be tried in parallel? It would certainly speed up the process.
Re:It's called creative license
on
Tetraktys
·
· Score: 1
Actually, Brown repeatedly contends that his books (at least The Da Vinci Code anyway) are one step away from history books. He has several times stated that the only fiction involved in The Da Vinci Code is the present day action surrounding the main characters. Everything else is claimed to be entirely accurate, including those "facts" which are easily shown to be poorly researched, misinterpretations, or debunked hoaxes.
What you're missing is that the procedure to test the paranormal claim is agreed upon by both the claimant and the JREF prior to the test. If the test succeeds the person moves on to the next stage and eventually wins the money. At that point further study would undoubtedly incorporate the phenomenon into the body of legitimate science. If the test fails the claimant either realizes they've been deceiving themselves and others and calls it quits or, more commonly, claims that the test was rigged despite having agreed that the rules were fair going into it and continues their old ways.
The last several JREF tests I've followed have taken the latter course. The paranormal claimant goes into the test feeling good about the procedure, after failing agrees that the test was conducted fairly and perhaps states that "the spirits weren't with them that day", and then several days later states that the JREF arranged an unfair test that could not possibly have succeeded.
The MSG episode was almost on par with a MythBusters experiment. One group got MSG (all on one side of the room), one group didn't (other side of the room). After eating they asked for food enjoyment and symptoms, then who thought the food had MSG. Better studies have presented the same result with more precise conditions.
This makes me wonder, 1. Isn't "An absolute must-have" kind of the point of creating, promoting, and maintaining anything in a modern economy, and 2. SO WHAT?!?! Google, while a gargantuan entity in the Search and On-Line AD world, doesn't employ tactics that scream anti-trust to me just see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yahoo&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10, I mean they link to their competitor's very prominently in their own search terms. Do you picture Mircosoft linking to Apple? Probably not.
In 10-20 years? Have you seen the cell phones they have? Or any of the other cutting edge tech? I'd say that Oriental products are already ahead of the Occidental [1], and have been for a number of years.
Presuming it's the same summary that I read, it contained a mistake.
Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings. Then, it averages the third reading with the average just computed. Then the fourth reading is averaged with the new average, and so on. There is no comment or note detailing a reason for this calculation, which would cause the first reading to have more weight than successive readings.
This actually places more weight on the final reading, not the first.
NASA didn't fund the pen at all. When it was developed, BOTH the Russians and the US adopted it's use. Before that, they BOTH used grease pencils, because broken graphite and flammable wood are loads of fun in space.
It's your computer so you have the right to copy whatever you want... of your own files. Or of files others explicitly give to you. It is the author's right to determine how their content is distributed. If they sign those rights over to a publisher, that's their decision.
Are you seriously telling us that if you published something you had created (art, music, literature, code, anything) AND wanted to charge a fee in order to gain access to that content, that you would find it perfectly acceptable for one of those purchasers to resell or redistribute that work without your permission? Or what if the content was copied directly from your system without payment? Is that OK to redistribute? Or what if you gave out promotional copy and the recipient set up their own store and undercut you, or gave away unlimited copies, or even charged a premium? Even claiming that it was their work?
Ignore the cost of reproduction, I hope you'd agree that just because the result of something is easy to reproduce doesn't mean that it's worthless. Hours of labor did indeed enter into its formation. Your computer does not make things worthless. It does allow you to circumvent societal contracts. Do you think it is acceptable to walk into a music store and walk out with a stack of CDs without paying? Or do you think it's acceptable to walk in with your laptop and copy that stack, reseal them, and walk out?
These may just be files, but they stop "just being files" as soon as you interpret them. All the proposals for p2p systems by combining the desired data with random data, sharing the mix, and extracting later, or even just sharing the data on its own, because "you can't copyright a number" is just philosophic nonsense. You KNOW what the intent and result is.
I can't imagine that ONE intelligent person truly believes that the unauthorized sharing of copyrighted materials should be legal. In the end it does all come back to the artist and their desires. If we didn't have any copyright laws there would be no incentive to create art. There would be those who have the need or desire to do so anyway, but in that imaginary world they would have no choice but to give the works away and rely on some other income, or the support of their patrons.
Show me a logical argument as to why it is your inherent right to copy the work of others, against the terms that they set out when they produced it, and I'll drop my arguments in a second. Until then, you are deluding yourself if you honestly believe your statements.
Might want to be careful with that one. Sometimes the platters are glass or some other non-bendable, but easily shatter-able material. I once bent two platters from one drive and then moved on to the next set. While it only took around 15 minutes to clean up the majority, it's been several months now and I still find the occasional remnant in my living room. That thing exploded.
So you're for DRM, until it's no longer convienent. It's a broken system from the start and will only ever keep "the honest people honest" and inconvienenced. I agree product developers deserve control over the distributio work, but that control ends once the work is in my hands. At that point I can do what I like to it in my own personal space.
Tickets for parking too long in one spot should be accompanied by proof that you did exceed the time, including photos showing the wheels in the same position at the start time and stop time.
I think I'd want a bit more than the spokes of my tires appearing to line up the same. Photographic evidence is useful for displaying that something happened or was located somewhere at a specific time. But useless at proving nothing happened during the time gap between 2 images.
Then again, I also don't understand the idea of limiting the time that someone is allowed to continuously park in the same place. Prohibiting overnight parking? Sure, I can see some valid reasons for that. But, stating that you're fine with a spot being continuously occupied as long as the occupier is changing in some interval just seems odd.
Closed source may be easier to find a hole once disassembled / reverse-engineered, but released Open Source should have fewer bugs to begin with. Closed source is more attractive because it's more likely to be crackable. Disassembly / etc is trivial enough that the result is on par with source viewable projects. It's the amount of attention paid to the product. I'd expect to find more bugs is some large, open, unpopular project than I would in a large, closed, heavily developed project.
It's the inspection that aids the security, not the availability of the code base.
Slashdot Mirror
There is actually a series problem with animal rights extremists in the UK.
Perhaps they should be tried in parallel? It would certainly speed up the process.
Actually, Brown repeatedly contends that his books (at least The Da Vinci Code anyway) are one step away from history books. He has several times stated that the only fiction involved in The Da Vinci Code is the present day action surrounding the main characters. Everything else is claimed to be entirely accurate, including those "facts" which are easily shown to be poorly researched, misinterpretations, or debunked hoaxes.
What you're missing is that the procedure to test the paranormal claim is agreed upon by both the claimant and the JREF prior to the test. If the test succeeds the person moves on to the next stage and eventually wins the money. At that point further study would undoubtedly incorporate the phenomenon into the body of legitimate science. If the test fails the claimant either realizes they've been deceiving themselves and others and calls it quits or, more commonly, claims that the test was rigged despite having agreed that the rules were fair going into it and continues their old ways.
The last several JREF tests I've followed have taken the latter course. The paranormal claimant goes into the test feeling good about the procedure, after failing agrees that the test was conducted fairly and perhaps states that "the spirits weren't with them that day", and then several days later states that the JREF arranged an unfair test that could not possibly have succeeded.
Sounds like any properly blinded experiment.
The MSG episode was almost on par with a MythBusters experiment. One group got MSG (all on one side of the room), one group didn't (other side of the room). After eating they asked for food enjoyment and symptoms, then who thought the food had MSG. Better studies have presented the same result with more precise conditions.
Clearly you've never read the book "The 100th Bat".
That's unpossible.
This makes me wonder, 1. Isn't "An absolute must-have" kind of the point of creating, promoting, and maintaining anything in a modern economy, and 2. SO WHAT?!?! Google, while a gargantuan entity in the Search and On-Line AD world, doesn't employ tactics that scream anti-trust to me just see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yahoo&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10, I mean they link to their competitor's very prominently in their own search terms. Do you picture Mircosoft linking to Apple? Probably not.
Could have fooled me.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=apple&go=&form=QBLH
I agree about the innovation stifling though.
amazon has feet? are they for sale?
They were, but they've been soled.
Same here. For me, it's a robot killer.
In 10-20 years? Have you seen the cell phones they have? Or any of the other cutting edge tech? I'd say that Oriental products are already ahead of the Occidental [1], and have been for a number of years.
[1] Half the reason I posted was to use that.
Nice, another phrase to add to my "You see what I'm hearing?" repertoire.
"You twig what I'm grokking?"
Presuming it's the same summary that I read, it contained a mistake.
Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings. Then, it averages the third reading with the average just computed. Then the fourth reading is averaged with the new average, and so on. There is no comment or note detailing a reason for this calculation, which would cause the first reading to have more weight than successive readings.
This actually places more weight on the final reading, not the first.
This again? Let it die.
NASA didn't fund the pen at all.
When it was developed, BOTH the Russians and the US adopted it's use.
Before that, they BOTH used grease pencils, because broken graphite and flammable wood are loads of fun in space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_pen#Uses_in_the_U.S._and_Russian_space_programs
Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke?
It's your computer so you have the right to copy whatever you want... of your own files. Or of files others explicitly give to you.
It is the author's right to determine how their content is distributed. If they sign those rights over to a publisher, that's their decision.
Are you seriously telling us that if you published something you had created (art, music, literature, code, anything) AND wanted to charge a fee in order to gain access to that content, that you would find it perfectly acceptable for one of those purchasers to resell or redistribute that work without your permission? Or what if the content was copied directly from your system without payment? Is that OK to redistribute? Or what if you gave out promotional copy and the recipient set up their own store and undercut you, or gave away unlimited copies, or even charged a premium? Even claiming that it was their work?
Ignore the cost of reproduction, I hope you'd agree that just because the result of something is easy to reproduce doesn't mean that it's worthless. Hours of labor did indeed enter into its formation. Your computer does not make things worthless. It does allow you to circumvent societal contracts. Do you think it is acceptable to walk into a music store and walk out with a stack of CDs without paying? Or do you think it's acceptable to walk in with your laptop and copy that stack, reseal them, and walk out?
These may just be files, but they stop "just being files" as soon as you interpret them. All the proposals for p2p systems by combining the desired data with random data, sharing the mix, and extracting later, or even just sharing the data on its own, because "you can't copyright a number" is just philosophic nonsense. You KNOW what the intent and result is.
I can't imagine that ONE intelligent person truly believes that the unauthorized sharing of copyrighted materials should be legal. In the end it does all come back to the artist and their desires. If we didn't have any copyright laws there would be no incentive to create art. There would be those who have the need or desire to do so anyway, but in that imaginary world they would have no choice but to give the works away and rely on some other income, or the support of their patrons.
Show me a logical argument as to why it is your inherent right to copy the work of others, against the terms that they set out when they produced it, and I'll drop my arguments in a second. Until then, you are deluding yourself if you honestly believe your statements.
... it's not fair for the other planets to laugh at him.
I don't think the other planets are listening to you as I'm pretty sure I can hear Pluto laughing from here; something about "serves you right!".
So... you get access to the site, and then the CAPTCHA kills you?
The god explanation is such a cop out.
I thought the "You know it doesn't like that name." was a nice touch and opened it up quite a bit more than just "God did it".
Forget Bob, it's that AI that doesn't shoot and is always telling me what to do that freaks me out.
Bending and flexing the platters will [...]
Might want to be careful with that one. Sometimes the platters are glass or some other non-bendable, but easily shatter-able material. I once bent two platters from one drive and then moved on to the next set. While it only took around 15 minutes to clean up the majority, it's been several months now and I still find the occasional remnant in my living room. That thing exploded.
So you're for DRM, until it's no longer convienent. It's a broken system from the start and will only ever keep "the honest people honest" and inconvienenced. I agree product developers deserve control over the distributio work, but that control ends once the work is in my hands. At that point I can do what I like to it in my own personal space.
Tickets for parking too long in one spot should be accompanied by proof that you did exceed the time, including photos showing the wheels in the same position at the start time and stop time.
I think I'd want a bit more than the spokes of my tires appearing to line up the same. Photographic evidence is useful for displaying that something happened or was located somewhere at a specific time. But useless at proving nothing happened during the time gap between 2 images.
Then again, I also don't understand the idea of limiting the time that someone is allowed to continuously park in the same place. Prohibiting overnight parking? Sure, I can see some valid reasons for that. But, stating that you're fine with a spot being continuously occupied as long as the occupier is changing in some interval just seems odd.
Your other provisions make quite a bit of sense.
Of course, it's harder so it's more attractive.
Closed source may be easier to find a hole once disassembled / reverse-engineered, but released Open Source should have fewer bugs to begin with. Closed source is more attractive because it's more likely to be crackable. Disassembly / etc is trivial enough that the result is on par with source viewable projects. It's the amount of attention paid to the product. I'd expect to find more bugs is some large, open, unpopular project than I would in a large, closed, heavily developed project.
It's the inspection that aids the security, not the availability of the code base.
I have a hard time calling those webisodes, but I guess they fit. I thought there was something new.
Firefly webisodes!? Where?