"Content", whether it be audio, video, art or whatever is a consumer product just like any other.
Obviously you're entitled to your opinion. But let's just be clear that this is not the approach taken by US (or most other nations, AFAIK) copyright law. The entire concept of copyright was based on the idea that content is "different". A book is a product, a CD is a product, a painting is a product. But story, the music, the image, respectively, are not products. They are information. Information can be reproduced with trivial effort. But transcribing a usable, re-usable, distributable copy of the information was, until the advent of the VCR, prohibitively difficult/tedious. Possible, yes, but tedious. What this meant was that few people actually attempted to do such, to circumvent the creator's right of sole reproduction and distribution (AKA copyright). But when they did, there was a legal channel by which the creator could protect his right. "Unfair" forms of reproduction are what copyright was designed to protect. How can an artist make a living from his work if he has to compete with someone else to sell it who doesn't need to spend any time practicing, composing, or performing, and instead can sit and crank out copies all day long.
The digital age brought about the triviality of reproduction and distribution of information. Which means that virtually anyone can now do so with virtually no effort, or even technical knowledge. You don't need to buy heavy equipment or expensive ad space in order to copy and distribute. But that doesn't change the fact that each instance of this is a violation of the creator's sole right to reproduction and distribution. Each instance is an infringement of the copyright.
But that shouldn't be the final word. One must keep in mind the spirit of the law. Was it ever intended to prevent people from obtaining a copy and making use of that copy as many times as they want, in whatever ways they want, short of copying it for further distribution? Arguably, no. I would argue that any attempt to claim that a consumer should pay for each and every use, or even just multiple copies for different presentation devices, is unabashed money-grubbing. It is equivalent, in my mind, to an artist claiming grounds to sue you for reading his book aloud to your children-- or even just to yourself-- in the privacy of your home. Or an author claiming grounds to sue you for playing his song, on your piano, alone, again in the privacy of your home..... Unless you've paid for the license to do so.
I don't think there's a valid argument that this is the type of profiteering that copyright was meant to protect. So the next question is, should we redesign copyright law to serve this purely commercial/economic purpose, as the **AA's seem to want? Or do we lobby to get back to the spirit of the law, and renew the principles of fair use?
It should be obvious by this point where I stand, at least.
I think the insinuation was that she's not adjusting her position, just her campaign platform. These are, as I'm sure you know, not the same thing. Anyone familiar with politics, at least in the US, should be well aware of that.
The spirit of exploration is not an excuse to mitigate danger. Even aside from the fact that human life is important to the average citizen. If everyone we put up dies, then we're not making any progress.
But generating browseable PDF and HTML both require foresight, planning, a bit of work, and consideration for the needs of your readers
Considering it was openly stated that this was a sort of "last resort" method of publishing, I think it's an understandable first step the author. The author put a lot of effort into publishing this as a book, expecting it would be published as a book. I can understand not wanting to duplicate the effort. But I do think that your recommendations should be taken under consideration, and the author should keep this a "living" document, with a continued effort to make it more digestible in the medium it now occupies.
I'm not from the coasts. I did graduate college with a BS in Computer Engineering, but our school wasn't big on humanities, social studies, or the like. Most of what I know about culture, and the world at large, is self-taught. I just tend to be interested, aware, and observant. Which might set me above the average person in one respect, I suppose...
*wince* I can't imagine mistaking an English accent for an Australian one. Somewhat in their defense, aside from the costal areas and big cities the U.S. is not very culturally diverse. Most of the accents heard by people outside those areas are on TV. Though you'd think with the amount of TV people watch around here, they'd pick up something. They're probably spending too much time with the "reality shows".
Anyway, as you can see, I'm critical as well. I don't really even have a problem with people forming an expectation based on the fact that someone is an American. I just don't think it's fair to act on that expectation, before getting a bit of confirmation. I've been on the receiving end of that too many times. It wastes time and effort, as I typically take time to differentiate myself, and they typically take time to apologize.
I'm sick of Americans who need to talk up their country whenever a story related to another country comes up.
Well, I guess I didn't see the "talking up" part enough to be upset about it. Just mentioning it doesn't mean it's being "talked up". Rather I saw the post in questions as an interesting anecdote that I had never heard before. Now I know I don't have to go all the way to Thailand to see a 100lb catfish. Though I do have to go there to see a 600lb catfish. They don't normally get above 20lbs where I live, so both are huge in comparison.
Anyway, I think it's a bit defensive to jump on Americans for talking about America. It is, after all, what they know best. I don't see a problem with Brits responding to stories about the U.S. by saying how things are on their side of the pond, either.
If you don't care about Americans or what goes on in America, well, I understand feeling the post was worthless. But, there are thousands of posts that go up on/. every day that don't provide any sort of insight or trivia about any region or society in the world. Your energy might be better spent chastizing those posters... But I doubt it. Unless you have mod points.
Obviously, this doesn't come close to 650lbs like the one from the Mekong. But it does come close to the one you linked.
Personally, I could care less who has the biggest fish. I'm just sick of people looking for every possible opportunity to rant about how dumb and ridiculous they think Americans are.
But the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. And in the past, Nintendo has not only made sure their prices are low, but also that they are selling at a profit.
Which, incidentally, is why hype-happy game journalists spreading the propaganda that Nintendo is on its last legs are just plain wrong. While it's true they don't have the same market share they used to, they also don't need as many sales as Sony and MS have in order to survive.
This would actually make more sense if your score were something like 254, rather than 212. Since the Nintendo was 8-bit, in-game quantities (such as the number of rupees in Zelda) were often restricted to between 0 and 255 if it wasn't necessary to have larger or negative numbers.
A basketball game is probably not expected to have scores in the 200s, so it's conceivable they didn't worry about the overflow problem. I'm not sure it would cause a crash like yours, but it all depends on their code.
Well sure. The "ideals" of conservativism and liberalism aren't really polar opposites either. The poles are authoritarian (more control) vs. liberal (less control), and progressive (change) vs. conservative (stasis). The nature of the former pair is relatively static, but the nature of the latter pair will vary depending on recent history at the time and location of consideration. It seems right now that the liberals here in the U.S. are simultaneously conservative, trying to preserve the social revolutions of the past few decades, while the neo-cons are progressive, trying to effect changes to "contain" the consequences those revolutions.
Obviously, I know what conservative and liberal should mean. I was using the terms as they are typically used in the political sphere today, not in the way they should logically be applied. Arguably, Republicans who claim "good ol' conservative values" (and so are socially authoritarian) are very liberal with respect to economics.
Admittedly, "right" and "left" would probably have been more accurate than "conservative" and "liberal".
I just get worried when the court or Congress get involved in anything having to do with technology - I just don't trust them to get it right.
I worry more about the decisions that will never make it to the Supreme Court. The particular combination of justices we have on the SC right now has worked very well, IMHO. There's seldom been a decision I've strongly disagreed with. I lean slightly conservative (or authoritarian as some would call it), and even their more liberal decisions usually seem very wise to me.
I'm personally sad to see that several of the judges may be retiring soon. I'm satisfied with the balance now. Although the Republican party is probably salivating at the thought, personally I hope none of the liberal justices retire before Bush leaves office. The SC doesn't need any more conservative members than it has.
Personally, I think that long before the process goes full circle, a lot of IT will be handled by computers themselves. Face it, someday someone's going to write an app that, given a few goals and rules, can write and test software autonomously. Tedious testing is definitely something that can be better done by a patient computer than by an impatient human.
To me, that point in time looks similar to the "omega point" popular with SF writers, of when true AI is developed. What's possible beyond? We won't know till we get there.
Obviously, it matters to the consoles which disc format they'll use. But beyond that?
How long will it be before people with a bit of cash to spare can get all their media streamed over the internet right to their devices? By way of a simple subscription-based service, a person could pay for X movie or song consumptions per month. I'd guess that if you can afford digital cable or movie channels right now, you'd be able to afford such a service no problem.
I personally believe it's inevitable, as it solves so many of the entertainment industry's problems. No more ownership issues, and piracy would be much more difficult. So my only question is, how long will it be? Less than 10 years, surely.
But in the corporate world, money can solve at least 1 and 2, and probably 3 as well, in most cases. (I envision a manager telling a stubborn coder, "This is what we pay you to do. If you don't want to do what we pay you to do, then we just won't pay you anymore.")
It may not be the only solution to the difficulties of usability testing. But so far it has proved to be one of the most effective ones.
Unless I'm mistaken, the general belief is that a photon does have mass.
No offense intended, but you are mistaken.
If photons do not have mass, why are they affected by gravity?
According to relativity, gravity bends space. It doesn't act directly on other mass. Rather space acts on mass, by telling "how to move", which is along paths called "geodesics". A geodesic is a path demarking the "shape" of spacetime in a region. Light moves along geodesics, which is basically a way of saying that it perceives itself to move straight through local space, though that space may not appear "flat" externally. It's similar to how driving on a straight road on the surface, we do not directly perceive the curvature of the planet. Mass bends space, which causes the local geodesics to be curved relative to distant space that is differently curved. So from here on earth, we perceive the light to bend, but in a local context, the light is travelling in a straight line.
You can "back-calculate" a supposed mass for a photon, once you know its momentum, by using the p = mv equation. But this often called a "fictional" mass, because it is purely relativistic. If you took away a photon's speed, it would have neither mass nor momentum, and would essentially cease to exist. Mass as an fundamental physical quantity exists even in the absence of velocity. This cannot happen with a photon...
Unless you subscribe to the view that photons do not always travel at c in vacuum. But I will not argue that here. Not enough space, and I don't want to be in a flamewar.
Well, there's nothing wrong with it. The Atlas doesn't appear to be intended to provide the level of detail that MathWorld does.
But it does give a good overview of what a given broad topic is all about, in relatively layman terms. (Something MathWorld is not particularly concerned with.) And one thing it does offer that MathWorld doesn't is lists of resources for learning about the topics. Mathworld just has citations.
What do the Naboo care if there is a demarcation of resources and, apparently, communication?
Well, if there's just the two species on the planet, and the Naboo don't have a standing army, why would the Gungans need one? The Naboo probably assumed that either the Gungans thought they might need to attack the Naboo someday, or that the Gungans didn't trust that the Naboo really didn't have their own army. The former would be disturbing to the Naboo for obvious reasons. The latter indicates a distrustful nature, which often arises out of a propensity to be untrustworthy oneself. The simple fact that the Gungans felt they needed the army despite Naboo's open lack of one is reason for the Naboo to worry about their intentions.
That's just what the king Gungan said, one man accurately speaks for an entire society?
He need not speak for all of the society. If he's a democratically elected leader (which I would assume would be a requirement for participation in the Republic), then he probably speaks for the majority. Which is, arguably, enough for it to matter. One would think that this would have been a big campaign point, much like Iraq was in the recent U.S. election. Given that assumption, if a majority of the people really disagreed with the idea, he wouldn't have been elected.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! Nice one. =) I've had that sig for a few weeks now, but it's quite ironic going along with my post, isn't it?
"Content", whether it be audio, video, art or whatever is a consumer product just like any other.
Obviously you're entitled to your opinion. But let's just be clear that this is not the approach taken by US (or most other nations, AFAIK) copyright law. The entire concept of copyright was based on the idea that content is "different". A book is a product, a CD is a product, a painting is a product. But story, the music, the image, respectively, are not products. They are information. Information can be reproduced with trivial effort. But transcribing a usable, re-usable, distributable copy of the information was, until the advent of the VCR, prohibitively difficult/tedious. Possible, yes, but tedious. What this meant was that few people actually attempted to do such, to circumvent the creator's right of sole reproduction and distribution (AKA copyright). But when they did, there was a legal channel by which the creator could protect his right. "Unfair" forms of reproduction are what copyright was designed to protect. How can an artist make a living from his work if he has to compete with someone else to sell it who doesn't need to spend any time practicing, composing, or performing, and instead can sit and crank out copies all day long.
The digital age brought about the triviality of reproduction and distribution of information. Which means that virtually anyone can now do so with virtually no effort, or even technical knowledge. You don't need to buy heavy equipment or expensive ad space in order to copy and distribute. But that doesn't change the fact that each instance of this is a violation of the creator's sole right to reproduction and distribution. Each instance is an infringement of the copyright.
But that shouldn't be the final word. One must keep in mind the spirit of the law. Was it ever intended to prevent people from obtaining a copy and making use of that copy as many times as they want, in whatever ways they want, short of copying it for further distribution? Arguably, no. I would argue that any attempt to claim that a consumer should pay for each and every use, or even just multiple copies for different presentation devices, is unabashed money-grubbing. It is equivalent, in my mind, to an artist claiming grounds to sue you for reading his book aloud to your children-- or even just to yourself-- in the privacy of your home. Or an author claiming grounds to sue you for playing his song, on your piano, alone, again in the privacy of your home..... Unless you've paid for the license to do so.
I don't think there's a valid argument that this is the type of profiteering that copyright was meant to protect. So the next question is, should we redesign copyright law to serve this purely commercial/economic purpose, as the **AA's seem to want? Or do we lobby to get back to the spirit of the law, and renew the principles of fair use?
It should be obvious by this point where I stand, at least.
I think the insinuation was that she's not adjusting her position, just her campaign platform. These are, as I'm sure you know, not the same thing. Anyone familiar with politics, at least in the US, should be well aware of that.
The spirit of exploration is not an excuse to mitigate danger. Even aside from the fact that human life is important to the average citizen. If everyone we put up dies, then we're not making any progress.
But generating browseable PDF and HTML both require foresight, planning, a bit of work, and consideration for the needs of your readers
Considering it was openly stated that this was a sort of "last resort" method of publishing, I think it's an understandable first step the author. The author put a lot of effort into publishing this as a book, expecting it would be published as a book. I can understand not wanting to duplicate the effort. But I do think that your recommendations should be taken under consideration, and the author should keep this a "living" document, with a continued effort to make it more digestible in the medium it now occupies.
*wince* I can't imagine mistaking an English accent for an Australian one. Somewhat in their defense, aside from the costal areas and big cities the U.S. is not very culturally diverse. Most of the accents heard by people outside those areas are on TV. Though you'd think with the amount of TV people watch around here, they'd pick up something. They're probably spending too much time with the "reality shows".
Anyway, as you can see, I'm critical as well. I don't really even have a problem with people forming an expectation based on the fact that someone is an American. I just don't think it's fair to act on that expectation, before getting a bit of confirmation. I've been on the receiving end of that too many times. It wastes time and effort, as I typically take time to differentiate myself, and they typically take time to apologize.
I just don't think it's fair that it has become socially appropriate to be prejudiced, as long as it's against Americans.
Heaven forbid the day that humans become so numerous and well-connected that culture becomes homogenized. Who will be left to hate?
Well, I guess I didn't see the "talking up" part enough to be upset about it. Just mentioning it doesn't mean it's being "talked up". Rather I saw the post in questions as an interesting anecdote that I had never heard before. Now I know I don't have to go all the way to Thailand to see a 100lb catfish. Though I do have to go there to see a 600lb catfish. They don't normally get above 20lbs where I live, so both are huge in comparison.
Anyway, I think it's a bit defensive to jump on Americans for talking about America. It is, after all, what they know best. I don't see a problem with Brits responding to stories about the U.S. by saying how things are on their side of the pond, either.
If you don't care about Americans or what goes on in America, well, I understand feeling the post was worthless. But, there are thousands of posts that go up on /. every day that don't provide any sort of insight or trivia about any region or society in the world. Your energy might be better spent chastizing those posters... But I doubt it. Unless you have mod points.
125lb (57kg) Catfish caught in Mississippi in Iowa: http://www.santeecoopercats.net/records-il.html
Obviously, this doesn't come close to 650lbs like the one from the Mekong. But it does come close to the one you linked.
Personally, I could care less who has the biggest fish. I'm just sick of people looking for every possible opportunity to rant about how dumb and ridiculous they think Americans are.
But the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. And in the past, Nintendo has not only made sure their prices are low, but also that they are selling at a profit.
Which, incidentally, is why hype-happy game journalists spreading the propaganda that Nintendo is on its last legs are just plain wrong. While it's true they don't have the same market share they used to, they also don't need as many sales as Sony and MS have in order to survive.
Only a very small number. Much smaller, I think, than most people expect....
Matthew 7:14 --
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
This would actually make more sense if your score were something like 254, rather than 212. Since the Nintendo was 8-bit, in-game quantities (such as the number of rupees in Zelda) were often restricted to between 0 and 255 if it wasn't necessary to have larger or negative numbers.
A basketball game is probably not expected to have scores in the 200s, so it's conceivable they didn't worry about the overflow problem. I'm not sure it would cause a crash like yours, but it all depends on their code.
choose a platform independent language
What if you really don't need to run on multiple platforms?
Obviously, I know what conservative and liberal should mean. I was using the terms as they are typically used in the political sphere today, not in the way they should logically be applied. Arguably, Republicans who claim "good ol' conservative values" (and so are socially authoritarian) are very liberal with respect to economics.
Admittedly, "right" and "left" would probably have been more accurate than "conservative" and "liberal".
I worry more about the decisions that will never make it to the Supreme Court. The particular combination of justices we have on the SC right now has worked very well, IMHO. There's seldom been a decision I've strongly disagreed with. I lean slightly conservative (or authoritarian as some would call it), and even their more liberal decisions usually seem very wise to me.
I'm personally sad to see that several of the judges may be retiring soon. I'm satisfied with the balance now. Although the Republican party is probably salivating at the thought, personally I hope none of the liberal justices retire before Bush leaves office. The SC doesn't need any more conservative members than it has.
Personally, I think that long before the process goes full circle, a lot of IT will be handled by computers themselves. Face it, someday someone's going to write an app that, given a few goals and rules, can write and test software autonomously. Tedious testing is definitely something that can be better done by a patient computer than by an impatient human.
To me, that point in time looks similar to the "omega point" popular with SF writers, of when true AI is developed. What's possible beyond? We won't know till we get there.
How long will it be before people with a bit of cash to spare can get all their media streamed over the internet right to their devices? By way of a simple subscription-based service, a person could pay for X movie or song consumptions per month. I'd guess that if you can afford digital cable or movie channels right now, you'd be able to afford such a service no problem.
I personally believe it's inevitable, as it solves so many of the entertainment industry's problems. No more ownership issues, and piracy would be much more difficult. So my only question is, how long will it be? Less than 10 years, surely.
But in the corporate world, money can solve at least 1 and 2, and probably 3 as well, in most cases. (I envision a manager telling a stubborn coder, "This is what we pay you to do. If you don't want to do what we pay you to do, then we just won't pay you anymore.")
It may not be the only solution to the difficulties of usability testing. But so far it has proved to be one of the most effective ones.
Er... ignore the "where E is energy" part.
No offense intended, but you are mistaken.
If photons do not have mass, why are they affected by gravity?
According to relativity, gravity bends space. It doesn't act directly on other mass. Rather space acts on mass, by telling "how to move", which is along paths called "geodesics". A geodesic is a path demarking the "shape" of spacetime in a region. Light moves along geodesics, which is basically a way of saying that it perceives itself to move straight through local space, though that space may not appear "flat" externally. It's similar to how driving on a straight road on the surface, we do not directly perceive the curvature of the planet. Mass bends space, which causes the local geodesics to be curved relative to distant space that is differently curved. So from here on earth, we perceive the light to bend, but in a local context, the light is travelling in a straight line.
In fact, this is how you calculate momentum...
m l
m l
Not for photons.
This is how you calculate momentum for photons:
p = h / lambda, where lambda is wavelength.
Alternatively:
p = hf / c, where E is energy, and f is frequency.
More info here:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.ht
And here:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.ht
You can "back-calculate" a supposed mass for a photon, once you know its momentum, by using the p = mv equation. But this often called a "fictional" mass, because it is purely relativistic. If you took away a photon's speed, it would have neither mass nor momentum, and would essentially cease to exist. Mass as an fundamental physical quantity exists even in the absence of velocity. This cannot happen with a photon...
Unless you subscribe to the view that photons do not always travel at c in vacuum. But I will not argue that here. Not enough space, and I don't want to be in a flamewar.
But it does give a good overview of what a given broad topic is all about, in relatively layman terms. (Something MathWorld is not particularly concerned with.) And one thing it does offer that MathWorld doesn't is lists of resources for learning about the topics. Mathworld just has citations.
What do the Naboo care if there is a demarcation of resources and, apparently, communication?
Well, if there's just the two species on the planet, and the Naboo don't have a standing army, why would the Gungans need one? The Naboo probably assumed that either the Gungans thought they might need to attack the Naboo someday, or that the Gungans didn't trust that the Naboo really didn't have their own army. The former would be disturbing to the Naboo for obvious reasons. The latter indicates a distrustful nature, which often arises out of a propensity to be untrustworthy oneself. The simple fact that the Gungans felt they needed the army despite Naboo's open lack of one is reason for the Naboo to worry about their intentions.
That's just what the king Gungan said, one man accurately speaks for an entire society?
He need not speak for all of the society. If he's a democratically elected leader (which I would assume would be a requirement for participation in the Republic), then he probably speaks for the majority. Which is, arguably, enough for it to matter. One would think that this would have been a big campaign point, much like Iraq was in the recent U.S. election. Given that assumption, if a majority of the people really disagreed with the idea, he wouldn't have been elected.
The Fields Medal is the rough equivalent to the Nobel Prize, for mathematics. It is worth less, monetarily, however.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FieldsMedal.html
Any ideas for us Windows users?
I doubt he's willing to convert to Linux just to use a different media player.