Copyright is an artificial construct designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many..
Let me fix that for you: Copyright is an artificial construct designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many on the short term, in a gambit to maximize the many's benefits in the long term. Of course, at this point in time short term means "life of author plus however many years", but that's a problem with the implementation, not the concept.
My guess is Microsoft didn't want to risk Google accidentally returning adult material web pages in the search list, and hence it's blocked.
So they keep silently blocking google even after you've whitelisted it? I'm not accusing Microsoft of malfeasance just yet, but it's very shoddy worksmanship that they'd implement a "we'll block google by default" thing, then either silently override whiltelisting of it "because it can work around the filter", or botch the whitelisting implementation altogether. On top of that, such a bug/feature/whatever still had to make it past QA.
Not entirely true. You hash the password, and check it against the stored hash, sure. No decryption involved, because there's no "proper" encryption in there either. But how did the system get the password? If you're not connected to the machine locally, you're likely connected through telnet (which won't encrypt the password at all in transit, which is the matter here, or you're connected through SSH, which implies encrypting the password with the system's public key, then the server decrypts using its private key, hashes, and validates against the stored hash. (I'm probably omitting a couple of intermediate steps, but I think the gist of it is correct). Of course, sending the hash on clear text over the intertubes is as good as not having the passwords stored hashed to begin with. You can only trust a hash you calculated yourself.
Now, the real problem here, to me, is this: Sure, you need to decrypt and re-encrypt for each leg of the journey. But why is the ATM itself not encrypting the pin with the bank's public key, and then that gets routed along, with all the encrypting and decrypting, and what-have-you?
Actual physical aggression is the worst. And I have to put up with it day in, day out. Sometimes I even get it not because of anything I did, but just because I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now if only my co-workers would stop tossing the sponge toys around already...
The self-serving part is to use the press release as publicity to say "Everybody should educate themselves about Islam to understand how peaceful we are and why this wasn't related to Islam."
Well, I couldn't find any quote to that effect in the article you linked, so forgive me if I didn't dig further than your own evidence looking for corroboration:).
You see, if every Muslim who commits terrorist acts is not actually a Muslim and has no connection to other Muslims, then there's no problem with Islam right? It's just a string of random incidents that nobody can do anything about. Except, you know, to educate yourself about Islam so that you don't piss off a non-Muslim-who-happens-to-call-himself-Muslim who might then attack you.
Except they didn't say "he's not actually Muslim", they said he's not part of the MSA (which might or might not be true, but it's still a different point altogether), and that the actions of one individual shouldn't be taken as a reflection of what the muslim community stands for -- which is especially true when that same individual supposedly didn't even integrate the community around the MSA.
Why didn't the MSA say something like, "We need to redouble our efforts to educate *Muslims* to properly integrate into a multicultural society so that we can live together in peace" or something like that? Is that really too much to ask for from the public representatives of Muslims on campus?
Considering this particular guy wasn't even part of their community, do you have a suggestion on how they should do that? Never mind the part where if they did try to "educate" people, this conversation would be about how they "brainwash their own" or some other bullcrap to that effect.
Note that the UNC Muslim Student Association's primary role was to educate others to ensure that there was no backlash against the Muslim community! How disgustingly self-serving can you get.
I don't get it. What should they have done? Say "yeah, right on! He should've done that sooner?" Why is distancing themselves from an act of violence "self serving"?
If Christians aren't ashamed of their religion being used for that, and if they aren't taking their own steps to quash it, then they should be shamed, ridiculed, harassed, and so forth, until they do. What was your point?
I think it's pretty clear that neither catholics nor protestants approved of the irish wars. When such a feud lasts for as long as that one did, it eventually becomes routine enough that you can't be arsed to be vocally against it.
On a more recent event, the Pope spoke out against condoms, saying they only made things worse. News on the subject piled up. Most catholics I know spoke out against that in friendly discussions on the matter, and most prominent bishops at least here in Portugal spoke out against it in public as well. Hell, when Benedict was elected, Desmond Tutu commented to the effect of "the church won't move forwards for years to come". Of course, my moderate catholic friends don't really get the same media attention as the Pope, and even the more moderate bishops that called bullshit on the Pope didn't really get much attention either, because moderate opinions don't sell all that well.
Care to prove that Muslims haven't already made that distinction as well?
Whoever made those speeches speaks for the whole of the muslims as much as the pope speaks for all catholics. I guess I passed my opinion in a bit too absolute a tone (heh, go figure), but, even if not impossible per se, it does make things a lot harder.
Ok, let's assume the cost to the ISP doesn't directly depend on how much total download volume you use. The bandwidth they can provide is limited though (like you said, by their infrastructure), and the more you download, the more time during which you're taking up a portion of that bandwidth, which can't be assigned to somebody else. A cap on the download volume is, effectively, a cap on how much use you make of the limited good. Now, if you provide a good, and there is contention for that good, you need to upgrade the infrastructure, which is more expensive than upkeep. That means either consumption goes down, or somebody has to pay for the upgrade. Raising the base line for flat pricing is quite unfair on the lower-usage customers, so you charge based on the total traffic.
This said, I do agree that the actual prices (if not the metered scheme itself) are way off-base.
The UK has turned into a bunch of cowards afraid to condemn bad behavior, because doing so to a person outside your own culture is considered racist.
Precisely! And let's all condemn the Germans because they're Nazis! Now that I got the insta-Godwin out of the way, some more examples: should we judge all Catholics or Anglican Protestants based on the war in Ireland? Should we judge all Basques based on ETA's activities? I'm sure I could find a few more examples of ideological terrorism if I wanted to. The "real" reality, as opposed to the one you seem to believe is being hidden from us, is that things aren't black and white, "us" versus "them". The US seems to thrive on polarizing the populace that way: West vs East, Capitalists vs Commies, White vs Black. Rallying against a common hyper-villainous enemy, and sod all rationality. Islam seems to be the last excuse to keep a state of conflict, and the UK at least seems to be trying to revert some of that damage.
If you'd rather discuss in pragmatic terms, rather than an ideological approach, think of this: By taking a stance of "us versus them", you're making that choice for "them" as well, rather than leaving the option for peace open.
I've found plenty of entertaining science fiction around. Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?
Hell, did I lose the memo that said that crap scifi (or is it syfy?) can't be entertaining?
Personally, I grab most my news from Google Reader, from the handful of feeds I have there. That includes this very discussion. Which leads me to wonder: how many of these media companies have RSS feeds on their pages, and how is Google News fundamentally different, other than "pushing" some of those feeds on to people who might not normally read them?
As I see it, the intent ot the "impact on value" criteria has to do with whether there's negative impact (...)
Saying that positive impact is an argument for fair use (any more than 'no impact') implies that I can ignore your rights as long as its for your own good
Actually "not negative" is the same as "equals, or is greater than, zero". So if I say that it's positive, I'm stating I fulfil a qualified version of the requirement.
Plus, the OP said, "If my use of your work makes your work MORE valuable to you rather than less, that's a good argument that my use is fair (assuming enough of the other factors are satisfied).".
Craigslist cities is below all other classifieds in the graph on their blog which contradicts what the article is saying.
I interpreted that graph as average market share per individual site in each bucket. So the average growth of Craigslist Cities sites was 90%ish, plus there are tons of them. That makes for a very big overall growth for Craigslist as a whole. I also don't see a big jump in popularity anywhere, but the figures between feb08 and feb09 do have a nice big increase in popularity, but there is a local minimum in November, only followed by a steady recoup all the way up to a year-over-year maximum. You know what that means, to me? It means that the present popularity isn't the consequence of an individual event, but rather the result of plain old honest, steady growth.
I think this is the "cover my arse" clause. They're providing a service that basically "censors" bits of the internet. Whoever wrote the ToS probably thought "we might want explicit permission for that from the user, just in case somebody claims we're screwing with Free Speech."
I bet it'll be easier if you explain it to them that 8 out of 10 lab engineers believe that the container is most likely incapable of feeling much pain.
Typically you can't repeal laws that soon after them being enacted. Plus, now that it is enacted, you have to get people to beat inertia and want to change it. Many people that wouldn't have voted for this law won't vote for it to be repealed either.
Bah. That's just not true. The farms aren't "fault tolerant," the software run on the farms is.
That's the point though, isn't it? If the software runs on the farms, and you don't look at the contents of individual systems inside, the outside perception is that the whole box runs reliably.
Jokes aside, I recall pizzerias in Italy going berserk over EU-wide rulings forbidding wood stoves in restaurants (something about hygiene or some such).
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright is an artificial construct designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many..
Let me fix that for you: Copyright is an artificial construct designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many on the short term, in a gambit to maximize the many's benefits in the long term. Of course, at this point in time short term means "life of author plus however many years", but that's a problem with the implementation, not the concept.
My guess is Microsoft didn't want to risk Google accidentally returning adult material web pages in the search list, and hence it's blocked.
So they keep silently blocking google even after you've whitelisted it? I'm not accusing Microsoft of malfeasance just yet, but it's very shoddy worksmanship that they'd implement a "we'll block google by default" thing, then either silently override whiltelisting of it "because it can work around the filter", or botch the whitelisting implementation altogether. On top of that, such a bug/feature/whatever still had to make it past QA.
Or let them work their Hollywood accounting on you. They've got sports cars to pay off and no creative talent of their own.
I dunno. Hollywood accounting gets pretty creative at times.
Not true. Unix passwords are never decrypted.
Not entirely true. You hash the password, and check it against the stored hash, sure. No decryption involved, because there's no "proper" encryption in there either. But how did the system get the password? If you're not connected to the machine locally, you're likely connected through telnet (which won't encrypt the password at all in transit, which is the matter here, or you're connected through SSH, which implies encrypting the password with the system's public key, then the server decrypts using its private key, hashes, and validates against the stored hash. (I'm probably omitting a couple of intermediate steps, but I think the gist of it is correct). Of course, sending the hash on clear text over the intertubes is as good as not having the passwords stored hashed to begin with. You can only trust a hash you calculated yourself.
Now, the real problem here, to me, is this: Sure, you need to decrypt and re-encrypt for each leg of the journey. But why is the ATM itself not encrypting the pin with the bank's public key, and then that gets routed along, with all the encrypting and decrypting, and what-have-you?
Douglas Adams, when confronted with 6 x 9 = 42 (base 13), is said to have responded "I may be a pretty sad person, but I don't make jokes in base 13".
Actual physical aggression is the worst. And I have to put up with it day in, day out. Sometimes I even get it not because of anything I did, but just because I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now if only my co-workers would stop tossing the sponge toys around already...
The self-serving part is to use the press release as publicity to say "Everybody should educate themselves about Islam to understand how peaceful we are and why this wasn't related to Islam."
Well, I couldn't find any quote to that effect in the article you linked, so forgive me if I didn't dig further than your own evidence looking for corroboration :).
You see, if every Muslim who commits terrorist acts is not actually a Muslim and has no connection to other Muslims, then there's no problem with Islam right? It's just a string of random incidents that nobody can do anything about. Except, you know, to educate yourself about Islam so that you don't piss off a non-Muslim-who-happens-to-call-himself-Muslim who might then attack you.
Except they didn't say "he's not actually Muslim", they said he's not part of the MSA (which might or might not be true, but it's still a different point altogether), and that the actions of one individual shouldn't be taken as a reflection of what the muslim community stands for -- which is especially true when that same individual supposedly didn't even integrate the community around the MSA.
Why didn't the MSA say something like, "We need to redouble our efforts to educate *Muslims* to properly integrate into a multicultural society so that we can live together in peace" or something like that? Is that really too much to ask for from the public representatives of Muslims on campus?
Considering this particular guy wasn't even part of their community, do you have a suggestion on how they should do that? Never mind the part where if they did try to "educate" people, this conversation would be about how they "brainwash their own" or some other bullcrap to that effect.
Note that the UNC Muslim Student Association's primary role was to educate others to ensure that there was no backlash against the Muslim community! How disgustingly self-serving can you get.
I don't get it. What should they have done? Say "yeah, right on! He should've done that sooner?" Why is distancing themselves from an act of violence "self serving"?
If Christians aren't ashamed of their religion being used for that, and if they aren't taking their own steps to quash it, then they should be shamed, ridiculed, harassed, and so forth, until they do. What was your point?
I think it's pretty clear that neither catholics nor protestants approved of the irish wars. When such a feud lasts for as long as that one did, it eventually becomes routine enough that you can't be arsed to be vocally against it.
On a more recent event, the Pope spoke out against condoms, saying they only made things worse. News on the subject piled up. Most catholics I know spoke out against that in friendly discussions on the matter, and most prominent bishops at least here in Portugal spoke out against it in public as well. Hell, when Benedict was elected, Desmond Tutu commented to the effect of "the church won't move forwards for years to come". Of course, my moderate catholic friends don't really get the same media attention as the Pope, and even the more moderate bishops that called bullshit on the Pope didn't really get much attention either, because moderate opinions don't sell all that well.
Care to prove that Muslims haven't already made that distinction as well?
Whoever made those speeches speaks for the whole of the muslims as much as the pope speaks for all catholics. I guess I passed my opinion in a bit too absolute a tone (heh, go figure), but, even if not impossible per se, it does make things a lot harder.
That would only work if you used the same build of the same compiler, with the same flags.
Ok, let's assume the cost to the ISP doesn't directly depend on how much total download volume you use. The bandwidth they can provide is limited though (like you said, by their infrastructure), and the more you download, the more time during which you're taking up a portion of that bandwidth, which can't be assigned to somebody else. A cap on the download volume is, effectively, a cap on how much use you make of the limited good. Now, if you provide a good, and there is contention for that good, you need to upgrade the infrastructure, which is more expensive than upkeep. That means either consumption goes down, or somebody has to pay for the upgrade. Raising the base line for flat pricing is quite unfair on the lower-usage customers, so you charge based on the total traffic.
This said, I do agree that the actual prices (if not the metered scheme itself) are way off-base.
The UK has turned into a bunch of cowards afraid to condemn bad behavior, because doing so to a person outside your own culture is considered racist.
Precisely! And let's all condemn the Germans because they're Nazis! Now that I got the insta-Godwin out of the way, some more examples: should we judge all Catholics or Anglican Protestants based on the war in Ireland? Should we judge all Basques based on ETA's activities? I'm sure I could find a few more examples of ideological terrorism if I wanted to. The "real" reality, as opposed to the one you seem to believe is being hidden from us, is that things aren't black and white, "us" versus "them". The US seems to thrive on polarizing the populace that way: West vs East, Capitalists vs Commies, White vs Black. Rallying against a common hyper-villainous enemy, and sod all rationality. Islam seems to be the last excuse to keep a state of conflict, and the UK at least seems to be trying to revert some of that damage.
If you'd rather discuss in pragmatic terms, rather than an ideological approach, think of this: By taking a stance of "us versus them", you're making that choice for "them" as well, rather than leaving the option for peace open.
I've found plenty of entertaining science fiction around. Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?
Hell, did I lose the memo that said that crap scifi (or is it syfy?) can't be entertaining?
Personally, I grab most my news from Google Reader, from the handful of feeds I have there. That includes this very discussion. Which leads me to wonder: how many of these media companies have RSS feeds on their pages, and how is Google News fundamentally different, other than "pushing" some of those feeds on to people who might not normally read them?
As I see it, the intent ot the "impact on value" criteria has to do with whether there's negative impact (...)
Saying that positive impact is an argument for fair use (any more than 'no impact') implies that I can ignore your rights as long as its for your own good
Actually "not negative" is the same as "equals, or is greater than, zero". So if I say that it's positive, I'm stating I fulfil a qualified version of the requirement.
Plus, the OP said, "If my use of your work makes your work MORE valuable to you rather than less, that's a good argument that my use is fair (assuming enough of the other factors are satisfied).".
That'd be Google.
Craigslist cities is below all other classifieds in the graph on their blog which contradicts what the article is saying.
I interpreted that graph as average market share per individual site in each bucket. So the average growth of Craigslist Cities sites was 90%ish, plus there are tons of them. That makes for a very big overall growth for Craigslist as a whole. I also don't see a big jump in popularity anywhere, but the figures between feb08 and feb09 do have a nice big increase in popularity, but there is a local minimum in November, only followed by a steady recoup all the way up to a year-over-year maximum. You know what that means, to me? It means that the present popularity isn't the consequence of an individual event, but rather the result of plain old honest, steady growth.
I'm coming up empty right now, but there have to be some obvious ones... like pretty much any scifi term that begins with "med-" or "medi-".
Thankfully, midi-chlorians were a near miss.
I think this is the "cover my arse" clause. They're providing a service that basically "censors" bits of the internet. Whoever wrote the ToS probably thought "we might want explicit permission for that from the user, just in case somebody claims we're screwing with Free Speech."
I bet it'll be easier if you explain it to them that 8 out of 10 lab engineers believe that the container is most likely incapable of feeling much pain.
Typically you can't repeal laws that soon after them being enacted. Plus, now that it is enacted, you have to get people to beat inertia and want to change it. Many people that wouldn't have voted for this law won't vote for it to be repealed either.
Well, Google is not about redundancy or uptime or retention.
Wrong. Your arm is not redundant. Every single individual cell in it might as well be, considering how fast you can replace them.
Bah. That's just not true. The farms aren't "fault tolerant," the software run on the farms is.
That's the point though, isn't it? If the software runs on the farms, and you don't look at the contents of individual systems inside, the outside perception is that the whole box runs reliably.
Gas?Heathen, it's wood stove or no go.
Jokes aside, I recall pizzerias in Italy going berserk over EU-wide rulings forbidding wood stoves in restaurants (something about hygiene or some such).
I'm not sure I'd say that just being British means you have a leg up in the funny department
I beg to differ!