So somebody may be able to game the algorithm the same way people game search engines, and make sure to commit all their crimes in the area this computer says is least likely to have a crime.
No, that group was only around to convince people the United States needs an internet "killswitch", more restriction, and less privacy on the internet. They would never be deployed to take down a conglomerate that hurts people.
The title says that "Scientists Play World's Oldest Commercial Recording." But actually, that's not true. From the summary: 123-year-old recording—etched into a warped metal cylinder and brought back to life after decades of silence by a three-dimensional (3D) optical scanning technique
Playing an optical scan of the worlds oldest commercial recording is not the same as playing the recording itself, any more than viewing a scan of the Mona Lisa is the same as viewing the real Mona Lisa, no matter how faithfully reproduced.
Now, if they had resurrected a recorder/player device that actually "played" the cylinder, that would be different.
I don't know. I think, by your logic, CD players don't actually play CD's. It might not play the cylinder the same way the original player did. But it's some kind of music player.
The part I don't get is why, if they paid for the factory to be built, is it such a problem that the factory only builds things for them? And what's stopping other billion-dollar companies from building their own factories?
I was thinking something similar. Basically, it's going to be very difficult to build something in the United States, as long as the United States government is fighting you every step of the way.
I'm pretty sure "private cloud" is an oxymorn, at least by the original definition. It's supposed to be about peer-to-peer distributed storage and computing. Of course by the new corporate definition, it's just outsourcing your storage. So I guess they're just saying some private company is going to get government money to store the data instead of the government using its own equipment.
"Facebook has blocked access to Friend Exporter, a Google Chrome application that helps users import their Facebook contacts into Google's new social network — Google Plus. "
Clearly Facebook is afraid to compete on the merits of its services. Isn't that the message whenever any sort of vendorlock is implemented?
I'd like to be able to access a list of the top 1000 search terms submitted to Google any given day. Are they going to give that out?
It would also be nice to be able to download a list of all sites indexed by Google. Yes I know it's a huge database but still, are they going to give that out?
This is all about one company trying to take another company's most valuable asset. It's not like Google wants the information because information wants to be free. They want it so they can kill their competition. And if they become the new dominant social network, do you think they're going to make it easy to put the information in a competing network? It will be about as easy as it is to get the source code to the latest Android.
Now go ahead and flame me, Googlebots. And when you're done, go do some fake product reviews. It's what bots do.
The argument about cable length is crockery. Most of these cables being sold for hundreds of dollars are 6 feet or 2 meters long, just like the $2 cables. And they are being sold to be used in living rooms that are not 100 feet long or wide. As for the gigabit cables, how many of them are being sold to people who don't even have hardware or bandwidth to transfer a gigabit of data? Crockery.
$80 for a eight foot HDMI cable from Monster here in Canada. For comparison, the same place that sells Monster for $80 has a house brand that's $30 for the same length.
For those prices, I would move my equipment 2 feet closer and get the $4 cable.
Assuming fair use isn't completely dead yet, if I make a backup copy of all of my music and put it in a safe deposit box, will they sue the bank for piracy? The only differences between the safe deposit box and Amazon's "cloud" are, there are no disc or box in the cloud.
I wonder why Google, Amazon and Apple don't each buy out one of the major labels outright. It can't be an antitrust issue if each get one. Problem solved.
I think they should start their own. It seems to me like the only things the music industry provides, that the artist can't do alone, are marketing and distribution. Now that downloading music is as easy and common as buying it in a store, distibution is hardly an issue for Google, Apple, or Amazon. And they can afford promotion. All they have to do is the same thing the old-school labels do: find some pretty teens and turn them into pop sensations while occasionally stumbling upon a truly talented artist who becomes a music icon.
I think, at least based on the summary, the results are missing some things. For instance, maybe there is such similarity in the music because every time there is a hit song, a lot of people rush to create another song just like it. And there is no consideration of how many songs become hits because people think the artist is sexy, with no regard for what the song sounds like.
I'd like the court to explain why, in any other class action suit, the victim can lose hundreds of dollars and gets maybe $3 back. But in a case that costs lawyers to lose business, the class action suit can get the "victims" three times what they actually paid.
Wal-Mart charges $20 for an HDMI cable Amazon has for $3. I think, instead of a sales tax, states should consider some kind of price gouging tax. The money they make from phone and internet companies alone would probably be more than they could get from Amazon.
I disagree. I think everybody who gets do decide what will be done should have to actually do it themselves for at least a little while. Because every plan seems smart while you're sitting in a leather chair, playing solitaire.
The same thing happens in the US. However, instead of creating a new committee for this, lawmakers decided to convert the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to do these things, since they had nothing more important to do, and we have all this extra money in our federal budget. It's all part of the plan to spend taxpayer dollars on things taxpayers care about.
It would be nice if technology evolves so you could generate your own power easily, perhaps with a few neighbors - and not pay or support any company at all.
The supreme court would probably shut you down for creating greenhouse gases.
Given who's running the government, I'm pretty sure it's about getting people who send movies and music to other people. I'm also pretty sure if somebody really tries to use the Internet to take down America, the government will miss that because it doesn't involve an mp3 file.
Slashdot Mirror
So somebody may be able to game the algorithm the same way people game search engines, and make sure to commit all their crimes in the area this computer says is least likely to have a crime.
No, that group was only around to convince people the United States needs an internet "killswitch", more restriction, and less privacy on the internet. They would never be deployed to take down a conglomerate that hurts people.
Open, decentralized, and not designed by dorks.
The title says that "Scientists Play World's Oldest Commercial Recording." But actually, that's not true. From the summary: 123-year-old recording—etched into a warped metal cylinder and brought back to life after decades of silence by a three-dimensional (3D) optical scanning technique
Playing an optical scan of the worlds oldest commercial recording is not the same as playing the recording itself, any more than viewing a scan of the Mona Lisa is the same as viewing the real Mona Lisa, no matter how faithfully reproduced.
Now, if they had resurrected a recorder/player device that actually "played" the cylinder, that would be different.
I don't know. I think, by your logic, CD players don't actually play CD's. It might not play the cylinder the same way the original player did. But it's some kind of music player.
The part I don't get is why, if they paid for the factory to be built, is it such a problem that the factory only builds things for them? And what's stopping other billion-dollar companies from building their own factories?
I was thinking something similar. Basically, it's going to be very difficult to build something in the United States, as long as the United States government is fighting you every step of the way.
They never really were a tech company, IMO. Their innovations: EULA and software licensing. Most of their products were bought, copied stolen.
Just like Google...
I'm pretty sure "private cloud" is an oxymorn, at least by the original definition. It's supposed to be about peer-to-peer distributed storage and computing. Of course by the new corporate definition, it's just outsourcing your storage. So I guess they're just saying some private company is going to get government money to store the data instead of the government using its own equipment.
Clearly Facebook is afraid to compete on the merits of its services. Isn't that the message whenever any sort of vendorlock is implemented?
I'd like to be able to access a list of the top 1000 search terms submitted to Google any given day. Are they going to give that out?
It would also be nice to be able to download a list of all sites indexed by Google. Yes I know it's a huge database but still, are they going to give that out?
This is all about one company trying to take another company's most valuable asset. It's not like Google wants the information because information wants to be free. They want it so they can kill their competition. And if they become the new dominant social network, do you think they're going to make it easy to put the information in a competing network? It will be about as easy as it is to get the source code to the latest Android.
Now go ahead and flame me, Googlebots. And when you're done, go do some fake product reviews. It's what bots do.
The argument about cable length is crockery. Most of these cables being sold for hundreds of dollars are 6 feet or 2 meters long, just like the $2 cables. And they are being sold to be used in living rooms that are not 100 feet long or wide. As for the gigabit cables, how many of them are being sold to people who don't even have hardware or bandwidth to transfer a gigabit of data? Crockery.
$80 for a eight foot HDMI cable from Monster here in Canada. For comparison, the same place that sells Monster for $80 has a house brand that's $30 for the same length.
For those prices, I would move my equipment 2 feet closer and get the $4 cable.
Assuming fair use isn't completely dead yet, if I make a backup copy of all of my music and put it in a safe deposit box, will they sue the bank for piracy? The only differences between the safe deposit box and Amazon's "cloud" are, there are no disc or box in the cloud.
I wonder why Google, Amazon and Apple don't each buy out one of the major labels outright. It can't be an antitrust issue if each get one. Problem solved.
I think they should start their own. It seems to me like the only things the music industry provides, that the artist can't do alone, are marketing and distribution. Now that downloading music is as easy and common as buying it in a store, distibution is hardly an issue for Google, Apple, or Amazon. And they can afford promotion. All they have to do is the same thing the old-school labels do: find some pretty teens and turn them into pop sensations while occasionally stumbling upon a truly talented artist who becomes a music icon.
If I were your target, I would press my start button a lot of times so they'd all move in slow motion until I got away.
I think, at least based on the summary, the results are missing some things. For instance, maybe there is such similarity in the music because every time there is a hit song, a lot of people rush to create another song just like it. And there is no consideration of how many songs become hits because people think the artist is sexy, with no regard for what the song sounds like.
I'd like the court to explain why, in any other class action suit, the victim can lose hundreds of dollars and gets maybe $3 back. But in a case that costs lawyers to lose business, the class action suit can get the "victims" three times what they actually paid.
Wal-Mart charges $20 for an HDMI cable Amazon has for $3. I think, instead of a sales tax, states should consider some kind of price gouging tax. The money they make from phone and internet companies alone would probably be more than they could get from Amazon.
So they can make these companies give up personal information from people in other countries but they can't make the companies pay taxes?
I disagree. I think everybody who gets do decide what will be done should have to actually do it themselves for at least a little while. Because every plan seems smart while you're sitting in a leather chair, playing solitaire.
The same thing happens in the US. However, instead of creating a new committee for this, lawmakers decided to convert the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to do these things, since they had nothing more important to do, and we have all this extra money in our federal budget. It's all part of the plan to spend taxpayer dollars on things taxpayers care about.
It would be nice if technology evolves so you could generate your own power easily, perhaps with a few neighbors - and not pay or support any company at all.
The supreme court would probably shut you down for creating greenhouse gases.
Given who's running the government, I'm pretty sure it's about getting people who send movies and music to other people. I'm also pretty sure if somebody really tries to use the Internet to take down America, the government will miss that because it doesn't involve an mp3 file.
I think there should be a rule that if any change whatsoever is made to the patent, the date of the modification becomes the new patent filing date.
You fix that problem with another robot...
I mean, a blow to the head will also cause us to lose consciousness. But it won't help us understand what makes us conscious.