I'm saying that things are true right up to the point they are proven false.
Perpetual motion is impossible with our current model. There's also many holes in our current model. Filling any one of them could alter fundamental truths about our model.
Worst case they're trying to push the envelope and only end up reinforcing the model. Best case we get free energy. It's win/win.
People _knew_ the world was flat. People _knew_ the sun revolved around the universe. People _knew_ the atom was the smallest particle. People _knew_ that neutron/electron/protons were the smallest particles. People _knew_ that germ theory was complete hogwash. Little invisible bugs? Ludicrous!
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that what we know to be true is true.
As we know them. We've still yet to prove that our model is correct. Trends point to our physics model being incomplete and/or wrong. For thousands of years we've laughed at what our ancestors knew to be true. I hope our descendants laugh at what rubes we are/were.
I can only guess somehow they been digging through public records about car purchases or ca registurations. Sounds like complete invasion of privacy to me!!
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
How can digging through public records be an invasion of privacy?
They didn't get anything. By all accounts they were not operating from a list instead were simply dialing all possible numbers. Lists cost money and if you war dial you call all the no-call and unlisted numbers.
Buying the disc does not mean the content creator receives any money. The original content creator may no longer hold the rights. A third party could be the only one profiting from the DVD sales.
Likely not true with newer content. Likely very true with older content.
Re:Twitter's not completely useless
on
One-Tweet Wonders
·
· Score: 1
So you agree that listserv is no worse subscription wise than twitter, contrary to your previous post?
The argument you make above about why listserv is indeterminate illustrates another problem. Quality.
By having one feed per person rather than having one feed per group/topic/whatever a high quality feed will be the exception.
For example let's look at the reasons given on twitter's home page.
Eating soup? Research shows that moms want
ego/exhibitionism Unless you're a professional food critic or chef no one cares what you're eating.
Partying? Your friends may want to join you.Running late to a meeting? Your coâ"workers might find that useful.
These two next to each other are hilarious. Work minutia is meaningless to the non-work followers. It's pure noise. Do you really want to send your party updates to your boss and family? Again it's noise, and possibly damaging.
To summarize: Twitter gets the typical communication break down correct. Family, Friends, and Coworkers. The problem is the premise that any information pertinent to one group will be pertinent to all groups. This is a completely invalid premise. Information pertinent to one group could be harmful to your relationship with either of the other two groups. It removes all control you have about what you share.
Re:Twitter's not completely useless
on
One-Tweet Wonders
·
· Score: 1
Sure they find value. That's obvious or they wouldn't use it. You cannot claim that that value is from utility and not novelty.
So you can follow me and Bob Barker on twitter with only one subscription/follow? How does that work exactly?
If you want to follow 10 friends you have to subscribe to 10 things with Twitter. Same for each of them. That's 110 subs. With a listserv it's 11. How exactly is twitter or facebook less subs?
Re:Twitter's not completely useless
on
One-Tweet Wonders
·
· Score: 1
Pedantic definition of one-to-one:
Sure they're both one to one in implementation but that's meaningless. In every day usage they're one to many. The difference it academic and in no way noticeable to the end user.
listserv: How is sending a single word to an address, with an existing technology easier than getting someone to create a new account on yet another service? All for one event?
usage differences: So in one he's sending the data to a web site and people are looking at it with a client and in the other he's sending the data to a web site and people are looking at it with a client? Again I ask what exactly is the difference? You're flat wrong about him sending it to people directly.
uncle: Your mouse incapable uncle also doesn't know how follow someone.
invalid example redux: Again you put artificial limitations. You're saying he set up the twitter and had everyone follow it while at the meet? Without using any other tech?
My point: This is using twitter to solve a problem not a problem solved by twitter. Twitter is merely different I've yet to see it do anything new or unique. It's simply an SMS broadcaster with an even lower character limit than normal.
Well, in the OP's case, it offered the rather huge advantage of letting him send one single SMS to Twitter instead of making him keep track of everyone who was interested so that he could notify each person individually, all without having to set up a listserv in advance and convincing everyone to subscribe to it. You might take note that despite your reasons why it shouldn't work, it did.
Huh? With multiple other solutions he also doesn't have to keep track. He makes no mention of not setting it up in advance. Sure he could use his personal feed but that brings up signal to noise issues for everyone following who doesn't give a fuck about wrestling. Twitter and list serve are functionally identical in this situation and listserv doesn't suffer from a 140 char limit thus allowing him to provide better coverage.
Twitter is trendy but has no functional advantage.
Re:Twitter's not completely useless
on
One-Tweet Wonders
·
· Score: 1
So you're saying it's just an exhibitionist or ego thing?
The belief that you're somehow interesting enough to be listened to? By such a volume of people that security might get in the way and you want anyone to be able to opt-in?
That explains why it's popular, but still doesn't explain how it's more useful than existing techs.
Re:Twitter's not completely useless
on
One-Tweet Wonders
·
· Score: 1
Huh?
What's the difference between waiting for a web page to update and waiting for an email to hit your inbox? The only difference I see is what you're staring it.
People know how to use email. Subscribing to a mail list is trivial. Last time I did it it involved sending the word subscribe to an email address. Everyone knows how to do this.
You also set up your example is invalid due to the artificial limitations you put on it. Why would you create a one off list? Why not leave the list around for the team?
You're saying rather than doing that trivial step it's some how easier to have people create yet another account, this time with a system they are not familiar with. How does that work exactly? Remember to think in terms of your "How do I use the mouse again?" uncle.
Email is not one to one. You know you can put a semi colon followed by another address on the To: line right? What about the earlier mentioned email list?
Texting, at least for me and I have a bare bare bones phone, is one to many. I can send the same text to multiple people just by selecting multiple recipients.
I ask again. What advantages does it offer over existing technology other than being new?
Further up in the thread it states as common knowledge that Disney prevented Pixar from doing sequels. Disney only allows sequels as direct to video and Pixar wanted to do theatrical release.
Can you provide a citation for this "common knowledge?"
Re:Twitter's not completely useless
on
One-Tweet Wonders
·
· Score: 1
What exactly would the problem have been if the scores had not gone up immediately? Something more than people would have to wait?
Re:Twitter's not completely useless
on
One-Tweet Wonders
·
· Score: 1
This is an example of a good use of twitter.
This is also an example of no compelling reason to use twitter for this. Email or text would both work in this situation.
Honestly the only difference I see between twitter and email/text is a lack of security. The information originator cannot control who has access to the feed.
I'm talking about services -- labor -- not copies. If you want to hear a new song, someone has to record it first. And if he doesn't want to work for free, you're going to have to pay him.
Exactly, which you then compare to a non-service product to make your point. Total econ fail.
Drugs, prostitution, and assassination all differ greatly from "digital entertainment". The former have a cost per copy the later doesn't.
For example if I give you a unit of drugs you cannot copy that unit. If you want to share it you must split the unit. If I give you a unit of "digital entertainment" you can make infinite copies for what is effectively zero cost. If you want to share it then you just copy it and give away the perfect copy.
So no the market won't settle it. You can either get it from the market for more than zero money or you can get it off the market for zero money. Digital copying provides an exact copy. Why would anyone pay more than zero for an exact copy?
Copyright is in no way a new concept, dates back to at least 1662. The status quo will persist until a new paradigm is found that can handle no cost of 1+n copies while still covering the high cost of the first copy.
Of course they can be. The 30 second idea I had was simply taking an old polaroid cutting out the picture and putting a different one in. Or taking the whole top off and putting a digital print over it. Is it good? No but honestly neither is the question. When was the last time anyone dealt with a forged photo? It's movie plot panic and security theater.
You're ignoring a major flaw. Sure you can hand one person the only copy in existence right now. Alternately if you want to wait a bit you can give everyone a copy.
The only possible response to someone asking "Can I have a copy of that one?" is "No I used a technology that prohibits me from making additional copies."
What happens if that unique polaroid is lost or damaged?
No. Please see the concepts of proving the negative and correlation is not causation.
You made these claims with no explanation of how these actions would accomplish anything. I'm merely asking you to show some evidence of your position. The burden is on you not me.
I don't care what legislators are looking to do. You took a position. I'm asking you. Why would you rather spend resources on reducing a pool of 600 some when you could work to reduce a pool of 40K? You're going to have more success with less resources working on the larger pool. Fire arm deaths just aren't an issue. They effect.00002 percent of the population.
You have an irrational fear of firearms. To answer the question that you've ignored twice. The answer is you. The other three are inanimate objects. They are incapable of harming you. This is the problem that needs to be addressed. We already prevent criminals from having firearms. No one on either side of the issue sees a problem with this. Any further regulation only servers to remove constitutional rights from law abiding citizens.
Rather than more laws we need parenting and a reduction in the life is cheap culture the USA has. But that would be hard.
If it were as simple as making a law then we'd have no murder, theft, or rape as these are all illegal at present.
Again I ask how would these regulations reduce fatalities? What is the cause and effect? How does registering ammunition/sales somehow make them not usable to kill people?
Why bother? 62x as many lives can be saved spending the resources on motor vehicles. Why spend it on firearms?
"Looks like all ammunition is registered" Your first link contradicts this and clearly explains the loophole.
From your save the children link "Evidence that multiple-purchase guns are likely to be trafficked and used in crime has led Virginia, Maryland, and California to outlaw such purchases." No evidence or citation provided. Please document this claim.
"Regulating the secondary gun marketâ"sales between private partiesâ"is another way to reduce the number of guns sold to minors." No evidence or citation provided. Please document this claim.
The section "Registering Guns and Licensing Owners" is invalid. The study cited has nothing to do with the claim made in the first sentence.
Same with the "Banning Weapons of Choice" section.
The whole article is emotional bullshit that ignores facts.
You don't show that the regulation does anything.
Again I ask you're in a room with a car a gun and a bucket of water. What's the only thing in the room that can kill you? The answer is really the crux of the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
"At present, there is no universally accepted explanation for this phenomenon."
I'm not saying that at all.
I'm saying that things are true right up to the point they are proven false.
Perpetual motion is impossible with our current model. There's also many holes in our current model. Filling any one of them could alter fundamental truths about our model.
Worst case they're trying to push the envelope and only end up reinforcing the model.
Best case we get free energy.
It's win/win.
People _knew_ the world was flat.
People _knew_ the sun revolved around the universe.
People _knew_ the atom was the smallest particle.
People _knew_ that neutron/electron/protons were the smallest particles.
People _knew_ that germ theory was complete hogwash. Little invisible bugs? Ludicrous!
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that what we know to be true is true.
As we know them. We've still yet to prove that our model is correct. Trends point to our physics model being incomplete and/or wrong. For thousands of years we've laughed at what our ancestors knew to be true. I hope our descendants laugh at what rubes we are/were.
I can only guess somehow they been digging through public records about car purchases or ca registurations. Sounds like complete invasion of privacy to me!!
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
How can digging through public records be an invasion of privacy?
They didn't get anything. By all accounts they were not operating from a list instead were simply dialing all possible numbers. Lists cost money and if you war dial you call all the no-call and unlisted numbers.
Buying the disc does not mean the content creator receives any money. The original content creator may no longer hold the rights. A third party could be the only one profiting from the DVD sales.
Likely not true with newer content. Likely very true with older content.
So you agree that listserv is no worse subscription wise than twitter, contrary to your previous post?
The argument you make above about why listserv is indeterminate illustrates another problem. Quality.
By having one feed per person rather than having one feed per group/topic/whatever a high quality feed will be the exception.
For example let's look at the reasons given on twitter's home page.
Eating soup? Research shows that moms want
ego/exhibitionism Unless you're a professional food critic or chef no one cares what you're eating.
Partying? Your friends may want to join you.Running late to a meeting? Your coâ"workers might find that useful.
These two next to each other are hilarious. Work minutia is meaningless to the non-work followers. It's pure noise. Do you really want to send your party updates to your boss and family? Again it's noise, and possibly damaging.
To summarize: Twitter gets the typical communication break down correct. Family, Friends, and Coworkers. The problem is the premise that any information pertinent to one group will be pertinent to all groups. This is a completely invalid premise. Information pertinent to one group could be harmful to your relationship with either of the other two groups. It removes all control you have about what you share.
Sure they find value. That's obvious or they wouldn't use it. You cannot claim that that value is from utility and not novelty.
So you can follow me and Bob Barker on twitter with only one subscription/follow? How does that work exactly?
If you want to follow 10 friends you have to subscribe to 10 things with Twitter. Same for each of them. That's 110 subs. With a listserv it's 11. How exactly is twitter or facebook less subs?
Pedantic definition of one-to-one:
Sure they're both one to one in implementation but that's meaningless. In every day usage they're one to many. The difference it academic and in no way noticeable to the end user.
listserv:
How is sending a single word to an address, with an existing technology easier than getting someone to create a new account on yet another service? All for one event?
usage differences:
So in one he's sending the data to a web site and people are looking at it with a client and in the other he's sending the data to a web site and people are looking at it with a client? Again I ask what exactly is the difference? You're flat wrong about him sending it to people directly.
uncle:
Your mouse incapable uncle also doesn't know how follow someone.
invalid example redux:
Again you put artificial limitations. You're saying he set up the twitter and had everyone follow it while at the meet? Without using any other tech?
My point:
This is using twitter to solve a problem not a problem solved by twitter. Twitter is merely different I've yet to see it do anything new or unique. It's simply an SMS broadcaster with an even lower character limit than normal.
Well, in the OP's case, it offered the rather huge advantage of letting him send one single SMS to Twitter instead of making him keep track of everyone who was interested so that he could notify each person individually, all without having to set up a listserv in advance and convincing everyone to subscribe to it. You might take note that despite your reasons why it shouldn't work, it did.
Huh? With multiple other solutions he also doesn't have to keep track. He makes no mention of not setting it up in advance. Sure he could use his personal feed but that brings up signal to noise issues for everyone following who doesn't give a fuck about wrestling. Twitter and list serve are functionally identical in this situation and listserv doesn't suffer from a 140 char limit thus allowing him to provide better coverage.
Twitter is trendy but has no functional advantage.
So you're saying it's just an exhibitionist or ego thing?
The belief that you're somehow interesting enough to be listened to? By such a volume of people that security might get in the way and you want anyone to be able to opt-in?
That explains why it's popular, but still doesn't explain how it's more useful than existing techs.
Huh?
What's the difference between waiting for a web page to update and waiting for an email to hit your inbox? The only difference I see is what you're staring it.
People know how to use email. Subscribing to a mail list is trivial. Last time I did it it involved sending the word subscribe to an email address. Everyone knows how to do this.
You also set up your example is invalid due to the artificial limitations you put on it. Why would you create a one off list? Why not leave the list around for the team?
You're saying rather than doing that trivial step it's some how easier to have people create yet another account, this time with a system they are not familiar with. How does that work exactly? Remember to think in terms of your "How do I use the mouse again?" uncle.
Email is not one to one. You know you can put a semi colon followed by another address on the To: line right? What about the earlier mentioned email list?
Texting, at least for me and I have a bare bare bones phone, is one to many. I can send the same text to multiple people just by selecting multiple recipients.
I ask again. What advantages does it offer over existing technology other than being new?
Further up in the thread it states as common knowledge that Disney prevented Pixar from doing sequels. Disney only allows sequels as direct to video and Pixar wanted to do theatrical release.
Can you provide a citation for this "common knowledge?"
What exactly would the problem have been if the scores had not gone up immediately? Something more than people would have to wait?
This is an example of a good use of twitter.
This is also an example of no compelling reason to use twitter for this. Email or text would both work in this situation.
Honestly the only difference I see between twitter and email/text is a lack of security. The information originator cannot control who has access to the feed.
lol You've devolved to attacking the poster.
*plonk*
I'm talking about services -- labor -- not copies. If you want to hear a new song, someone has to record it first. And if he doesn't want to work for free, you're going to have to pay him.
Exactly, which you then compare to a non-service product to make your point. Total econ fail.
Total economics fail.
Drugs, prostitution, and assassination all differ greatly from "digital entertainment". The former have a cost per copy the later doesn't.
For example if I give you a unit of drugs you cannot copy that unit. If you want to share it you must split the unit. If I give you a unit of "digital entertainment" you can make infinite copies for what is effectively zero cost. If you want to share it then you just copy it and give away the perfect copy.
So no the market won't settle it. You can either get it from the market for more than zero money or you can get it off the market for zero money. Digital copying provides an exact copy. Why would anyone pay more than zero for an exact copy?
Copyright is in no way a new concept, dates back to at least 1662. The status quo will persist until a new paradigm is found that can handle no cost of 1+n copies while still covering the high cost of the first copy.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
How exactly does that protect against some other vehicle crossing the center line and hitting you head on?
Other cars are inches away.
Other planes are miles away.
I'll take the plane any day.
Of course they can be. The 30 second idea I had was simply taking an old polaroid cutting out the picture and putting a different one in. Or taking the whole top off and putting a digital print over it. Is it good? No but honestly neither is the question. When was the last time anyone dealt with a forged photo? It's movie plot panic and security theater.
How exactly is one unique copy of a photo better for sharing than infinite, perfect copies at almost zero cost?
You're ignoring a major flaw. Sure you can hand one person the only copy in existence right now. Alternately if you want to wait a bit you can give everyone a copy.
The only possible response to someone asking "Can I have a copy of that one?" is "No I used a technology that prohibits me from making additional copies."
What happens if that unique polaroid is lost or damaged?
The product is obsolete. Move on.
No. Please see the concepts of proving the negative and correlation is not causation.
You made these claims with no explanation of how these actions would accomplish anything. I'm merely asking you to show some evidence of your position. The burden is on you not me.
I don't care what legislators are looking to do. You took a position. I'm asking you. Why would you rather spend resources on reducing a pool of 600 some when you could work to reduce a pool of 40K? You're going to have more success with less resources working on the larger pool. Fire arm deaths just aren't an issue. They effect .00002 percent of the population.
You have an irrational fear of firearms. To answer the question that you've ignored twice. The answer is you. The other three are inanimate objects. They are incapable of harming you. This is the problem that needs to be addressed. We already prevent criminals from having firearms. No one on either side of the issue sees a problem with this. Any further regulation only servers to remove constitutional rights from law abiding citizens.
Rather than more laws we need parenting and a reduction in the life is cheap culture the USA has. But that would be hard.
If it were as simple as making a law then we'd have no murder, theft, or rape as these are all illegal at present.
Again I ask how would these regulations reduce fatalities? What is the cause and effect? How does registering ammunition/sales somehow make them not usable to kill people?
Why bother? 62x as many lives can be saved spending the resources on motor vehicles. Why spend it on firearms?
"Looks like all ammunition is registered" Your first link contradicts this and clearly explains the loophole.
From your save the children link
"Evidence that multiple-purchase guns are likely to be trafficked and used in crime has led Virginia, Maryland, and California to outlaw such purchases." No evidence or citation provided. Please document this claim.
"Regulating the secondary gun marketâ"sales between private partiesâ"is another way to reduce the number of guns sold to minors." No evidence or citation provided. Please document this claim.
The section "Registering Guns and Licensing Owners" is invalid. The study cited has nothing to do with the claim made in the first sentence.
Same with the "Banning Weapons of Choice" section.
The whole article is emotional bullshit that ignores facts.
You don't show that the regulation does anything.
Again I ask you're in a room with a car a gun and a bucket of water. What's the only thing in the room that can kill you? The answer is really the crux of the problem.