On the other hand, I have advanced degrees in Biogeochemistry, so why am I casually overwritten?
You shouldn't just give up in these cases. You have to work with the editing system you're given. If you know you're right, revert their change and leave a comment on the talk page explaining the problem. Most casual overwriters won't persist -- they'll probably realize they made a mistake and move on.
If you're up against someone who is also sure they're right, then things get a little tricky. If the two of you can work it out on the talk page, then great. If you can't, and it turns into an edit war, bring it to an admin's attention, and they'll probably lock the page, making you guys work it out on the talk page. If the other person refuses to engage you, but keeps reverting, then they'll most likely be banned.
It's not as volatile as it sounds, but it does require some patience and persistance. But hell, if pages on things like Jerusalem can reach consensus and remain open to editing most of the time, then a page on biogeochemistry or whatever should be able to as well;)
Seriously, I'm reminded of arguments against open source when linux was in its infancy. Any old hack could be adding code to your operating system! Trust our elite closed group, instead! It's true that many "wiki zealots" are wayyy overstating the power of the medium, but this article is on the opposite end of that spectrum -- a vitriolic outburst ridiculing the very concept of wikipedia from every angle he can muster. I call into question the author's motivations in writing this piece.
Look, here's how I see it: 1) First of all, Wikipedia has been around for under a decade -- Brittanica has been around for CENTURIES. Other traditional encyclopedias have been around much longer than Wikipedia, as well. How can you conclude that their relative qualities are due solely to the editing process involved when there's such a disparity in the timeframes involved? 2) Yes, you shouldn't use wiki as an authoritative source. But am I the only one here that has been taught that you should never use *any* encyclopedia as an authoritative source? The last time an encyclopedia article was my only source on a subject was in gradeschool. Encyclopedias are primarily for an overview of a topic -- a starting point from which to branch out into further research. And Wikipedia is immensely useful in that respect. 3) Wikipedia's quality is only as good as the community editing it. This causes certain topics to be stellar -- maths and computer science, for instance -- in fact, surpassing most traditional encyclopedias that I've seen in these kinds of areas. But other areas aren't as great, and will develop more slowly. As more people from broader backgrounds use and contribute to wikipedia, it will develop that much more quickly. And wikipedia should still be considered in development, at least for a few decades, IMHO. See point #1. (But that doesn't mean it's useless in the meantime. See point #2) 4) After all the author's handwaving about why the concept itself won't work, after his laughing at strawman attitudes of those involved in the project, and after his unnecessary exposition on failed projects that preceded wikipedia, he finally gets to a concrete, empirical argument to show that wikipedia is sub-par. He picks one mistaken fact out of one of the articles [in fact, not even a mistaken fact, but a failure to explain that the fact isn't 100% known to be true], and uses that to conclude that wikipedia doesn't work. I have several things to say in response: a) First of all, one could comb through any traditional encyclopedia and find mistakes and omissions. If you brought those to the attention of the editors, they'd probably be fixed in the next edition. (there's that word that he hates -- "probably.") b) Hey, guess what, the omission he pointed out has already been corrected in the Wikipedia article. Neat, huh? c) Wikipedia's content is ever expanding and growing. Both in terms of new articles, and within articles themselves. As new content is added, it takes a lot of time for that content to be polished, fixed up, and made presentable. As that's occurring, new content is continuously being added. Therefore, at any time in the development of wikipedia, you'll be able to find some rusty information. However, many other articles are absolute gems. No one has yet found a way to judge the *overall* quality of the encyclopedia, and the author of the article even admits that it's impossible to do so (so why do we trust traditional encyclopedias, again?). Nitpicks don't cut it.
d) He tries, in what essentially is his final thesis, to argue against the idea that these mistakes will be fixed by "some darwinian process" over time by pointing out that the original version of the article (which came from the US treasury) was actually better quality than it is now. However, he's missing a huge point, and so are most of the slashdot readers who are parroting his argument in this discussion -- The scope and depth of the article has increased *substantially* since its original version! Increasing scope and incr
I have yet to see anything that proves that Reagan's economic policies caused the recession. Simply saying that "reaganomics obviously doesn't work - see, we had a recession!" is like saying "money doesn't work - see, I don't have any!". It's fallacious to attribute failure to something without some sort of hard data explicitly connecting the two.
yet you have absolutely no problem blaming the huge inflation of the 70's on LBJ, and claming that Reagan's policies are what brought us out of it.
Give me a break. Where's your "hard data explicitly connecting the two"? Or are you just blowing partisan hot air?
Nothing I could say will convert you...
on
Pre-Election Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Informative
...since you hold the exact same positions that a Bush supporter of 12 months ago would. But I might as well respond, so you don't feel lonely so far down the page:)
That being said, the most pertinant issue is Iraq. The war was totally justified. We knew Saddam had WMD's at one point in time. There's no question about it. We also knew that, when he kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998, they said that their work wasn't done. We also had intelligence indicating that Saddam still had WMD. What evidence did we have that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD? His word. Nothing more. UN Resolution 1441, passed in November (IIRC) of 2002 gave Saddam one last chance to document fully his weapons programs. He failed miserably. There was a ton of stuff that was just plain unaccounted for. Saddam had the burden of proof to prove that he had gotten rid of the WMD's, in the treaties ending the first Gulf War. He failed. He gave no proof whatsoever. It would be irresponsible to put the the security of the US in Saddam's hands.
You offer a revisionist view of the relevent events. Everyone, even george bush, agreed that new, thorough weapons inspections were the correct course of action to ensure that Iraq had actually complied with disarming requirements. Suddenly, before the inspections were even completed, Bush declaired that they weren't working and went ahead to war anyway. Why did he initially support the inspections if the war was so "justified" from the get-go? Why did he cut the inspections off if he initially supported them? These are questions that have never been answered.
Also, let's not forget that John Kerry looked at the very same intelligence as the Bush administration and came to the very same conclusions, namely that Saddam posed an iminent threat.
Entirely, 100%, completely, and shamefully false. Kerry NEVER said that Iraq posed an imminent threat. NEVER. Do I have to repeat it again?
Kerry also voted for the war.
This is an oversimplification of what the war authorization entailed. See here for basically the same argument that I'd make about this: http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/authforce.html
He also stated, a couple months ago, that, knowing what he knows now, he'd still vote for authorization to use the troops.
He believes that it's the right authority for the president to have in that situation. But he thinks the president used it wrongly. He's been consistent about this.
Well, that was a couple of months ago. I don't know if it's still true today.
It is still true. He hasn't flip-flopped. The flip-flop accusations have turned into this big whisper campaign. It's really disingenuous.
However, Kerry tried to attach a caveat to that, namely that he voted for the authorization so that Bush could back up his threats of military power, but Kerry didn't want Bush to actually use it. In a nutshell, he said that he wanted the threat of military force to be a bluff. What kind of respect will that get on the world stage, now that our enemies know that Kerry won't actually use the military?
No, you're still misrepresenting his viewpoint. Please read the speech he gave before voting on said resolution. The war powers were there as a LAST RESORT, in case diplomatic means to ensure Iraq's disarming didn't work. "Last Resort" and "Bluff" are entirely different concepts.
How can you be so sure that you dislike someone whose viewpoint you don't even understand accurately?
Speaking of world respect, the Economist has no respect for Kerry either. To use their word, they recognize that his vacillations lose a lot of respect.
The Economist has their own opinion. Besides, most of the accusations of his "vacillations" are fallacious.
Furthermore, his whole promise to bring American troops
There are no real issues which the president legitimately has Constitutional authority to decide on.
[snip]
What, then, are the real issues? The real issues comprise these: [snip]
You go on to list a bunch more issues that the president has no constitutional authority to decide on. I think you got sidetracked and started trying to subtly elicit libertarian thoughts from unwary slashdot readers!
Let's see the sources, and the facts. You repeat a bunch of republican fallacies, here, and also get things 100% wrong.
He voted for the Iraq war
No, he voted to give the president the power to use force as a last resort to enforce inspections and disarming. Bush didn't even let the inspections complete. Now it's finally coming out that Saddam *had* disarmed. Too late, eh?
He then voted to do just that.
He voted for it until it was changed into a fiscally irresponsible bill that got the money out of nowhere. Bush even threatened to veto the version he voted for.
He then said it was an imminent threat that had to be dealt with
No he didn't. In fact he's said the opposite -- Iraq was NOT an imminent threat.
then went back to saying he would have done the same thing
No he didn't. He said he'd still vote for the authority to use force. He never said he'd start the iraq war.
He said that the President spent $200 billion that could have gone to education, health care, etc. He then said that the President underfunded the troops and didn't send them in with enough body armor etc.
Both of these are true. If the president hadn't been so quick to rush to war, and had planned more carefully (or even avoided it altogether!) it could have cost less *and* been better funded. It's called being "smarter" with your resources..He said he met with all the members of the security counsel...oh wait nevermind no he didn't.
When did he say this?
He's voted to cut the military funding every chance he's gotten
False. And you haven't showed that his votes against military funding had anything to do with weakening our security. Try reading factcheck.org sometime and not basing everything you know on Bush Campaign Ads.
then criticizes Bush for having an unprepared intelligence and military system thanks to eight years of Clinton and Congressmen like him.
The clinton administration warned the Bush administration about the threat of al qaeda.
He's voted to weaken the second amendment every chance he's gotten, then his national election rolls around and he's suddenly an avid hunter.
He's always been an avid hunter, and he's never weakened the rights to use arms for hunting..Need I go on (there's plenty more)?
Oh, sure, go on as long as you like. It's not getting any better.
The source code for the work would then include the source code for effect modules that do not come with Audacity (the "compiler").
You're neglecting outboard effects, and analog sound processing.
"Compiling" a musical work to a sound recording comprises performing, mixing, and mastering, all of which are completely predestined in a tracked format. The composer has considerable "room for artistic expression" in a.it module.
Sure but they have a lot *more* room for artistic expression under something like Cakewalk Sonar.
You know, I think I just realized we're getting off track here. GPL doesn't apply to object files, it applies to the source files. It requires anyone who modifies those source files, and then distributes object files generated from the modified source, to also distribute the modified source (generally, i know this isn't 100% precise).
Arging that a license intended to be applied to finished music (iow, the "object file") isn't GPL compatible makes no sense, since the GPL itself isn't intended to operate on object files!
Now, if you wanted to invent a licence that was designed to be placed on a range of sound *production* elements: be they samples, effect code, tracker files, sequences, midi files, audio tracks, instructions on how to assemble them and what have you, such that anyone who uses your audio "sources" and produces a song has to release those sources, and modifications to them, then fine.
You may run into some problems trying to make it like the GPL though. Source code has well-defined structure as to which modules are dependent on which. Under GPL, it's fine for GPL code to call and use non-GPL code (see below), but vice-versa isn't OK (LGPL allows this to some extent). But when making music... is that new string track you added to the song "calling" that vocal track that it's behind, or vice-versa? Are you required to release all the details on how you made your new string track or not? Your new music-GPL license may end up requiring *more* disclosure than the GPL!
Anyway, what would be an appropriate license for music to be used in a copylefted video game?
Any license that allows you to use, modify, and reditribute that music any way you see fit. A creative commons license, as long as it was the type that allowed this, would work 100% fine in a GPL project. I don't see the issue.
Here's an example that may shed light on the issues: Say you wanted to start a new project, and you wanted to GPL it. However, you wanted to use SuperSecretCrazyBinaryObject in your project, and didn't want to give out the source code for it. You can go and GPL the source code for the rest of your project no problem, and simply require that SuperSecretCrazyBinaryObject is installed to actually run it. There's absolutely nothing in the GPL that forbids this situation.
In this case trying to argue that the Howard Stern show was in the grey area between decency/indecency requires a complete departure from common sense.
Which side is he on, then, and why?
The standards of decency are clearly defined.
Oh? What are they, then? And if they're very clearly defined then you should be able to very clearly back up your response to my question as to which side Stern is on.
Your analogies and reasoning are so off-base that I'm honestly not sure where to start.
Yeah. We shouldn't shut down businesses conducting illegal activities until after they've failed their appeals several times.
1) Allowing "indecency" on the air is not a criminal activity. 2) There's no "appeals" here. There wasn't even a court case to begin with. There was a panel deciding to levy a fine, with no chance for the company being fined to challenge it yet. Are you saying that every time any allegation is laid upon any business that the business should be shut down immediately before they even have a chance to defend themselves? Even with criminal cases, we have a little concept called "innocent until proven guilty," and in the cases where the activity is too dangerous to allow to be continued, that's why we have injunction orders, which can stay in effect throughout the appeals process. 3) The business wasn't legally being "shut down" as a consequence of its activity. There were sneaky regulations in place that would make it business suicide to challenge the fine or do anything other than immediately pay it.
Howard Stern is completely within his rights to challenge the rules and law - but he can't tell Viacom what to do, and Viacom has to keep revenue up.
Ok, fine, that's true.
What you are proposing is similar to allowing drug dealers to continue selling on the streets after conviction and fines until they've had a few appeals fail. #1 above #2 above 4) No, it's similar to forcing someone out of business unless they immediately plead "guilty" to a criminal drug charge.
Once the ruling or conviction is made you can go ahead and contest it, but allowing the activity that caused the rulling to continue is worse. #2 above. 5) So you can contest unfair rulings against your business only *after* you're forced OUT of business? What's the point? Let me emphasize a point made in #2 again -- in case the activity needs to be ceased, we have the power of INJUNCTIONS against the activity. The FCC didn't file any injunctions against viacom. Your argument falls apart.
This is what individual stays of judgement are for. On a case by case basis, a judge can allow continued operation until the appeal is completed. #2 again. #3 again. Let me emphasize this, as well. There was no place for a "stay of judgement" since there was no actual judgement against viacom that was stopping them from doing business. There were arbitrary FCC REGULATIONS that were stopping them from doing business until they payed the fines. You can't rule a stay of judgement against that.
Apparently Viacom did not see this as a viable option.
Because it was a NON EXISTENT OPTION. See above.
It doesn't matter what Howard thinks - the fines were against his employer or client, not against him. All he did was record an audio stream - he did not himself broadcast it.
Well this is a separate issue. But you don't think that fines levelled against a show negatively impact the people who run and produce that show?
simple, replace the source code requirement with the ability to use and distribute samples of arbitrary length, thus allowing anyone to release, in whole the work (sample length = song length) or as a short piece for traditional sample, or about half for "mash ups"
"Audacity project" or "multichannel Ogg (Vorbis or FLAC) stream" anyone?
But what about effects for the mixdown? Or post-processing that's done in the mastering step? Sure, you could give everyone your raw tracks and the instructions to put them back together, but if they don't have that $2000 compressor, what's the point?
Anyway, one would probably want to use the.OMF format, which is readable by most pro audio software out there.... but what if they recorded to 2" tape? Should they go and digitize all the tracks for you? You're not gonna end up being able to "compile" the same end result if you don't have their $40,000 console, anyway. And what if they bounce tracks down to save room? The original tracks are gone by that point.
You just described tracked music, which includes machine-readable instrument definitions (as a sample bank) and machine-readable sheet music (as a note sequence) in a file. Common formats for tracked music include.mod,.s3m,.xm, or.it formats. Other machine-readable sheet music formats, which reference (but do not completely define) the instruments, include.ly (Lilypond) and.mid (standard MIDI file format). Compare the concepts of "transparent" and "opaque" used in the GNU Free Documentation License [gnu.org].
But tracker formats may not be sufficient to reproduce the entire range of synthesized and sampled music out there, especially when you consider the thousands upon thousands of sequencers, samplers, synthesizers, drum machines, and controllable effects, both software and hardware based, including some old vintage analog stuff, much of which might not be built anymore, and most of which is hella expensive.
Besides, this whole "compatable with GPL" thing rings a big "NOT APPLICABLE" in my head when talking about music. What do "source code" and "compiling" and "object code" mean when you're talking about music? How can you expect to be able to reproduce the "object code" the same way every time, and still leave room for artistic expression?
Compare to the GNU Free Documentation License. They don't require pictures in a document covered under said license to be packaged with the sketches, or all the Gimp layers used to create the image, along with instructions on what filters to use to combine them. The final result is all that matters in that case.
You see, he voted for it because it was a popular thing to do at the time. After a while, people started to feel more secure again, and the patriot act became much less popular. Then Kerry's opinion changed. He's just following whatever is popular at the moment, that's all.
If she, or Kerry, were to prefix all changes in opinion with, "I have come to a new understanding of this," I think I'd have a lot less problem with it. For example, if Kerry had said, "I have had conversations with Americans from all over our glorious land. I think I can see, now, how certain aspects of can be abused. I will take my first opportunity to fix this oversight by a) repealing the law, b) amending the law, c) ???," I think I would have a lot more respect for him than I do now.
Well, first you'd have to show that said "flip flop subject" was actually a flip flop, the overwhelming majority of which are not.
And for those subjects which *were* flip flops, he's done exactly what you're asking him to do (ie, voting for Scalia or against the first gulf war).
Please, research someone's actual statements before deciding your level of respect for them.
Kerry is impressionable, and agrees with anyone for 10 minutes after they have made their point.
Wow this kerry smearing just keeps getting worse!
First it was that he tunes his message for whomever's listening. Then it's that he wavers and doesn't take firm stances and likes the middle ground. Then it's that he outright flip-flops and contradicts things he said months earlier. Then it's that he actually has several different, contradictory positions on everything, simultaneously! And now it's that he's just running around spouting off whatever someone told him 10 mintues ago and doesn't actually have any ideas of his own!
Well, ok, but could they still have high-bandwidth inter-core busses, to take care of all the messy cache coherence traffic, so as to still save on external memory bus traffic?
Would all four cores share the same cache? If so, then don't you save on memory bandwidth requirements by not needing to do all that messy cache coherence stuff between separate processors?
Looking at the EXACT SAME INTELLIGENCE as Bush, Kerry came to the same conclusion about Iraq's weapons programs.
Read back on kerry's speeches around oct 2002. Yes, he came to a similar conclusion as bush: that saddam represented a potentially serious threat, and we needed to make sure he was disarmed. This required complete inspections, international diplomatic activity and possibly, as a last resort, military action.
Fast forward to early 2003. The inspections haven't even finished yet to confirm the intelligence reports of WMDs, and bush decides to just go and attack anyway. Kerry disagreed that it was necessary to use force at that point, just like he said he would when he signed the war power authorization, and just as he's been saying ever since the war up until now.
Kerry and Bush initially were at the same place regarding how to deal with Saddam. Bush went back on HIS word.
If you'd actually take some time to look into the facts instead of parroting the Republican party lines, you'd have realized this.
Logically, Kerry is therefore either a dupe or a liar himself.
You may want to brush up on elementary logic a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
What, but it's ok former editor of EB to tout his stuff over nitpicks of Wikipedia?
On the other hand, I have advanced degrees in Biogeochemistry, so why am I casually overwritten?
;)
You shouldn't just give up in these cases. You have to work with the editing system you're given. If you know you're right, revert their change and leave a comment on the talk page explaining the problem. Most casual overwriters won't persist -- they'll probably realize they made a mistake and move on.
If you're up against someone who is also sure they're right, then things get a little tricky. If the two of you can work it out on the talk page, then great. If you can't, and it turns into an edit war, bring it to an admin's attention, and they'll probably lock the page, making you guys work it out on the talk page. If the other person refuses to engage you, but keeps reverting, then they'll most likely be banned.
It's not as volatile as it sounds, but it does require some patience and persistance. But hell, if pages on things like Jerusalem can reach consensus and remain open to editing most of the time, then a page on biogeochemistry or whatever should be able to as well
Seriously, I'm reminded of arguments against open source when linux was in its infancy. Any old hack could be adding code to your operating system! Trust our elite closed group, instead! It's true that many "wiki zealots" are wayyy overstating the power of the medium, but this article is on the opposite end of that spectrum -- a vitriolic outburst ridiculing the very concept of wikipedia from every angle he can muster. I call into question the author's motivations in writing this piece.
Look, here's how I see it:
1) First of all, Wikipedia has been around for under a decade -- Brittanica has been around for CENTURIES. Other traditional encyclopedias have been around much longer than Wikipedia, as well. How can you conclude that their relative qualities are due solely to the editing process involved when there's such a disparity in the timeframes involved?
2) Yes, you shouldn't use wiki as an authoritative source. But am I the only one here that has been taught that you should never use *any* encyclopedia as an authoritative source? The last time an encyclopedia article was my only source on a subject was in gradeschool. Encyclopedias are primarily for an overview of a topic -- a starting point from which to branch out into further research. And Wikipedia is immensely useful in that respect.
3) Wikipedia's quality is only as good as the community editing it. This causes certain topics to be stellar -- maths and computer science, for instance -- in fact, surpassing most traditional encyclopedias that I've seen in these kinds of areas. But other areas aren't as great, and will develop more slowly. As more people from broader backgrounds use and contribute to wikipedia, it will develop that much more quickly. And wikipedia should still be considered in development, at least for a few decades, IMHO. See point #1. (But that doesn't mean it's useless in the meantime. See point #2)
4) After all the author's handwaving about why the concept itself won't work, after his laughing at strawman attitudes of those involved in the project, and after his unnecessary exposition on failed projects that preceded wikipedia, he finally gets to a concrete, empirical argument to show that wikipedia is sub-par. He picks one mistaken fact out of one of the articles [in fact, not even a mistaken fact, but a failure to explain that the fact isn't 100% known to be true], and uses that to conclude that wikipedia doesn't work. I have several things to say in response:
a) First of all, one could comb through any traditional encyclopedia and find mistakes and omissions. If you brought those to the attention of the editors, they'd probably be fixed in the next edition. (there's that word that he hates -- "probably.")
b) Hey, guess what, the omission he pointed out has already been corrected in the Wikipedia article. Neat, huh?
c) Wikipedia's content is ever expanding and growing. Both in terms of new articles, and within articles themselves. As new content is added, it takes a lot of time for that content to be polished, fixed up, and made presentable. As that's occurring, new content is continuously being added. Therefore, at any time in the development of wikipedia, you'll be able to find some rusty information. However, many other articles are absolute gems. No one has yet found a way to judge the *overall* quality of the encyclopedia, and the author of the article even admits that it's impossible to do so (so why do we trust traditional encyclopedias, again?). Nitpicks don't cut it.
d) He tries, in what essentially is his final thesis, to argue against the idea that these mistakes will be fixed by "some darwinian process" over time by pointing out that the original version of the article (which came from the US treasury) was actually better quality than it is now. However, he's missing a huge point, and so are most of the slashdot readers who are parroting his argument in this discussion -- The scope and depth of the article has increased *substantially* since its original version! Increasing scope and incr
From an academic point of view I can quote say Encyclopadia Brittanica article on the charango from the 1995 edition.
Is it possible for me to date my wikipedia references in the same way?
Yes.
I have yet to see anything that proves that Reagan's economic policies caused the recession. Simply saying that "reaganomics obviously doesn't work - see, we had a recession!" is like saying "money doesn't work - see, I don't have any!". It's fallacious to attribute failure to something without some sort of hard data explicitly connecting the two.
yet you have absolutely no problem blaming the huge inflation of the 70's on LBJ, and claming that Reagan's policies are what brought us out of it.
Give me a break. Where's your "hard data explicitly connecting the two"? Or are you just blowing partisan hot air?
...since you hold the exact same positions that a Bush supporter of 12 months ago would. But I might as well respond, so you don't feel lonely so far down the page :)
That being said, the most pertinant issue is Iraq. The war was totally justified. We knew Saddam had WMD's at one point in time. There's no question about it. We also knew that, when he kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998, they said that their work wasn't done. We also had intelligence indicating that Saddam still had WMD. What evidence did we have that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD? His word. Nothing more. UN Resolution 1441, passed in November (IIRC) of 2002 gave Saddam one last chance to document fully his weapons programs. He failed miserably. There was a ton of stuff that was just plain unaccounted for. Saddam had the burden of proof to prove that he had gotten rid of the WMD's, in the treaties ending the first Gulf War. He failed. He gave no proof whatsoever. It would be irresponsible to put the the security of the US in Saddam's hands.
You offer a revisionist view of the relevent events. Everyone, even george bush, agreed that new, thorough weapons inspections were the correct course of action to ensure that Iraq had actually complied with disarming requirements. Suddenly, before the inspections were even completed, Bush declaired that they weren't working and went ahead to war anyway. Why did he initially support the inspections if the war was so "justified" from the get-go? Why did he cut the inspections off if he initially supported them? These are questions that have never been answered.
Also, let's not forget that John Kerry looked at the very same intelligence as the Bush administration and came to the very same conclusions, namely that Saddam posed an iminent threat.
Entirely, 100%, completely, and shamefully false. Kerry NEVER said that Iraq posed an imminent threat. NEVER. Do I have to repeat it again?
Kerry also voted for the war.
This is an oversimplification of what the war authorization entailed. See here for basically the same argument that I'd make about this: http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/authforce.html
He also stated, a couple months ago, that, knowing what he knows now, he'd still vote for authorization to use the troops.
He believes that it's the right authority for the president to have in that situation. But he thinks the president used it wrongly. He's been consistent about this.
Well, that was a couple of months ago. I don't know if it's still true today.
It is still true. He hasn't flip-flopped. The flip-flop accusations have turned into this big whisper campaign. It's really disingenuous.
However, Kerry tried to attach a caveat to that, namely that he voted for the authorization so that Bush could back up his threats of military power, but Kerry didn't want Bush to actually use it. In a nutshell, he said that he wanted the threat of military force to be a bluff. What kind of respect will that get on the world stage, now that our enemies know that Kerry won't actually use the military?
No, you're still misrepresenting his viewpoint. Please read the speech he gave before voting on said resolution. The war powers were there as a LAST RESORT, in case diplomatic means to ensure Iraq's disarming didn't work. "Last Resort" and "Bluff" are entirely different concepts.
How can you be so sure that you dislike someone whose viewpoint you don't even understand accurately?
Speaking of world respect, the Economist has no respect for Kerry either. To use their word, they recognize that his vacillations lose a lot of respect.
The Economist has their own opinion. Besides, most of the accusations of his "vacillations" are fallacious.
Furthermore, his whole promise to bring American troops
There are no real issues which the president legitimately has Constitutional authority to decide on.
[snip]
What, then, are the real issues? The real issues comprise these: [snip]
You go on to list a bunch more issues that the president has no constitutional authority to decide on. I think you got sidetracked and started trying to subtly elicit libertarian thoughts from unwary slashdot readers!
So the toy would have been copyright-infringing, except that its patent was granted 24 years ago, which means that its trademark is now expired.
And I thought I had figured this whole IP thing out. Man. *scratches head*
Let's see the sources, and the facts. You repeat a bunch of republican fallacies, here, and also get things 100% wrong.
.He said he met with all the members of the security counsel...oh wait nevermind no he didn't.
.Need I go on (there's plenty more)?
He voted for the Iraq war
No, he voted to give the president the power to use force as a last resort to enforce inspections and disarming. Bush didn't even let the inspections complete. Now it's finally coming out that Saddam *had* disarmed. Too late, eh?
He then voted to do just that.
He voted for it until it was changed into a fiscally irresponsible bill that got the money out of nowhere. Bush even threatened to veto the version he voted for.
He then said it was an imminent threat that had to be dealt with
No he didn't. In fact he's said the opposite -- Iraq was NOT an imminent threat.
then went back to saying he would have done the same thing
No he didn't. He said he'd still vote for the authority to use force. He never said he'd start the iraq war.
He said that the President spent $200 billion that could have gone to education, health care, etc. He then said that the President underfunded the troops and didn't send them in with enough body armor etc.
Both of these are true. If the president hadn't been so quick to rush to war, and had planned more carefully (or even avoided it altogether!) it could have cost less *and* been better funded. It's called being "smarter" with your resources.
When did he say this?
He's voted to cut the military funding every chance he's gotten
False. And you haven't showed that his votes against military funding had anything to do with weakening our security. Try reading factcheck.org sometime and not basing everything you know on Bush Campaign Ads.
then criticizes Bush for having an unprepared intelligence and military system thanks to eight years of Clinton and Congressmen like him.
The clinton administration warned the Bush administration about the threat of al qaeda.
He's voted to weaken the second amendment every chance he's gotten, then his national election rolls around and he's suddenly an avid hunter.
He's always been an avid hunter, and he's never weakened the rights to use arms for hunting.
Oh, sure, go on as long as you like. It's not getting any better.
The source code for the work would then include the source code for effect modules that do not come with Audacity (the "compiler").
.it module.
You're neglecting outboard effects, and analog sound processing.
"Compiling" a musical work to a sound recording comprises performing, mixing, and mastering, all of which are completely predestined in a tracked format. The composer has considerable "room for artistic expression" in a
Sure but they have a lot *more* room for artistic expression under something like Cakewalk Sonar.
You know, I think I just realized we're getting off track here. GPL doesn't apply to object files, it applies to the source files. It requires anyone who modifies those source files, and then distributes object files generated from the modified source, to also distribute the modified source (generally, i know this isn't 100% precise).
Arging that a license intended to be applied to finished music (iow, the "object file") isn't GPL compatible makes no sense, since the GPL itself isn't intended to operate on object files!
Now, if you wanted to invent a licence that was designed to be placed on a range of sound *production* elements: be they samples, effect code, tracker files, sequences, midi files, audio tracks, instructions on how to assemble them and what have you, such that anyone who uses your audio "sources" and produces a song has to release those sources, and modifications to them, then fine.
You may run into some problems trying to make it like the GPL though. Source code has well-defined structure as to which modules are dependent on which. Under GPL, it's fine for GPL code to call and use non-GPL code (see below), but vice-versa isn't OK (LGPL allows this to some extent). But when making music... is that new string track you added to the song "calling" that vocal track that it's behind, or vice-versa? Are you required to release all the details on how you made your new string track or not? Your new music-GPL license may end up requiring *more* disclosure than the GPL!
Anyway, what would be an appropriate license for music to be used in a copylefted video game?
Any license that allows you to use, modify, and reditribute that music any way you see fit. A creative commons license, as long as it was the type that allowed this, would work 100% fine in a GPL project. I don't see the issue.
Here's an example that may shed light on the issues: Say you wanted to start a new project, and you wanted to GPL it. However, you wanted to use SuperSecretCrazyBinaryObject in your project, and didn't want to give out the source code for it. You can go and GPL the source code for the rest of your project no problem, and simply require that SuperSecretCrazyBinaryObject is installed to actually run it. There's absolutely nothing in the GPL that forbids this situation.
In this case trying to argue that the Howard Stern show was in the grey area between decency/indecency requires a complete departure from common sense.
Which side is he on, then, and why?
The standards of decency are clearly defined.
Oh? What are they, then? And if they're very clearly defined then you should be able to very clearly back up your response to my question as to which side Stern is on.
Your analogies and reasoning are so off-base that I'm honestly not sure where to start.
Yeah. We shouldn't shut down businesses conducting illegal activities until after they've failed their appeals several times.
1) Allowing "indecency" on the air is not a criminal activity.
2) There's no "appeals" here. There wasn't even a court case to begin with. There was a panel deciding to levy a fine, with no chance for the company being fined to challenge it yet. Are you saying that every time any allegation is laid upon any business that the business should be shut down immediately before they even have a chance to defend themselves? Even with criminal cases, we have a little concept called "innocent until proven guilty," and in the cases where the activity is too dangerous to allow to be continued, that's why we have injunction orders, which can stay in effect throughout the appeals process.
3) The business wasn't legally being "shut down" as a consequence of its activity. There were sneaky regulations in place that would make it business suicide to challenge the fine or do anything other than immediately pay it.
Howard Stern is completely within his rights to challenge the rules and law - but he can't tell Viacom what to do, and Viacom has to keep revenue up.
Ok, fine, that's true.
What you are proposing is similar to allowing drug dealers to continue selling on the streets after conviction and fines until they've had a few appeals fail.
#1 above
#2 above
4) No, it's similar to forcing someone out of business unless they immediately plead "guilty" to a criminal drug charge.
Once the ruling or conviction is made you can go ahead and contest it, but allowing the activity that caused the rulling to continue is worse.
#2 above.
5) So you can contest unfair rulings against your business only *after* you're forced OUT of business? What's the point?
Let me emphasize a point made in #2 again -- in case the activity needs to be ceased, we have the power of INJUNCTIONS against the activity. The FCC didn't file any injunctions against viacom. Your argument falls apart.
This is what individual stays of judgement are for. On a case by case basis, a judge can allow continued operation until the appeal is completed.
#2 again.
#3 again. Let me emphasize this, as well. There was no place for a "stay of judgement" since there was no actual judgement against viacom that was stopping them from doing business. There were arbitrary FCC REGULATIONS that were stopping them from doing business until they payed the fines. You can't rule a stay of judgement against that.
Apparently Viacom did not see this as a viable option.
Because it was a NON EXISTENT OPTION. See above.
It doesn't matter what Howard thinks - the fines were against his employer or client, not against him. All he did was record an audio stream - he did not himself broadcast it.
Well this is a separate issue. But you don't think that fines levelled against a show negatively impact the people who run and produce that show?
simple, replace the source code requirement with the ability to use and distribute samples of arbitrary length, thus allowing anyone to release, in whole the work (sample length = song length) or as a short piece for traditional sample, or about half for "mash ups"
The creative common license already allows this.
"Audacity project" or "multichannel Ogg (Vorbis or FLAC) stream" anyone?
.OMF format, which is readable by most pro audio software out there. ... but what if they recorded to 2" tape? Should they go and digitize all the tracks for you? You're not gonna end up being able to "compile" the same end result if you don't have their $40,000 console, anyway. And what if they bounce tracks down to save room? The original tracks are gone by that point.
.mod, .s3m, .xm, or .it formats. Other machine-readable sheet music formats, which reference (but do not completely define) the instruments, include .ly (Lilypond) and .mid (standard MIDI file format). Compare the concepts of "transparent" and "opaque" used in the GNU Free Documentation License [gnu.org].
But what about effects for the mixdown? Or post-processing that's done in the mastering step? Sure, you could give everyone your raw tracks and the instructions to put them back together, but if they don't have that $2000 compressor, what's the point?
Anyway, one would probably want to use the
You just described tracked music, which includes machine-readable instrument definitions (as a sample bank) and machine-readable sheet music (as a note sequence) in a file. Common formats for tracked music include
But tracker formats may not be sufficient to reproduce the entire range of synthesized and sampled music out there, especially when you consider the thousands upon thousands of sequencers, samplers, synthesizers, drum machines, and controllable effects, both software and hardware based, including some old vintage analog stuff, much of which might not be built anymore, and most of which is hella expensive.
Besides, this whole "compatable with GPL" thing rings a big "NOT APPLICABLE" in my head when talking about music. What do "source code" and "compiling" and "object code" mean when you're talking about music? How can you expect to be able to reproduce the "object code" the same way every time, and still leave room for artistic expression?
Compare to the GNU Free Documentation License. They don't require pictures in a document covered under said license to be packaged with the sketches, or all the Gimp layers used to create the image, along with instructions on what filters to use to combine them. The final result is all that matters in that case.
You see, he voted for it because it was a popular thing to do at the time. After a while, people started to feel more secure again, and the patriot act became much less popular. Then Kerry's opinion changed. He's just following whatever is popular at the moment, that's all.
Buying into the propaganda, aren't you?
It's much harder to repeal or limit legislation which has already been passed.
Yeah, especially bills with sunset clauses. Those just never seem to go away!
If she, or Kerry, were to prefix all changes in opinion with, "I have come to a new understanding of this," I think I'd have a lot less problem with it. For example, if Kerry had said, "I have had conversations with Americans from all over our glorious land. I think I can see, now, how certain aspects of can be abused. I will take my first opportunity to fix this oversight by a) repealing the law, b) amending the law, c) ???," I think I would have a lot more respect for him than I do now.
Well, first you'd have to show that said "flip flop subject" was actually a flip flop, the overwhelming majority of which are not.
And for those subjects which *were* flip flops, he's done exactly what you're asking him to do (ie, voting for Scalia or against the first gulf war).
Please, research someone's actual statements before deciding your level of respect for them.
Kerry is impressionable, and agrees with anyone for 10 minutes after they have made their point.
Wow this kerry smearing just keeps getting worse!
First it was that he tunes his message for whomever's listening.
Then it's that he wavers and doesn't take firm stances and likes the middle ground.
Then it's that he outright flip-flops and contradicts things he said months earlier.
Then it's that he actually has several different, contradictory positions on everything, simultaneously!
And now it's that he's just running around spouting off whatever someone told him 10 mintues ago and doesn't actually have any ideas of his own!
I mean, come on.
Do you have *any* evidence for your allegation?
Well, ok, but could they still have high-bandwidth inter-core busses, to take care of all the messy cache coherence traffic, so as to still save on external memory bus traffic?
Try 1+0=0 - this should be a bit harder :-)
;)
You're right, that would be a hard proof
Rewrite x+1=S(x) as x+S(0)=S(x).
Substitue x = S(0), S(0)=S(0)=S(S(0))
What am I missing?
That should have been S(0)+S(0)=S(S(0))
S(0)+S(0)=S(S(0))
// 1 is shortcut for S(0) ....
where S(x) is the successor operation. To prove that, you have to use the addition axioms:
x+1=S(x)
The proof won't be several pages long, but still quite long.
Rewrite x+1=S(x) as x+S(0)=S(x).
Substitue x = S(0), S(0)=S(0)=S(S(0))
What am I missing?
No Jim's Big Ego?
For shame!
Would all four cores share the same cache? If so, then don't you save on memory bandwidth requirements by not needing to do all that messy cache coherence stuff between separate processors?
Looking at the EXACT SAME INTELLIGENCE as Bush, Kerry came to the same conclusion about Iraq's weapons programs.
Read back on kerry's speeches around oct 2002. Yes, he came to a similar conclusion as bush: that saddam represented a potentially serious threat, and we needed to make sure he was disarmed. This required complete inspections, international diplomatic activity and possibly, as a last resort, military action.
Fast forward to early 2003. The inspections haven't even finished yet to confirm the intelligence reports of WMDs, and bush decides to just go and attack anyway. Kerry disagreed that it was necessary to use force at that point, just like he said he would when he signed the war power authorization, and just as he's been saying ever since the war up until now.
Kerry and Bush initially were at the same place regarding how to deal with Saddam. Bush went back on HIS word.
If you'd actually take some time to look into the facts instead of parroting the Republican party lines, you'd have realized this.
Logically, Kerry is therefore either a dupe or a liar himself.
You may want to brush up on elementary logic a bit.