Until some company with billions of R&D funds can prioritize this, we're stuck with double deletes. I guess we can only hope it is one of Ozzy's passions as well.
While I'm fairly certain you were referring to Ray Ozzie, I think I've stumbled across the test that will be to voice recognition what the Turing test is to AI.
The Ozzy Test. When a voice recognition program can decipher the casual speech of Ozzy Osbourne, then we can call it true voice recognition. I guess the bigger question is...how would we know when the software gets it right?
Neither of those anaologies covers the data carries in the radio waves, nor do they cover sending radio waves back to the AP and opening communication with it, nor do they cover using the signalling and open communication causing other systems on the other side of the AP to do your wishes or carry your data.
Well, here's how I see that. Your equipment send out RF signals over public airwaves on to my property, which you say I am free to receive or ignore. Likewise, I send back RF signals, which you are free to receive or ignore...if you receive them, and then allow me access to your network, how is that anything but your fault? If you don't want my signals accessing your network, it is trivially simple to ignore them.
My point was not to provide the perfect analogy to the wireless access issue, but rather to show the deficiency of the "hooking a hose to someone else's faucet" analogy.
I don't know if there is a really good analogy for this, but I do know this: if someone doesn't want anyone else using your wireless access, then secure the damn thing already.
I wouldn't be surprised one bit if he suspended that whole 'limited to two terms' thing so he could Continue To Bravely Fight The Terrorists And Ensure Freedom Abroad. Or CTBFTTAEFA for short.
I thought they were going to call it Preserving W's Natural Authority as God for Eternity, or PWNAGE for short.
But that analogy fails due to the fact in order to hook to your faucet I must cross your property, which if you're going to sue for using the faucet, it can be assumed that you did not give your permission.
Let's say you are watering your garden, and your driveway has concrete gutters where excess water channels into the street. Someone is walking down the public sidewalk and is thirsty, and dips his drinking cup into the water stream emanating from your property (but no longer on it) and drinks it, without ever entering on to your property. Has this person stolen your water?
While what you say is true, it is that difference in dominance that makes the analogy fall apart. (And no, I don't think the starting entrepreneur would expect to get on Wal-Mart's shelves immediately.) Despite Wal-Mart share of retail space, there is still plenty of other alternative retail markets for a business startup to supply, and plenty of opportunity there to thrive. But with the near-total dominance of the RIAA-backed music industry (which is the labels AND the major distributors AND the radio), what alternative outlets does the independent musician have? There's college radio, but it has virtually no reach by comparison, and is regionally fragmented so you'd have the disadvantage of having to market to all of them individually. And now you have the internet, which holds the best hope of breaking the cartels stranglehold, but as yet there are few good ways to market your music to people who've never heard of you.
While the idea may be similar, the difference between Wal-Mart and the RIAA CLear Channel cartel is essentially the same as the difference between a market leader and a monopoly. And that's a BIG difference.
For one, basically all the radio stations weren't owned by a single corporation. Second, the RIAA members had not consolidated their stranglehold on all major distribution channels. Right now the normal artist's main goal is to be heard.
Thanks for being the first one on this thread to point this out. I could almost buy the "lazy artists who are too stupid/fearful/risk-averse/whatever to strike out on their own" argument if the cartels didn't control the basic infrastructure where music reaches listeners' ears. The internet (and more ubiquitous broadband) is changing that, but it's only been maybe five years or so that this technology to do so has existed and the evolution of an alternate infrastructure has been slow in coming.
It easy to say that striking out as an independent artist is no different than starting your own business, but the reality is that the music business as it exists today is not a level playing field. As long as the average Joe or Joan doesn't have access to the same essential business infrastructure as any other business, then you are talking about a high barrier-to-entry business. Just as no single entrepreneur is going to start his own automobile or pharmaceutical company, it is similarly difficult for an artist break out independently at such a disadvantage to the cartels.
Well, no they don't. However, all by myself I learned that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the rights of the US Constitution apply beyond the federal government. Hence, that's why the 1st amendment rights to fredom of speech and religion doesn't only apply to the Feds. All Americans do have a right to a jury trial in all jurisdictions, but only for felonies.
Just where the hell in America do you live where the cops even bother investigating a home break-in resulting in $2000 worth of damages? (Never mind that someone would actually be convicted and sent to jail.) My home was broken into 3 times over a decade, and the cops didn't even pretend like they would actually investigate it.
But yes, they do have quotas for those tough-to-solve crimes like traffic offenses, even though they'll never admit to it publicly.
My experience has been that municipal "justice" in the USA is a sham (just try to exercise your constitutional right to a jury trial), more highway bandits with a cash register than anything to protect and serve the public.
Not necessarily....for instance, I often hear on the local news for the city where they say we have the murder rate for X city has increased dramatically, from 56 to 120 murders.
In that case, they are using murder rate, in a context to where you assume from one year to another under normal condiditons, population is rather stable, and per capita would not play into it.
No, wrong. When you can assume stable population and you are comparing for the same place, then you can extrapolate an increase in the number of murders as an increase in the murder rate. That doesn't make the absolute number of murders the same as the murder rate, no matter what you often hear from your local newscaster.
But when comparing two differently sized populations (i.e., the US vs. Canada) in terms of murder rate, it would be universally assumed that you are talking per capita numbers.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Take the murders caused by hand guns out of the US stats, and our murder rates are similar."
I don't know...but, aren't there more people in the US than in Canada? If so, then of course there would be more murders due to more people to kill or be killed.
The phrase murder rates generally refers to the number of murders per capita, usually expressed as number of murders per 100,000 population. In other words, it should have been obvious that the GP was taking population into account.
I think there's a difference between whether or not it's a "security flaw" vs. a "design flaw". It was (and maybe still is) in many ways a security flaw, in the sense that it provides a vector for one application to send data to another without its cooperation, and possibly cause unintended behavior in a poorly coded target app.
But it WAS a conscious design decision, not a flaw due to incompetence. The main benefit of it from the user perspective was universal C&P, where the user can cut/copy any selectable text from any window on the desktop and paste it to any other, all without any code needed on the part of either application. Lack of universal C&P was a longtime usability issue for Linux where the gap has only recently been closed, so it's not like they didn't have a reason to design it that way.
(hint: legalizing anything makes its illicit production even easier to conceal)
Counterhint: legalizing anything also makes its illicit production far less profitable and lucrative. People will only go to the black market when the tax burden rises to the point where illicit production is profitable again. Of course, burdensome tax is its own form of prohibition; indeed, the US drug laws were initially enacted as taxes. q.v. The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 and the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.
I can't believe that these buffoons don't get laughed out of the boardroom when they try to invent ways they are "losing" money.
It's the "boardroom" that's the problem. It's not enough for a corporation to make a profit in the modern economy, investors demand GROWTH. When your business model collapses due to disruptive technologies (like buggy whip manufacturers or record label cartels), all those boardroom brainiacs can do is devise ever more desperate schemes to restore that growth. Sometimes they might actually have vision and find the next new growth industry and embrace it, but most will whine and attempt to litigate and legislate their way out of the inevitable.
I wish the boardroom people would realize the absurdity of all this, but their asses are on the line, too.
You've given me a great idea...I'm going to copyright the "null lyric", and then the "null song" (i.e., silence).
All those bastards who've been ripping off MY lyrics to their instrumentals and padding the beginning and end of their tracks with MY composition are going PAY!!! Bwahahahahahaha!!
Then I'll write a null book, and sue all other books for quoting my whitespace...the possibilities are endless!!
I wonder how many actual physical pirated CDs move out of Asia that the labels and artists never get paid for?
Better question: how many "pressing overrun" CDs were made and surreptitiously shipped by record labels off the books that never showed up on artists' royalty statements? This is one of classic ways in which labels have ripped off artists over the years, and one of the reasons why so many have so little love lost for the major labels and their cartels.
Many have suspected this one reason the labels have been so slow to embrace digital download services like iTunes, because under that model control over of the accounting slips out of their grubby little hands.
As for Microsoft saying that Windows ME is 6 years old and is therefore unsupportable, until 4 and a half years ago it was the latest operating system for home computers.
It has nothing to do with age; Windows 2000 came out *before* ME, and IIRC they won't be ending W2K support until 2011. The difference is that W2K actually worked and was widely adopted (especially by business), where ME was largely regarded as the biggest piece of crap OS Microsoft ever excreted and never had a large install base compared to 95, 98, 2K, or XP.
In other words, they end support when they figure they can get away with it without too much grief.
This truism speaks volumes about the current state of US political (and social) discourse - the less you know about an issue, the more likely you are to have strong opinions on it.
I remmeber reading an interview with a some media pundit (IIRC, Fred Barnes) holding up this exact quality as what was necessary to be a good media pundit. The more expertise you have on a subject, the more nuanced your understanding of it is, which leads to longer and less "black-and-white" commentary, which in modern 'Murka is b-o-o-o-ring. The more successful pundit is the one who can sound convincing knowledgeable on a subject without the slightest understanding of it, and make a good dumbed-down sound bite that of course doesn't conflict with his employer's interests.
Where in your constitution does it say that driving a car is a right?
Assuming you're referring to the US Constitution, where does it say that breathing is a right, for that matter?
Hint: Check out Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That doesn't necessarily mean that driving IS a right, but just because it is not listed in Constitution does not automatically mean that it isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm fairly certain you were referring to Ray Ozzie, I think I've stumbled across the test that will be to voice recognition what the Turing test is to AI.
The Ozzy Test. When a voice recognition program can decipher the casual speech of Ozzy Osbourne, then we can call it true voice recognition. I guess the bigger question is...how would we know when the software gets it right?
Well, here's how I see that. Your equipment send out RF signals over public airwaves on to my property, which you say I am free to receive or ignore. Likewise, I send back RF signals, which you are free to receive or ignore...if you receive them, and then allow me access to your network, how is that anything but your fault? If you don't want my signals accessing your network, it is trivially simple to ignore them.
My point was not to provide the perfect analogy to the wireless access issue, but rather to show the deficiency of the "hooking a hose to someone else's faucet" analogy.
I don't know if there is a really good analogy for this, but I do know this: if someone doesn't want anyone else using your wireless access, then secure the damn thing already.
I thought they were going to call it Preserving W's Natural Authority as God for Eternity, or PWNAGE for short.
But that analogy fails due to the fact in order to hook to your faucet I must cross your property, which if you're going to sue for using the faucet, it can be assumed that you did not give your permission.
Let's say you are watering your garden, and your driveway has concrete gutters where excess water channels into the street. Someone is walking down the public sidewalk and is thirsty, and dips his drinking cup into the water stream emanating from your property (but no longer on it) and drinks it, without ever entering on to your property. Has this person stolen your water?
While what you say is true, it is that difference in dominance that makes the analogy fall apart. (And no, I don't think the starting entrepreneur would expect to get on Wal-Mart's shelves immediately.) Despite Wal-Mart share of retail space, there is still plenty of other alternative retail markets for a business startup to supply, and plenty of opportunity there to thrive. But with the near-total dominance of the RIAA-backed music industry (which is the labels AND the major distributors AND the radio), what alternative outlets does the independent musician have? There's college radio, but it has virtually no reach by comparison, and is regionally fragmented so you'd have the disadvantage of having to market to all of them individually. And now you have the internet, which holds the best hope of breaking the cartels stranglehold, but as yet there are few good ways to market your music to people who've never heard of you.
While the idea may be similar, the difference between Wal-Mart and the RIAA CLear Channel cartel is essentially the same as the difference between a market leader and a monopoly. And that's a BIG difference.
You're forgetting about the bonus fruit. Fruit is a living thing, and violence against fruit is violence against precious living things.
Think of the cherries. Won't someone please think of the cherries?
Thanks for being the first one on this thread to point this out. I could almost buy the "lazy artists who are too stupid/fearful/risk-averse/whatever to strike out on their own" argument if the cartels didn't control the basic infrastructure where music reaches listeners' ears. The internet (and more ubiquitous broadband) is changing that, but it's only been maybe five years or so that this technology to do so has existed and the evolution of an alternate infrastructure has been slow in coming.
It easy to say that striking out as an independent artist is no different than starting your own business, but the reality is that the music business as it exists today is not a level playing field. As long as the average Joe or Joan doesn't have access to the same essential business infrastructure as any other business, then you are talking about a high barrier-to-entry business. Just as no single entrepreneur is going to start his own automobile or pharmaceutical company, it is similarly difficult for an artist break out independently at such a disadvantage to the cartels.
I think you explained Anderson's rebuttal point better than he did.
Go ahead...be totally sure. South Korea has a population density of 480 people per sq. km., Japan has 339, and the USA has 31.
List of countries by population density
You must be Johnny, the chemist's son. As in:
Johnny was a Chemist's son, but Johnny is no more. What he thought was H2O was H2SO4.
Well, no they don't. However, all by myself I learned that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the rights of the US Constitution apply beyond the federal government. Hence, that's why the 1st amendment rights to fredom of speech and religion doesn't only apply to the Feds. All Americans do have a right to a jury trial in all jurisdictions, but only for felonies.
Just where the hell in America do you live where the cops even bother investigating a home break-in resulting in $2000 worth of damages? (Never mind that someone would actually be convicted and sent to jail.) My home was broken into 3 times over a decade, and the cops didn't even pretend like they would actually investigate it.
But yes, they do have quotas for those tough-to-solve crimes like traffic offenses, even though they'll never admit to it publicly.
My experience has been that municipal "justice" in the USA is a sham (just try to exercise your constitutional right to a jury trial), more highway bandits with a cash register than anything to protect and serve the public.
I'll have to clip and save this rant to recite the next time I want to get out of jury duty.
No, wrong. When you can assume stable population and you are comparing for the same place, then you can extrapolate an increase in the number of murders as an increase in the murder rate. That doesn't make the absolute number of murders the same as the murder rate, no matter what you often hear from your local newscaster.
But when comparing two differently sized populations (i.e., the US vs. Canada) in terms of murder rate, it would be universally assumed that you are talking per capita numbers.
Maybe this will clarify for the GP...
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The phrase murder rates generally refers to the number of murders per capita, usually expressed as number of murders per 100,000 population. In other words, it should have been obvious that the GP was taking population into account.
I think there's a difference between whether or not it's a "security flaw" vs. a "design flaw". It was (and maybe still is) in many ways a security flaw, in the sense that it provides a vector for one application to send data to another without its cooperation, and possibly cause unintended behavior in a poorly coded target app.
But it WAS a conscious design decision, not a flaw due to incompetence. The main benefit of it from the user perspective was universal C&P, where the user can cut/copy any selectable text from any window on the desktop and paste it to any other, all without any code needed on the part of either application. Lack of universal C&P was a longtime usability issue for Linux where the gap has only recently been closed, so it's not like they didn't have a reason to design it that way.
Counterhint: legalizing anything also makes its illicit production far less profitable and lucrative. People will only go to the black market when the tax burden rises to the point where illicit production is profitable again. Of course, burdensome tax is its own form of prohibition; indeed, the US drug laws were initially enacted as taxes. q.v. The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 and the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.
It's the "boardroom" that's the problem. It's not enough for a corporation to make a profit in the modern economy, investors demand GROWTH. When your business model collapses due to disruptive technologies (like buggy whip manufacturers or record label cartels), all those boardroom brainiacs can do is devise ever more desperate schemes to restore that growth. Sometimes they might actually have vision and find the next new growth industry and embrace it, but most will whine and attempt to litigate and legislate their way out of the inevitable.
I wish the boardroom people would realize the absurdity of all this, but their asses are on the line, too.
You've given me a great idea...I'm going to copyright the "null lyric", and then the "null song" (i.e., silence).
All those bastards who've been ripping off MY lyrics to their instrumentals and padding the beginning and end of their tracks with MY composition are going PAY!!! Bwahahahahahaha!!
Then I'll write a null book, and sue all other books for quoting my whitespace...the possibilities are endless!!
</RIAA think>
Better question: how many "pressing overrun" CDs were made and surreptitiously shipped by record labels off the books that never showed up on artists' royalty statements? This is one of classic ways in which labels have ripped off artists over the years, and one of the reasons why so many have so little love lost for the major labels and their cartels.
Many have suspected this one reason the labels have been so slow to embrace digital download services like iTunes, because under that model control over of the accounting slips out of their grubby little hands.
It has nothing to do with age; Windows 2000 came out *before* ME, and IIRC they won't be ending W2K support until 2011. The difference is that W2K actually worked and was widely adopted (especially by business), where ME was largely regarded as the biggest piece of crap OS Microsoft ever excreted and never had a large install base compared to 95, 98, 2K, or XP.
In other words, they end support when they figure they can get away with it without too much grief.
I remmeber reading an interview with a some media pundit (IIRC, Fred Barnes) holding up this exact quality as what was necessary to be a good media pundit. The more expertise you have on a subject, the more nuanced your understanding of it is, which leads to longer and less "black-and-white" commentary, which in modern 'Murka is b-o-o-o-ring. The more successful pundit is the one who can sound convincing knowledgeable on a subject without the slightest understanding of it, and make a good dumbed-down sound bite that of course doesn't conflict with his employer's interests.
Assuming you're referring to the US Constitution, where does it say that breathing is a right, for that matter?
Hint: Check out Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That doesn't necessarily mean that driving IS a right, but just because it is not listed in Constitution does not automatically mean that it isn't.