actually science and truth don't mix. they are two seperate entities.
science deals in probabilities, in its strictist sense.
at least that's what hardcore scientists claim.
seems reasonable though. truth is more in the realm of philosophy than any scientific system.
science does what it does well, provided that people "look over the source".
what this story is talking about and other/. articles in the past reveal, is that many scientists are just like regular people. often times they get caught up in the prevailing prejudices of the times. not all but they are inertial beings.
but getting back to the "source"... i find that very few scientists bother to replicate experiements they read about in journals. they simply take it at face value. this disturbed me when i read about it over the years. seems highly reminiscent of the USPTO... simply stamping APPROVED without doing the work you're supposed to do.
the scientific journal industry is turning out to be... gasp! another for-profit industry. get your act together guys. you're supposed to be smart monkeys. (pun intended).
by definition, if the "copyright holder" doesn't distribute said item, then their copyright is recinded on that item. copyright is a lot like the patent system in that it is primarily designed for the benefit of the public and that by providing a monetary benefit to the author, they thereby release their work. if a copyright holder refuses, then it becomes fair game. it is no longer under copyright protection.
which leads me to your thought stream. by right, the copyright holder has a DUTY to make sure that after an infinite number of years, that the work falls !BACK! into the public domain. and how is that even a remote possibility if it's locked down? they DON'T have the right to lock it down. copyright is there to do that job for them. if they aren't happy with it, keep the work to yourself. humanity will route its way around you.
why are individuals so opposed to the rights of the public? one would think it would be in their best interest to have their rights preserved.
that's why intel and cisco recently came out with a "internet SECURITY" initiative to "secure" corporate networks. once they implement it properly and learn the ins and outs, then it'll slowly migrate to the public network aka the internet.
boil the frog... but in two pots. they want to perfect it privately before hanging the public by the wrists with it.
and you can bet that CONgress will no doubt be overjoyed at passing a law that will require everyone and their isps to implement it in the name of... well you know.
somehow i'm not sure if MS really overdid it with things like the complete TCPA/NGSCB winfs etc or they realized boiling the frog too quickly would spoil the soup. they don't want people to find out too quickly about the insidious nature of their plans. i also find it humorous that major cpu manufacturers are also implementing "virtualization" in their cpus all of a sudden... almost too abruptly. it's most a server feature/mainframe thing... why would they implement such a die-eating feature if not for DRM.
it only makes sense. they need multiple layers between the data and the user. i wouldn't be surprised if the next version of windows after vista requires "virtualization"... this is costing the "end-user" a lot of money... just to handcuff themselves. the cost is ALWAYS passed on to the little guys. you simply cannot trust the big corps... their track record speaks for itself.
only if the software was written in a way to increase performance. often it's the case that older software just plain runs faster than newer ones, even with approx the same amount of features.
osx is a bad example. when it came out, it was dog slow and has slowly been increasing performance each release. it should have been pristine in the first place but software never works that way.
when you say you "expect" more performance, do you find that you get it with each release?
actually running an unpatched os behind a NAT is virtually hack-proof through the means of worms and port exploits. and if you don't get infected with spyware/trojans, then you're basically home free.
it's been my experience that upgrading your os is not always in your best interest. sometimes certain configurations end up worse after the upgrade. programs stop working, peripherals go haywire etc.
it's a good thing most updates allow an uninstall.
actually, by law, you know, the kind that benefits the public, would prohibit the manufacturer GOING out of their way to prevent lawful uses of said product.
it has nothing to do with whining. when you pay for osx, you have the right to run it, correct? so where's the real whining?
the fact that you can run windows on osx ppc/x86 but not the other way around... should be rather ironic...
by your logic...
mac os x: user replacable part of the mac.
whether an os is a commodity or not is irrelevant. if you purchase it, you are by law allowed to run it. whether you run it on x86, ppc, sparc, mips, toaster is not any concern to the vendor !with! the understanding, that the vendor will not give you support or will null your warranty when installed on unapproved hardware. that's all.
there is no whining. you call it that because you cannot comprehend the nature of the complaint. it has to do with property rights.
just make sure commercial ventures (businesses) pay money for it and let the end users do with it what they like. that way, they can be greedy while the little people have a tiny bit more freedom.
unlike "Java, JavaScript, DHTML, CSS and HTML", flash is a proprietary non-open standard. you or someone else cannot write an open source flash compatible player/plugin. unlike the ones you mentioned.
people to say you should never install flash on a computer if at all possible. flash is a horrible horrible proprietary piece of junk. it's main uses are to bypass the adblocking and cookie-deleting people. it by default sets up your microphone and webcam to spy on you. it sucks resources like there's no tomorrow and without a 3rd party plugin, you cannot refuse to allow certain instances to run.
believe me, there's virtually no reason for an end user to install it. if you want to view animations, just download them and view with an external standalone player (search for one). and websites that require flash, i never visit. no matter how urgently i need to view something, i go without.
i would like the svg standard to replace flash sometime soon... what's the current progress, anyone know?
since the DMCA violates your right to own your own hardware/software, IT violates the law. and i'm not sure but there is a bone-they-threw-us clause in there that allows people to circumvent (their own property...!!) to enable interoperability. running software on hardware you choose is in no way immoral or unethical... that it's illegal says a lot about our society, the greedy scumbags who rule us society, not the one you might be thinking of.
i almost feel sorry for the people who argue companies have a right to deny you full access to your own property... almost. those people just hinder progress and mislead the others who aren't aware of the issues.
the 360 is nothing like the neogeo or the 3do. first the core system is 300 (or 400) and the games are 50-60. second, it's not a niche platform like the aforementioned computers. and no, the hardware is in no way obsolete, it competes with high end pcs (though it still lacks quite a bit just like the other next gen consoles).
all the next gen hw is very capable but the fact is, we'll all be renting them. that is the only issue i have with em.
when it becomes available for purchase, you can legally install it on any computer you choose. someone ought to challenge the "EULA" and vendor artificial lock-in. hell, why not buy the ppc version and install it on the ppc computer of your choice... one wonders why DRM isn't fully ubiquitous by now judging from these kinds of decisions. DRM has always been about control and nothing else.
i don't doubt that every other industry will also want some kind of DRM on physical objects too... they just don't have the "magic scary" status that computer software has. people know about physical objects by and large but relatively few people know what software is.
artificial restrictions have always been anti-customer and this is no different.
next time you play a dvd in a non-approved player, you're breaking the EULA. what EULA you may ask? the one that you agreed to when you opened the dvd case...
the right of players to be able to start the freaking game right away without seeing your damn dirty logos and advertising (the way it's meant to be skipped).
what moron thought it would be good to have company logos, production house logos, nvidia logos, EA sports challenge all that's not annoying, that take 30 seconds longer to get to the main menu without being able to skip it. not only that, why the hell should we have to sit through it more than once?
if a player pays for the game, the advertising has to go too. i don't care who made the game or who published it... there ought to be a website dedicated to producing patches for games that strip out these unwanted elements.
this industry is becoming more and more customer hostile each year and the above isn't even an example of such behavior...
"they" is not erroneous. it has been in use for a long time but early last century, it no longer was part of the norm.
"they" actually makes a lot more sense reading and writing to me than to use the words "he" or "she" unless speaking about a particular person's gender.
Slashdot Mirror
probably AFTER they bilked and swindled lots of investors.
actually science and truth don't mix. they are two seperate entities.
/. articles in the past reveal, is that many scientists are just like regular people. often times they get caught up in the prevailing prejudices of the times. not all but they are inertial beings.
... gasp! another for-profit industry. get your act together guys. you're supposed to be smart monkeys. (pun intended).
science deals in probabilities, in its strictist sense.
at least that's what hardcore scientists claim.
seems reasonable though. truth is more in the realm of philosophy than any scientific system.
science does what it does well, provided that people "look over the source".
what this story is talking about and other
but getting back to the "source"... i find that very few scientists bother to replicate experiements they read about in journals. they simply take it at face value. this disturbed me when i read about it over the years. seems highly reminiscent of the USPTO... simply stamping APPROVED without doing the work you're supposed to do.
the scientific journal industry is turning out to be
how about not automatically believing anything, regardless of the source of its origin.
to do so is akin to running an unknown binary as root.
it's rather interesting that the first comment is about damage control. :)
please do.
you'll have an excellent chance of getting the patent.
then promptly send cease and desist letters to every organisation on earth, including non-profits.
we need to accelerate the demise of the patent system. it has long since stopped being useful to any degree.
by definition, if the "copyright holder" doesn't distribute said item, then their copyright is recinded on that item. copyright is a lot like the patent system in that it is primarily designed for the benefit of the public and that by providing a monetary benefit to the author, they thereby release their work. if a copyright holder refuses, then it becomes fair game. it is no longer under copyright protection.
which leads me to your thought stream. by right, the copyright holder has a DUTY to make sure that after an infinite number of years, that the work falls !BACK! into the public domain. and how is that even a remote possibility if it's locked down? they DON'T have the right to lock it down. copyright is there to do that job for them. if they aren't happy with it, keep the work to yourself. humanity will route its way around you.
why are individuals so opposed to the rights of the public? one would think it would be in their best interest to have their rights preserved.
that's why intel and cisco recently came out with a "internet SECURITY" initiative to "secure" corporate networks. once they implement it properly and learn the ins and outs, then it'll slowly migrate to the public network aka the internet.
... well you know.
boil the frog... but in two pots. they want to perfect it privately before hanging the public by the wrists with it.
and you can bet that CONgress will no doubt be overjoyed at passing a law that will require everyone and their isps to implement it in the name of
somehow i'm not sure if MS really overdid it with things like the complete TCPA/NGSCB winfs etc or they realized boiling the frog too quickly would spoil the soup. they don't want people to find out too quickly about the insidious nature of their plans. i also find it humorous that major cpu manufacturers are also implementing "virtualization" in their cpus all of a sudden... almost too abruptly. it's most a server feature/mainframe thing... why would they implement such a die-eating feature if not for DRM.
it only makes sense. they need multiple layers between the data and the user. i wouldn't be surprised if the next version of windows after vista requires "virtualization"... this is costing the "end-user" a lot of money... just to handcuff themselves. the cost is ALWAYS passed on to the little guys. you simply cannot trust the big corps... their track record speaks for itself.
only if the software was written in a way to increase performance. often it's the case that older software just plain runs faster than newer ones, even with approx the same amount of features.
osx is a bad example. when it came out, it was dog slow and has slowly been increasing performance each release. it should have been pristine in the first place but software never works that way.
when you say you "expect" more performance, do you find that you get it with each release?
actually running an unpatched os behind a NAT is virtually hack-proof through the means of worms and port exploits. and if you don't get infected with spyware/trojans, then you're basically home free.
it's been my experience that upgrading your os is not always in your best interest. sometimes certain configurations end up worse after the upgrade. programs stop working, peripherals go haywire etc.
it's a good thing most updates allow an uninstall.
actually, by law, you know, the kind that benefits the public, would prohibit the manufacturer GOING out of their way to prevent lawful uses of said product.
/x86 but not the other way around... should be rather ironic...
it has nothing to do with whining. when you pay for osx, you have the right to run it, correct? so where's the real whining?
the fact that you can run windows on osx ppc
by your logic...
mac os x: user replacable part of the mac.
whether an os is a commodity or not is irrelevant. if you purchase it, you are by law allowed to run it. whether you run it on x86, ppc, sparc, mips, toaster is not any concern to the vendor !with! the understanding, that the vendor will not give you support or will null your warranty when installed on unapproved hardware. that's all.
there is no whining. you call it that because you cannot comprehend the nature of the complaint. it has to do with property rights.
why's that funny? it sounds too realistic to be taken lightly.
actually it is quite easy to get around that.
just make sure commercial ventures (businesses) pay money for it and let the end users do with it what they like. that way, they can be greedy while the little people have a tiny bit more freedom.
unlike "Java, JavaScript, DHTML, CSS and HTML", flash is a proprietary non-open standard. you or someone else cannot write an open source flash compatible player/plugin. unlike the ones you mentioned.
people to say you should never install flash on a computer if at all possible. flash is a horrible horrible proprietary piece of junk. it's main uses are to bypass the adblocking and cookie-deleting people. it by default sets up your microphone and webcam to spy on you. it sucks resources like there's no tomorrow and without a 3rd party plugin, you cannot refuse to allow certain instances to run.
believe me, there's virtually no reason for an end user to install it. if you want to view animations, just download them and view with an external standalone player (search for one). and websites that require flash, i never visit. no matter how urgently i need to view something, i go without.
i would like the svg standard to replace flash sometime soon... what's the current progress, anyone know?
and why would they have any say in how you use it?
no really, tell me. i'm quite interested in how they still retain control of it when it's running on other people's computers.
why is it their business whether you run it on your wrist watch or your toaster? what are they losing?
what are you losing.
show me the logic.
since the DMCA violates your right to own your own hardware/software, IT violates the law. and i'm not sure but there is a bone-they-threw-us clause in there that allows people to circumvent (their own property...!!) to enable interoperability. running software on hardware you choose is in no way immoral or unethical... that it's illegal says a lot about our society, the greedy scumbags who rule us society, not the one you might be thinking of.
i almost feel sorry for the people who argue companies have a right to deny you full access to your own property... almost. those people just hinder progress and mislead the others who aren't aware of the issues.
you cannot wait a few weeks/months? you've been waiting all these years... surely you can forego a few more days.
it's only at launch and ALL consoles are way overpriced in the begining, especially due to the artificial scarcity introduced by the manufacturers.
the 360 is nothing like the neogeo or the 3do. first the core system is 300 (or 400) and the games are 50-60. second, it's not a niche platform like the aforementioned computers. and no, the hardware is in no way obsolete, it competes with high end pcs (though it still lacks quite a bit just like the other next gen consoles).
all the next gen hw is very capable but the fact is, we'll all be renting them. that is the only issue i have with em.
it IS legal.
when it becomes available for purchase, you can legally install it on any computer you choose. someone ought to challenge the "EULA" and vendor artificial lock-in. hell, why not buy the ppc version and install it on the ppc computer of your choice... one wonders why DRM isn't fully ubiquitous by now judging from these kinds of decisions. DRM has always been about control and nothing else.
i don't doubt that every other industry will also want some kind of DRM on physical objects too... they just don't have the "magic scary" status that computer software has. people know about physical objects by and large but relatively few people know what software is.
artificial restrictions have always been anti-customer and this is no different.
next time you play a dvd in a non-approved player, you're breaking the EULA. what EULA you may ask? the one that you agreed to when you opened the dvd case...
convert a cpu into a backscratcher, next on the award-winning 10 o'clock news.
it's certainly cool but i don't ever wanna turn an expensive laser printer into a paper shredder, which i can pick up for 8 bucks.
try using office 97. you can pick it up used cheap and not have to contribute to the war chest.
pssst, all software is beta. and if it's "consumer" software, then all the more so.
why not image the office cd and use a virtual cd program to mount it?
not only do you never have to worry about finding the cd, but the accesses will be much faster from the hd.
the right of players to be able to start the freaking game right away without seeing your damn dirty logos and advertising (the way it's meant to be skipped).
what moron thought it would be good to have company logos, production house logos, nvidia logos, EA sports challenge all that's not annoying, that take 30 seconds longer to get to the main menu without being able to skip it. not only that, why the hell should we have to sit through it more than once?
if a player pays for the game, the advertising has to go too. i don't care who made the game or who published it... there ought to be a website dedicated to producing patches for games that strip out these unwanted elements.
this industry is becoming more and more customer hostile each year and the above isn't even an example of such behavior...
"they" is not erroneous. it has been in use for a long time but early last century, it no longer was part of the norm.
"they" actually makes a lot more sense reading and writing to me than to use the words "he" or "she" unless speaking about a particular person's gender.
"they" live(s).