Read your Windows license. There is absolutely no warranty or guarantee associated with Windows. If you install software on your PC and "brick" (cinder block?) it, Microsoft is under no duty whatsoever to repair or replace it.
If I had one wish that I could wish this holiday season, it would be for all the children of the world to join hands and sing together in the spirit of harmony and peace.
If I had two wishes that I could wish for this holiday season, the first would be for all the children of the world to join hands and sing in the spirit of harmony and peace.. and the second would be for $30 million a month to be given to me, tax-free in a Swiss bank account.
You know, if I had three wishes that I could make this holiday season, first, of course, would be for all the children to get together and sing . . . the second would be for the $30 million every month to me . . . and the third would be for all encompassing power over every living being thing in the entire universe.
And if I had four wishes that I could make this holiday season, first would be the crap about the kids . . . second would be for the $30 million . . . the third would be for all the power.. and the fourth would be to set aside one month each year for an extended 31-day orgasm, to be brought about slowly by Rosanna Arquette and that model Paulina somebody, I can't think of her name, of course my lovely wife could come, too. She's behind me 100% on this, I guarantee you.
Wait a minute, maybe that sex thing should be the first wish! So, if I made that the first wish, because, you know, it could all go boom tomorrow, and then what have you got? No, no . . . the kids singing would be great, that would be nice. No, no, who am I kidding! I mean, they're not gonna be able to get all those kids together! I mean, the logistics of the thing is impossible! It's more trouble than it's worth!
So, we reorganize: here we go. First, the sex - we go with that; second, the money. No! We go with the power second, then the money, and then the kids. Oh, wait, oh geez! I forgot about revenge against my enemies! Okay . . . revenge against all my enemies, they should die like pigs in Hell! That would be the fourth wish! And of course, my fifth wish would be for all the children of the world to join hands and sing in the spirit of peace and harmony.
It's very patriotic to acknowledge the good we've done, but it's just as patriotic to identify the bad, and try to make it better. Critics of the U.S. are not antagonists, they are a whetstone for sharpening. From a narrow view the knife and stone are enemies, wearing away at each other. But in the long run the knife is better and more effective with the whetstone than without it.
The genius of our system is the rule by the people and the ensuing debate about everything. Calling half of that debate "propaganda" is not fair. No one's trying to convince us that "we" are the enemy...the question is: are we doing the best good in the best way we can? It's possible to acknowledge the good we're doing while still asking that question. Constant improvement means constant debate and questioning. The alternative is complacency and stagnation.
You're right--if you put dollars in your mattress in 1913, they would be 95% devalued today. (Although actually, they would be 100% devalued today because that physical design is no longer accepted.)
On the other hand if you'd put your money into Ford stock in 1913, today that stock would be far more valuable than it was during that time. The truth is that the only true stores of wealth are assets. Dollars are not assets--they are currency. They are handy for exchanges, but are not wealth themselves.
You don't have to put your money in banks. You can instead put your money in IBM stock. Or you can put your money in bonds if you'd prefer to invest in governments. Or you could buy property if you'd prefer to put your money in real estate.
If you do this, and pick your assets well, you will accumulate wealth. If you focus on the value of a dollar bill I think you're shooting yourself in the foot.
Why this disconnect? Why do Americans care so little about the origins of that which they spend a third of their time pursuing, and seemingly another third spending? Why do Americans know so little about electricity, which they spend 100% of their time using every day? Because origins, while interesting, are not practical guides to success. You don't need to know the history of physics to use a cell phone and you don't need to know the history of biology to take your Claritin every day. Likewise, you don't need to know the history of the Federal Reserve to make money, live comfortably, and have a retirement.
I guess one could argue that we should know all that stuff, but think about all the black boxes we use every day. I thought the whole point of an organized, specialist society was that it freed us develop and share narrow, deep expertise.
The secret assumption behind this kind of question is usually that if people only knew the truth, they would be as outraged as the author/revealor. But that's a pretty big assumption.
And it was the first mainstream Ajax application I know of. As far as I know, Outlook Web Access was the first mainstream "Ajax" application. It was used by millions long before Gmail hit the Web and before Jesse James coined the term. In a very real way it defined that type of Web UI, because XmlHttpRequest was placed in IE specifically to support it.
I've always wondered if the Many Worlds hypothesis implies predestination. If we posit an infinite number of existing alternative universes, how can we speak of creating more with the choices we make today? How can you add to infinity? Doesn't that imply that all possible universes in fact already exist, and therefore all possible futures are all already determined?
Almost any boat you're likely to see in a private marina probably has a hull made of fiberglass, an epoxy/fiber composite. Working with composites around moisture is mostly just a matter of attention to detail and maintenance.
Carbon, kevlar, and fiberglass epoxy composites have been used for decades in whitewater and flatwater kayaking and canoeing. With proper maintenance a single boat can easily last that long.
Will a new whitelist technology be more secure than what exists now? That has entirely to do with how it is implemented and used. If the whitelisting software has flaws, it will exploited. And if the end user has any input at all, they can still make bad decisions.
One can imagine a series of white lists stacked on top of each other, allowing one to allow one to allow one to allow one to allow some code to run. Has security been increased? Isn't the general thought that the more links in a chain, the more likely there is to be a weak one?
Ask the CLECs about Verizon's willingness to abuse the courts to get what they want. 10 years after passage of the 1996 Telecomm Act, the unbundling rules were finally finalized. But only because Verizon finally stopped suing. And they only stopped because they couldn't gut the 1996 Act, or gut broadband competition, any further.
I hope Google is willing to go to court because this simply will not end. Verizon will sue infinitely to delay the auction if they don't get what they want, and if the auction happens they will sue infinitely to block usage of the spectrum or to block open access. They've proven that nothing is enough for them.
In addition to the above I predict it does not matter, because its a legacy setting and they are themselves trying to not drag documents that contain that. It makes sense that Microsoft is not likely to create software that implements a legacy setting. The thing I don't understand, then, is why the legacy settings need to specced in the standard at all.
Spec out where things are going, not where one company has been. Backwards compatibility to one vendor should not drive the development of what is supposed to be a universal standard.
Here's a review of a number of studies that have looked into the psychological tendencies of conservatives and liberals. It's in Psychology Today so be sure to check your sodium levels after consuming. I found this to the one of the most interesting passages:
The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers--John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley--found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.
The study's authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider." Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative.
Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information," says Jost. As a result, liberals like John Kerry, who see many sides to every issue, are portrayed as flip-floppers. "Whatever the cause, Bush and Kerry exemplify the cognitive styles we see in the research," says Jack Glaser, one of the study's authors, "Bush in appearing more rigid in his thinking and intolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity, and Kerry in appearing more open to ambiguity and to considering alternative positions."
Jost's meta-analysis sparked furious controversy. The House Republican Study Committee complained that the study's authors had received federal funds. George Will satirized it in his Washington Post column, and The National Review called it the "Conservatives Are Crazy" study. Jost and his colleagues point to the study's rigorous methodology. The study used political orientation as a dependent variable, meaning that where subjects fall on the political scale is computed from their own answers about whether they're liberal or conservative. Psychologists then compare factors such as fear of death and openness to new experiences, and seek statistically significant correlations. The findings are quintessentially empirical and difficult to dismiss as false. [flame suit: on]
For those predicting the imminent elimination/enslavement of the human race once ultra-intelligent machines become self-aware, where would the motivation for them to do so come from? I would contend it is a religious meme that drives such thoughts -- intelligence without a soul must be evil. There is a strong religious overtone to the entire idea that life and intelligence are "things" that can be willed into creation. Science shows us that there has not been, nor currently is, any "intelligent design" in the origin or even the evolution of life or intelligence as we know it today. Instead we know that it was a very, very, very long process of adapting within constraints that eventually produced intelligence. And it did so seemingly by accident...there are still very strong arguments about why we even developed intelligence; about what incremental advantage each minor increase in intelligence provided over other adaptations.
Today we barely understand how the intelligent life that history has handed to us (ourselves) learn or operate. Let alone being at a point where we could design an intelligent system that somehow "exceeds" the ones we're familiar with. (And that does not even get into our lack of understanding of how we would even reliably measure or compare intelligence.)
The entire discussion reminds less of sober scientific thought and more of apocalyptic fundamentalism. Like the latter, the discussions usually focus on the predicted path of events that will lead to "the end". Adherents seek and brandish individual events that they claim are mileposts on that road.
In reality there is nothing special about the theory that our tools will expand our abilities beyond our current comprehension. New technologies have always created a horizon beyond which we cannot forecast. That doesn't imply the doom of mankind. Tools for our intelligence are not somehow special compared to the tools that today dramatically amplify our strength, our speed, our destructive power, etc, compared to our predecessors. But while the capabilities are all greatly increased, the fundamental concepts are the same. They are all still tools.
What the singularity folks envision is the creation of new life, which will turn on us and destroy us. To me that sounds a lot more like a morality tale than a scientifically grounded theory, at least at this point in time.
Ok, I know this is Slashdot and all, but I just had to R This FA. And you know what, Ross is technically right, but in a practical sense is dead wrong. Let's go to the videotape...
Fair use, as CCIA must surely know, is not a "consumer right," but rather an affirmative defense. And this is an important difference. As a lesson in terms of art for lawyers, this is correct. From any practical perspective, it is incorrect; there is no practical difference between an affirmative defense of fair use vs. an affirmative defense of freedom of speech (for example). Calling something an "affirmative defense" is mostly a matter of when it is (or must) be raised in trial proceedings. Applying the term does not somehow reduce the strength of what it's applied to.
It's true that copyright law contains some exemptions, such as commentary and criticism, where one may be able to use a copyrighted work without authorization, but the full extent of those exceptions is intentionally not defined in the statute...Court decisions have further delineated what some of those cases of fair use might be. Here we see Ross explicitly admitting that there are exemptions to copyright protection enshrined in legislation and case law. For all practical purposes these constitute "rights"--the "right to privacy" or "right to vote", for instance, enjoy no greater levels of definition.
This should be the beginning and end of this argument. The broadcast warnings clearly speak in absolute terms, and here we see Ross admitting that he knows that the copyrights referred to in the warnings are not, in fact, absolute. Thus the warnings are not just vague, they are factually (and willfully) incorrect.
Many unauthorized uses of copyrighted works are criminal and infringing, and copyright notices help remind people that there are consequences to these uses. To which uses? The warnings make absolutely no allowance whatsoever in their wording for non-infringing uses. Again: that is simply factually inaccurate. If this was really what the warnings were for, they would say "Some uses of this broadcast are prohibited," not "Any use of this broadcast is prohibited."
So, how exactly would the FTC rewrite these copyright notices to reflect a consumer's ability to attempt a fair use defense? Should they paste in all of the above language? We're wading into the area of providing legal advice, and these examples aren't sufficiently detailed for that." We're supposed to believe that inaccurate warnings about legal consequences do not constitute "legal advice," but more accurate warnings would? Sorry, that is a meaningless distinction. You are either advising consumers or not.
There is no question that in the Digital Age, consumers need a better understanding of both the rights of creators as well as the limits on those rights through fair use. Education is the right approach, and one to which the Copyright Alliance is dedicated. But asking the federal government to regulate free speech is not the best way to proceed. This is not a free speech issue, it is a commercial speech issue. That is why it is being argued before the FTC and not the Supreme Court. Commercial speech can be held to a standard of factual accuracy and that is what is at stake in this case. The entire thing could be settled easily by simply softening the absolute language--reduce "Any use" to "Many uses" or "Some uses."
I don't think this was planed. But I think Apple knows that we now live in an attention society and that people highly regard companies who admit errors and change. In fact people overvalue this since they do not expect it (yet. Microsoft will obviously copy it someday). They did it with "greener Apple", they do it again with credits for iPhones which will generate more money for them due to people buying stuff in the Apple store. The question is: is this a bad trend? Clearly we can all see the business case for what Apple is doing, but does the existence of a business case automatically make it negative? Isn't this just an example of how markets can produce benefits for all parties?
As others have noted, there was absolutely no need or duty for Apple to do anything. They did, though, and the fact that we can see it is in their best interest should not, IMO, automatically nominate it for criticism. For some folks there seems to be an assumption that if it's good for a business, it must be really bad for everyone else. But the whole point of private markets is that they create value for everyone.
This is a net gain for all parties. Apple will gain in both brand loyalty and direct revenue (most people go over the store credit amount when using it). And the customers gain $100 in Apple credit, which is a win because clearly this is a group of people who like Apple stuff. Both sides are gaining a benefit they wouldn't have otherwise had.
And now, its economic superiority is crumbling, and the world is faced with a lone superpower that is increasingly desperate. Despite all the scaremongering, there is little actual data to support such a statement. U.S. GDP is still the largest in the world by a factor of about 3, and the U.S. is still #2 in exports and #1 in imports. I don't think that's going to change by much anytime soon.
The biggest advantage to me of buying the shows was time-shifting. I get pretty good over-the-air reception of NBC but sometimes I'm not home or just don't want to bother stopping what I'm doing. But I do like certain NBC shows (30 Rock is really funny). I knew I could just buy an episode I missed and watch it when I wanted. NBC got the money and I got what I wanted.
Now I guess I'll just setup a DVR and get the shows that way. And since DVRs are great at skipping commercials, NBC will get even less than they did before--they won't get my money, and they won't get any ad impressions either.
Good luck to the networks. In the next 5 years they're facing declining viewership, declining ad sales, declining DVD sales, and yet they seem intent on limiting alternative revenue streams.
I guess they're worried that people could break the FairPlay DRM and share iTunes shows over the Internet? Well guess what--DVRs again. It's even easier to pull a sharable video file that way.
The people have as much power as they have ever had. In fact they have more power than they had in the early days, because the electoral college has been reduced to a rubber stamp based on the popular vote in each state...at least now your vote is being overridden by your fellow citizens and not some rich elector.
Except that the people have to exercise that power for it to make any difference. The #1 thing that takes power away from the people is this depressive meme that what they do doesn't matter anyway. So yeah, if you're sitting around bitching about how you don't have power, instead of voting and writing letters and making phone calls and attending town hall meetings--you're right you don't have power. I'd submit that that's your own fault though.
I think the money aspect is usually overplayed. Money matters, but it's not the only thing. For example--which side of the "drill in ANWR debate" has more money? But they've lost like 20-some votes now, most of which were even under Republican rule. In the end it always comes back to votes. Money can help with those, but it can't actually buy them. No amount of money was going to get Mark Foley back into office.
And to continue my rant just a little longer, it seems like the power of the president is always overplayed in these discussions. Congress is directly elected by the people (even Senators now--another example of increasing power to the people), and is directly accountable to them in a very local way. A lot of the problems of the past 6 years could have been avoided or at least mitigated had Congress been in greater opposition to the President.
So maybe you say: well there's always only two candidates, and I don't agree with either. Well first of all I'd say you're probably not paying attention, since most elections go through a primary process that involves many more candidates than 2. So there's your first chance to affect an election.
I'd also say that there's another way to look at elections--as a beginning not an end. The goal is not to get someone who will "represent you" perfectly, the goal is just to get the person elected who is most likely to be sympathetic to your position on your pet issues. The key is what happens after the election, when the rep. has to start making actual decisions and votes--that's when citizen activity matters most. This is how all the trade associations and interest groups and lobbyists view elections BTW.
You're never going to get someone who agrees with you on more than a couple issues. If we imagine some simple world of only 6 for/against policy positions, that's still 64 possible combinations of beliefs. Whether there are 2 or 4 candidates to choose from does not significantly change the odds that you'll get someone you agree with 100%. And the real world is way more complicated than that.
Finally, losing is not necessarily proof that the system is broken, it's probably just proof that more people disagree with you than agree with you. So what next? It's possible to change minds but it takes time. It took decades of continuous work for the Republicans to get Congress, but they did it. They fucked it up in record time, but the point is that they wanted it, they worked for it, and they got it.
I attended Beloit from 1993-1997 and did not receive my diploma because I never satisfactorily completed my geology thesis. Some of the description above sounds kind of true (the cafeteria doesn't serve Sunday night; the bus stop is a mile off campus), but a lot of it sounds like bad info or sour grapes.
Beloit is a good small school. They take their academics seriously and that is why they have a high percentage of graduates go on to advanced degrees. My first girlfriend there went on to get her Ph.D. in biochemistry at U.C. Berkeley, and my wife (who I met there as well) has a masters in anthropology and manages the collections database for the Smithsonian Natural History Museum. When I was there I participated in two projects doing original geological research and published a poster at a GSA conference.
Part of taking academics seriously is providing consequences for students who don't. I knew a couple people who were asked to take a semester off because because their grades were crap. I wonder if that's what happened to the parent. I didn't finish my degree, but apparently unlike him/her, I recognize that is on me.
Maybe things have changed dramatically, but when I was there, my Physics 101 class was taught by Dan Schroeder (an astronomer who helped launch the Hubble project as well as extra-solar planet searches) using Tipler's Physics textbook.
Maybe things have changed dramatically, but the lounges in my dorm (Bushnell) were used primarily for watching TV or card games. And they all had lightbulbs and did not have roaches. I honestly don't recognize any of that description.
The college does give housing over to clubs. The Womyn's Center had their own house, but so did the Arts Co-op, the French Club, the Spanish Club, the Russian Club, and the Outdoor Environmental Club. And geeks would love it there--the Science Fiction and Fantasy club had their own DORM and were the biggest and most influential club on campus. They had more pull than the few fraternities or sororities. They held SCA practices every Saturday on their lawn if the weather was nice.
The part about the Cheese Breeze is true, but it really only happened a couple time per semester.:-) The part about Beloit being in a small town is also true, although the BUS to Madison was like $3 each way.
Slashdot Mirror
Read your Windows license. There is absolutely no warranty or guarantee associated with Windows. If you install software on your PC and "brick" (cinder block?) it, Microsoft is under no duty whatsoever to repair or replace it.
If I had one wish that I could wish this holiday season, it would be for all the children of the world to join hands and sing together in the spirit of harmony and peace.
If I had two wishes that I could wish for this holiday season, the first would be for all the children of the world to join hands and sing in the spirit of harmony and peace.. and the second would be for $30 million a month to be given to me, tax-free in a Swiss bank account.
You know, if I had three wishes that I could make this holiday season, first, of course, would be for all the children to get together and sing . . . the second would be for the $30 million every month to me . . . and the third would be for all encompassing power over every living being thing in the entire universe.
And if I had four wishes that I could make this holiday season, first would be the crap about the kids . . . second would be for the $30 million . . . the third would be for all the power.. and the fourth would be to set aside one month each year for an extended 31-day orgasm, to be brought about slowly by Rosanna Arquette and that model Paulina somebody, I can't think of her name, of course my lovely wife could come, too. She's behind me 100% on this, I guarantee you.
Wait a minute, maybe that sex thing should be the first wish! So, if I made that the first wish, because, you know, it could all go boom tomorrow, and then what have you got? No, no . . . the kids singing would be great, that would be nice. No, no, who am I kidding! I mean, they're not gonna be able to get all those kids together! I mean, the logistics of the thing is impossible! It's more trouble than it's worth!
So, we reorganize: here we go. First, the sex - we go with that; second, the money. No! We go with the power second, then the money, and then the kids. Oh, wait, oh geez! I forgot about revenge against my enemies! Okay . . . revenge against all my enemies, they should die like pigs in Hell! That would be the fourth wish! And of course, my fifth wish would be for all the children of the world to join hands and sing in the spirit of peace and harmony.
Thank you, everybody.
It's very patriotic to acknowledge the good we've done, but it's just as patriotic to identify the bad, and try to make it better. Critics of the U.S. are not antagonists, they are a whetstone for sharpening. From a narrow view the knife and stone are enemies, wearing away at each other. But in the long run the knife is better and more effective with the whetstone than without it.
The genius of our system is the rule by the people and the ensuing debate about everything. Calling half of that debate "propaganda" is not fair. No one's trying to convince us that "we" are the enemy...the question is: are we doing the best good in the best way we can? It's possible to acknowledge the good we're doing while still asking that question. Constant improvement means constant debate and questioning. The alternative is complacency and stagnation.
You're right--if you put dollars in your mattress in 1913, they would be 95% devalued today. (Although actually, they would be 100% devalued today because that physical design is no longer accepted.)
On the other hand if you'd put your money into Ford stock in 1913, today that stock would be far more valuable than it was during that time. The truth is that the only true stores of wealth are assets. Dollars are not assets--they are currency. They are handy for exchanges, but are not wealth themselves.
You don't have to put your money in banks. You can instead put your money in IBM stock. Or you can put your money in bonds if you'd prefer to invest in governments. Or you could buy property if you'd prefer to put your money in real estate.
If you do this, and pick your assets well, you will accumulate wealth. If you focus on the value of a dollar bill I think you're shooting yourself in the foot.
I guess one could argue that we should know all that stuff, but think about all the black boxes we use every day. I thought the whole point of an organized, specialist society was that it freed us develop and share narrow, deep expertise.
The secret assumption behind this kind of question is usually that if people only knew the truth, they would be as outraged as the author/revealor. But that's a pretty big assumption.
I've always wondered if the Many Worlds hypothesis implies predestination. If we posit an infinite number of existing alternative universes, how can we speak of creating more with the choices we make today? How can you add to infinity? Doesn't that imply that all possible universes in fact already exist, and therefore all possible futures are all already determined?
Almost any boat you're likely to see in a private marina probably has a hull made of fiberglass, an epoxy/fiber composite. Working with composites around moisture is mostly just a matter of attention to detail and maintenance. Carbon, kevlar, and fiberglass epoxy composites have been used for decades in whitewater and flatwater kayaking and canoeing. With proper maintenance a single boat can easily last that long.
In this corner you have: Disney/Pixar/ABC + Apple + Google
And in that corner you have: GE/Universal/NBC + Microsoft
The industry has learned from AOL/Time Warner. Why buy each other when you can get the same advantages from partnerships and board placements?
What are we thinking the odds are that the new NBC pay-for-download service will be based on Microsoft's DRM? Anyone?
Will a new whitelist technology be more secure than what exists now? That has entirely to do with how it is implemented and used. If the whitelisting software has flaws, it will exploited. And if the end user has any input at all, they can still make bad decisions.
One can imagine a series of white lists stacked on top of each other, allowing one to allow one to allow one to allow one to allow some code to run. Has security been increased? Isn't the general thought that the more links in a chain, the more likely there is to be a weak one?
But there's a new sheriff in town.
Darl confirms it--Unix is dying.
BMG invented Discman-resistant CD's with a light sand-blasting just before packaging.
But, many people claimed it was derivative of Geffen's efforts to create Walkman-resistant tapes using magnets.
It's important to remember who people are, and what they wrote. Even if they're very clever and funny about it now.
Ask the CLECs about Verizon's willingness to abuse the courts to get what they want. 10 years after passage of the 1996 Telecomm Act, the unbundling rules were finally finalized. But only because Verizon finally stopped suing. And they only stopped because they couldn't gut the 1996 Act, or gut broadband competition, any further.
I hope Google is willing to go to court because this simply will not end. Verizon will sue infinitely to delay the auction if they don't get what they want, and if the auction happens they will sue infinitely to block usage of the spectrum or to block open access. They've proven that nothing is enough for them.
Spec out where things are going, not where one company has been. Backwards compatibility to one vendor should not drive the development of what is supposed to be a universal standard.
The study's authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider." Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative.
Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information," says Jost. As a result, liberals like John Kerry, who see many sides to every issue, are portrayed as flip-floppers. "Whatever the cause, Bush and Kerry exemplify the cognitive styles we see in the research," says Jack Glaser, one of the study's authors, "Bush in appearing more rigid in his thinking and intolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity, and Kerry in appearing more open to ambiguity and to considering alternative positions."
Jost's meta-analysis sparked furious controversy. The House Republican Study Committee complained that the study's authors had received federal funds. George Will satirized it in his Washington Post column, and The National Review called it the "Conservatives Are Crazy" study. Jost and his colleagues point to the study's rigorous methodology. The study used political orientation as a dependent variable, meaning that where subjects fall on the political scale is computed from their own answers about whether they're liberal or conservative. Psychologists then compare factors such as fear of death and openness to new experiences, and seek statistically significant correlations. The findings are quintessentially empirical and difficult to dismiss as false. [flame suit: on]
Today we barely understand how the intelligent life that history has handed to us (ourselves) learn or operate. Let alone being at a point where we could design an intelligent system that somehow "exceeds" the ones we're familiar with. (And that does not even get into our lack of understanding of how we would even reliably measure or compare intelligence.)
The entire discussion reminds less of sober scientific thought and more of apocalyptic fundamentalism. Like the latter, the discussions usually focus on the predicted path of events that will lead to "the end". Adherents seek and brandish individual events that they claim are mileposts on that road.
In reality there is nothing special about the theory that our tools will expand our abilities beyond our current comprehension. New technologies have always created a horizon beyond which we cannot forecast. That doesn't imply the doom of mankind. Tools for our intelligence are not somehow special compared to the tools that today dramatically amplify our strength, our speed, our destructive power, etc, compared to our predecessors. But while the capabilities are all greatly increased, the fundamental concepts are the same. They are all still tools.
What the singularity folks envision is the creation of new life, which will turn on us and destroy us. To me that sounds a lot more like a morality tale than a scientifically grounded theory, at least at this point in time.
This should be the beginning and end of this argument. The broadcast warnings clearly speak in absolute terms, and here we see Ross admitting that he knows that the copyrights referred to in the warnings are not, in fact, absolute. Thus the warnings are not just vague, they are factually (and willfully) incorrect. Many unauthorized uses of copyrighted works are criminal and infringing, and copyright notices help remind people that there are consequences to these uses. To which uses? The warnings make absolutely no allowance whatsoever in their wording for non-infringing uses. Again: that is simply factually inaccurate. If this was really what the warnings were for, they would say "Some uses of this broadcast are prohibited," not "Any use of this broadcast is prohibited." So, how exactly would the FTC rewrite these copyright notices to reflect a consumer's ability to attempt a fair use defense? Should they paste in all of the above language? We're wading into the area of providing legal advice, and these examples aren't sufficiently detailed for that." We're supposed to believe that inaccurate warnings about legal consequences do not constitute "legal advice," but more accurate warnings would? Sorry, that is a meaningless distinction. You are either advising consumers or not. There is no question that in the Digital Age, consumers need a better understanding of both the rights of creators as well as the limits on those rights through fair use. Education is the right approach, and one to which the Copyright Alliance is dedicated. But asking the federal government to regulate free speech is not the best way to proceed. This is not a free speech issue, it is a commercial speech issue. That is why it is being argued before the FTC and not the Supreme Court. Commercial speech can be held to a standard of factual accuracy and that is what is at stake in this case. The entire thing could be settled easily by simply softening the absolute language--reduce "Any use" to "Many uses" or "Some uses."
As others have noted, there was absolutely no need or duty for Apple to do anything. They did, though, and the fact that we can see it is in their best interest should not, IMO, automatically nominate it for criticism. For some folks there seems to be an assumption that if it's good for a business, it must be really bad for everyone else. But the whole point of private markets is that they create value for everyone.
This is a net gain for all parties. Apple will gain in both brand loyalty and direct revenue (most people go over the store credit amount when using it). And the customers gain $100 in Apple credit, which is a win because clearly this is a group of people who like Apple stuff. Both sides are gaining a benefit they wouldn't have otherwise had.
In my experience, the people who care about having songs as ringtones are usually the type to not think much of spending an extra $.99 to get one.
Conversely: the people who bitch about $0.99 for a ringtone probably are just using what came on their phone anyway.
And then there are the people who just keep it on vibrate at all times...God bless those people.
Analyzing the stock market and the Torah to find the one number that explains both.
With the waste heat I'm baking some Pi.
The biggest advantage to me of buying the shows was time-shifting. I get pretty good over-the-air reception of NBC but sometimes I'm not home or just don't want to bother stopping what I'm doing. But I do like certain NBC shows (30 Rock is really funny). I knew I could just buy an episode I missed and watch it when I wanted. NBC got the money and I got what I wanted.
Now I guess I'll just setup a DVR and get the shows that way. And since DVRs are great at skipping commercials, NBC will get even less than they did before--they won't get my money, and they won't get any ad impressions either.
Good luck to the networks. In the next 5 years they're facing declining viewership, declining ad sales, declining DVD sales, and yet they seem intent on limiting alternative revenue streams.
I guess they're worried that people could break the FairPlay DRM and share iTunes shows over the Internet? Well guess what--DVRs again. It's even easier to pull a sharable video file that way.
The people have as much power as they have ever had. In fact they have more power than they had in the early days, because the electoral college has been reduced to a rubber stamp based on the popular vote in each state...at least now your vote is being overridden by your fellow citizens and not some rich elector.
Except that the people have to exercise that power for it to make any difference. The #1 thing that takes power away from the people is this depressive meme that what they do doesn't matter anyway. So yeah, if you're sitting around bitching about how you don't have power, instead of voting and writing letters and making phone calls and attending town hall meetings--you're right you don't have power. I'd submit that that's your own fault though.
I think the money aspect is usually overplayed. Money matters, but it's not the only thing. For example--which side of the "drill in ANWR debate" has more money? But they've lost like 20-some votes now, most of which were even under Republican rule. In the end it always comes back to votes. Money can help with those, but it can't actually buy them. No amount of money was going to get Mark Foley back into office.
And to continue my rant just a little longer, it seems like the power of the president is always overplayed in these discussions. Congress is directly elected by the people (even Senators now--another example of increasing power to the people), and is directly accountable to them in a very local way. A lot of the problems of the past 6 years could have been avoided or at least mitigated had Congress been in greater opposition to the President.
So maybe you say: well there's always only two candidates, and I don't agree with either. Well first of all I'd say you're probably not paying attention, since most elections go through a primary process that involves many more candidates than 2. So there's your first chance to affect an election.
I'd also say that there's another way to look at elections--as a beginning not an end. The goal is not to get someone who will "represent you" perfectly, the goal is just to get the person elected who is most likely to be sympathetic to your position on your pet issues. The key is what happens after the election, when the rep. has to start making actual decisions and votes--that's when citizen activity matters most. This is how all the trade associations and interest groups and lobbyists view elections BTW.
You're never going to get someone who agrees with you on more than a couple issues. If we imagine some simple world of only 6 for/against policy positions, that's still 64 possible combinations of beliefs. Whether there are 2 or 4 candidates to choose from does not significantly change the odds that you'll get someone you agree with 100%. And the real world is way more complicated than that.
Finally, losing is not necessarily proof that the system is broken, it's probably just proof that more people disagree with you than agree with you. So what next? It's possible to change minds but it takes time. It took decades of continuous work for the Republicans to get Congress, but they did it. They fucked it up in record time, but the point is that they wanted it, they worked for it, and they got it.
I attended Beloit from 1993-1997 and did not receive my diploma because I never satisfactorily completed my geology thesis. Some of the description above sounds kind of true (the cafeteria doesn't serve Sunday night; the bus stop is a mile off campus), but a lot of it sounds like bad info or sour grapes.
:-) The part about Beloit being in a small town is also true, although the BUS to Madison was like $3 each way.
Beloit is a good small school. They take their academics seriously and that is why they have a high percentage of graduates go on to advanced degrees. My first girlfriend there went on to get her Ph.D. in biochemistry at U.C. Berkeley, and my wife (who I met there as well) has a masters in anthropology and manages the collections database for the Smithsonian Natural History Museum. When I was there I participated in two projects doing original geological research and published a poster at a GSA conference.
Part of taking academics seriously is providing consequences for students who don't. I knew a couple people who were asked to take a semester off because because their grades were crap. I wonder if that's what happened to the parent. I didn't finish my degree, but apparently unlike him/her, I recognize that is on me.
Maybe things have changed dramatically, but when I was there, my Physics 101 class was taught by Dan Schroeder (an astronomer who helped launch the Hubble project as well as extra-solar planet searches) using Tipler's Physics textbook.
Maybe things have changed dramatically, but the lounges in my dorm (Bushnell) were used primarily for watching TV or card games. And they all had lightbulbs and did not have roaches. I honestly don't recognize any of that description.
The college does give housing over to clubs. The Womyn's Center had their own house, but so did the Arts Co-op, the French Club, the Spanish Club, the Russian Club, and the Outdoor Environmental Club. And geeks would love it there--the Science Fiction and Fantasy club had their own DORM and were the biggest and most influential club on campus. They had more pull than the few fraternities or sororities. They held SCA practices every Saturday on their lawn if the weather was nice.
The part about the Cheese Breeze is true, but it really only happened a couple time per semester.