A stereo system for the little elephant that lives behind the chair in my living room. I'm sure he will enjoy it and trumpet his admiration(just ask my wife about that).
Exactly. Plus, TFA specifically ties it to age groups, not P2P use. P2P sharing is simply one of the things that people in this age group tend to have a more permissive attitude about. What a shocker: young people tend to act like, well, young people.
Of course, it would have been more fun to pick some other correla... er, "causal relationships", like willingness to give blow jobs or engage in group sex. Those attitudes are probably higher in the same age group as well.
Now those are some P2P activities we can all agree are not infringing!
Putting aside for a moment all the various arguments people will make in this thread (statistical arguments, Firefox-IE is better designed, bugs are less/more serious or take shorter/longer to fix, blah blah)...
For the sake of argument, let's just say from a security standpoint that FF and IE come out dead even. I'd still prefer Firefox by a wide margin, because it's open source. That's not a zealot's position, but a practical matter related to security. (And I'm not arguing that open source is inherently more secure because "more eyes look at it," whether or not that may be true.)
Simply put, I trust open source. Ever since taking the leap to Linux and OSS, I have largely stopped worrying about the software I use being spyware, locking me into formats, managing to break my other applications, etc. The OSS community's focus on users' needs (and not on profit) has made me trust software again.
How does this make me more secure? It means I I now feel free to apply updates and software patches with wild abandon. If there's a new version of Firefox with patches, when I update my Kubuntu system it's installed within days.
In my pre-OSS days, I would hold off installing new versions or updates because I had so often been burned by unexpected collateral damage...
Now, I no longer worry about that. I patch like mad, and I've no doubt it makes my system (and by extension, yours) more secure.
The space program has had few side-benefits in recent years because we haven't been pushing our limits, merely doing things we already knew how to do. If we embrace a new space program with a goal we don't know how to achieve, we will once again reap ten times what we spend. That's what happens when you force yourself to invent new technologies.
Where you say "The space program" you could substitute "Basic science". And the problem isn't a lack of will to "push limits" but an increasing focus on short-term profitability that has driven research away from long-term, unexpected benefits.
The space program is nice, in that it is an inspiring way to move part of the world's focus back to the long term. But there's nothing special about space in that regard. There are all kinds of challenges and problems right here on earth that might yield lots of long-term benefits, but economically don't make sense for companies to pour their own R&D money into. If the President had said "Within the next two decades we will find a cure for malaria and share it freely with the world." that would be pretty inspiring and rebuild a lot of bridges. Or, how about "Within 15 years we will solve the world's energy problems by perfecting a cheap source of nonpolluting energy." (I'm sure there are other possibilities).
The question is what kind of "big vision" is best for a federally funded research program. Economically, it makes sense to pick things that are likely to yield big benefits to mankind in the long term but are unlikely to have short-term payoffs (and thus be pursued by private entities). Space is a possibility, but the price tag is so high, even for a government -- I wonder whether there might be cheaper, more effective ways of seeking long-term benefits right here on the planet.
If there were a conspicuous sticker saying "Warning: this device may not actually record the programs you want to record. There is no way for you to know in advance which programs you can or can't record. The fact that you can record your favorite programs now does not mean you will be able to record them in the future," then purchasers would know what they were buying and the free marker could operate.
Actually, this wouldn't help the "free market" much either. It sounds an awful lot like an "illusory contract" or "illusory promise" under the common law.
Basically that's when party A agrees to do something and party B agrees to do something in return, but with conditions which, when examined, amount to fake promises.
"A agrees to mow B's lawn and B agrees to give A $10 if he can." etc.
Putting aside whether this law would actually apply to the TIVO situation, it's clear that the underlying principles apply. In a transaction where you pay for something/take on an obligation into the future, but the product you buy/terms of service can be changed at any time, you are basically unaware of what you're buying.
This is why your "free market" statement rings so true.:)
TFA discusses methodological flaws, as opposed to theoretical ones. It's not the theory that is found to be not "true" but the specific research findings (i.e. the observations or measurements reported in the papers). This is an important distinction.
After all, science doesn't look for truths, just methods of prediction that improve upon previous methods. You could make a good philosophical argument that *all* theories are wrong. I don't remember where I read it but it holds true:
"The difference between an old scientific theory and a new scientific theory is that the new theory is wrong in more subtle ways."
Slashdot Mirror
Finally!
A stereo system for the little elephant that lives behind the chair in my living room. I'm sure he will enjoy it and trumpet his admiration(just ask my wife about that).
Exactly. Plus, TFA specifically ties it to age groups, not P2P use. P2P sharing is simply one of the things that people in this age group tend to have a more permissive attitude about. What a shocker: young people tend to act like, well, young people.
Of course, it would have been more fun to pick some other correla... er, "causal relationships", like willingness to give blow jobs or engage in group sex. Those attitudes are probably higher in the same age group as well.
Now those are some P2P activities we can all agree are not infringing!
The Sun President also claims, "The network is the computer."
Well, for that matter, distinguishing between SK troops and others is... MILDLY important, as well.
I'm sure it'll be even better than human soldiers at making judgment calls like "threat or civilian?"
Or, at least... I'm sure it will be more efficient at making these judgment calls...
Hoax!!? No, it's not a hoax! He charged up his static field with dead cats.
Putting aside for a moment all the various arguments people will make in this thread (statistical arguments, Firefox-IE is better designed, bugs are less/more serious or take shorter/longer to fix, blah blah)...
For the sake of argument, let's just say from a security standpoint that FF and IE come out dead even. I'd still prefer Firefox by a wide margin, because it's open source. That's not a zealot's position, but a practical matter related to security. (And I'm not arguing that open source is inherently more secure because "more eyes look at it," whether or not that may be true.)
Simply put, I trust open source. Ever since taking the leap to Linux and OSS, I have largely stopped worrying about the software I use being spyware, locking me into formats, managing to break my other applications, etc. The OSS community's focus on users' needs (and not on profit) has made me trust software again.
How does this make me more secure? It means I I now feel free to apply updates and software patches with wild abandon. If there's a new version of Firefox with patches, when I update my Kubuntu system it's installed within days.
In my pre-OSS days, I would hold off installing new versions or updates because I had so often been burned by unexpected collateral damage...
Now, I no longer worry about that. I patch like mad, and I've no doubt it makes my system (and by extension, yours) more secure.
Where you say "The space program" you could substitute "Basic science". And the problem isn't a lack of will to "push limits" but an increasing focus on short-term profitability that has driven research away from long-term, unexpected benefits.
The space program is nice, in that it is an inspiring way to move part of the world's focus back to the long term. But there's nothing special about space in that regard. There are all kinds of challenges and problems right here on earth that might yield lots of long-term benefits, but economically don't make sense for companies to pour their own R&D money into. If the President had said "Within the next two decades we will find a cure for malaria and share it freely with the world." that would be pretty inspiring and rebuild a lot of bridges. Or, how about "Within 15 years we will solve the world's energy problems by perfecting a cheap source of nonpolluting energy." (I'm sure there are other possibilities).
The question is what kind of "big vision" is best for a federally funded research program. Economically, it makes sense to pick things that are likely to yield big benefits to mankind in the long term but are unlikely to have short-term payoffs (and thus be pursued by private entities). Space is a possibility, but the price tag is so high, even for a government -- I wonder whether there might be cheaper, more effective ways of seeking long-term benefits right here on the planet.
Good to know it's a hoax.
After all, the last thing the Germans need is notoriety for inventing a new "kitty" gas chamber.
Actually, this wouldn't help the "free market" much either. It sounds an awful lot like an "illusory contract" or "illusory promise" under the common law.
Basically that's when party A agrees to do something and party B agrees to do something in return, but with conditions which, when examined, amount to fake promises.
"A agrees to mow B's lawn and B agrees to give A $10 if he can." etc.
Putting aside whether this law would actually apply to the TIVO situation, it's clear that the underlying principles apply. In a transaction where you pay for something/take on an obligation into the future, but the product you buy/terms of service can be changed at any time, you are basically unaware of what you're buying.
This is why your "free market" statement rings so true. :)
No, no. Then he'd be a Kriminal.
I liked the part where Neo had to choose between the red book and the blue book.
TFA discusses methodological flaws, as opposed to theoretical ones. It's not the theory that is found to be not "true" but the specific research findings (i.e. the observations or measurements reported in the papers). This is an important distinction.
After all, science doesn't look for truths, just methods of prediction that improve upon previous methods. You could make a good philosophical argument that *all* theories are wrong. I don't remember where I read it but it holds true:
"The difference between an old scientific theory and a new scientific theory is that the new theory is wrong in more subtle ways."