So now I can get home from work an hour early and can catch my neighbour's wife having an affair.
But seriously: How exactly is a rotating building meant to mess up one's circadian rhythm? Does the blogger think this building is rigged up to do a lap of the Earth each day? It's spinning on the spot!
Finally, why link to a crappy blog entry complete with typos and irrelevant BS, when you could link directly to the article?
I'll take it you've never had real deja vu: Not everyone has. The article is kind of silly, because anyone who's actually had it can tell you it has almost nothing to do with senses. It's not a feeling that you've experienced something before, but a feeling that is the same as you get when you've experienced something before.
I get it fairly regularly (maybe once a month on average), and while it will often (but not always) be triggered by something I see or hear, it does not feel like I have seen or heard that same thing before. It's just a spooky feeling in which you feel your brain go through the recollection process, but you have absolutely no idea what it's trying to recollect.
Wow. I like the way "Selling the rights to such a movie is high risk for both sides" became "... such a movie is high risk". That was an excellent use of selective quoting to make you look like you had something useful to say.
The issue is quite separate from copyright, and it's called an Option. It's much more common in movies and financial markets than it is in music, because the potential losses in the music industry are much lower. It's not so much that music artists are as shrewd, just that the risks aren't as big.
When you want to purchase something with a high risk, you can often share that risk with the original owner of the thing you want to buy.
In the case of The Hobbit, Saul Zaentz has the sole right to produce a movie of the hobbit. Selling the rights to such a movie is high risk for both sides. New Line doesn't know how much the movie is going to make, so from a risk point of view, they probably want to buy the rights for a minimal up-front fee, and then pay royalties. Saul Zaentz's, on the other hand, doesn't want to have New Line sit on the rights forever - someone else might be able to make it into a successful movie.
So Saul Zaentz sells New Line an option to make the movie. New Line can warrant investing money in the idea, because they know how much it will cost them to go ahead. Saul Zaentz is happy, because he still gets paid at least a little bit even if New Line decides not to go ahead with the movie, and he can then sell another option to another studio. They've shared the risk.
No, this was was not a random sample. He has taken only biographies of people born before 1890. Furthermore, his sample of 12,000 is taken from a super-sample of nearly 17,000 articles. He weeded out 5000 articles because the text did not suit his extraction algorithm. Both of these are systematic biases.
Regardless, some people's strong feelings and zealous campaigning on the subject hardly rate global warming as a "religion".
Not meaning to put words in their mouth, but I don't think the GP is necessarily refering to global warming as a whole as being religion-like. Yes, the overiding scientific view is that global warming is happening. However, there tends to be a lot of reactionary media around at the moment, which confuses the concensus over the existence of global warming with two other issues: the major cause, and more importantly, the best way forward.
In the end, the cause is really quite irrelevant. The only valid issue is how we best deal with global warming. If it's either man-made or natural, we still need to solve the same problem.
There is little concensus in the scientific community on that, as climate models differ in their predicitions, and so many options need to be evaluated for both effectiveness and cost (not just monetary). For example: some models predict that stopping all human CO2 immissions today will have a negligable (or even worsening, given other chemicals promoting natural geosequestration would also cease at the same time) effect. Such models suggest that resources may be better put to use dealing with the current CO2, than simply reducing our future output.
If it turns out we are in the situation where we simply cannot reverse global warming, then we probably better off putting our resources into adapting to a warmer Earth.
This is all stuff that needs to be considered by the scientific community. Jumping to conclusions saying "Scientists agree that global warming is occuring, therefore we must cut emissions as quickly as possible" is fallacious and possibly unproductive. We need more study to be done to validate and improve climate models (such a call unfortunately doesn't sell newspapers).
You appear to have missed the GP's point, and provided a perfect example of what they are complaining about.
If you want constant, uncritical praise of MS and hate for everything open source, [...]
Most intelligent people try to avoid sites that are blindly pro-anything. When we try to escape from the pro-MS zealots, we don't want to end up listening to pro-Mozilla zealots like you creating false dichotomies: Just because the GP doesn't claim that Firefox 2.0 is the second coming of Jesus does not imply that they want to go stick their tongue right down Bill Gates' trousers.
It's just an effort to counter astro turfing.
If you really believe FF is better and want to convince people, then do so with open, intelligent dialog; not by employing the same BS that other vendors use. Mozilla will never win a propaganda war with Microsoft. Those who try do more damage than good to the Mozilla projects. Firefox will only move forwards if we acknowledge its shortcomings and make it even better.
I personally use Firefox almost exclusively. I think it is a great browser. I want it to get better.
But that's just a market thing. Phone calls in the US have always been cheaper than Australia (and most other places too, AFAIK). If Australia had the population density of the US, or the population to support the levels of competition in the US, we would pay much less per minute for outgoing calls.
Given the low cost of calls in the US, the European billing model would make even more sense. If calls only cost 4c/min, then who'd mind paying 20c for a 5 minute call to their electrician?
So use a call forwarding service. With most providers in Australia, you can hit a button on your land-line and it will divert all calls to your mobile. You pay for the redirection as if you're calling from your land-line. The caller just pays for the local call.
In reality though, it's really common for small businesses to use mobiles (especially tradespeople). AFAIK, no one really worries too much about the cost of a mobile call - it's really not that much money in the scheme of things.
Actually reading the Napster case and the relevant bits of 17 USC 512 would likely prove informative as to just how it works, and why one site, acting one way, might be treated more favorably than another site, acting another way.
Most Slashdotters don't bother to RTFA, let alone the relevant legislation and case law.
Re:Next week's news: Moon covered by ice
on
No Ice on the Moon
·
· Score: 1
I wouldn't be surprised if another study came out revealing that the moon was actually made of ice with a couple feet of moon rock and dust on top.
There's a safety reason why plants like to have external power (at least older ones - I'm not sure if this is still an issue on modern nuclear plants).
If a plant needs to be shut down quickly, they need to make sure the coolant still gets pumped around while it is cooling (otherwise you get hot spots in your coolant, which is obviously a bad thing).
Nonsense - We have a small quantity of water in the glass, and it just had a few more drops added to it.
If we all sit around and hope Firefox will magically continue to gain market share, that glass is ultimately going to evaporate. Unless Firefox actively competes, they are going to get trampled.
It's not like it's that big a drop. They still have many times the share of their nearest competitor, and Firefox is not gaining ground as fast as it once was.
I won't be celebrating until Firefox takes over IE, but seriously, what are the chances of that *ever* happening?
Furthermore, the article points out that IE has not had any really big improvements in ages. It is likely that has had a big effect on the uptake of other browsers. From the average users perspective, the only thing they get out of switching to Firefox is tabbed browsing. They'll get that in IE7 for free.
What can IE's competitors use to differentiate themselves from IE (to the average user) in Vista-land?
Imagine if a friend asked you to search through a book for him and let him know what you found. Would this also be a violation? Chances are, you'd only quote a paragraph or so back to him - Google quotes even less of the book.
While I agree with your senitment, I think that's a bad analogy (assuming I've understood your premise). Only the text of a book is copyright, not the ideas. If a friend of mine asked me to look through a book and tell him what I found, I would be summarising ideas presented in the book, not providing them with copyrighted text.
Furthermore, it's kind of irrelevant anyway. AFAIK, the text provided by Google to their users is not what the authors are disputing - I understand that the short excerpts provided by Google are covered by fair use already (see my name for disclaimer). What is under debate, is whether or not it is legal for Google to store a digital copy of copyright works on their servers without permission from the copyright holders.
Slashdot Mirror
So now I can get home from work an hour early and can catch my neighbour's wife having an affair.
But seriously: How exactly is a rotating building meant to mess up one's circadian rhythm? Does the blogger think this building is rigged up to do a lap of the Earth each day? It's spinning on the spot!
Finally, why link to a crappy blog entry complete with typos and irrelevant BS, when you could link directly to the article?
Heh - I love seeing a good, old fashioned smack down.
My GF thinks she has similarly good hearing. I just can't bring myself to tell her how unlikely it is that it's actually our LCD TV she hears.
I'll take it you've never had real deja vu: Not everyone has. The article is kind of silly, because anyone who's actually had it can tell you it has almost nothing to do with senses. It's not a feeling that you've experienced something before, but a feeling that is the same as you get when you've experienced something before.
I get it fairly regularly (maybe once a month on average), and while it will often (but not always) be triggered by something I see or hear, it does not feel like I have seen or heard that same thing before. It's just a spooky feeling in which you feel your brain go through the recollection process, but you have absolutely no idea what it's trying to recollect.
How can you claim you didn't write the parent post? We can all see clearly that you have the exact same user name!!!
Ok, I'll get back in my box now...
Wow. I like the way "Selling the rights to such a movie is high risk for both sides" became "... such a movie is high risk". That was an excellent use of selective quoting to make you look like you had something useful to say.
The issue is quite separate from copyright, and it's called an Option. It's much more common in movies and financial markets than it is in music, because the potential losses in the music industry are much lower. It's not so much that music artists are as shrewd, just that the risks aren't as big.
When you want to purchase something with a high risk, you can often share that risk with the original owner of the thing you want to buy.
In the case of The Hobbit, Saul Zaentz has the sole right to produce a movie of the hobbit. Selling the rights to such a movie is high risk for both sides. New Line doesn't know how much the movie is going to make, so from a risk point of view, they probably want to buy the rights for a minimal up-front fee, and then pay royalties. Saul Zaentz's, on the other hand, doesn't want to have New Line sit on the rights forever - someone else might be able to make it into a successful movie.
So Saul Zaentz sells New Line an option to make the movie. New Line can warrant investing money in the idea, because they know how much it will cost them to go ahead. Saul Zaentz is happy, because he still gets paid at least a little bit even if New Line decides not to go ahead with the movie, and he can then sell another option to another studio. They've shared the risk.
Did you ever RTFA?
Very interesting comment. For once, an insightful comment from an AC.
Why? So we can all point the finger at each other while screaming, "I told you so", or "It's your fault!"
I would have thought the real debate is how best to deal with it?
No, this was was not a random sample. He has taken only biographies of people born before 1890. Furthermore, his sample of 12,000 is taken from a super-sample of nearly 17,000 articles. He weeded out 5000 articles because the text did not suit his extraction algorithm. Both of these are systematic biases.
Not meaning to put words in their mouth, but I don't think the GP is necessarily refering to global warming as a whole as being religion-like. Yes, the overiding scientific view is that global warming is happening. However, there tends to be a lot of reactionary media around at the moment, which confuses the concensus over the existence of global warming with two other issues: the major cause, and more importantly, the best way forward.
In the end, the cause is really quite irrelevant. The only valid issue is how we best deal with global warming. If it's either man-made or natural, we still need to solve the same problem.
There is little concensus in the scientific community on that, as climate models differ in their predicitions, and so many options need to be evaluated for both effectiveness and cost (not just monetary). For example: some models predict that stopping all human CO2 immissions today will have a negligable (or even worsening, given other chemicals promoting natural geosequestration would also cease at the same time) effect. Such models suggest that resources may be better put to use dealing with the current CO2, than simply reducing our future output.
If it turns out we are in the situation where we simply cannot reverse global warming, then we probably better off putting our resources into adapting to a warmer Earth.
This is all stuff that needs to be considered by the scientific community. Jumping to conclusions saying "Scientists agree that global warming is occuring, therefore we must cut emissions as quickly as possible" is fallacious and possibly unproductive. We need more study to be done to validate and improve climate models (such a call unfortunately doesn't sell newspapers).
You appear to have missed the GP's point, and provided a perfect example of what they are complaining about.
Most intelligent people try to avoid sites that are blindly pro-anything. When we try to escape from the pro-MS zealots, we don't want to end up listening to pro-Mozilla zealots like you creating false dichotomies: Just because the GP doesn't claim that Firefox 2.0 is the second coming of Jesus does not imply that they want to go stick their tongue right down Bill Gates' trousers.
If you really believe FF is better and want to convince people, then do so with open, intelligent dialog; not by employing the same BS that other vendors use. Mozilla will never win a propaganda war with Microsoft. Those who try do more damage than good to the Mozilla projects.
Firefox will only move forwards if we acknowledge its shortcomings and make it even better.
I personally use Firefox almost exclusively. I think it is a great browser. I want it to get better.
But that's just a market thing. Phone calls in the US have always been cheaper than Australia (and most other places too, AFAIK). If Australia had the population density of the US, or the population to support the levels of competition in the US, we would pay much less per minute for outgoing calls.
Given the low cost of calls in the US, the European billing model would make even more sense. If calls only cost 4c/min, then who'd mind paying 20c for a 5 minute call to their electrician?
So use a call forwarding service. With most providers in Australia, you can hit a button on your land-line and it will divert all calls to your mobile. You pay for the redirection as if you're calling from your land-line. The caller just pays for the local call.
In reality though, it's really common for small businesses to use mobiles (especially tradespeople). AFAIK, no one really worries too much about the cost of a mobile call - it's really not that much money in the scheme of things.
Most Slashdotters don't bother to RTFA, let alone the relevant legislation and case law.
No, it's cheese!
There's a safety reason why plants like to have external power (at least older ones - I'm not sure if this is still an issue on modern nuclear plants).
If a plant needs to be shut down quickly, they need to make sure the coolant still gets pumped around while it is cooling (otherwise you get hot spots in your coolant, which is obviously a bad thing).
Nonsense - We have a small quantity of water in the glass, and it just had a few more drops added to it.
If we all sit around and hope Firefox will magically continue to gain market share, that glass is ultimately going to evaporate. Unless Firefox actively competes, they are going to get trampled.
It's not like it's that big a drop. They still have many times the share of their nearest competitor, and Firefox is not gaining ground as fast as it once was.
I won't be celebrating until Firefox takes over IE, but seriously, what are the chances of that *ever* happening?
Furthermore, the article points out that IE has not had any really big improvements in ages. It is likely that has had a big effect on the uptake of other browsers. From the average users perspective, the only thing they get out of switching to Firefox is tabbed browsing. They'll get that in IE7 for free.
What can IE's competitors use to differentiate themselves from IE (to the average user) in Vista-land?
While I agree with your senitment, I think that's a bad analogy (assuming I've understood your premise). Only the text of a book is copyright, not the ideas. If a friend of mine asked me to look through a book and tell him what I found, I would be summarising ideas presented in the book, not providing them with copyrighted text.
Furthermore, it's kind of irrelevant anyway. AFAIK, the text provided by Google to their users is not what the authors are disputing - I understand that the short excerpts provided by Google are covered by fair use already (see my name for disclaimer). What is under debate, is whether or not it is legal for Google to store a digital copy of copyright works on their servers without permission from the copyright holders.
Yes, but his last sentence is saying he has zero chance of getting laid in any universe.
Dude, you need to get laid.
And the CPU is the hot-plate? Burn, baby! Burn!
(On rereading, that last bit makes me sound a little insane. Oh well!)
Whoosh.