because infringing citizens can happily point to the levy and say, "You're already getting your cut, so STFU."
Sure, you can say that. In what context do you plan on saying that?
At a political discussion with the politicians who listens to the money you don't have?
Or in the court room, with the judge who looks at the copyright law which forbids you from copying and distributing, and which hasn't been repealed just because you have been made to pay due to a presumption of the guilt of someone?
I think "You're already getting your cut, so STFU" is a really great argument. The people who aren't already convinced don't. I don't know what that buys you, but please have some more of it;-)
the exponential higher cost associated with deploying the infrastructure due to the physical size of the US.
Let me guess:
for each subset S of (the set of square mile grids that cover some US soil):
expend $x
build base station on S
Please explain to me how you build a base station that's partially in Los Angeles, partially in New York and partially somewhere in Alaska.
I might buy that if you do a 1 sq mile grid cover, the smallest number of cells that cover 90% of the US population is superlinearly larger than similar count for EUROPEAN_COUNTRIES[rand()].
Rich people, in general, have more of everything than someone with a median income. Those are the breaks. Even in colonial days, a rich person could print up more pamphlets than a poor person.
True. However, policies have the possibility of either amplifying or diminishing the effect of (material/financial) wealth on political influence, and policies can amplify/diminish more or less than other policies.
It would appear, watching in from the outside, that the campaign contribution system in the US appears to lean much towards the "very amplifying" end of things, at least compared to what I know of Denmark.
[please feel more than welcome to inform me of how wrong I am if you can back that assertion up with evidence.]
People like you need to understand that there is no point refuting Evolution. Evolution is the glue that holds Biology together, and without it we wouldn't have: Paleontology, Micro-biology, Medicine, Genetics, among other fields.
[here's what camp I sit in: I have the XKCD t-shirt that says "Science: it works, bitches", and I wear it proudly]
I think your argument is bad. You're saying that without evolution, we wouldn't know the things we know about {x,y,z}, and those things are useful, so evolution better be true. I.e. an argument from desirable consequences (i.e. p implies q; I like q; therefore p).
Either that, or you're saying that Evolution implies {theory from fields x,y,z} which are true, so therefore evolution has to be true (i.e. p implies q; q; therefore p).
The third option is of course that I'm not understanding what you're saying.
In any case, I think one should try to argue according to the fortune cookies:
HOW TO PROVE IT, PART 5
proof by accumulated evidence:
Long and diligent search has not revealed a counterexample.
While bad math, this kind of argument is good science: we search long and hard for something that disproves our theory, but eventually give up seeing how our search yields no result. Showing how repeated attempts at disproving evolution have all failed is the best way to argue that it's a good theory.
Your state that science is never dogmatic; superlative usage most of the time indicates logical fallacy
For the grammar dorks: "never" is not a superlative; "best" (as opposed to "good" or "better") is a superlative.
One may want to call "never" a universal statement (i.e. forall x: not p(x), with emphasis on the "forall" bit, i.e. the universal quantifier), or an absolute statement (one that is never contradicted, as opposed to "science is rarely dogmatic").
And now to comment on the "Science is dogmatic" bit. Science---well, good science---is dogmatic about one thing, and that thing only: that one should trust the conclusions one is lead to by evidence and reasoning, in proportion to the strength of that evidence and reasoning.
"Science believed"* that the earth was flat as long as the best evidence suggested this; when better evidence came along, "science changed its mind".
(*) when I anthropomorphize science and ascribe beliefs to it, I mean that the belief is widely held (i.e. near-consensus) among scientists in relevant fields or with relevant expertise.
It was never scientific dogma that the earth was flat. Thermodynamics, evolution, the age and shape of the earth and the universe, none of these are scientific dogma. It's just that the weight of the evidence is 99.9% for, 0.1% against (numbers extracted anally).
They just didn't make sure that they owned the rights before selling a license to someone who came to them to SPECIFICALLY buy a license from someone he damn well KNEW didn't own it. AP has done nothing wrong here.
Well, if their software made sure he already knew AP didn't own the quote, I agree. Please show me the mind-reading code and I'll shut up.
Otherwise, what could have happened is that someone by accident pays AP for a license to use something which AP doesn't own; or even worse, that AP issues an illegal license offer. As someone has already suggested, buy a license to RIAA lyrics from AP; go tell on AP to the RIAA; watch RIAA and AP duke it out in the two-men-enter-one-man-leaves arena.
What AP has done wrong (unless their code can read minds) is enable something very wrong.
But pages are for more than print-outs. JSTOR made a decision to keep their journal articles in page format, because that's what people are used to and like. Also, properly formatted pages look better than wikis or blog posts.
What the world needs is widescreen paper;-)
Seriously, I agree that most things laid out with a sheet of paper in mind looks better than things laid out for web consumption.
But the things that really matter for paper presentation (at least in my LaTeX documents) are margins and page breaks (with respect to orphan/widow avoidance).
Monitor sizes (and probably more importantly ratios) being what they are, would it be so damn difficult to prepare two versions of the document, one for 210x279 mm and one for 1600x1200 px?
(okay, maybe three or four, depending on how many aspect ratios people use.)
The whole idea of encrypting it in the first place was that it was likely to get stolen somewhere along the way and when it did it would never be of any use to the thief.
I disagree with your use of the word 'never'.
While we would like to design cryptographic tools that last forever, it's really hard.
For one, there's (almost always) the brute-force attack. By buying more computers, you can always do it faster, since it by its nature is embarrassingly parallel.
The best we can hope for is that for all thieves, their (perceived expected) cost of breaking the crypto exceeds their (perceived expected) gain.
As long as computers yield more cycles per dollar over time, we will have to keep using larger and larger keys; and as algorithms get broken, we will have to start using new (and hopefully better) ones.
The article predicts a couple of years until it's safe enough as default in new distros.
It's phrased as an upper bound, "Btrfs will be the default file system on Linux within two years."
Note that it's the prediction of a single person, Valerie Aurora-formerly-Henson, who doesn't try to explain any rationale behind the prediction.
She even says "Check back in two years and see if I got any of these predictions right!"... So take it with an appropriate amount of salt*, whatever that means to you.
(* please consult your doctor before consuming large amounts of salt if you have high blood pressure or a pre-existing heart condition.)
The fact that Linus runs it as his root fs doesn't tell me much. Now, if you told me that's what he uses for ~/, I would be more impressed.
It gets even worse. FTFA:
Linus Torvalds is using it as his root file system on one of his laptops.
Maybe one of his spares?
I'm speculating, but note that the article doesn't say "his main laptop", which it could, and which would be a better "seal of approval", so it probably would if it was true...
The Spanish Inquisition is the one we usually think of when we think of the term "Inquisition"
I call BS.
If everybody thought of the Spanish Inquisition whenever they thought of the term "Inquisition", they wouldn't go around talking about how nobody expects them!
I don't think the guy has a legal leg to stand on. Amazon removed an illegal book, and the guy still has his annotations, useless or not.
While Amazon didn't destroy "tangible stuff"*, they did destroy the value of that stuff.
Say I throw a really loud party at my house, with you living next door; or I burn my garden waste, which is smoky and sooty; or I park in front of your driveway. I haven't destroyed your property, but I have reduced it's value. I have destroyed the value of your property without destroying the property itself.
I don't know whether any of the nuisance scenarios would give you a case, but if they do, why doesn't the same common sense extend to destroying the value of bits by changing their context?
* I know bits aren't tangible, but go with me here.
Slashdot Mirror
because infringing citizens can happily point to the levy and say, "You're already getting your cut, so STFU."
Sure, you can say that. In what context do you plan on saying that?
At a political discussion with the politicians who listens to the money you don't have?
Or in the court room, with the judge who looks at the copyright law which forbids you from copying and distributing, and which hasn't been repealed just because you have been made to pay due to a presumption of the guilt of someone?
I think "You're already getting your cut, so STFU" is a really great argument. The people who aren't already convinced don't. I don't know what that buys you, but please have some more of it ;-)
the exponential higher cost associated with deploying the infrastructure due to the physical size of the US.
Let me guess:
for each subset S of (the set of square mile grids that cover some US soil):
expend $x
build base station on S
Please explain to me how you build a base station that's partially in Los Angeles, partially in New York and partially somewhere in Alaska.
I might buy that if you do a 1 sq mile grid cover, the smallest number of cells that cover 90% of the US population is superlinearly larger than similar count for EUROPEAN_COUNTRIES[rand()].
But exponential?
Rich people, in general, have more of everything than someone with a median income. Those are the breaks. Even in colonial days, a rich person could print up more pamphlets than a poor person.
True. However, policies have the possibility of either amplifying or diminishing the effect of (material/financial) wealth on political influence, and policies can amplify/diminish more or less than other policies.
It would appear, watching in from the outside, that the campaign contribution system in the US appears to lean much towards the "very amplifying" end of things, at least compared to what I know of Denmark.
[please feel more than welcome to inform me of how wrong I am if you can back that assertion up with evidence.]
Other people require you to agree to a contract before looking at their program. [...] They're Dark Templars
FTFY.
The music track will use the Ogg Vorbis format
Dammit, I was hoping to drink that coffee!
naked girls performing in the pauses as they serve Ubuntu Cola!
You owe me a new pair of underpants.
Your implementation probably infringes on my patent: the B-tree ;-)
People like you need to understand that there is no point refuting Evolution. Evolution is the glue that holds Biology together, and without it we wouldn't have: Paleontology, Micro-biology, Medicine, Genetics, among other fields.
[here's what camp I sit in: I have the XKCD t-shirt that says "Science: it works, bitches", and I wear it proudly]
I think your argument is bad. You're saying that without evolution, we wouldn't know the things we know about {x,y,z}, and those things are useful, so evolution better be true. I.e. an argument from desirable consequences (i.e. p implies q; I like q; therefore p).
Either that, or you're saying that Evolution implies {theory from fields x,y,z} which are true, so therefore evolution has to be true (i.e. p implies q; q; therefore p).
The third option is of course that I'm not understanding what you're saying.
In any case, I think one should try to argue according to the fortune cookies:
HOW TO PROVE IT, PART 5
proof by accumulated evidence:
While bad math, this kind of argument is good science: we search long and hard for something that disproves our theory, but eventually give up seeing how our search yields no result. Showing how repeated attempts at disproving evolution have all failed is the best way to argue that it's a good theory.
Your state that science is never dogmatic; superlative usage most of the time indicates logical fallacy
For the grammar dorks: "never" is not a superlative; "best" (as opposed to "good" or "better") is a superlative.
One may want to call "never" a universal statement (i.e. forall x: not p(x), with emphasis on the "forall" bit, i.e. the universal quantifier), or an absolute statement (one that is never contradicted, as opposed to "science is rarely dogmatic").
And now to comment on the "Science is dogmatic" bit. Science---well, good science---is dogmatic about one thing, and that thing only: that one should trust the conclusions one is lead to by evidence and reasoning, in proportion to the strength of that evidence and reasoning.
"Science believed"* that the earth was flat as long as the best evidence suggested this; when better evidence came along, "science changed its mind".
(*) when I anthropomorphize science and ascribe beliefs to it, I mean that the belief is widely held (i.e. near-consensus) among scientists in relevant fields or with relevant expertise.
It was never scientific dogma that the earth was flat. Thermodynamics, evolution, the age and shape of the earth and the universe, none of these are scientific dogma. It's just that the weight of the evidence is 99.9% for, 0.1% against (numbers extracted anally).
I can has measurement?
Why not begin the singularity?
Well, I just got a bud outtada fridge, and American Idol is on. Maybe I'll go do that by Wednesday.
You have made us free to watch TV and drink beer all day long.
Way aheadaya.
(or sufficient amounts of single malt after hours)
The way you spell "during" might explain why my mail server doesn't work and yours does.
and that itself as value.
Does your keyboard 'ave a French accent?
I might as well push that joke to the limit...
Since it's telephony, the phrase "YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE" absolutely has to be followed by
MAKE YOUR MONTHLY MINUTES
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.
Since they're the evil masterminds of cellular telephony specifically (among other things), wouldn't that be
ALL YOUR BASE STATION ARE BELONG TO US
?
They just didn't make sure that they owned the rights before selling a license to someone who came to them to SPECIFICALLY buy a license from someone he damn well KNEW didn't own it. AP has done nothing wrong here.
Well, if their software made sure he already knew AP didn't own the quote, I agree. Please show me the mind-reading code and I'll shut up.
Otherwise, what could have happened is that someone by accident pays AP for a license to use something which AP doesn't own; or even worse, that AP issues an illegal license offer. As someone has already suggested, buy a license to RIAA lyrics from AP; go tell on AP to the RIAA; watch RIAA and AP duke it out in the two-men-enter-one-man-leaves arena.
What AP has done wrong (unless their code can read minds) is enable something very wrong.
Well, according to Doctor Word, "It looks like you have frustrations with emacs."
Try ":clippy" --- http://pix.mybll.de/vim.gif
But pages are for more than print-outs. JSTOR made a decision to keep their journal articles in page format, because that's what people are used to and like. Also, properly formatted pages look better than wikis or blog posts.
What the world needs is widescreen paper ;-)
Seriously, I agree that most things laid out with a sheet of paper in mind looks better than things laid out for web consumption.
But the things that really matter for paper presentation (at least in my LaTeX documents) are margins and page breaks (with respect to orphan/widow avoidance).
Monitor sizes (and probably more importantly ratios) being what they are, would it be so damn difficult to prepare two versions of the document, one for 210x279 mm and one for 1600x1200 px?
(okay, maybe three or four, depending on how many aspect ratios people use.)
Widescreen "paper" for the win!
The whole idea of encrypting it in the first place was that it was likely to get stolen somewhere along the way and when it did it would never be of any use to the thief.
I disagree with your use of the word 'never'.
While we would like to design cryptographic tools that last forever, it's really hard.
For one, there's (almost always) the brute-force attack. By buying more computers, you can always do it faster, since it by its nature is embarrassingly parallel.
The best we can hope for is that for all thieves, their (perceived expected) cost of breaking the crypto exceeds their (perceived expected) gain.
As long as computers yield more cycles per dollar over time, we will have to keep using larger and larger keys; and as algorithms get broken, we will have to start using new (and hopefully better) ones.
In cryptography, not even diamonds are forever ;-)
The article predicts a couple of years until it's safe enough as default in new distros.
It's phrased as an upper bound, "Btrfs will be the default file system on Linux within two years."
Note that it's the prediction of a single person, Valerie Aurora-formerly-Henson, who doesn't try to explain any rationale behind the prediction.
She even says "Check back in two years and see if I got any of these predictions right!" ... So take it with an appropriate amount of salt*, whatever that means to you.
(* please consult your doctor before consuming large amounts of salt if you have high blood pressure or a pre-existing heart condition.)
The fact that Linus runs it as his root fs doesn't tell me much. Now, if you told me that's what he uses for ~/, I would be more impressed.
It gets even worse. FTFA:
Linus Torvalds is using it as his root file system on one of his laptops.
Maybe one of his spares?
I'm speculating, but note that the article doesn't say "his main laptop", which it could, and which would be a better "seal of approval", so it probably would if it was true...
The Spanish Inquisition is the one we usually think of when we think of the term "Inquisition"
I call BS.
If everybody thought of the Spanish Inquisition whenever they thought of the term "Inquisition", they wouldn't go around talking about how nobody expects them!
I don't think the guy has a legal leg to stand on. Amazon removed an illegal book, and the guy still has his annotations, useless or not.
While Amazon didn't destroy "tangible stuff"*, they did destroy the value of that stuff.
Say I throw a really loud party at my house, with you living next door; or I burn my garden waste, which is smoky and sooty; or I park in front of your driveway. I haven't destroyed your property, but I have reduced it's value. I have destroyed the value of your property without destroying the property itself.
I don't know whether any of the nuisance scenarios would give you a case, but if they do, why doesn't the same common sense extend to destroying the value of bits by changing their context?
* I know bits aren't tangible, but go with me here.
(Posting as an Anonymous Coward since I've never been to slashdot before. 'Sup guys?)
Welcome aboard!
We talk about OpenVMS, ex, roff and other software no one uses anymore.
Then we talk about law as if we knew anything about it, getting swedish server admins and american file system developers sued.
The cherry on the top is all the same old tried-and-true jokes that "no one has ever heard before" </sarcasm>.
Hope you'll like it! Here, have a spare passenger seat ;-)
(Just kidding. We here on slashdot behave tastefully, like you would expect from world-renowned experts.)
It is here:
Why do they show up as "hunter2" on my screen?