The things sold are images under an immersion into R^3. So they are not the homeomorphic images of Klein bottles, no.
BTW, you can embed a Klein bottle into spacetime -- 4 dimensions is sufficient, you can for example use the extra dimension to "wiggle" around the self-intersection.
Freely spreading music is nice, but the problem is that the napsterite thugs want to "freely spread" music without the artists consent, and this is at best rude to the artist.
I think the point the poster makes however is thatthe napster mob use the fact that the technology can be abused as a justification for their abuse of it -- there's a prevailing attitude that if you can't stop the napster users, they are in the right. (a classic might-makes right argument that expresses the true mob-mentality of the napsterites) However, in this instance, they are hesitant to apply the same argument to the FBI (namely that they can abuse the technology, therefore they should do so without restraint)
Both sides have their censorship agendas. I'm a leftist, but I am not terribly happy with what the Dems are doing wrt censorship.
However, the conservatives (for example, the Republicans) aren't any better. They've been trying to censor art, porn, and music for years.
My feeling was that both the major parties ignored young people in their conventions, and exclusively targetted families and seniors, hence we saw some pro-censorship agendas from both sides.
However, I don't really see what vegetarianism has to do with censorship though -- I'm afraid the relevance of that remark escapes me.
I think both your theories have merit -- women (more generally, people) become more pragmatic when they get older. A girl who might date a "cool idiot" in high school would be less likely to do so when they're older.
But it's also true that the geeky females (the ones that did their homework and didn't date in school -;) tend to end up with the geeky males.
I'm not so sure that it sucks to be clever in high school, but there are certainly some areas of interest that aren't considered cool. For example, if you're interested in things like computer programming and math, you don't stand much of a chance of being considered "cool".
My experience has been that "geeks" don't have much trouble finding chicks, though they tend to start somewhat later than non-geeks (big understatement). High school is not terribly kind to geek kids, so they start behind. However, the geeks I've known (including myself) tend to do better in their relationships when they finally get started.
The idea of refactoring is that you change the implementation while the behaviour remains invariant. Refactoring works best when it is embraced as a philosophy from the word go -- refactorings are only supposed to impact small parts of the system. The invariance of that which is changed is easily verified by tests.
A "refactoring" that requires what Fowler would call "shotgun surgery" lies outside the scope of "normal" refactoring, and should be approached cautiously (and the benefits should be weighed carefully against the consequences.)
artists make tons of cash. it's called $40 for a t-shirt at the show where you paid $75 to get in.
How much does the artist get per T-shirt sale ? How much money does the artist make on the concert ? (hint: a lot of artists barely break even, even the big ones). Unless you actually know the answers to these questions (I believe you don't), your comments have no factual basis.
My feeling is that since we 'the consumer' made the industry what it is, we have the right to take it away.
Doesn't take long for the napsterites to start spouting raw communism, does it ? No, you don't have the right to loot. You have the right to buy or not to buy. If you don't like the conduct of the industry, you have every right to boycott and protest, but you don't have the "right" to take anything from anyone.
I'd argue for it, as long as napster pay the appropriate fees to the artists or the record companies. I'd argue that record companies would be wise to embrace various "try-before-you-buy" schemes (such as making one song publically available but charging for the album). I certainly wouldn't argue for freeloaders whose agenda is based on sticking their hand in the artists pocket.
Sure, it's easy to beat: with a free database. There are several of them, and they work and scale a lot better than Access.
How many of them support referential integrity (or foreign keys) ? postgres does, but it's quite recent. Access is quite nice for a toy database, but I take your point about it's scalability.
Did you even read it ? It doesn't claim to be a silver bullet. The book makes it pretty clear that XP doesn't always work (See "when you shouldn't try XP", Ch25 , Extreme programming explained
) I'm not sure why there's so much venom against theis book from those who obviously haven't read it, though I suppose it's an inevitable backlash against the hype.
A common misconception about "refactoring" is that it's the same thing as "rewriting", or at least partial rewriting. Refactoring should involve incremental change. For example, in "Refactoring" (Fowler), switch statements are eliminated in a few steps (replaced by polymorphism), the first one is to move the switch statement into it's own method which in itself cleans things up somewhat. There's obviously a point of diminishing returns with refactoring, which is a good reason to break refactorings into small steps.
It can't address that I have my shell and editor settings vastly different than the person(s) with whom I am pair programming.
I wouldn't think it'd matter that you have different settings, as long as the actual format of the source produced is the same (if everyone indents differently, it's a PITA).
As for the problem with readability, like the other guy says, just use bigger monitors (-; Or for a more pragmatic solution, adjust the font size when you're working with someone who's eyesight isn't as good as yours.
If you managers have any understanding of the software development process, they will probably already have a development model in place that is appropriate for your project(s), customer(s), organization, and budget.
It's so convenient to paint things in black and white. Either management are incurably ignorant, hence nothing will save them, or they are devine oracles, and they already know everything. The ignorant are too stupid to learn, the wise already know everything, therefore learning new things is pointless.
There's nothing in your reasoning that precludes it from generalising to all fields, and allowing us to reach the absurd conclusion that noone needs to read.
I can understand the folly of touting a book or methodology as an instant cure-all, but in the high tech industry, dismissing new ideas because you think that you already "know it all" is hardly a recipe for success.
speaking for myself, I read just for the sake of reading, because it ultimately improves my skills as a programmer. The idea that a programmer would not bother taking responsibility for improving their own skills is something I find a little shocking. As for the XP book, it's about 200 pages. One should be able to chop thruogh it in a working day.
When people are saying that A sucks, and A+B sucks too, and A+B+C sucks, but A+B+C+D will somehow turn out to be really cool, I think it's normal to be just a little bit skeptical.
I think the XP books, and "refactoring" make it pretty clear that refactoring without unit testing is really just a form of "cowboy coding", it's not really "refactoring" at all.
There are some parts of XP that stand alone (for example, unit testing), and some parts which in isolation compromise quality and need to be tempered by the discipline of unit testing (such as "refactoring")
In conclusion, I'd bet that there are some parts of XP that you could practice and get immediate benefits (like an emphasis on testing), and obviously these should be done first.
I agree that it seems a little odd -- it would probably make more sense if Napster provided the diskspace, then they'd play a similar role to radio stations. But as is, it does seem a little wierd.
Any mode should contain the notes C,D,E,F,G,A,B. Hence any scale should be expressed in terms of
these notes. So for example, C-myxolydian (or F) should contain the notes C,D,E,F,G,A, (A# or Bb).
Since the last note is the seventh, it should be expressed in terms of the seventh note of the original scale (the seventh was modified, but the new scale has the same sixth). So we definitely want that note to be "Bb". OTOH, if we had the scale C,D,E,(F#/Gb), G,A,B, we would want to think of the fourth note as F# (since the original fourth was F)
A similar logic follows when one just uses major scales (translations of C,D,E,F,G,A,B) -- you want to scale to be a sequence of consecutive letters, and to do that, you need to be selective about when something is a sharp and something is a flat. (Sometimes, in extreme cases, it's possible that C could be denoted B#, as in the C# scale)
There _ARE_ runtime optimizers (JIT) as well as native code compilers (GCJ) that allows Java to be executed _FAST_.
Fast enough to compete directly with C++.
JIT makes startup even slower than it is already. I can see how a native code compielr could speed things up, but that sort of defeats the point of being based on a VM (which is what.net is all about). IMO, using a VM is just a bad idea, it's an unnecessary layer of abstraction that slows things down.
One issue that many have raised is the fact that users would be paying to donate hard drive space. It seems that the new model would probably put Napster in a position where they would have to provide the hardware and bandwidth, as users are not going to be terribly enthusiastic about donating to what is a commercial enterprise.
ThE middle-man, thE distributor, thE record industry has now protected their revenue? This means that artists still don't get jack-shit for their 'creative work'?
If they don't, I'd hope that they take some severe industrial action and get the royalties they deserve. Of course if the distributor doesn't get royalties, there's little hope of the artist getting them.
What will I get from Napster when I open up 40 gigs of my mp3's on a oc-3? Nothing...
Sort of raises a tough issue -- why would anyone want to share their disk space ? It seems that the most profitable course of action would be to just leech off everyone else. Of course, it's not the most ethical course of action but those who care about ethics despise napster already.
I don't see why I should be paying the companies for their own advertizing.
Because it's not advertising ? If the companies decide that it's in their best interests to give the stuff away to freeloaders, they'll do it. It's not for you to decide whether or not they should do so.
The problem is that copyrights don't protect a musician's rights. They only protect the rights of large organizations.
Sure they do. The copyrights enable musicians to get royalty payments. During the bebop days, there was a recording strike over royalties. Musicians can and have taken industrial action against record companies, to make sure that the copyright benefits are passed on.
They are not helpless victims as some slashdotters would have us believe.
MP3s (and their successors) can offer musicians the ability to advertise their wares directly, and to sell their productions without submitting themselves to editorial criticism by accountants.
I do not see what is stopping them from using MP3s today, and I see no justification for your implicit assumption that the current copyright system would have to be abolished for artists to distribute their music via MP3. I'm all for artists deciding to give away their music for free, but they should be the ones to decide, as opposed to having the napsterite mob disposses them.
I forgot to add -- during the bop era, a recording strike resulted in a lot of Charlie Parker's great music (as well as that of a lot of other great bop musicians ) never getting recorded. Basically, the artists were getting screwed, and refused to record because of it. The bottom line is that when you start screwing the artists, you inevitably lose some great music.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, you can embed a Klein bottle into spacetime -- 4 dimensions is sufficient, you can for example use the extra dimension to "wiggle" around the self-intersection.
I think the point the poster makes however is thatthe napster mob use the fact that the technology can be abused as a justification for their abuse of it -- there's a prevailing attitude that if you can't stop the napster users, they are in the right. (a classic might-makes right argument that expresses the true mob-mentality of the napsterites) However, in this instance, they are hesitant to apply the same argument to the FBI (namely that they can abuse the technology, therefore they should do so without restraint)
My feeling was that both the major parties ignored young people in their conventions, and exclusively targetted families and seniors, hence we saw some pro-censorship agendas from both sides.
However, I don't really see what vegetarianism has to do with censorship though -- I'm afraid the relevance of that remark escapes me.
But it's also true that the geeky females (the ones that did their homework and didn't date in school -;) tend to end up with the geeky males.
I'm not so sure that it sucks to be clever in high school, but there are certainly some areas of interest that aren't considered cool. For example, if you're interested in things like computer programming and math, you don't stand much of a chance of being considered "cool".
A "refactoring" that requires what Fowler would call "shotgun surgery" lies outside the scope of "normal" refactoring, and should be approached cautiously (and the benefits should be weighed carefully against the consequences.)
How much does the artist get per T-shirt sale ? How much money does the artist make on the concert ? (hint: a lot of artists barely break even, even the big ones). Unless you actually know the answers to these questions (I believe you don't), your comments have no factual basis.
My feeling is that since we 'the consumer' made the industry what it is, we have the right to take it away.
Doesn't take long for the napsterites to start spouting raw communism, does it ? No, you don't have the right to loot. You have the right to buy or not to buy. If you don't like the conduct of the industry, you have every right to boycott and protest, but you don't have the "right" to take anything from anyone.
How many of them support referential integrity (or foreign keys) ? postgres does, but it's quite recent. Access is quite nice for a toy database, but I take your point about it's scalability.
I wouldn't think it'd matter that you have different settings, as long as the actual format of the source produced is the same (if everyone indents differently, it's a PITA). As for the problem with readability, like the other guy says, just use bigger monitors (-; Or for a more pragmatic solution, adjust the font size when you're working with someone who's eyesight isn't as good as yours.
It's so convenient to paint things in black and white. Either management are incurably ignorant, hence nothing will save them, or they are devine oracles, and they already know everything. The ignorant are too stupid to learn, the wise already know everything, therefore learning new things is pointless.
There's nothing in your reasoning that precludes it from generalising to all fields, and allowing us to reach the absurd conclusion that noone needs to read.
I can understand the folly of touting a book or methodology as an instant cure-all, but in the high tech industry, dismissing new ideas because you think that you already "know it all" is hardly a recipe for success.
I think the XP books, and "refactoring" make it pretty clear that refactoring without unit testing is really just a form of "cowboy coding", it's not really "refactoring" at all.
There are some parts of XP that stand alone (for example, unit testing), and some parts which in isolation compromise quality and need to be tempered by the discipline of unit testing (such as "refactoring")
In conclusion, I'd bet that there are some parts of XP that you could practice and get immediate benefits (like an emphasis on testing), and obviously these should be done first.
A similar logic follows when one just uses major scales (translations of C,D,E,F,G,A,B) -- you want to scale to be a sequence of consecutive letters, and to do that, you need to be selective about when something is a sharp and something is a flat. (Sometimes, in extreme cases, it's possible that C could be denoted B#, as in the C# scale)
JIT makes startup even slower than it is already. I can see how a native code compielr could speed things up, but that sort of defeats the point of being based on a VM (which is what .net is all about). IMO, using a VM is just a bad idea, it's an unnecessary layer of abstraction that slows things down.
If they don't, I'd hope that they take some severe industrial action and get the royalties they deserve. Of course if the distributor doesn't get royalties, there's little hope of the artist getting them.
Sort of raises a tough issue -- why would anyone want to share their disk space ? It seems that the most profitable course of action would be to just leech off everyone else. Of course, it's not the most ethical course of action but those who care about ethics despise napster already.
Because it's not advertising ? If the companies decide that it's in their best interests to give the stuff away to freeloaders, they'll do it. It's not for you to decide whether or not they should do so.
Sure they do. The copyrights enable musicians to get royalty payments. During the bebop days, there was a recording strike over royalties. Musicians can and have taken industrial action against record companies, to make sure that the copyright benefits are passed on. They are not helpless victims as some slashdotters would have us believe.
MP3s (and their successors) can offer musicians the ability to advertise their wares directly, and to sell their productions without submitting themselves to editorial criticism by accountants.
I do not see what is stopping them from using MP3s today, and I see no justification for your implicit assumption that the current copyright system would have to be abolished for artists to distribute their music via MP3. I'm all for artists deciding to give away their music for free, but they should be the ones to decide, as opposed to having the napsterite mob disposses them.
I forgot to add -- during the bop era, a recording strike resulted in a lot of Charlie Parker's great music (as well as that of a lot of other great bop musicians ) never getting recorded. Basically, the artists were getting screwed, and refused to record because of it. The bottom line is that when you start screwing the artists, you inevitably lose some great music.