While all that is true, proxy servers cache information to re-transmit and nobody complains about that. Don't my Usenet posts from 1990 implicitly have my copyright on them? Where do you draw the line? I say if you put it out there, you should just live with it and let the chips fall where they may. It's more like archeology than copyright theft...
Yes, I agree that's a possibility. I'm not sure how innocuous it is -- I mean, aren't the book reviews supposed to be impartial? Why don't we just let the authors write them?
Granted this is all largely theoretical as the vast majority (all?) of the reviews on slashdot are crap. They frequently are less informed than the average reader reviews on Amazon...
So I noticed the links at the bottom have a sourceid parameter in them which as I recall, is bn.com's affiliate system. Am I wrong or is this just a blatant cash grab?
Maybe the slashdot editors could pick up the clue stick on this one?
It's more like 2 quater reviews than "two reviews in one". Not even a table of contents? Jesus! Especially since the books have exactly zero to do with each other.
IMHO, Anyone who needs book to figure out Ant should be shot.
I worked at a place where some jackass wasn't backing up the server with the source code repository -- THAT was a big deal. But I don't consider losing 6 years worth of email any great loss. Was the stuff from 6 years ago really that important?
Only by losing everything are we free to do anything. -- Tyler Durden
I would set up the system so that people can make it work and tell people clearly how to use it (as some have said, setting "My Documents" to be on a server is a good idea). From that point on, it's darwinism -- those who don't care (like me) or can't grok it will lost data and those who do can save themselves.
It's a Nice Thing than Mozilla goes on dropping new releases after 1.0, because the release often approach of free software brings new features quite often.
Microsoft does the same thing -- everytime someone publishes a security hole...
Auctions favour the seller when the item is in high demand or they can create the illusion that the item is in higher demand. Provided there is more than one interested buyer, the item will always be sold to the party with the highest estimate of the value. See "The winner's curse" by Thaler (You might want to find it used some place though...)
I wouldn't bid without seeing a picture of the guy. 6 ft and 230 lbs might sound good but then you pay and he's only 5'7 and 150 lbs! And shipping isn't included...
As things stand, most acts (big name and otherwise) don't get paid much / anything for CD sales (Dixie Chicks and Courtney Love have both made this claim pretty loudly). Basically, they make money off of the concert tours and t-shirts / lunchboxes (which they also don't get a huge share of but that's another story).
Now if they could just do something about Ticketmaster and the toilet "facilities" at most concerts we'd all be a little better off.
Does anyone think that if china "loses control" of the Internet, they will just shut it down or (rather than filtering what you can't see) have extremely strict control on what you can?
It's true that a gas station has a much more limited # of cards so the overall fraud is smaller. But that's the credit card companies problem (who, for there own crap security, get whatever they deserve). So if you get my number then it matters to me. And since you probably give your card to many more insecure physical merchants than insecure electronic merchants, your net risk from the former is higher than the net risk of the latter. It's like air safety. Airplane crashes kill many fewer people than car crashes but when they do, it makes a big explosion (and kills a bunch of people).
All I'm saying is people tend to respond to specific threats while ignoring other threats which have become common.
Merchants are required to keep accounting records of this sort of thing for 7 years.
However, does this information need to be stored online? No!
Whenever people talk about credit card security I always snort derisively... check out the "secure storage" of credit card information at the local gas station or the restaurant. It's secured with a shoebox for the most part.
The accuracy of people self-reporting in Market research is a whole other kettle of fish. As someone said, the respondants are self selecting. Most of the market research reports I have seen just give percentages without errors -- usually because they either don't know or because the standard deviation is so high as to not be useful. It's very difficult to (truthfully) come up with a +/- for how many people lie or a self-deluding. It's the same reasoning behind why the weather forecast doesn't have a standard deviation given.
the majority of banner ads are seen by people who are among the more intelligent and the more intelligent you are, the less succeptible to ads you are
I don't know if it's intelligence -- some people just seem to be more susceptible, I think it's just an ability to filter clutter. Coma patients probably don't respond much either! But I agree, Miss Cleo ads only seem to work on a certain segment of the population.
My point is that it's not that scientific -- they just throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Infomercials and datelines are shown in the middle of the night because it's cheaper to advertise then. I imagine for alot of things, they just put on a bunch of ads during primetime and hope for the best.
Advertising is full of lots of lame "rules of thumb" like "Old people are set in their ways so they don't buy things" or "People in Europe don't buy things during summer". Advertising is about as much science as economics is -- the dismal science.
Yeah, but it's not a closed system. Sales go up (and down) for lots of different reasons. How do you know what caused it? # of clicks on your website after you run the ad?
The advertising world is rapidly approaching the point when they are going to have to realize that TV ads are not >>nearly as effective as they thought they were. The reason people think (or rather know) that banner ads are ineffective is because you can measure it. There's no such technology for TV ads but between people getting up to pee, fast forwarding their VCR's or just tuning out in general -- I submit that they are grossly ineffective (especially for the price paid). An entire industry (Neilson, Ad agencies, the networks) has sprung up to propagate this lie, but that doesn't make it anymore true.
Like I said, I haven't read the book yet so I am reserving my judgement. But I haven't heard ANYBODY mention ANY interesting results or derivations done in the book, just handwaving about how great and interesting Cellular Automata are and how simple rulesets can have complex emergent behavior (this has been known for years and people have been working on such models for quite a few years now).
Well I think the book has not sunk in yet (one way or the other) since I doubt anyone has read and understood it fully yet (my copy is still in delivery -- damn UPS!). I agree -- pretty pictures do not science make and his work must be able to make predictions at least as accurately (and most likely more) than the current methodology. OTOH, I remember my 4th year non-linear physics course being a total joke (including a whole bunch of "look at this pretty picture"). Part of the reason I am so interested in this area is because pertubative solutions to non-linear differential equations (for the weather etc) has been such a resounding failure in prediction and in explanatory power.
Wiles did present the paper, then the errors were found but by the collegue he had checking it. But the idea of the proof was correct. I never stated that peer review was bad, just that in certain circumstances, revolutionary result require unconventional methods.
And Wolfram may not have submitted to Peer reviewed journals (as Newton did not) but he did communicate the work to collegues and friends (see here).
Newton went away for a year due to the plague, I believe. And yes, that was when he began Principia. But he spent most of his creative years at Cambridge, where he would have been under constant peer review (not that he had any peers).
Wiles maintained connections with his mathematical colleagues, and used the work of others to arrive at his proof of the Shimura-Taniyama conjecture Nobody said that Wolfram didn't use the work of others -- the claim is that he did not allow others to see his work until it was done. Wiles worker for 6-7 years without acknowledging to anyone what he was working on.
I don't know what you consider Heisenbergs "best work" but I would say it is the wave / particle duality. This work was done as a PhD student but was highly unpopular and he worked (to some degree in isolation).
Now I'm not saying the guy isn't crazy as a loon but alot of the "revolutionary" work in physics has been done outside of the academic world (which tends to be better for incremental improvement). Anytime something requires true leaps, working on your own has advantages:
Newton Wiles (Fermat's Last Theorem Proof) Galileo Heisenberg Many others
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, a decent slashdot book review.
While all that is true, proxy servers cache information to re-transmit and nobody complains about that. Don't my Usenet posts from 1990 implicitly have my copyright on them? Where do you draw the line? I say if you put it out there, you should just live with it and let the chips fall where they may. It's more like archeology than copyright theft...
Real Estate with no money down!
Book reviews on Slashdot have hit a new low...
Yes, I agree that's a possibility. I'm not sure how innocuous it is -- I mean, aren't the book reviews supposed to be impartial? Why don't we just let the authors write them?
Granted this is all largely theoretical as the vast majority (all?) of the reviews on slashdot are crap. They frequently are less informed than the average reader reviews on Amazon...
So I noticed the links at the bottom have a sourceid parameter in them which as I recall, is bn.com's affiliate system. Am I wrong or is this just a blatant cash grab?
Maybe the slashdot editors could pick up the clue stick on this one?
It's more like 2 quater reviews than "two reviews in one". Not even a table of contents? Jesus! Especially since the books have exactly zero to do with each other.
IMHO, Anyone who needs book to figure out Ant should be shot.
I worked at a place where some jackass wasn't backing up the server with the source code repository -- THAT was a big deal. But I don't consider losing 6 years worth of email any great loss. Was the stuff from 6 years ago really that important?
Only by losing everything are we free to do anything. -- Tyler Durden
I would set up the system so that people can make it work and tell people clearly how to use it (as some have said, setting "My Documents" to be on a server is a good idea). From that point on, it's darwinism -- those who don't care (like me) or can't grok it will lost data and those who do can save themselves.
It's a Nice Thing than Mozilla goes on dropping new releases after 1.0, because the release often approach of free software brings new features quite often.
Microsoft does the same thing -- everytime someone publishes a security hole...
Auctions favour the seller when the item is in high demand or they can create the illusion that the item is in higher demand. Provided there is more than one interested buyer, the item will always be sold to the party with the highest estimate of the value. See "The winner's curse" by Thaler (You might want to find it used some place though...)
I wouldn't bid without seeing a picture of the guy. 6 ft and 230 lbs might sound good but then you pay and he's only 5'7 and 150 lbs! And shipping isn't included...
That guy...
As things stand, most acts (big name and otherwise) don't get paid much / anything for CD sales (Dixie Chicks and Courtney Love have both made this claim pretty loudly). Basically, they make money off of the concert tours and t-shirts / lunchboxes (which they also don't get a huge share of but that's another story).
Now if they could just do something about Ticketmaster and the toilet "facilities" at most concerts we'd all be a little better off.
Does anyone think that if china "loses control" of the Internet, they will just shut it down or (rather than filtering what you can't see) have extremely strict control on what you can?
It's true that a gas station has a much more limited # of cards so the overall fraud is smaller. But that's the credit card companies problem (who, for there own crap security, get whatever they deserve). So if you get my number then it matters to me. And since you probably give your card to many more insecure physical merchants than insecure electronic merchants, your net risk from the former is higher than the net risk of the latter. It's like air safety. Airplane crashes kill many fewer people than car crashes but when they do, it makes a big explosion (and kills a bunch of people).
All I'm saying is people tend to respond to specific threats while ignoring other threats which have become common.
Merchants are required to keep accounting records of this sort of thing for 7 years.
... check out the "secure storage" of credit card information at the local gas station or the restaurant. It's secured with a shoebox for the most part.
However, does this information need to be stored online? No!
Whenever people talk about credit card security I always snort derisively
- acoustic couplers
- demon dialing
- connections dropping in the middle of your 57k Xmodem download
- All those modem connect noises
Bah! I don't miss it at all...All those email addresses in spam friendly format! Just think of the fun!
I recall this thing on the Discovery channel that was an interview with a senior guy from Area 51 -- I didn't believe that either.
The accuracy of people self-reporting in Market research is a whole other kettle of fish. As someone said, the respondants are self selecting. Most of the market research reports I have seen just give percentages without errors -- usually because they either don't know or because the standard deviation is so high as to not be useful. It's very difficult to (truthfully) come up with a +/- for how many people lie or a self-deluding. It's the same reasoning behind why the weather forecast doesn't have a standard deviation given.
the majority of banner ads are seen by people who are among the more intelligent
and the more intelligent you are, the less succeptible to ads you are
I don't know if it's intelligence -- some people just seem to be more susceptible, I think it's just an ability to filter clutter. Coma patients probably don't respond much either! But I agree, Miss Cleo ads only seem to work on a certain segment of the population.
My point is that it's not that scientific -- they just throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Infomercials and datelines are shown in the middle of the night because it's cheaper to advertise then. I imagine for alot of things, they just put on a bunch of ads during primetime and hope for the best.
Advertising is full of lots of lame "rules of thumb" like "Old people are set in their ways so they don't buy things" or "People in Europe don't buy things during summer". Advertising is about as much science as economics is -- the dismal science.
Yeah, but it's not a closed system. Sales go up (and down) for lots of different reasons. How do you know what caused it? # of clicks on your website after you run the ad?
The advertising world is rapidly approaching the point when they are going to have to realize that TV ads are not >>nearly as effective as they thought they were. The reason people think (or rather know) that banner ads are ineffective is because you can measure it. There's no such technology for TV ads but between people getting up to pee, fast forwarding their VCR's or just tuning out in general -- I submit that they are grossly ineffective (especially for the price paid). An entire industry (Neilson, Ad agencies, the networks) has sprung up to propagate this lie, but that doesn't make it anymore true.
Like I said, I haven't read the book yet so I am reserving my judgement. But I haven't heard ANYBODY mention ANY interesting results or derivations done in the book, just handwaving about how great and interesting Cellular Automata are and how simple rulesets can have complex emergent behavior (this has been known for years and people have been working on such models for quite a few years now).
Well I think the book has not sunk in yet (one way or the other) since I doubt anyone has read and understood it fully yet (my copy is still in delivery -- damn UPS!). I agree -- pretty pictures do not science make and his work must be able to make predictions at least as accurately (and most likely more) than the current methodology. OTOH, I remember my 4th year non-linear physics course being a total joke (including a whole bunch of "look at this pretty picture"). Part of the reason I am so interested in this area is because pertubative solutions to non-linear differential equations (for the weather etc) has been such a resounding failure in prediction and in explanatory power.
Wiles did present the paper, then the errors were found but by the collegue he had checking it. But the idea of the proof was correct. I never stated that peer review was bad, just that in certain circumstances, revolutionary result require unconventional methods.
And Wolfram may not have submitted to Peer reviewed journals (as Newton did not) but he did communicate the work to collegues and friends (see here).
Newton went away for a year due to the plague, I believe. And yes, that was when he began Principia. But he spent most of his creative years at Cambridge, where he would have been under constant peer review (not that he had any peers).
Newton's models of Optics (oh yeah that thing) was not publicly released for years as was his development of calculus.
Wiles maintained connections with his mathematical colleagues, and used the work of others to arrive at his proof of the Shimura-Taniyama conjecture
Nobody said that Wolfram didn't use the work of others -- the claim is that he did not allow others to see his work until it was done. Wiles worker for 6-7 years without acknowledging to anyone what he was working on.
I don't know what you consider Heisenbergs "best work" but I would say it is the wave / particle duality. This work was done as a PhD student but was highly unpopular and he worked (to some degree in isolation).
Now I'm not saying the guy isn't crazy as a loon but alot of the "revolutionary" work in physics has been done outside of the academic world (which tends to be better for incremental improvement). Anytime something requires true leaps, working on your own has advantages:
Newton
Wiles (Fermat's Last Theorem Proof)
Galileo
Heisenberg
Many others
OTOH, to this list you could also add
UNABomber
Many others