Re:Murphy's Law
on
Earth Sandwich
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
They did the buttered toast thing on Mythbusters.
Yeah, they completely botched the job.
Their final experiment involved dropping a vertically-held slice of bread from the roof of their building. This is a great set-up--if you routinely eat your breakfast toast on the roof of a warehouse.
Strangely, they actually built the perfect apparatus for testing Murphy's Law, if memory serves designed by Adam, but for some reason didn't use it for the final test. This set-up involved the slice of bread on a table top, pushed slowly over the edge until it was far enough off to tumble down.
Scientific American had an in depth article on Murphy's Law about 7 years ago. It was basically proved the toast-landing-butter-side-down phenomenon was tied to the fundamental constants of the universe, and for any bipedal species evolving on any planet, toast will always tend to land top-side down. The only way around it is to butter the bottom of your toast.
Maybe not. Bill gets challenged in court. Bill gets ruled unconstitutional. Judge issues ruling on bill. Lobbyists now have blueprint for what needs to be changed to make bill good.
Think death penalty. I wouldn't expect a ruling, 'you can't restrict the sale of video games ever, in any way, don't even think about it, ain't gonna happen.' I would expect a ruling, 'this phrase in this section of the bill is too vague in regards to free speech protection and restriction of commerce.'
Then the next version of the bill addresses those specific issues while achieving as much of the original goals as possible. I would consider this type of bill even making it all the way to court a lost battle. Not a lost war, but a lost battle.
This is a state law that applies to Louisiana only; it has absolutely no bearing on how Florida or any other state but Louisiana deals with violent video games.
That's not entirely true. Legally state law only applies to that state--although there are exceptions to that rule as well.
Politically, state law can affect other states in a couple of ways. First, politicians are always playing 'keep up with the Joneses.' If poll numbers go up for legislators in La. or a borderline incumbent gets reelected after campaigning on 'save our children from evil video games' you bet your sweet ass that will have a bearing on how other states deal with video games.
Also, politicians are lazy farks. Why do think they pass laws written by lobbyists? La. has a bill demonstrated to be passable. You think every other state considering a law on the same material is going to reinvent the wheel? Heck no! You can probably already buy a copy of this law at Office Depot--all you need to do is fill in the name of your state.
Now legally, a law like this can have great bearing on how other states deal with violent video games. Let's say there is a legal challenge to this new law in La. Whatever the outcome of that suit, again other states will use that information in forming their own laws. If it get's thrown out, expect the lobbyists to study the ruling closely to determine exactly what version of the same law would stand up in court. Think dealth penalty.
As a European I find the article rather America-centric.
Yes, We USAans are self-centered, self-absorbed, and generally think very highly of ourselves. Just like those in the European countries many of us came from.
In the realm of international relations, how many countries are riding the coat tails of long dead empires? Why should any outside of France have any care for what goes on inside of France? And what about the English? They're guilty more than anyone. Okay, at one time the UK was a big deal, but that time is over. Is Britain really a significant economic, political, or military power anymore? Certainly not to the extent you think of yourselves.
For a European to raise the charge of 'America-centric' seems the height of 'it takes one to know one.' I don't deny the charge, but when you point one finger at me, you have three pointing back at yourself.
Is Barlow trying to say that piracy is as bad as wanting to kill all the Jews, or is he saying that piracy and Hezbolla are both driven by idealism: one want free movies, and the other wants to kill all the Jews, and neither is that bad?
Hmmmm, Hollywood is run by Jews. He might be on to something there.
Currently in the US of A, being a terrorist means you have no rights. You can be a US citizen, arrested on US soil, for alleged acts committed in the US, and have none of the ordinary rights 'guaranteed' to someone in that situation.
You can be put in civilian prison, or a military prison, or sent to Gitmo, or sent overseas. You have no rights. You don't get a lawyer; you don't get a phone call. You don't even get a trial. You can be held for YEARS without the government even admitting you are being held.
You can be tortured. No interrogation technique is off limits.
You won't get to question witnesses or review the evidence against you. If you do happen to get a trial or hearing, the government can submit 'classified' evidence you won't know about. And the judges will assume all government evidence is true until you can prove otherwise. (How do you prove something you don't even know about is untrue? Well, that's your problem.)
And if that's how the US treats its own citizens--registered voters even!--think what we might do to the rest of the world.
So, if you've ever downloaded a movie or CD in a situation of any questionable legality, or used any kind of hack or work-around to perform any sort of replication of a DVD or CD, attempted to play a DVD on linux, even if you think your actions were covered under fair use, Barlow just said all the above should apply to you.
I know this analogy doesn't apply to digital media, but it might.
It should apply, but doesn't. And it's the _MPAA_ making sure it doesn't.
Sure, you can say stealing a movie is steeling like stealing a car is steeling. But if I buy a car, it's mine. I can trick it out with phat rims and ground effects and fuzzy dice. It's mine. Does the MPAA agree I can re-edit a movie for person use when I buy a DVD?
And I can resell a car. Whole or in parts. Until the MPAA agrees I should be able to resell the audio and video from a DVD separately like I can sell a car for parts, then such analogies are false.
Barlow views it as a flattering bit of analogy and it never occurred to him that anyone else wouldn't.
Then perhaps it is time for him to stop speaking publicly.
It's as flattering an analogy as saying a DVD is like a child, and someone who wants to play that DVD on a computer running linux is like a pedophile who wants to have sex with that child.
No longer will copiers of electronic media be referred to as 'pirates'. They are now to be escalated to terrorists.
For those that didn't RTFA, the comparison to terrorists didn't come from the MPAA guy.
JPB: These are aging industries run by aging men, and they're up against 17-year-olds who have turned themselves into electronic Hezbollah because they resent the content industry for its proprietary practices. And I don't have a question about who's going to win that one eventually.
I'm generally a Barlow fan, but that's some of the most poorestly chosen words in the history of language. Just what the MPAA, RIAA, et al. and their paid governement servants need, a little more help getting the little guy who just wants a backup copy of a movie sent to Gitmo.
Well, I did a search at Amazon for this book by ISBN and got this.
I did the same search at B&N.com and got the page for this book. Can't buy what I can't find.
WTF is a "theoraticians"
on
The Art of SQL
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
And who modded that comment Insightful? Come on folks, it's garbage.
Point is nothing is really transferable
So they seasoned pro with 15-years relational database experience who hasn't worked with new SQL-X is just as good as someone with no db experience on any platform? And when SQL-X 2.0 comes out, all those so-called experts, with their knowledge of SQL-X 1.9 are going to be useless, right? After all, "nothing is really transferable."
EVERYTHING is transferable. That is, everything you've actually learned, everything you understand. If you're just mashing buttons, yeah, you might be a little lost when the buttons change. When telephones changed from rotary dial to push buttons, some people were still able to make calls. If course the basic syntax changed, and knuckle-draggers like the folks who modded the parent comment Insightful were SOL. But most folks who had some ideas about the THEORY of the telephone--that the little spinning disk on the phone didn't make the actual call but rather transferred information, and the buttons were just a new way of transferring the same information--adapted and moved on.
The fact that a computer even let such a concept be typed and communicated gives me hope for the day when machines rule the Earth, that they just might have enough of a sense of humor, or pity, to allow us humans to remain in their midst.
Re:Useless to all but theoraticians
on
The Art of SQL
·
· Score: 1
This book might be good for THEORY, but for actually getting useful and applicable information, the review leaves me wondering who would be a worthwhile reader.
I guess you skipped all the threads about computer science vs. programming and uni degrees vs a tech certificate.
Specifically regarding 'the best way to do x,' that may depend to a certain extent on the specifics of the platform at hand, but why do x? What do you hope to achieve? What are the desired results? Why not do y? If your thinking hasn't progressed past "basic syntax" you're not a hacker, you're a button pusher. Bang on your keyboard, you might as well be pounding rocks into gravel.
This book might be good for THEORY, but for actually getting useful and applicable information...
What do you think "useful and applicable information" is?? Think about driving a car. (*ducks* Yeah, the car analogies are played out.) The specifics of each make and model--the dashboard layouts, placement of controls--are your "basic syntax." These details are not the things you really need to know in order to learn how to drive. The THEORY of driving--concepts of acceleration, braking, steering--are the things you need to know BEFORE you can make proper use of the "basic syntax."
The reader for whom this book would be a worthwhile read is the person with an understanding that theory IS useful and applicable information.
What about the investors who agreed to pay 17 dollars for something worth twelve and didn't back out of the deal? I'm pretty sure the perception of a fair market offering is important to these people.
Well, umm, no again. Perception may be important to people who bought in at $17, but reality should be more important.
Vonage selling more shares, at any price, will increase supply. Unless demand increases by a corresponding amount (or greater) the share price will go down. Holding other buyers to a commitment to buy shares at $17 may make current holders feel better, but it won't help increase the value of their shares.
The more shares Vonage sells for $17, the more money it makes, and the more valuable it is as company, which should mean the shares go up. Good for investors, good for potential shareholders.
Ummm....no.
There's something called supply and demand. At $17, the supply of the stock was greater than the demand. Hence the price fell. By pushing these sales, Vonage is foisting more supply on a market with already week demand.
The people who buy stock through this program don't sound like the buy-and-hold type. Yes, some hold the stock in hopes it might some day return to the IPO price, but many will dump it and cut their losses. Which will again raise supply and drop the price.
If the plan is to help the stock price go up, rather than increase supply, Vonage should buy back stock. Such a move would decrease supply of shares in the market and send a message of confidence.
Right now it sounds like Vonage doesn't think shares will top the IPO price for a long time. If I sell you something for $17, and you never show up to complete the deal, and it turns out to be worth $12, I'm out $5. If I make the same sale, and you back out, and something turns out to be worth more then $17, then I'm not going to make much of a fuss.
Bottom line, at this point pushing sales at the IPO price is good for one group--VC who are using the IPO to cash out and get out of the Vonage business. They want max money now and don't care what happens tomorrow. If you have any continuing relationship with Vonage, then it is a bad idea.
If you are already in bed with IBM, stay there for now and if you are a Microsoft Slave(tm) buy their stuff without question. If you haven't picked yet you should probably buy Microsoft because IBM costs more (it does) and trained monkeys can operate it (the stock excuse for buying any of Microsoft's junk) and anyway, we all know Microsoft always crushes all opponents so skilled Lotus people are going to be rare exotic creatures (read expensive) in the future. But whatever you do, DO NOT look over at those free offerings, they will only lead you from the One True Path, paying out the ass for licenses and consultants.
What if I cut the monkey training budget so my stock would go up one quarter of one percent?
-Steve: I've read that the iPod nano scratches very easily, and that some of the early batches had screens that spontaneously break.
-Bill: I know about it, our hired-goons are already working their way across the country, breaking into homes and scratching nanos... but we need something bigger, we don't have a choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Their final experiment involved dropping a vertically-held slice of bread from the roof of their building. This is a great set-up--if you routinely eat your breakfast toast on the roof of a warehouse.
Strangely, they actually built the perfect apparatus for testing Murphy's Law, if memory serves designed by Adam, but for some reason didn't use it for the final test. This set-up involved the slice of bread on a table top, pushed slowly over the edge until it was far enough off to tumble down.
Scientific American had an in depth article on Murphy's Law about 7 years ago. It was basically proved the toast-landing-butter-side-down phenomenon was tied to the fundamental constants of the universe, and for any bipedal species evolving on any planet, toast will always tend to land top-side down. The only way around it is to butter the bottom of your toast.
Or move to another universe.
That's using the internet to transmit gambling information.
Maybe not. Bill gets challenged in court. Bill gets ruled unconstitutional. Judge issues ruling on bill. Lobbyists now have blueprint for what needs to be changed to make bill good.
Think death penalty. I wouldn't expect a ruling, 'you can't restrict the sale of video games ever, in any way, don't even think about it, ain't gonna happen.' I would expect a ruling, 'this phrase in this section of the bill is too vague in regards to free speech protection and restriction of commerce.'
Then the next version of the bill addresses those specific issues while achieving as much of the original goals as possible. I would consider this type of bill even making it all the way to court a lost battle. Not a lost war, but a lost battle.
Politically, state law can affect other states in a couple of ways. First, politicians are always playing 'keep up with the Joneses.' If poll numbers go up for legislators in La. or a borderline incumbent gets reelected after campaigning on 'save our children from evil video games' you bet your sweet ass that will have a bearing on how other states deal with video games.
Also, politicians are lazy farks. Why do think they pass laws written by lobbyists? La. has a bill demonstrated to be passable. You think every other state considering a law on the same material is going to reinvent the wheel? Heck no! You can probably already buy a copy of this law at Office Depot--all you need to do is fill in the name of your state.
Now legally, a law like this can have great bearing on how other states deal with violent video games. Let's say there is a legal challenge to this new law in La. Whatever the outcome of that suit, again other states will use that information in forming their own laws. If it get's thrown out, expect the lobbyists to study the ruling closely to determine exactly what version of the same law would stand up in court. Think dealth penalty.
Each projector covers a hemisphere.
Yes, We USAans are self-centered, self-absorbed, and generally think very highly of ourselves. Just like those in the European countries many of us came from.
In the realm of international relations, how many countries are riding the coat tails of long dead empires? Why should any outside of France have any care for what goes on inside of France? And what about the English? They're guilty more than anyone. Okay, at one time the UK was a big deal, but that time is over. Is Britain really a significant economic, political, or military power anymore? Certainly not to the extent you think of yourselves.
For a European to raise the charge of 'America-centric' seems the height of 'it takes one to know one.' I don't deny the charge, but when you point one finger at me, you have three pointing back at yourself.
Hmmmm, Hollywood is run by Jews. He might be on to something there.
I wasn't trying to be funny.
Currently in the US of A, being a terrorist means you have no rights. You can be a US citizen, arrested on US soil, for alleged acts committed in the US, and have none of the ordinary rights 'guaranteed' to someone in that situation.
You can be put in civilian prison, or a military prison, or sent to Gitmo, or sent overseas. You have no rights. You don't get a lawyer; you don't get a phone call. You don't even get a trial. You can be held for YEARS without the government even admitting you are being held.
You can be tortured. No interrogation technique is off limits.
You won't get to question witnesses or review the evidence against you. If you do happen to get a trial or hearing, the government can submit 'classified' evidence you won't know about. And the judges will assume all government evidence is true until you can prove otherwise. (How do you prove something you don't even know about is untrue? Well, that's your problem.)
And if that's how the US treats its own citizens--registered voters even!--think what we might do to the rest of the world.
So, if you've ever downloaded a movie or CD in a situation of any questionable legality, or used any kind of hack or work-around to perform any sort of replication of a DVD or CD, attempted to play a DVD on linux, even if you think your actions were covered under fair use, Barlow just said all the above should apply to you.
I'm not laughing.
It should apply, but doesn't. And it's the _MPAA_ making sure it doesn't.
Sure, you can say stealing a movie is steeling like stealing a car is steeling. But if I buy a car, it's mine. I can trick it out with phat rims and ground effects and fuzzy dice. It's mine. Does the MPAA agree I can re-edit a movie for person use when I buy a DVD?
And I can resell a car. Whole or in parts. Until the MPAA agrees I should be able to resell the audio and video from a DVD separately like I can sell a car for parts, then such analogies are false.
D'oh!
Then perhaps it is time for him to stop speaking publicly.
It's as flattering an analogy as saying a DVD is like a child, and someone who wants to play that DVD on a computer running linux is like a pedophile who wants to have sex with that child.
Two members current at time of death (or 3. Had Pigpen left the group?) And 2 (3?) previous members. Either way, the total is 5, fyi.
I'm generally a Barlow fan, but that's some of the most poorestly chosen words in the history of language. Just what the MPAA, RIAA, et al. and their paid governement servants need, a little more help getting the little guy who just wants a backup copy of a movie sent to Gitmo.
I did the same search at B&N.com and got the page for this book. Can't buy what I can't find.
EVERYTHING is transferable. That is, everything you've actually learned, everything you understand. If you're just mashing buttons, yeah, you might be a little lost when the buttons change. When telephones changed from rotary dial to push buttons, some people were still able to make calls. If course the basic syntax changed, and knuckle-draggers like the folks who modded the parent comment Insightful were SOL. But most folks who had some ideas about the THEORY of the telephone--that the little spinning disk on the phone didn't make the actual call but rather transferred information, and the buttons were just a new way of transferring the same information--adapted and moved on.
The fact that a computer even let such a concept be typed and communicated gives me hope for the day when machines rule the Earth, that they just might have enough of a sense of humor, or pity, to allow us humans to remain in their midst.
I guess you skipped all the threads about computer science vs. programming and uni degrees vs a tech certificate.
Specifically regarding 'the best way to do x,' that may depend to a certain extent on the specifics of the platform at hand, but why do x? What do you hope to achieve? What are the desired results? Why not do y? If your thinking hasn't progressed past "basic syntax" you're not a hacker, you're a button pusher. Bang on your keyboard, you might as well be pounding rocks into gravel.
This book might be good for THEORY, but for actually getting useful and applicable information...
What do you think "useful and applicable information" is?? Think about driving a car. (*ducks* Yeah, the car analogies are played out.) The specifics of each make and model--the dashboard layouts, placement of controls--are your "basic syntax." These details are not the things you really need to know in order to learn how to drive. The THEORY of driving--concepts of acceleration, braking, steering--are the things you need to know BEFORE you can make proper use of the "basic syntax."
The reader for whom this book would be a worthwhile read is the person with an understanding that theory IS useful and applicable information.
Well, umm, no again. Perception may be important to people who bought in at $17, but reality should be more important.
Vonage selling more shares, at any price, will increase supply. Unless demand increases by a corresponding amount (or greater) the share price will go down. Holding other buyers to a commitment to buy shares at $17 may make current holders feel better, but it won't help increase the value of their shares.
Ummm....no.
There's something called supply and demand. At $17, the supply of the stock was greater than the demand. Hence the price fell. By pushing these sales, Vonage is foisting more supply on a market with already week demand.
The people who buy stock through this program don't sound like the buy-and-hold type. Yes, some hold the stock in hopes it might some day return to the IPO price, but many will dump it and cut their losses. Which will again raise supply and drop the price.
If the plan is to help the stock price go up, rather than increase supply, Vonage should buy back stock. Such a move would decrease supply of shares in the market and send a message of confidence.
Right now it sounds like Vonage doesn't think shares will top the IPO price for a long time. If I sell you something for $17, and you never show up to complete the deal, and it turns out to be worth $12, I'm out $5. If I make the same sale, and you back out, and something turns out to be worth more then $17, then I'm not going to make much of a fuss.
Bottom line, at this point pushing sales at the IPO price is good for one group--VC who are using the IPO to cash out and get out of the Vonage business. They want max money now and don't care what happens tomorrow. If you have any continuing relationship with Vonage, then it is a bad idea.
Opps. Sorry, that's Barter-Town.
What about rebroadcast with inmplied oral consent?
Or is that only in international waters?
What if I cut the monkey training budget so my stock would go up one quarter of one percent?
I say we go with Ghandi II.
"Give me a steak. Medium rare."
-Bill: I know about it, our hired-goons are already working their way across the country, breaking into homes and scratching nanos... but we need something bigger, we don't have a choice.
There, fixed that for ya.
"D'oh!"