What praytell is preventing them from starting their own Amazons?.
The major publishing houses, freedom of speech and a billionaire who knows how to conduct business in the countries with the highest corporate tax on the planet.
Not a customs issue. It is a copyright issue which will prevent you from reselling items you own (therefore superseding your "right to first sale").
You assume too much. For the record I worked in an airport with two major carriers (one of which is International and services Europe and Asia). If I buy a textbook in London, I can bury it in my checked bags and it will make it. If choose to not inform customs, thats on me as I am an American and both Customs and TSA have better things to do than care about my paper text book. At best they will make sure its not a bomb. Once I leave the airport, I can actually do as I please with it include selling provided I don't use: social media or the public internet. (TSA cares more about cheese than books. Cheese looks like C4 on x-ray)
Copyright issues don't stop anything. They aren't a wall that you hit and its hurts. They are at best the ink-pack on a bundle of 100s the teller tosses in you rob a back, Over 50% nothing happens.
The problem is people are stupid and do stupid things. Like make it obvious they are engaging in illegal activity.
Movies, Magazines and Hell the whole underworld is the corrupt seedy part of Japanese culture. Kudos to Amazon for trying to poke it hard. My right to first sale IS absolute provided that it remains known only to me and the buyer. Not the middle men and snoopers in the govt
Ahahahahahahahahahaha.
Um DSL (digital subscriber line) uses twisted copper. You are lucky of you pull 20M. You should only be able to get a max of 13. Thats why you can't get Netflix.
Centurylink is pissed because it can't make money on an dying 1980s technology. No one should be on DSL anymore.
no they don't. There isn't the same equivalent of the US first amendant anywhere on the planet. Why? Knowledge is power. And to be correct. The founding fathers were all wealthy individuals. They didn't want anyone other than land owners to vote. Do you know how many people that would eliminate today?
City Protective Services (CPS) law enforcement officer Kiera Cameron (Rachel Nichols) lives a quiet, normal life with her husband and son in 2077-era Vancouver. Under the corporatocratic and oligarchic dystopia of the North American Union and its "Corporate Congress", life goes on in apparent freedom under a technologically-advanced high-surveillance police state.
When a group of self-proclaimed freedom fighters known as "Liber8" escape execution by fleeing to the year 2012, Kiera is involuntarily transported with them into the past. Joining with Detective Carlos Fonnegra (Victor Webster) and the Vancouver Police Department, and enlisting the help of teen computer genius Alec Sadler (Erik Knudsen), Kiera works to track down and thwart Edouard Kagame (Tony Amendola) and his followers in the present day while concealing her identity as a time-traveler from the future.
we all know how certain places censor everything. This is why the MPAA and RIAA need to put on a leash at the least because that story above is our future if we don't. And we need no map of the dark censor laden areas of the world to do it.
I agree. I am a big fan of Musk and SpaceX but there is no chance in hell that SpaceX would be developing these systems without self-destruct capability. Might as well praise Google for ensuring their self-driving cars have brakes.
Google has been developing the world’s first driverless car, though their efforts have been restrained by being forced to add a steering wheel and pedals. Originally, the concept of the car was to be able to drive itself, leaving the person in control of nothing, but a single button to begin their route. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in California has ruled that drivers must have the ability to take control of the vehicle in case the software malfunctions, there is an accident, or an emergency situation presents itself.
Dmitri Dolgov, the lead software engineer of this project, admitted that their technology was not perfect, and the cars had the habit of sometimes going over the speed limit. He explained this by stating the driverless cars had the ability to go 10 mph over the speed limit, as opposed to sticking to it to keep up with traffic. Dolgov’s reasoning behind the cars’ ability to exceed the speed limit was to keep up with the traffic, when it is speeding and avoid road rage or cause obstructions in the road.
Deceleration was the braking mechanism Google chose to use.
Nice pun asshole. Challenger had no ejection system. NASA considered in infeasible to provide ejection capability for 7 people. The commander and pilot could have had an ejection seat system, but the idea of having two crew members escape while the other 5 are left to die was (rightly) unpalatable.
Because Having 7 die was so much better as proven when Columbia exploded on return. NASA was greedy and lazy.
This really moves SpaceX up in my estimation as well. Until now, I pictured private space flight as focusing only on making profits, not sacrificing dollars in order to protect people around them. Maybe the privatization of space flight has a future after all!
Uhhh, yeah, let me know how well the PR monkey handles explaining to the general public that your loved ones aboard their dream vacation to space were blown up on purpose as a safety measure.
Good luck with that shit.
Funny thing is that your statement is modded negative 1. So obviously no one will give a flying squirrel.
Um, I gather you are incapable of reading machine code then. Yes source codes are patented. But just like a person who doesn't understand how electricity and electronics works, if you can't read the code and deduce from reading alone function you are no threat. So yes the statement is true. Its just that there are few people who can do that as they they work in that industry.
Sure, in an imaginary world where the graceful and faithful elephant works freakishly hard to make the ants live happy lives even though the ants are so tiny to imagine what this great elephant looks like or means to them. The ants who hate the elephant drown themselves in puddles of water, and we the outsider look at these drowning ants in this imaginary world and think "these ungratefully stupid ants deserve to be eliminated by natural selection." And the elephant looks at us and say "if we can save one more ant from drowning, then why don't we?"
Well, that is a good question. What can't we?
Also another good question is: How do we know we aren't already inside a black hole? No one has ever been to one or seen its inside so all we have is good guesses.
So then we need to thank Xenu and his space borne 707 and the alien greys, whites etc for all their contributions to our wonderful earth? No. You are oversimplifying it. There is far more built in redundancy that you realize.
Which basically means you want to use their services but not pay for them by sharing your information. How do you think people on 4chan and other hackers dox people? YOur info, my info, everyone's info is already out there. Google is simply asking for permission via using their services. Others do not.
You are being deliberately obtuse because you don't like that fact that the statement is obviously correct.
So I go broad. You work for a living.
Whether you work for yourself or a company you dress a specific way. While you can say they tell me how to dress for blah blah reason, no they expect you to dress because they are paying you to market themselves and their profit. If you work for yourself, you dress to project an image. That image is "sell yourself to your personal audiences".
Slobs don't make money. People who look like they slept in a dumpster don't make money unless they just finished 39 days on an island trying to win a million bucks.
If you brush your teeth to remove bad breath, you are a] doing it wrong. Thats what mouth wash and breath mints are for (Seriously, how can you be that dense?) b] the true purpose is to keep your teeth white. Guess what? Society judges you on that subtly. If they are, they you will be able to get things you are seeking easier. Thats "selling yourself to your personal audiences."
Everyone is an attention whore. Even if you seek your own attention.
I'm not an expert here, but I think the idea is to come up with a single quantifying number that represents the idea that very fast compression has limited utility if it doesn't save much space, and very high compression has limited utility if it takes an extremely long time.
Like, if you're trying to compress a given file, and one algorithm compressed the file by 0.00001% in 14 seconds, another compressed the file 15% in 20 seconds, and the third compressed it 15.1% in 29 hours, then the middle algorithm is probably going to be the most useful one. So why can't you create some kind of rating system to give you at least a vague quantifiable score of that concept? I understand that it might not be perfect-- different algorithms might score differently on different sized files, different types of files, etc. But then again, computer benchmarks generally don't give you a perfect assessment of performance. It just provides a method for estimating performance.
But maybe you have something in mind that I'm not seeing.
A compsci sacred cow being slaughtered. See there is nothing wrong with what you suggested. Thats the reason why the idea was inserted into Silicon valley to begin with. So why the bitching about its usefulness? People who spend time in computing as a whole are a fairly rigid lot. A lot of the have aspergers syndrome which gives them a leg up on coding while taking away their socialization skills. Others think its useless because they would prefer terms that dig deeper into the compression and its velocity. They don't believe any single term could do what they want.
Finally. the rest just want to stay where they are in terms of terms and anything new muddies the water for them.
However, the article itself gives the best definition as to why others hate it.
It’s hard to convey to a lay audience that one compression algorithm is better than another—you could compress and decompress images, say, with some loss and look for glitches in the resulting image, but they are hard to spot. But metrics for compression algorithms that rate not only the amount of compression but the processing speed, are hard to find. So it asked the consultants it brought in to help develop the original algorithm—Stanford Professor Tsachy Weissman and then-PhD student Vinith Misra—to come up with a metric that could be used to score multiple algorithms and find a winner. (Misra recently graduated and will soon be working on IBM’s Watson project.)
It seems that someone would have come up with such a metric by now. But, says Weissman, “there are two communities: the practitioners, who care about running time, and the theoreticians, who care about how succinctly you can represent the data and don’t worry about the complexity of the implementation.” As a result of this split, he says, no one had yet combined, in a single number, a means of rating both how fast and how tightly an algorithm compresses.
Misra came up with a formula (photo above), incorporating both. Along with existing benchmarks the formula creates a metric that the show writers tagged the “Weissman Score.” It's not a fictional metric: although it didn’t exist before Misra created it for the show, it works and may soon find use in the real world.
“It is essentially the compression ratio and the ratio of the log of the compression time,” Misra explains, “but it then normalizes that number against an industry standard compressor used for the same data. For music, say, we’d use might use FLAC.” (FLAC, or Free Lossless Audio Codec is an open format from the Xiph.org foundation.)
The saddest thing is that it took media to force it out there. People here might say its meaningless but if Stanford teaches it will be and when these people here's friends have grandchildren (because the ratio of posting on slashdot divided by the propensity of being a neck-beard also leads to a number used to determine your reproductive likelihood) who graduate Compsci it will be as common as SLOC, Halstead complexity measures & Cyclomatic complexity.
Okay, are you suggesting that accurate reporting to ICANN is covered by the Trademark act? The point I made was the bill he offered and promoted as a refutation was never a law because it died in committee. If you have the other acts name please share
No, there isn't. There is a dead and now archived House resolution.
This bill was introduced on May 12, 2004, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted. The text of the bill below is as of Jun 09, 2004 (Reported by House Committee).
It was never signed into law as it never made it out of committee. That link you so nicely offer up also offres this:
H.R. 3754 (108th): Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act
Introduced:
Feb 03, 2004 (108th Congress, 2003–2004)
Status:
Died (Reported by Committee) in a previous session of Congress
Originally I haven't planned on entering this but when I clicked the link I got this.
This bill was introduced on May 12, 2004, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.The text of the bill below is as of Jun 09, 2004 (Reported by House Committee).
To be clear this means president Bush never signed it into law. It also means, that as it isn't a law the other person is right unless you can find one that was.
As for SonyOnline.net the best thing would be a redirect to Piratebay.se
Slashdot Mirror
It rewards psychopaths, results in shitty systems which punish the public and takes the creative principle for ransom.
Bwahaha you slackjawed imbecile, you realize you've just described the actual outcomes of everything marxist?
And the MPAA, RIAA , IPFI and the goverment of Taiji, wakayama prefecture of Japan
What praytell is preventing them from starting their own Amazons?.
The major publishing houses, freedom of speech and a billionaire who knows how to conduct business in the countries with the highest corporate tax on the planet.
Not a customs issue. It is a copyright issue which will prevent you from reselling items you own (therefore superseding your "right to first sale").
You assume too much. For the record I worked in an airport with two major carriers (one of which is International and services Europe and Asia). If I buy a textbook in London, I can bury it in my checked bags and it will make it. If choose to not inform customs, thats on me as I am an American and both Customs and TSA have better things to do than care about my paper text book. At best they will make sure its not a bomb. Once I leave the airport, I can actually do as I please with it include selling provided I don't use: social media or the public internet. (TSA cares more about cheese than books. Cheese looks like C4 on x-ray) Copyright issues don't stop anything. They aren't a wall that you hit and its hurts. They are at best the ink-pack on a bundle of 100s the teller tosses in you rob a back, Over 50% nothing happens. The problem is people are stupid and do stupid things. Like make it obvious they are engaging in illegal activity. Movies, Magazines and Hell the whole underworld is the corrupt seedy part of Japanese culture. Kudos to Amazon for trying to poke it hard. My right to first sale IS absolute provided that it remains known only to me and the buyer. Not the middle men and snoopers in the govt
Ahahahahahahahahahaha. Um DSL (digital subscriber line) uses twisted copper. You are lucky of you pull 20M. You should only be able to get a max of 13. Thats why you can't get Netflix. Centurylink is pissed because it can't make money on an dying 1980s technology. No one should be on DSL anymore.
no they don't. There isn't the same equivalent of the US first amendant anywhere on the planet. Why? Knowledge is power. And to be correct. The founding fathers were all wealthy individuals. They didn't want anyone other than land owners to vote. Do you know how many people that would eliminate today?
its not free if its a crime to view a beheading or if anyone can request a removal because they don't like their past sins exposed.
City Protective Services (CPS) law enforcement officer Kiera Cameron (Rachel Nichols) lives a quiet, normal life with her husband and son in 2077-era Vancouver. Under the corporatocratic and oligarchic dystopia of the North American Union and its "Corporate Congress", life goes on in apparent freedom under a technologically-advanced high-surveillance police state.
When a group of self-proclaimed freedom fighters known as "Liber8" escape execution by fleeing to the year 2012, Kiera is involuntarily transported with them into the past. Joining with Detective Carlos Fonnegra (Victor Webster) and the Vancouver Police Department, and enlisting the help of teen computer genius Alec Sadler (Erik Knudsen), Kiera works to track down and thwart Edouard Kagame (Tony Amendola) and his followers in the present day while concealing her identity as a time-traveler from the future.
we all know how certain places censor everything. This is why the MPAA and RIAA need to put on a leash at the least because that story above is our future if we don't. And we need no map of the dark censor laden areas of the world to do it.
So you don't watch TV. Good for you. The fact you don't have to pay the tax? That will change soon.
Why is every single thing that Space X and Tesla does posted on Slashdot?
Because /. IS news for Nerds and Space X & Tesla are involved in nerdy things.
I agree. I am a big fan of Musk and SpaceX but there is no chance in hell that SpaceX would be developing these systems without self-destruct capability. Might as well praise Google for ensuring their self-driving cars have brakes.
Funny that you would choice that considering Google didn't put them in. http://guardianlv.com/2014/08/...
Google has been developing the world’s first driverless car, though their efforts have been restrained by being forced to add a steering wheel and pedals. Originally, the concept of the car was to be able to drive itself, leaving the person in control of nothing, but a single button to begin their route. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in California has ruled that drivers must have the ability to take control of the vehicle in case the software malfunctions, there is an accident, or an emergency situation presents itself. Dmitri Dolgov, the lead software engineer of this project, admitted that their technology was not perfect, and the cars had the habit of sometimes going over the speed limit. He explained this by stating the driverless cars had the ability to go 10 mph over the speed limit, as opposed to sticking to it to keep up with traffic. Dolgov’s reasoning behind the cars’ ability to exceed the speed limit was to keep up with the traffic, when it is speeding and avoid road rage or cause obstructions in the road.
Deceleration was the braking mechanism Google chose to use.
Nice pun asshole. Challenger had no ejection system. NASA considered in infeasible to provide ejection capability for 7 people. The commander and pilot could have had an ejection seat system, but the idea of having two crew members escape while the other 5 are left to die was (rightly) unpalatable.
Because Having 7 die was so much better as proven when Columbia exploded on return. NASA was greedy and lazy.
This really moves SpaceX up in my estimation as well. Until now, I pictured private space flight as focusing only on making profits, not sacrificing dollars in order to protect people around them. Maybe the privatization of space flight has a future after all!
Uhhh, yeah, let me know how well the PR monkey handles explaining to the general public that your loved ones aboard their dream vacation to space were blown up on purpose as a safety measure.
Good luck with that shit.
Funny thing is that your statement is modded negative 1. So obviously no one will give a flying squirrel.
Um, I gather you are incapable of reading machine code then. Yes source codes are patented. But just like a person who doesn't understand how electricity and electronics works, if you can't read the code and deduce from reading alone function you are no threat. So yes the statement is true. Its just that there are few people who can do that as they they work in that industry.
Sure, in an imaginary world where the graceful and faithful elephant works freakishly hard to make the ants live happy lives even though the ants are so tiny to imagine what this great elephant looks like or means to them. The ants who hate the elephant drown themselves in puddles of water, and we the outsider look at these drowning ants in this imaginary world and think "these ungratefully stupid ants deserve to be eliminated by natural selection." And the elephant looks at us and say "if we can save one more ant from drowning, then why don't we?"
Well, that is a good question. What can't we? Also another good question is: How do we know we aren't already inside a black hole? No one has ever been to one or seen its inside so all we have is good guesses.
So then we need to thank Xenu and his space borne 707 and the alien greys, whites etc for all their contributions to our wonderful earth? No. You are oversimplifying it. There is far more built in redundancy that you realize.
Do you have a link? I've never heard of "peak phosphorus' before.
Google is your friend. http://www.americanscientist.o...
Which basically means you want to use their services but not pay for them by sharing your information. How do you think people on 4chan and other hackers dox people? YOur info, my info, everyone's info is already out there. Google is simply asking for permission via using their services. Others do not.
You are being deliberately obtuse because you don't like that fact that the statement is obviously correct.
So I go broad. You work for a living.
Whether you work for yourself or a company you dress a specific way. While you can say they tell me how to dress for blah blah reason, no they expect you to dress because they are paying you to market themselves and their profit. If you work for yourself, you dress to project an image. That image is "sell yourself to your personal audiences".
Slobs don't make money. People who look like they slept in a dumpster don't make money unless they just finished 39 days on an island trying to win a million bucks.
If you brush your teeth to remove bad breath, you are a] doing it wrong. Thats what mouth wash and breath mints are for (Seriously, how can you be that dense?) b] the true purpose is to keep your teeth white. Guess what? Society judges you on that subtly. If they are, they you will be able to get things you are seeking easier. Thats "selling yourself to your personal audiences."
Everyone is an attention whore. Even if you seek your own attention.
Death Magic it is. None of us knew it at the time.
Can you explain in more detail?
I'm not an expert here, but I think the idea is to come up with a single quantifying number that represents the idea that very fast compression has limited utility if it doesn't save much space, and very high compression has limited utility if it takes an extremely long time.
Like, if you're trying to compress a given file, and one algorithm compressed the file by 0.00001% in 14 seconds, another compressed the file 15% in 20 seconds, and the third compressed it 15.1% in 29 hours, then the middle algorithm is probably going to be the most useful one. So why can't you create some kind of rating system to give you at least a vague quantifiable score of that concept? I understand that it might not be perfect-- different algorithms might score differently on different sized files, different types of files, etc. But then again, computer benchmarks generally don't give you a perfect assessment of performance. It just provides a method for estimating performance.
But maybe you have something in mind that I'm not seeing.
A compsci sacred cow being slaughtered. See there is nothing wrong with what you suggested. Thats the reason why the idea was inserted into Silicon valley to begin with. So why the bitching about its usefulness? People who spend time in computing as a whole are a fairly rigid lot. A lot of the have aspergers syndrome which gives them a leg up on coding while taking away their socialization skills. Others think its useless because they would prefer terms that dig deeper into the compression and its velocity. They don't believe any single term could do what they want. Finally. the rest just want to stay where they are in terms of terms and anything new muddies the water for them. However, the article itself gives the best definition as to why others hate it.
It’s hard to convey to a lay audience that one compression algorithm is better than another—you could compress and decompress images, say, with some loss and look for glitches in the resulting image, but they are hard to spot. But metrics for compression algorithms that rate not only the amount of compression but the processing speed, are hard to find . So it asked the consultants it brought in to help develop the original algorithm—Stanford Professor Tsachy Weissman and then-PhD student Vinith Misra—to come up with a metric that could be used to score multiple algorithms and find a winner. (Misra recently graduated and will soon be working on IBM’s Watson project.) It seems that someone would have come up with such a metric by now. But, says Weissman, “there are two communities: the practitioners, who care about running time, and the theoreticians, who care about how succinctly you can represent the data and don’t worry about the complexity of the implementation.” As a result of this split, he says, no one had yet combined, in a single number, a means of rating both how fast and how tightly an algorithm compresses. Misra came up with a formula (photo above), incorporating both. Along with existing benchmarks the formula creates a metric that the show writers tagged the “Weissman Score.” It's not a fictional metric: although it didn’t exist before Misra created it for the show, it works and may soon find use in the real world. “It is essentially the compression ratio and the ratio of the log of the compression time,” Misra explains, “but it then normalizes that number against an industry standard compressor used for the same data. For music, say, we’d use might use FLAC.” (FLAC, or Free Lossless Audio Codec is an open format from the Xiph.org foundation.)
The saddest thing is that it took media to force it out there. People here might say its meaningless but if Stanford teaches it will be and when these people here's friends have grandchildren (because the ratio of posting on slashdot divided by the propensity of being a neck-beard also leads to a number used to determine your reproductive likelihood) who graduate Compsci it will be as common as SLOC, Halstead complexity measures & Cyclomatic complexity.
No one honestly believes that they will get sued for billions and billions.
I did and it wasn't. You know you could put a link to the actual legislation that you believe was amended.
Okay, are you suggesting that accurate reporting to ICANN is covered by the Trademark act? The point I made was the bill he offered and promoted as a refutation was never a law because it died in committee. If you have the other acts name please share
This bill was introduced on May 12, 2004, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted. The text of the bill below is as of Jun 09, 2004 (Reported by House Committee).
It was never signed into law as it never made it out of committee. That link you so nicely offer up also offres this:
H.R. 3754 (108th): Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act Introduced: Feb 03, 2004 (108th Congress, 2003–2004) Status: Died (Reported by Committee) in a previous session of Congress
How about this one. Its currently alive. S. 2588: Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014
This bill was introduced on May 12, 2004, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.The text of the bill below is as of Jun 09, 2004 (Reported by House Committee).
To be clear this means president Bush never signed it into law. It also means, that as it isn't a law the other person is right unless you can find one that was. As for SonyOnline.net the best thing would be a redirect to Piratebay.se