Or that someone using his computer had accessed a page that contained such data. Or would you be fine with being arrested for viewing such things if I put a virus on your machine that cached some pictures?
"What actions (if any) did Google take to change these practices once they took ownership?"
The report this video link on every video and the constant takedowns of copyrighted materials not enough for you?
Youtube has deployed in force against copyrighted materials since google acquired it. That alone should be enough evidence to prove that google had nothing to do with these practices, be they evil or not.
What's the difference? Seriously, we live in an age where the lines are so ridiculously blurry (software patents) that they might as well not be there. Copyright and Patents are based on the same idea.
A manuscript is as much a device as 20 lines of code are. And since the current official ruling is that that code is a patentable device what's the difference.
Looking at esoteric languages like Shakespeare blurs the lines even more. That language produces code which is a manuscript, but, as code, is patentable. So what's the difference?
Try doing a web search for 'youngest murderer' sometime, there's 6 years olds who have killed other with some purpose. And that's not even getting into 'accidental' killings.
People are not blank slates. We have hard-coded instincts the same as any animal, and one of those instincts is to compete for resources, which, taken to the extreme, is killing.
How's the encryption supposed to work? If it static-key encryption (same data sent every time) then it'll just be copied and sent to the client in exactly the same way. If it's dynamic-key encryption then you've added a whole other layer of complexity and probably no more security as the only real difference is the key generation, which can either be cracked (if it's in the game's code) or replicated (if it's sent from the server).
Encrypting static data is not all that secure when the identity of the data can be learned, the connection easily tapped, and at least one part of the encryption code is in the user's hands.
Look up instraspecific competition sometime. Biology disagrees with you. People not killing others for their stuff is far LESS natural than the alternative, without civilizations killing goes up (after all if I want joes stuff and nothing bad'll happen to me if I just go and take it what's there to stop me?)
I usually don't bother with tabula rasa people but really now? You're going to make an argument that's contradicted by ALL of human history and everything we know about biology? Really?
Tag's pretty violent when you get down to what the goal is, you're basically hitting your friends while running around. Should we ban that? All competition is violent, and some of us enjoy competing.From a certain perspective even Pong is violent (Slam that ball into your opponents goal! Yeah! Right past that loser!) so have fun without any games (not even number cruncher passes a strict definition of violence).
Perhaps you're referring to blood and gore which is an entirely separate thing from violence?
"Ideally, you should be able to tell the PC "download and install updates on shutdown" and when you shut it down, the computer downloads and installs the patches you select, then shuts down."
Start->Control Panel->Security Center->Automatic updates->Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them.
Everytime you're shutting down use start->turn off computer (it'll have a little security center icon if there's updates). It'll install the updates then shut down.
No, the system is broken when anyone can accuse anyone else of a crime and have them punished until they prove they didn't do it. That's called Guilty until proven Innocent and while it might be legal in Civil cases it's definitely not right.
The burden of proof should lie with the copyright holder to demonstrate that they own the copyright on something before they claim copyright infringement, and then to give some reason why they believe it violates fair use (i.e. it's too long, commercial use, etc).
Is it an unfair burden to put on the copyright holder? Fine. That's better than putting a harder burden (proving someone doesn't have copyright and that it is fair use) on a random individual. You want to have something taken down, demonstrate why it should be taken down, don't just file a standard letter that says you believe it should be taken down and expect it to work.
"This algorithm does push a certain browser higher more often than not, and hence is not fit for it's job."
The job is to display a list of browsers in some order which cannot be known before the page is loaded. For that it succeeds perfectly. Does it really matter if certain browsers are favored over others? The entire list is going to be shown, so anyone who wants a specific browser can choose it anyway, and for the users that just click the first item in the list they're be getting relatively random (the #1 position was pretty close to random in the results).
Perfect randomness is not needed everywhere. This was a pretty dumb mistake to make, but it's a very simple concept that doesn't require perfect randomness. Fit for the job != Perfect, and this algorithm seems to be perfectly fit for it's job according to the results.
"Episode 1 is now 11 years old, meaning your kids should be teens by now. Do they quote the movies? Has it seeped into every part of culture? Is it everywhere you can look?"
Impossible. It's impossible for something to seep in that's already there. Star Wars fandom was already present when Episode 1 came out, so it couldn't 'seep into' the culture. And it's still going just as strong if not FAR stronger than it was before episode 1's release.
"The entire proof that the prequels sucked can be found in the fact that TWO MMO's have skipped the era. Bioware wanted to do Star Wars, but were so desperate to stay away from the fall out that they invented an entire new era set so far apart (thousands of years) that they could completly distance themselves from it."
Ahh, so what you're saying is that proof of a movie not being good is that the majority of games were not based on it? That's a bit silly and completely ignores the many good games set in the new trilogy time-period, among them Battle for Naboo, Pod-Racer, Battlefront (which covers both time-periods), Force Unleashed and many more. And you could really say the same thing about the original trilogy, two of the best games every made about Star Wars and the new MMO all skip the original trilogy time period, does that mean the original movies weren't good?
"Kids now quote the Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc. Episode 1 was just another blockbuster, made a lot of money but it has no lasting impact. It is the difference between Michael Jackson and McHammer... who?"
Meh. I don't really see Matrix being quoted much at all these days, not even in the groups of other programmers I hang out with. Lord of the Rings was popular long before it was a movie. And McHammer is not a very good comparison considering how many "Hammer Time" jokes there are, it's probably more common in popular culture than Michael Jackson at this point.
"Even the nuclear fusion reaction produced one bad outcome (the bomb) and one good outcome (nuclear power)"
Wow! We have a time traveler here folks! Tell me, what's the future like and can we expect to have fusion power in the next 20 years?
"but still I don't see a need to make spending my money even easier than it is now."
Why not? Way I see it the easier it is the less hassle I have when I need to use it. Making it easier to spend money doesn't require you to spend that money, nor can it only be appreciated by heavy spenders. In my opinion any system that can make something more convenient without any real negative repercussions is a positive.
"What is described in the parent post is not how it would appear if this experiment was actually done."
Ah, so once we get around to building 1ly diameter walls in space we can be assured we'll know what will happen when we set a laser pointer in the center and sweep it around. Excellent! I was getting worried.
Seriously dude? It's a purely theoretical experiment, background noise can be ignored. Or you could, perhaps, theoretically imagine a laser powerful enough to overcome background radiation when spread over this distance.
That's not uncommon at all, ever hear of a bug report? Different systems/setups exist everywhere, it's impossible to test your system on all of them, just the most common and wait to hear from people with oddball systems and problems.
Different system's doesn't really apply but what if the site's robots.txt is slightly different (different newlines or something) which is causing an unforeseen error?
"It heats water molecules very well, even at the center of an object like a potato."
Here's a fun experiment. Go get a microwave bean burrito, gas station varieties are the best. Come on, I'll wait. Got it? Put it in the microwave and cook it for however long it says to on the package. Pull it out. Touch the center, odds are it's literally ice cold. Best results if you go 10-15s under the time recommended, then you can get some nice ice crystals in the middle of your warm gas station bean burrito.
Microwaves heat from the outside-in. The center of that potato isn't getting heated (very much) until the outside is ridiculously hot.
Not yet, but be assured that someone will invent a scenario where honey can be used to destroy an airplane and we'll all be forced to endure honey sweeps by the TSA, don't you worry.
Yeah, why would you ever need a legally binding document to be private? I think with EULA's out there we can all agree that legally binding documents shouldn't be private.
"It also says it opens the door to arbitrariness, and it was used in that way by the USA and all the others. Cuba shouldn't be bashed for using the same."
So please, if it's such a perfect example of the US doing the same thing, point to the cases where people were arrested for it rather than simply required to identify themselves. Go on.
Slashdot Mirror
Or that someone using his computer had accessed a page that contained such data. Or would you be fine with being arrested for viewing such things if I put a virus on your machine that cached some pictures?
"What actions (if any) did Google take to change these practices once they took ownership?"
The report this video link on every video and the constant takedowns of copyrighted materials not enough for you?
Youtube has deployed in force against copyrighted materials since google acquired it. That alone should be enough evidence to prove that google had nothing to do with these practices, be they evil or not.
What's the difference? Seriously, we live in an age where the lines are so ridiculously blurry (software patents) that they might as well not be there. Copyright and Patents are based on the same idea.
A manuscript is as much a device as 20 lines of code are. And since the current official ruling is that that code is a patentable device what's the difference.
Looking at esoteric languages like Shakespeare blurs the lines even more. That language produces code which is a manuscript, but, as code, is patentable. So what's the difference?
This is slashdot. The article is not 'right in front' of anyone's eyes :P.
The Tabula Rasa theory is junk quite frankly.
Try doing a web search for 'youngest murderer' sometime, there's 6 years olds who have killed other with some purpose. And that's not even getting into 'accidental' killings.
People are not blank slates. We have hard-coded instincts the same as any animal, and one of those instincts is to compete for resources, which, taken to the extreme, is killing.
How's the encryption supposed to work?
If it static-key encryption (same data sent every time) then it'll just be copied and sent to the client in exactly the same way.
If it's dynamic-key encryption then you've added a whole other layer of complexity and probably no more security as the only real difference is the key generation, which can either be cracked (if it's in the game's code) or replicated (if it's sent from the server).
Encrypting static data is not all that secure when the identity of the data can be learned, the connection easily tapped, and at least one part of the encryption code is in the user's hands.
Or a sword, or a bow and arrow, or a club, or a mace...
Guns aren't the first weapons that ever existed, and kids playing with fake swords is FAR older and way precedes video games.
"People killing other people is not natural."
Look up instraspecific competition sometime. Biology disagrees with you. People not killing others for their stuff is far LESS natural than the alternative, without civilizations killing goes up (after all if I want joes stuff and nothing bad'll happen to me if I just go and take it what's there to stop me?)
I usually don't bother with tabula rasa people but really now? You're going to make an argument that's contradicted by ALL of human history and everything we know about biology? Really?
Tag's pretty violent when you get down to what the goal is, you're basically hitting your friends while running around. Should we ban that? All competition is violent, and some of us enjoy competing.From a certain perspective even Pong is violent (Slam that ball into your opponents goal! Yeah! Right past that loser!) so have fun without any games (not even number cruncher passes a strict definition of violence).
Perhaps you're referring to blood and gore which is an entirely separate thing from violence?
"Ideally, you should be able to tell the PC "download and install updates on shutdown" and when you shut it down, the computer downloads and installs the patches you select, then shuts down."
Start->Control Panel->Security Center->Automatic updates->Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them.
Everytime you're shutting down use start->turn off computer (it'll have a little security center icon if there's updates). It'll install the updates then shut down.
Windows XP Service Pack 3.
When did google take over the United States? I must has missed that announcement.
No, the system is broken when anyone can accuse anyone else of a crime and have them punished until they prove they didn't do it. That's called Guilty until proven Innocent and while it might be legal in Civil cases it's definitely not right.
The burden of proof should lie with the copyright holder to demonstrate that they own the copyright on something before they claim copyright infringement, and then to give some reason why they believe it violates fair use (i.e. it's too long, commercial use, etc).
Is it an unfair burden to put on the copyright holder? Fine. That's better than putting a harder burden (proving someone doesn't have copyright and that it is fair use) on a random individual. You want to have something taken down, demonstrate why it should be taken down, don't just file a standard letter that says you believe it should be taken down and expect it to work.
The System is broken.
It also says "among these" so it doesn't exclude the possibility of all rights being in there. Just a sidenote, not that it's a huge deal.
"This algorithm does push a certain browser higher more often than not, and hence is not fit for it's job."
The job is to display a list of browsers in some order which cannot be known before the page is loaded. For that it succeeds perfectly. Does it really matter if certain browsers are favored over others? The entire list is going to be shown, so anyone who wants a specific browser can choose it anyway, and for the users that just click the first item in the list they're be getting relatively random (the #1 position was pretty close to random in the results).
Perfect randomness is not needed everywhere. This was a pretty dumb mistake to make, but it's a very simple concept that doesn't require perfect randomness. Fit for the job != Perfect, and this algorithm seems to be perfectly fit for it's job according to the results.
Perhaps he was dictating?
"Episode 1 is now 11 years old, meaning your kids should be teens by now. Do they quote the movies? Has it seeped into every part of culture? Is it everywhere you can look?"
Impossible. It's impossible for something to seep in that's already there. Star Wars fandom was already present when Episode 1 came out, so it couldn't 'seep into' the culture. And it's still going just as strong if not FAR stronger than it was before episode 1's release.
"The entire proof that the prequels sucked can be found in the fact that TWO MMO's have skipped the era. Bioware wanted to do Star Wars, but were so desperate to stay away from the fall out that they invented an entire new era set so far apart (thousands of years) that they could completly distance themselves from it."
Ahh, so what you're saying is that proof of a movie not being good is that the majority of games were not based on it? That's a bit silly and completely ignores the many good games set in the new trilogy time-period, among them Battle for Naboo, Pod-Racer, Battlefront (which covers both time-periods), Force Unleashed and many more. And you could really say the same thing about the original trilogy, two of the best games every made about Star Wars and the new MMO all skip the original trilogy time period, does that mean the original movies weren't good?
"Kids now quote the Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc. Episode 1 was just another blockbuster, made a lot of money but it has no lasting impact. It is the difference between Michael Jackson and McHammer... who?"
Meh. I don't really see Matrix being quoted much at all these days, not even in the groups of other programmers I hang out with. Lord of the Rings was popular long before it was a movie. And McHammer is not a very good comparison considering how many "Hammer Time" jokes there are, it's probably more common in popular culture than Michael Jackson at this point.
"Even the nuclear fusion reaction produced one bad outcome (the bomb) and one good outcome (nuclear power)"
Wow! We have a time traveler here folks! Tell me, what's the future like and can we expect to have fusion power in the next 20 years?
"but still I don't see a need to make spending my money even easier than it is now."
Why not? Way I see it the easier it is the less hassle I have when I need to use it. Making it easier to spend money doesn't require you to spend that money, nor can it only be appreciated by heavy spenders. In my opinion any system that can make something more convenient without any real negative repercussions is a positive.
"What is described in the parent post is not how it would appear if this experiment was actually done."
Ah, so once we get around to building 1ly diameter walls in space we can be assured we'll know what will happen when we set a laser pointer in the center and sweep it around. Excellent! I was getting worried.
Seriously dude? It's a purely theoretical experiment, background noise can be ignored. Or you could, perhaps, theoretically imagine a laser powerful enough to overcome background radiation when spread over this distance.
That's not uncommon at all, ever hear of a bug report? Different systems/setups exist everywhere, it's impossible to test your system on all of them, just the most common and wait to hear from people with oddball systems and problems.
Different system's doesn't really apply but what if the site's robots.txt is slightly different (different newlines or something) which is causing an unforeseen error?
"It heats water molecules very well, even at the center of an object like a potato."
Here's a fun experiment. Go get a microwave bean burrito, gas station varieties are the best. Come on, I'll wait. Got it? Put it in the microwave and cook it for however long it says to on the package. Pull it out. Touch the center, odds are it's literally ice cold. Best results if you go 10-15s under the time recommended, then you can get some nice ice crystals in the middle of your warm gas station bean burrito.
Microwaves heat from the outside-in. The center of that potato isn't getting heated (very much) until the outside is ridiculously hot.
"Because honey is neither dangerous nor illegal."
Not yet, but be assured that someone will invent a scenario where honey can be used to destroy an airplane and we'll all be forced to endure honey sweeps by the TSA, don't you worry.
Yep, the Placebo effect is well documented so there's really no need to test it in every study.
Yeah, why would you ever need a legally binding document to be private? I think with EULA's out there we can all agree that legally binding documents shouldn't be private.
Good luck with that. When you've got a global database of all licensed code everywhere you can search against let me know.
"It also says it opens the door to arbitrariness, and it was used in that way by the USA and all the others. Cuba shouldn't be bashed for using the same."
So please, if it's such a perfect example of the US doing the same thing, point to the cases where people were arrested for it rather than simply required to identify themselves. Go on.