Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 2:02pm
Props to Holt, but
It was the first round only. I think I saw other people (like those working on the project) beat Watson in an early round during the exhibition matches also.
He (Watson) seems to do well over the course of the game if given enough time to average out his miserable failures in a few select categories.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 12:17pm
For just introductory learning ...
I highly recommend the Pimsleur language learning system. You're not going to get a very broad vocabulary from it (they average around 600 words, maybe more depending on the language), but I've found their lessons an enjoyable and useful experience.
It's pricey (like most language programs as far as I can tell), but it is DRM free (unlike some others).
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 28 Feb 2011 @ 8:55am
Re:
I have the perfect plan for getting back at those Zazzle bastards for censoring us. We'll make a t-shirt protesting this, put it on Zazzle, and then make them lots of money! It's foolproof.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 16 Feb 2011 @ 11:14am
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed, that sounds like his point. Studies show the majority (~89%?) of torrents infringe copyrights, therefore anything that searches exclusively torrents has a "substantial connection" to the crime of copyright infringement. Doesn't sound like he's relying on the old inducement thing, just the presence of a "substantial connection."
I really don't follow his logic at all though on why this applies to a torrent search, but not to a Google Search. If anything, Google links to more torrents than these other guys do (pretty much by definition as it aggregates most everyone). Isn't that a more substantial connection by his own argument?
I mean even his own examples of Wal-Mart being held liable for crimes of others using some tiny part of their stock (ammunition), or crimes committed on their property, seems to support the idea that our current system has no qualms about placing liability on a party such as Google, however insane that notion may be to a rational person.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 27 Jan 2011 @ 11:52am
Re: Re: Revolucion
Luckily products being inhibited by such preposterous feature creep end up failing in the marketplace anyways, despite the project managers best efforts to make everyone happy.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 25 Jan 2011 @ 11:11am
Re: Re: Re: Eavesdropping
Wow, that article paints an even more disturbing picture of the situation. I honestly can't understand why anyone would support or be in favor of a police officer or judge acting in such a childish and counterproductive manner.
“Let me just say that as a matter of policy I think it’s ludicrous that people would be arrested for recording a police officer,” adds Volokh.
Pretty much sums it up.
The only encouraging thing about all this is that at least some of these situations are getting a little bit of national attention. Maybe a positive trend is possible.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 14 Jan 2011 @ 10:02am
Re: Genius idea!
I bet Jon Stewart would love it too.
But more to the point, do these $1,000 to $25,000 token amounts really count as "being sponsored by". I have to imagine there's more significant influences than that on our Congressional Representatives. Or do we just assume that those reported dollars are indicators of larger arrangements/kickbacks/campaign drives or whatever?
Or is it true I really could buy a congressman's signature for a thousand bucks? If so I think I've got a few letters I'd be willing to write up to have them sign ...
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:53am
Peter King's point of view
The only verifiable evidence that I can see in Peter King's open letter that he uses to back up his claims regarding the danger of WikiLeaks is half a sentence from a New York times article. Here's one larger quote from the same article:
"Administration officials said they were not aware of anyone who has been attacked or imprisoned as a direct result of information in the 2,700 cables that have been made public to date by WikiLeaks, The New York Times and several other publications, many with some names removed. But they caution that many dissidents are under constant harassment from their governments, so it is difficult to be certain of the cause of actions against them."
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 6 Jan 2011 @ 1:11pm
He has to be joking.
No really, that's the only explanation. The bookend looks more like a balloon animal than his sculpture does. Preemptive Streisandesque suing to illustrate the absurdity of what he's used to?
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 5 Jan 2011 @ 9:09am
Re:
I certainly would like to give them that benefit of the doubt. That perhaps this is an attempt to ferret out those currently leaking documents. But it's hard to make that leap when so much of the rest of our government's "public reaction" has been so shortsighted and similar in tone to this.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 28 Dec 2010 @ 4:46pm
Re: Re: Re:
Netflix has huge value in it's rating and recommendation system. While far from perfect, I've discovered tons of content that way and really enjoyed the results. Props to the variety of content they've added also. I've never failed to find something informative or entertaining to watch, even if the specific title I might seek out isn't available.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 28 Dec 2010 @ 12:47pm
Re: Re: Logically speaking.
1. Women = Time x Money [Women require multiples of time and money]
2. Time = Money [time is money my dear friend]
3. Women = Money x Money [from 1 and 2]
4. Money = sqrt(Evil) [Money is the root of all evil]
5. Money x Money = Evil [from 4]
6. Women = Evil [from 3 and 4]
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 2:31pm
Re: Re: Re:
Words Julian. Emphasis mine.
Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people’s will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or outweighed by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 1 Dec 2010 @ 2:26pm
On Google's role
I wouldn't be so quick to rush to their defense. As far as I understand it, isn't YouTube's ContentID system a concession above and beyond what the law requires, in order to appease the labels?
Shouldn't some backlash be rightfully targeted at Google for capitulating and playing the label's game instead of staying open (and law abiding) as some others have done? (like Facebook, for example).
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 9:37am
Re: Bad example
What if it was a situation more like this where most (or all) of the article is posted, but it's broken up and commented on and dissected. What if it was exactly like that with comments/dissection and everything, but the dissection comments and the article were separated such that the whole article was posted in it's entirety. What if there was a 5 paragraph complete article posted, followed by 10 paragraphs of dissection? or followed by just 1 paragraph of dissection.
Are any (none, all) of those cases moral? Are any of those cases fair use? Are they all?
On the post: Finally Found: A Human That Can Beat Watson... And It Turns Out To Be Rep. Rush Holt
Props to Holt, but
He (Watson) seems to do well over the course of the game if given enough time to average out his miserable failures in a few select categories.
On the post: Rosetta Stone Says Google Is A 'Gateway For Criminals'; Urges Congress To Make Google Liable For Infringement Via COICA
For just introductory learning ...
It's pricey (like most language programs as far as I can tell), but it is DRM free (unlike some others).
On the post: Tolkien Estate Says Just Mentioning Tolkien Infringes; Tolkien Censorwear Appears In Response
Re:
On the post: A Fifteenth Century Technopanic About The Horrors Of The Printing Press
See
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
Re: Re: Re:
I really don't follow his logic at all though on why this applies to a torrent search, but not to a Google Search. If anything, Google links to more torrents than these other guys do (pretty much by definition as it aggregates most everyone). Isn't that a more substantial connection by his own argument?
I mean even his own examples of Wal-Mart being held liable for crimes of others using some tiny part of their stock (ammunition), or crimes committed on their property, seems to support the idea that our current system has no qualms about placing liability on a party such as Google, however insane that notion may be to a rational person.
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Haha, love the only comment on the reuters article:
On the post: Spanish Gov't Simply Reinstates US-Driven Copyright Bill, Despite It Being Voted Down
Re: Re: Revolucion
On the post: Artist Facing 15 Years In Jail For The Crime Of Videotaping His Own Arrest
Re: Re: Re: Eavesdropping
“Let me just say that as a matter of policy I think it’s ludicrous that people would be arrested for recording a police officer,” adds Volokh.
Pretty much sums it up.
The only encouraging thing about all this is that at least some of these situations are getting a little bit of national attention. Maybe a positive trend is possible.
On the post: What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast
Re: Genius idea!
But more to the point, do these $1,000 to $25,000 token amounts really count as "being sponsored by". I have to imagine there's more significant influences than that on our Congressional Representatives. Or do we just assume that those reported dollars are indicators of larger arrangements/kickbacks/campaign drives or whatever?
Or is it true I really could buy a congressman's signature for a thousand bucks? If so I think I've got a few letters I'd be willing to write up to have them sign ...
On the post: Rep. Peter King Wants Treasury Dept. To Put Wikileaks On Terrorist List
Peter King's point of view
"Administration officials said they were not aware of anyone who has been attacked or imprisoned as a direct result of information in the 2,700 cables that have been made public to date by WikiLeaks, The New York Times and several other publications, many with some names removed. But they caution that many dissidents are under constant harassment from their governments, so it is difficult to be certain of the cause of actions against them."
On the post: Appropriation Artist Jeff Koons Threatens Company & Retailers For Selling Classic Balloon Dog Bookends
Re: Re: He has to be joking.
Dang, and I had so many buzzwords built into that comment ...
On the post: Appropriation Artist Jeff Koons Threatens Company & Retailers For Selling Classic Balloon Dog Bookends
He has to be joking.
On the post: Lego Website Lectures Anyone Who Thinks It's Legos
Dear lord
On the post: US Gov't Strategy To Prevent Leaks Is Leaked
Re:
On the post: Sears/Kmart Movie Streaming Service Apparently Designed For Uninformed Suckers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Would Twitter Be Liable For Links To Infringing Material?
Re: Re: Logically speaking.
2. Time = Money [time is money my dear friend]
3. Women = Money x Money [from 1 and 2]
4. Money = sqrt(Evil) [Money is the root of all evil]
5. Money x Money = Evil [from 4]
6. Women = Evil [from 3 and 4]
Am I not logical??
On the post: Ron Paul Put In Charge Of Federal Reserve Oversight
Holy Crap.
On the post: How The Response To Wikileaks Is Exactly What Assange Wants
Re: Re: Re:
Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people’s will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or outweighed by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.
On the post: YouTube Sensation Justin Bieber Blocked From Uploading His Own Music To YouTube By Copyright
On Google's role
Shouldn't some backlash be rightfully targeted at Google for capitulating and playing the label's game instead of staying open (and law abiding) as some others have done? (like Facebook, for example).
On the post: Judge Asks Righthaven To Explain Why Reposting Isn't Fair Use... Even When Defendant Didn't Claim Fair Use
Re: Bad example
Are any (none, all) of those cases moral? Are any of those cases fair use? Are they all?
Next >>