Something very similar to this happened in the 70's at a Who concert (I believe at Madison Square Garden in NYC). Keith Moon was too drunk to continue playing the show, and they grabbed some guy from the audience to finish the show.
It is completely possible that this is an urban myth, but I always thought "Damn, the Who kicks ass".
I tried to Google it, couldn't find it, any other Tech Dirt readers remember hearing this/collaborate the story?
Mike, while I agree that uploading +5 gigs of music, to an otherwise unproven service (although I wouldn't say Amazon is a fly-by-night operation) is a pain, and all your music should be "grandfathered" in... but how can you complain about the price? First 5 gigs free and another 20 gigs added if you buy a single album?
Maybe the prices are a bit high (I'm not to familiar with cloud computing/space costs), but they seem very reasonable.
For a long time now I had wanted some sort of "Software" package suit for my car. Something like a "Black Box" - perhaps recording speed, direction, location, GPS, ect., and hell, even a camera or two in front and behind me stored on the black box.
All started when I got blamed for hitting a car that ran a red (lady was banging a cop... written up entirely my fault)
Obviously, anyone as paranoid about liability as I am, is certainly as paranoid about privacy, and would only want this info to be 'legally' usable by me (its my black box).
Maybe its too expensive? not enough demand (yet)? Stupid idea? What you think?
For a long time now I had wanted some sort of "Software" package suit for my car. Something like a "Black Box" - perhaps recording speed, direction, location, GPS, ect., and hell, even a camera or two in front and behind me stored on digitally on the black box. I am sure it could be built for
You guys are all missing the point... did he get the copyright and pay a performance fee to use those lyrics in a public setting, like a testimonial? I think not! Ergh, sometime you people are so dense!
Mike, while you may be correct in that plagiarizing "is about passing off someone else's work as your own". It is also understood to have an additional component, in that the work you are presenting is ‘original’.
Take for example a paper where I prove ‘fact A’, and publish that fact. Five years later, I do additional work on the subject; if I was to represent the work as proving ‘fact A’, without citing my previous work, then that would be ‘self-plagiarizing’, as I would be taking credit for proving the same thing twice.
Now, the simple way around this (and would work for the academic examples presented in your post) would be to simply cite your previous work. Even if it was not published, you can still cite yourself.
Or the change of propellant to albuterol inhalers that kept them from dropping in cost
You really can't blame that one on the pharmaceutical companies, apparently, the US Government forced the change of the propellant, as it was an ozone depleting substance (WTF?!)... As an asthmatic (w/out insurance) I was pretty pissed off, my inhaler when from $6 to $80 for a while.
Not sure if what I read was accurate, but apparently there were several companies scrambling to get the FDA testing and safety trials completed in time. I imagine it cost them quite a bit of money - and in that sense, I can understand their desire to make some $$.
It blows my mind sometimes to think that Albert Einstein worked in a patent office... how far we've fallen.
I read TechDirt pretty often; but one thing I may have missed, is some form of outline to fix the problems with the patent process (and I am not talking about the laws). Truth is, I am willing to bet 9/10 patent 'people' don't understand the patents they are rubber stamping - not really their fault.
How can we fix this? And is the idea to fix this patentable?
Mike, while I agree almost completely with your stated problems concerning the peer review process, your example of P≠NP doesn't address a larger concern. World or crowd sourced peer review certainly works for the 2-3 HUGE manuscripts that get out every year, what about the literally THOUSANDS of smaller publications?
How many people are really going to be interested in reading a new proposed enzymatic mechanism for some arctic fish?
Finally, most of what goes on in the review process and when you get back a manuscript, are subtle changes (assuming its not a down right objection) that require minor amendments. Everyone has an opinion, under the current process I only have to address 2-3 before its accepted. With a crowd sourced process, how is one to deal with conflicting changes, or just erroneous ones?
Finally - while personal bias and conflicting interests are notorious in the review process, it is currently someone moderated by the editor and other reviewers. With a crowd sourced review - you can easily get 'scooped' by a big well funded lab who can make the changes and republish the same work in days, when it might take you months.
Its an interesting idea, but IMO the flaws outweigh the benefits.
Unfortunately, the way I see this going: "Goggle;s kick as fiber allows massive movie piracy and child porn d/l, and that is the only use for such bandwith. We must (enter whatever swill comes from their mouth) for the children."
While it sounds like it technically could be considered a form of DRM, I for one don't have a problem with it (as the updates sound like they will be at their discresion) - As long as, like Mike mentioned, there would be no way to void or alter your legally purchased file.
If there is a way to void or alter an unauthorized copy, I don't think it will, as a new file format, catch on.
This also sounds like a way of reintroducing lossless as mainstream file format - and I may be inticed to re-buy some of my music (as I made the mistake of disgarding my physical CD's when I converted to digital (MP3's 10 years or so ago)
I don't understand why, from a business perspective (short sighted benefit vs. long term prosperity aside), people are being so critical of the labels/music industry. They are money hungry business men, and the fact that subscribers are 'going' to be paying two times the amount supposedly in royalties, then I don't see why i should treat them (XM) any differently.
After asking 4 TIMES point blank if my bill was going to change (they kept saying NO), I said "Alright, i guess the information was incorrect, I heard it would be going up $1.98... well, thank you and goodbye".
Then I get "Oh... Yes, the $1.98, thats not a fee increase, its from the Music --Blah blah blah--, so its not technically a price increase."
ME: "So, can I not pay it and continue to listen to my service?", "Nope", "Ok, thats a price increase, now cancel it"
:: Connected to Supervisor ::
where I am told, there has been no decision yet to charge the $1.98 and if we do decide, you will be informed.
Left it like that and decided to not cancel my subscription (maybe they will rethink their policy on this matter).
"They should've added the word "advertisement" to the top and bottom of each page, in very small print"
That doesn't mean anything - While I am not up on all the rules (and it varies by journal and grant), but if you use grant money to pay for publication costs (anywhere from 3,000 - 10,000 (and sometimes more)), you must put a footnote on the bottom and call your submission an "Advertisement" - all because you used grant money to defer pub. costs.
The rules are more complex and cumbersome, but basically, seeing "advertisement" on the bottom really doesn't mean anything.