Oh I forgot to note this... anyway it addition to other potential flaws TFA says
11.6% of which admitted to having used file-sharing software
emphasis mine. They admitted to using file sharing software not pirating goods via said software... The study is effectively making the assumption that filesharing = copyright infringement. Also from TFA:
The 6.7m figure was then calculated based on the estimated number of people with internet access in the UK. However, Jupiter research was working on the assumption that there were 40m people online in the UK in 2008, whereas the Government's own Office of National Statistics claimed there were only 33.9m people online during that year.
Even if the study did get the sample size correct the conclusion would still be nearly 30% wrong owing to their false assumption of the number of people with net access. neglecting the distinction between filesharing and copyright infringement TFA estimates that the actual number is between ~30 and ~50% lower than the study claims.
So could someone please explain *why* is it a questionable research.
1. the same size is small.. probably too small to make the claims they did. 2. they altered the numbers on an estimate of how many people fileshare on the assumption that the number was under-reported. 3. conflict of interest... it's like the tobacco industry sponsoring studies claiming that smoking doesn't have anything to do with lung cancer... there is significant reason to believe that the study carries significant bias in favor of their conclusion and must at the least be repeated by other sources.
So what is the point of this story? That statistics researches use only minor subset or people to do their research instead of asking from everyone? They always have.
N. real statistics researchers know that this study has numerable crippling flaws and should not be held as gospel by anyone. Even a first year stats student can see it. The reason this story is important is that it may influence governmental policy and it's flawed... That's dangerous.
correct me if I'm wrong but the latency problem you speak of should also manifest to some extent in all multiplayer games [which it does] owing to the fact that when two or more players interact, their actions are limited by the latency of the network.
actual games are SO FAST NOW on so cheap hardware,
on newer hardware running windows that may be true... for hardware more than a few years old or on alternative OSes or for games like Chrysis this isn't true.
That 500MB files butchers my poor quadcore.
again, that's only true for newer hardware. Photoshop can use over two gigs of RAM to handle larger files in a timely manner. Don't have the RAM? You may just be screwed.
IBM has a lot to gain from making the claim- that doesn't mean that they're stupid so much as acting in their own interests. They have roughly 10,000 patents in their nuclear arsenal to defend after all.
alternative energy sources + electrolysis + chemical synthesis from CO2 and H2 = raw materials for plastic = the more plastic we make the more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.
it's a suicide mission doesn't that mean anything to you? why sacrifice good people for this when it will be largely in vain? eventually people will go to Mars and return *alive* it's merely a matter of time and money and their trip will be just as historic if not more so due to the fact that we didn't sacrifice them over a pentagram just to say someone has set foot on Mars.
not only that but what exactly is the point of sending astronauts to another planet knowing the whole time they're doomed? Are we planning on not returning to Mars again? If that is the case why bother sending anyone at all. Mars is important as a potential second outpost in the solar system not just because of the pretty rocks there. Mars is important enough to return and thus sending people to their deaths to get there a few years earlier for a few dollars less sounds nigh despicable.
Yes it rather is setting a nasty precedent. Either these webhosts will filter the heck out of their content and lose out to some other site that doesn't [eg. the pirate bay] or copyright claims are nigh unenforceable for small acts of copyright infringement. Unfortunately the reality is likely a combination of both... Sites will be liable for others' content and fail miserably to both stay afloat and filter their conetent.. *And* piracy/infringement will continue in the spirit of the internet routing around the damage that is the copyright/trademark system.
The government has wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide powers to regulate commerce
some [including myself] would argue that the government's powers over commerce are *too exansive* often these powers lead to violating other rights [no knock raids, warrent-less surveillance etc...] The drug war and draconian copyright laws as examples.. The government has given its self the power to ruin peoples' lives to protect intellectual property and prosecute non-violent drug use. There is something very un-nerving about it all.
I know your post was satire I just fond it to be a convenient time to voice my own opinion.
Yup. Gotta love socializing with teens. It does wonders for your maturity when you have to interact with adults...
I never said it was a good thing, just that it is generally an appealing concept to most teens. For me high school was a waste. I was never that much into socializing with my own age group so that aspect of high school did nothing for me. As for actually learning things worth mentioning, that only really started in college. Most of my friends didnt bother with HS much but instead took most of their worth while classes at the local college and frankly it did them a lot of good.
It would appear that "learning" takes second place to "fun" and "social life." Apparently, education is secondary to teenage social skills when it comes to business after college.
That is probably one of the most important reasons why most of the population is under-educated/ignorant of things they really should know.
For a lot of kids it may very well be a waste of time. The smarter kids would likely do better just taking college courses as the credit is useful for getting into a career they like later. For everyone else the major draw of high school isn't so much learning more as it is socializing with other teens.
there is no evidence that banning these games reduces crime. none. either he's ignoring the stats out of ignorance [unlikely] or using "save the childrennn" as an excuse to clamp down on media. [very likely]
Enforcing morality? Somehow, I doubt that Chavez is interested in "enforcing morality." He's so moral himself.
I never said it was his morality that he was enforcing. sometimes enforcing the morality of a specific group conveys political benefits [the social conservatives' hold on the Right in the US as an example]
legally you are correct but remember that flickr, google etc. have a history of assuming a DMCA takedown is valid before checking the actual validity of the notice to save themselves.
to whomever modded my post "flamebait" there is absolutely no reason why these companies can't use ubuntu to avoid malware. I didnt mean anything other than that poor choice of words and all...
government has one sole reason for existence: enforce laws restraining one person from doing violence/defrauding another. My feelings on the matter are the same as with the drug war- technically the states retain the right to create these monopolies/enforce their own drug wars.. but the results of doing either of these is often negative. The various governments have encroached too far into various parts of the market and the negative consequences are numerous. Currently the states retain the power to create monopolies if they are foolish enough to do so however, an amendment to the constitution forbidding state and federally created monopolies or one at the state level would suffice.
of course the government would never have had any part in creating these massive corporate horrors like say local monopolies would they?.../sarcasm
prosecute fraud [as an example, unlimited isn't] and end the local monopolies and most of the problem should go away. the actions of these companies wouldn't likely be tolerated were there any choice for the internet user in the matter.
you're not reading the summary correctly- it's a million cameras not a million dollars. each camera likely costs over 100$ each meaning you are off by at least two orders of magnitude.
wrong. If that money had been spent elsewhere it may very well have solved more crimes [extra police doing their jobs for example] if having spent the money elsewhere would have stopped 1000+ crimes a year I doubt the public reaction to that situation would be positive.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh I forgot to note this... anyway it addition to other potential flaws TFA says
emphasis mine. They admitted to using file sharing software not pirating goods via said software... The study is effectively making the assumption that filesharing = copyright infringement. Also from TFA:
Even if the study did get the sample size correct the conclusion would still be nearly 30% wrong owing to their false assumption of the number of people with net access. neglecting the distinction between filesharing and copyright infringement TFA estimates that the actual number is between ~30 and ~50% lower than the study claims.
1. the same size is small.. probably too small to make the claims they did. 2. they altered the numbers on an estimate of how many people fileshare on the assumption that the number was under-reported. 3. conflict of interest... it's like the tobacco industry sponsoring studies claiming that smoking doesn't have anything to do with lung cancer... there is significant reason to believe that the study carries significant bias in favor of their conclusion and must at the least be repeated by other sources.
N. real statistics researchers know that this study has numerable crippling flaws and should not be held as gospel by anyone. Even a first year stats student can see it. The reason this story is important is that it may influence governmental policy and it's flawed... That's dangerous.
quoting Onlive's beta sign-up page:
so not right now.
correct me if I'm wrong but the latency problem you speak of should also manifest to some extent in all multiplayer games [which it does] owing to the fact that when two or more players interact, their actions are limited by the latency of the network.
on newer hardware running windows that may be true... for hardware more than a few years old or on alternative OSes or for games like Chrysis this isn't true.
again, that's only true for newer hardware. Photoshop can use over two gigs of RAM to handle larger files in a timely manner. Don't have the RAM? You may just be screwed.
you forgot the ????. in this case it's give the software code as OSS and make money off of support and what not.
IBM has a lot to gain from making the claim- that doesn't mean that they're stupid so much as acting in their own interests. They have roughly 10,000 patents in their nuclear arsenal to defend after all.
alternative energy sources + electrolysis + chemical synthesis from CO2 and H2 = raw materials for plastic = the more plastic we make the more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.
it's a suicide mission doesn't that mean anything to you? why sacrifice good people for this when it will be largely in vain? eventually people will go to Mars and return *alive* it's merely a matter of time and money and their trip will be just as historic if not more so due to the fact that we didn't sacrifice them over a pentagram just to say someone has set foot on Mars.
not only that but what exactly is the point of sending astronauts to another planet knowing the whole time they're doomed? Are we planning on not returning to Mars again? If that is the case why bother sending anyone at all. Mars is important as a potential second outpost in the solar system not just because of the pretty rocks there. Mars is important enough to return and thus sending people to their deaths to get there a few years earlier for a few dollars less sounds nigh despicable.
Yes it rather is setting a nasty precedent. Either these webhosts will filter the heck out of their content and lose out to some other site that doesn't [eg. the pirate bay] or copyright claims are nigh unenforceable for small acts of copyright infringement. Unfortunately the reality is likely a combination of both... Sites will be liable for others' content and fail miserably to both stay afloat and filter their conetent.. *And* piracy/infringement will continue in the spirit of the internet routing around the damage that is the copyright/trademark system.
some [including myself] would argue that the government's powers over commerce are *too exansive* often these powers lead to violating other rights [no knock raids, warrent-less surveillance etc...] The drug war and draconian copyright laws as examples.. The government has given its self the power to ruin peoples' lives to protect intellectual property and prosecute non-violent drug use. There is something very un-nerving about it all.
I know your post was satire I just fond it to be a convenient time to voice my own opinion.
I never said it was a good thing, just that it is generally an appealing concept to most teens. For me high school was a waste. I was never that much into socializing with my own age group so that aspect of high school did nothing for me. As for actually learning things worth mentioning, that only really started in college. Most of my friends didnt bother with HS much but instead took most of their worth while classes at the local college and frankly it did them a lot of good.
That is probably one of the most important reasons why most of the population is under-educated/ignorant of things they really should know.
For a lot of kids it may very well be a waste of time. The smarter kids would likely do better just taking college courses as the credit is useful for getting into a career they like later. For everyone else the major draw of high school isn't so much learning more as it is socializing with other teens.
yeah it probably won't be a technical problem for long but I'm guessing that someone will use the DMCA to try to stop it all.
there is no evidence that banning these games reduces crime. none. either he's ignoring the stats out of ignorance [unlikely] or using "save the childrennn" as an excuse to clamp down on media. [very likely]
I never said it was his morality that he was enforcing. sometimes enforcing the morality of a specific group conveys political benefits [the social conservatives' hold on the Right in the US as an example]
was never about actually reducing crime, it is about enforcing morality on others and controlling what media people are allowed to consume.
legally you are correct but remember that flickr, google etc. have a history of assuming a DMCA takedown is valid before checking the actual validity of the notice to save themselves.
to whomever modded my post "flamebait" there is absolutely no reason why these companies can't use ubuntu to avoid malware. I didnt mean anything other than that poor choice of words and all...
why cripple the machine just because of some malware?
government has one sole reason for existence: enforce laws restraining one person from doing violence/defrauding another. My feelings on the matter are the same as with the drug war- technically the states retain the right to create these monopolies/enforce their own drug wars.. but the results of doing either of these is often negative. The various governments have encroached too far into various parts of the market and the negative consequences are numerous. Currently the states retain the power to create monopolies if they are foolish enough to do so however, an amendment to the constitution forbidding state and federally created monopolies or one at the state level would suffice.
of course the government would never have had any part in creating these massive corporate horrors like say local monopolies would they?... /sarcasm
prosecute fraud [as an example, unlimited isn't] and end the local monopolies and most of the problem should go away. the actions of these companies wouldn't likely be tolerated were there any choice for the internet user in the matter.
you're not reading the summary correctly- it's a million cameras not a million dollars. each camera likely costs over 100$ each meaning you are off by at least two orders of magnitude.
wrong. If that money had been spent elsewhere it may very well have solved more crimes [extra police doing their jobs for example] if having spent the money elsewhere would have stopped 1000+ crimes a year I doubt the public reaction to that situation would be positive.
flash mobs, protests, meetings etc.