Nice backtrack, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on it.
Your post was heavily putting across the "well, of COURSE he claims to be innocent, but why should we believe what he says?" tone. The simple fact, as I pointed out, is that this has nothing to do with what he claims. If you could have waited until you got home to pipe up, you could have verified this yourself. It has do with information he does not control, that plainly shows that he did not tweet about the trial until after the verdict was given. As said in the article, he never claimed he didn't tweet at all. The judge said they could use cellphones. If he wanted a ban on talking about what you had for lunch, he wouldn't have said that.
Thing is, if you did RTFAs and 'tweets' you'd know that in spite of what he [and the summary]/said/ he did, he did make posts during breaks before the verdict was rendered.
(Emphasis mine) It's funny how you fairly strongly imply that you read the tweets, when it's obvious now you didn't. Also, he didn't make posts, plural. He made a post. About french fries. How does this not square with "Powell insists (and the evidence appears to back him up) that he did not make any pertinent updates until after the verdict was given"?
Also, you try to hide behind the OP comment. But the OP said: What part of "don't discuss this case with anyone until it's over" does this idiot not understand? Again, the one single tweet before the verdict was given was about french fries. Since the RTFAs and the tweet history show he didn't "discuss this case with anyone until it's over", then it looks like he understood it far better than the people who called him an idiot.
In summary, both your post and the OP were bullshit. They make each of you out to be far more of an idiot than it's claimed the subject of this article is.
but were not willing to push their luck because they were, by far, in the minority
Which part of "a good number of them" says "all of them" to you?
Also, I'm not confusing societal normals with inalienable rights. Today, we consider the right to vote to be inalienable regardless of sex, race, religion or creed. Back then, they did not consider these inalienable rights. There really IS no difference between societal normals and inalienable rights. If a society does not consider it the norm for you to have a certain right, they will likely take it away. Inalienable rights, by definition, cannot be taken away. Now, you can get into a philosophical discussion about if you have a given "right" if you are not allowed to exercise it, but I think that's a bit off the subject. The simple fact is that the founding fathers in general are given way too much weight in determining what we consider rights today.
Thing is, if you did RTFAs and 'tweets' you'd know that in spite of what he [and the summary]/said/ he did, he did make posts during breaks before the verdict was rendered. Seems to me that the question is not whether or not he did it (in spite of his denials), but how relevant the posts actually were.
How do you figure this? I read both articles and dug back to his twitter stream. Maybe you're confused because the ars article gives times in a different timezone than his twitter stream. Though it took me all of ten seconds to figure out and verify that.
Nothing I can find says he made any posts like what you are implying. There's one post between him being selected and after the verdict. It's about french fries. I fail to see the evidence you seem to be trying to make people believe is there to bolster your case. Just admit the OP was probably wrong and move on.
Simple fact is, our forefathers would be the first to spit in the face of these anti-gun, crazy people.
Though likely a good number of them would also be the first to spit in the face of black's or women's right's activists.
This has always been one of my least favorite lines of defense. Why not base your arguments on what we find to be right at the current time? The founding father's certainly don't have a monopoly on good ideas, and they never had to fit them into conditions that exist in the present.
When I asked him why there was no documentation (or very poor documentation when there was) the answer was a combination of "You shouldn't need documentation" and "I'm not paid to document things."
Well, actually... you are.
So he didn't document things, right? And management knew this, right? Did he continue receiving paychecks?
The fact that they hired you shows that he was right, at least on the reality of the situation.
It's seriously hard to get too bent out of shape about this. Sure, the app seller should have thought this through and realized Google would probably cut it off and they would be shafting a bunch of people who paid for it. Maybe they did and didn't really care. But I can't say it was obvious that Google would shut off the free SMS. How does Google make money on gmail? Ads, right? Then why are they fully supportive of using IMAP to access your gmail? I almost never actually use the web browser version. Now giving me gmail without me seeing the ads isn't exactly an obvious money maker for them. It costs them money to offer gmail just like it does to offer free SMS.
I'm happy with how Google handled it. No recriminations or blaming someone else for using a service they provide. Just a polite "we're not really interested in this" and disabling it.
these organizations exist as ill-fitting appendages... that attempt to operate in inhospitable cultures where technical expertise is not recognized, cultivated, or completely understood.'
This is awesome news. As was the last time some "self healing" material was announced. And the time before that. I'm sure the military probably has them, but when will they actually arrive in consumer products?
Will my flexible e-Ink display with batteries that wirelessly charge in five seconds by just laying it on top of a special surface also come with a self healing screen?
What's all this nonsense? First off, this has very little to do with outfits like the MPAA. Hulu is owned by NBC and Fox. A lot of the content on there is directly owned by these companies and they could give it away for free on the streets if they liked. Second, the rest of the content isn't owned by them but is licensed by them. If you understand anything about licensing, you know it's regional. It's done this way to maximize profit for the content owner. For the stuff Fox/NBC doesn't own, if Hulu could come up with the same amount of cash as all their other distribution deals, I'm sure the content owners would love do a worldwide deal. Right now, they're probably making peanuts off of Hulu compared to their prior distribution methods. For example, they have deals where they sell the Simpsons around the globe. I'm sure that nets them a nice bit of change.
Now, what do you think would happen to those deals if everyone around the globe could watch them from Hulu? Okay, right now it wouldn't have that much of an impact because it has yet to go mainstream. But that kind of content access WOULD make it go mainstream. Do you think some network in France would pay top dollar for the most current season of the Simpsons if people could easily play it off of Hulu? In a sense, Hulu has to be afraid of its own success. It needs to have a revenue stream that would replace all these distribution deals that would fall apart.
(FYI, I'm not calling you stupid in the article title. It's just paraphrasing the Clinton slogan.)
Do you actually believe that? The theater will only close down if they are forced to by dwindling revenue. Owners of mega-chains don't give a fuck about the actual moviegoing experience. They simply care about the bottom line. As such, they're not going to intentionally lower their bottom line to zero.
I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought that at the time.
I agree that the result of a change can be paradoxical. But again, you're talking about a whole different scale of change. It seems you and others are just throwing up their hands and saying "it's complex, who knows what will happen?" and hoping it will just turn out for the best. This seems an incredibly poor basis upon which a change of this scale should be made. If this is your basis, than there's innumerable changes to be made in society that will have unknown and possibly drastic results. I'd really like college to be free. Let's just make that happen, ok? And medicine, too. Also, can we go ahead and get rid of income taxes and just do a flat tax?
Who knows, you can make an argument for all of those things turning out well. But do we really want to risk them turning out terribly without having a solid plan for how they would turn out well?
At this point, I think I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you. Because it's really just opinion more than anything else. It's been an enjoyable discussion. Take care!
No, that's what you are referring to. The parent was quite obviously talking about board members and was incredibly off base. You may have your own point, but it is not the point of the OP.
You might also look at hackus' prior comments in other threads. They're all fairly inane, disjointed ramblings. A couple of my favorites:
"This whole economic crisis was obviously contrived, and planned. No way could a bunch of home owners cause a 2 trillion bail out."
"What is the only way to send signals instantaneously without distance becoming a limiting factor in todays world?
Do we know of any such system today?
Well, yes we do. But, I won't mention it here, because it is at the very leading edges of computing and you will just have to look for yourselves. But it involves tapping unseen states of matter which exist outside time and space."
And further fact checking results in it getting moderated all the way down to -1 Troll. Turns out the system works, just over a longer timescale than some people are patient enough to wait for.
That's precisely the problem I have with a lot of "open source equivalents." They are not targeted at the users that use the original application to the fullest. They're targeted more at the casual users. That's fine, but it's not the same program.
And no, I don't think it would be helpful to contact Microsoft. I've also not contact Mozilla after a few lackluster attempts at getting bugs fixed via bugzilla. This has little to do with the closed/open source aspect and much more about the sheer size of a program. Once it gets past a small development team, it becomes much less useful to seek support and much less likely that the bugs that affect your corner of the use case for the application will be addressed.
The company I've actually had the best support from has been Adobe for Flex. I've found that they are very responsive to bug reports. FAR more responsive than any large scale open source program I've ever used. But the end result of that is a new patch or fixes in a new version. Yes, they give these patches out for free, but that is really just an extension of the large original price that was paid for the original product. I don't personally believe this would work if the majority of the users freeloaded and left the purchasing of support to a small handful of users. Especially for a technology like Flex that's just getting off the ground and isn't already embedded in corporate needs.
And, of course, the really major improvements come out in a new, paid, upgrade.
I really do feel your last paragraph is apples to oranges. You're just talking about moving from one method of selling copyrighted material to another method. A better analogy would be if the VCR and movie rental places came out and it had been perfectly legal to dupe the tapes all they wanted. Do you think it would have become a major source of income? Do you think movie studios would ever have joined in and released their movies on videocassette?
I, too, have always written custom software that has a large service component. So I do actually get what you're talking about. However, I just don't think a sample size of two tells you that much about the software market as a whole. I look around at the other software I use on a daily basis - Excel, Word, Photoshop, Delphi, Flex, SQL 2000.
This software IS all that valuable in and of itself. It takes no one at the other end of the line to make it do its job, once the initial programming is complete.
I have never contacted the companies who make these for one single bit of service or support. The closest I've come is using the peer support groups for Delphi and Flex. As many problems as I've had with Photoshop or Office, I still believe they are head and shoulders above the open source alternatives I've tried. At this point, it's all prognostication since you can't scientifically predict what will happen if copyright went away. My prognostication is that you wouldn't have apps at the level of quality of Photoshop and Office.
I don't honestly think my job today would be eliminated. But I do believe when I wanted to switch jobs, my options would be more limited. And I would have to go through the day using lower quality software to try to get my job done.
I really have to think that's an incredibly minor issue. First off, the number of titles that the mass market wants to read that are out of copyright is tiny. Second, they'd have to compete with free (i.e. Project Gutenberg).
You know, normally EULA's are pretty confusing, yet everyone seems to be unable to read plain english. If they don't approve of the methodology, you may not publish the results. Following the EULA, they really have an easy out to just claim they don't like your study and they don't approve. Why would the words "and approved" be in there otherwise?
It's all about price. If I write a book and someone wants to sell it in one single country, I'm going to get a lot lower of a price from them than someone who wants to sell it worldwide. This is especially true of electronic sales, as it's (unfortunately) tied to certain technologies. Books that only play on the Kindle, audiobooks that only play on the iPod, etc.
This isn't really a major issue with physical goods because you have to pay shipping. This naturally limits the sales outside of your region. So when you go try to shop it around to this new region, you don't actually have to worry about the previous store eating into the sales in the new region. You have an illusion that "nobody has an issue with that", which just isn't true. They just know that it is self-limiting.
So if Amazon wants to sell its Kindle books all over the world, it will need to fork over a much bigger chunk of money. This was be a stupid plan, considering the Kindle may not ever pick up enough steam and fail. Investors aren't going to pony up all that dough to take a global risk when it's much safer to make it succeed in a single country first.
There's an argument there that by not paying for dead authors' works, the living authors actually get more money because you have a certain amount of disposable income. Of course, it's opinion without actual science to back it up, and I can see how it might not work out that way.
It made me think of an additional feature. I often have a different book going that I read at home, one I leave in my car for when I'm waiting on a Dr.'s appointment or eating at a restaurant alone, and another one on my ipod hooked up to my car stereo. It would be great to be able to have a book that I could transition from reading to listening to and back again any time I pleased.
Slashdot Mirror
The only absolute truths are the laws of physics.
And sometimes even those get bent...
Nice backtrack, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on it.
Your post was heavily putting across the "well, of COURSE he claims to be innocent, but why should we believe what he says?" tone. The simple fact, as I pointed out, is that this has nothing to do with what he claims. If you could have waited until you got home to pipe up, you could have verified this yourself. It has do with information he does not control, that plainly shows that he did not tweet about the trial until after the verdict was given. As said in the article, he never claimed he didn't tweet at all. The judge said they could use cellphones. If he wanted a ban on talking about what you had for lunch, he wouldn't have said that.
Thing is, if you did RTFAs and 'tweets' you'd know that in spite of what he [and the summary] /said/ he did, he did make posts during breaks before the verdict was rendered.
(Emphasis mine) It's funny how you fairly strongly imply that you read the tweets, when it's obvious now you didn't. Also, he didn't make posts, plural. He made a post. About french fries. How does this not square with "Powell insists (and the evidence appears to back him up) that he did not make any pertinent updates until after the verdict was given"?
Also, you try to hide behind the OP comment. But the OP said: What part of "don't discuss this case with anyone until it's over" does this idiot not understand? Again, the one single tweet before the verdict was given was about french fries. Since the RTFAs and the tweet history show he didn't "discuss this case with anyone until it's over", then it looks like he understood it far better than the people who called him an idiot.
In summary, both your post and the OP were bullshit. They make each of you out to be far more of an idiot than it's claimed the subject of this article is.
but were not willing to push their luck because they were, by far, in the minority
Which part of "a good number of them" says "all of them" to you?
Also, I'm not confusing societal normals with inalienable rights. Today, we consider the right to vote to be inalienable regardless of sex, race, religion or creed. Back then, they did not consider these inalienable rights. There really IS no difference between societal normals and inalienable rights. If a society does not consider it the norm for you to have a certain right, they will likely take it away. Inalienable rights, by definition, cannot be taken away. Now, you can get into a philosophical discussion about if you have a given "right" if you are not allowed to exercise it, but I think that's a bit off the subject. The simple fact is that the founding fathers in general are given way too much weight in determining what we consider rights today.
Thing is, if you did RTFAs and 'tweets' you'd know that in spite of what he [and the summary] /said/ he did, he did make posts during breaks before the verdict was rendered. Seems to me that the question is not whether or not he did it (in spite of his denials), but how relevant the posts actually were .
How do you figure this? I read both articles and dug back to his twitter stream. Maybe you're confused because the ars article gives times in a different timezone than his twitter stream. Though it took me all of ten seconds to figure out and verify that.
Nothing I can find says he made any posts like what you are implying. There's one post between him being selected and after the verdict. It's about french fries. I fail to see the evidence you seem to be trying to make people believe is there to bolster your case. Just admit the OP was probably wrong and move on.
Simple fact is, our forefathers would be the first to spit in the face of these anti-gun, crazy people.
Though likely a good number of them would also be the first to spit in the face of black's or women's right's activists.
This has always been one of my least favorite lines of defense. Why not base your arguments on what we find to be right at the current time? The founding father's certainly don't have a monopoly on good ideas, and they never had to fit them into conditions that exist in the present.
I always knew Forry was a poser!
When I asked him why there was no documentation (or very poor documentation when there was) the answer was a combination of "You shouldn't need documentation" and "I'm not paid to document things."
Well, actually... you are.
So he didn't document things, right? And management knew this, right? Did he continue receiving paychecks?
The fact that they hired you shows that he was right, at least on the reality of the situation.
It's seriously hard to get too bent out of shape about this. Sure, the app seller should have thought this through and realized Google would probably cut it off and they would be shafting a bunch of people who paid for it. Maybe they did and didn't really care. But I can't say it was obvious that Google would shut off the free SMS. How does Google make money on gmail? Ads, right? Then why are they fully supportive of using IMAP to access your gmail? I almost never actually use the web browser version. Now giving me gmail without me seeing the ads isn't exactly an obvious money maker for them. It costs them money to offer gmail just like it does to offer free SMS.
I'm happy with how Google handled it. No recriminations or blaming someone else for using a service they provide. Just a polite "we're not really interested in this" and disabling it.
When are these Apple developers going to get the point that freely available things are not so they can make a profit off somebody else's work.
So Google built the internet all by itself, now?
And let's not forget the just how much of google's back end is built on top of gpl/open source software.
these organizations exist as ill-fitting appendages ... that attempt to operate in inhospitable cultures where technical expertise is not recognized, cultivated, or completely understood.'
So, pretty much the same as outside the military.
This is awesome news. As was the last time some "self healing" material was announced. And the time before that. I'm sure the military probably has them, but when will they actually arrive in consumer products?
Will my flexible e-Ink display with batteries that wirelessly charge in five seconds by just laying it on top of a special surface also come with a self healing screen?
Seems appropriate.
What's all this nonsense? First off, this has very little to do with outfits like the MPAA. Hulu is owned by NBC and Fox. A lot of the content on there is directly owned by these companies and they could give it away for free on the streets if they liked. Second, the rest of the content isn't owned by them but is licensed by them. If you understand anything about licensing, you know it's regional. It's done this way to maximize profit for the content owner. For the stuff Fox/NBC doesn't own, if Hulu could come up with the same amount of cash as all their other distribution deals, I'm sure the content owners would love do a worldwide deal. Right now, they're probably making peanuts off of Hulu compared to their prior distribution methods. For example, they have deals where they sell the Simpsons around the globe. I'm sure that nets them a nice bit of change.
Now, what do you think would happen to those deals if everyone around the globe could watch them from Hulu? Okay, right now it wouldn't have that much of an impact because it has yet to go mainstream. But that kind of content access WOULD make it go mainstream. Do you think some network in France would pay top dollar for the most current season of the Simpsons if people could easily play it off of Hulu? In a sense, Hulu has to be afraid of its own success. It needs to have a revenue stream that would replace all these distribution deals that would fall apart.
(FYI, I'm not calling you stupid in the article title. It's just paraphrasing the Clinton slogan.)
Do you actually believe that? The theater will only close down if they are forced to by dwindling revenue. Owners of mega-chains don't give a fuck about the actual moviegoing experience. They simply care about the bottom line. As such, they're not going to intentionally lower their bottom line to zero.
I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought that at the time.
I agree that the result of a change can be paradoxical. But again, you're talking about a whole different scale of change. It seems you and others are just throwing up their hands and saying "it's complex, who knows what will happen?" and hoping it will just turn out for the best. This seems an incredibly poor basis upon which a change of this scale should be made. If this is your basis, than there's innumerable changes to be made in society that will have unknown and possibly drastic results. I'd really like college to be free. Let's just make that happen, ok? And medicine, too. Also, can we go ahead and get rid of income taxes and just do a flat tax?
Who knows, you can make an argument for all of those things turning out well. But do we really want to risk them turning out terribly without having a solid plan for how they would turn out well?
At this point, I think I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you. Because it's really just opinion more than anything else. It's been an enjoyable discussion. Take care!
No, that's what you are referring to. The parent was quite obviously talking about board members and was incredibly off base. You may have your own point, but it is not the point of the OP.
You might also look at hackus' prior comments in other threads. They're all fairly inane, disjointed ramblings. A couple of my favorites:
"This whole economic crisis was obviously contrived, and planned. No way could a bunch of home owners cause a 2 trillion bail out."
"What is the only way to send signals instantaneously without distance becoming a limiting factor in todays world?
Do we know of any such system today?
Well, yes we do. But, I won't mention it here, because it is at the very leading edges of computing and you will just have to look for yourselves. But it involves tapping unseen states of matter which exist outside time and space."
And further fact checking results in it getting moderated all the way down to -1 Troll. Turns out the system works, just over a longer timescale than some people are patient enough to wait for.
That's precisely the problem I have with a lot of "open source equivalents." They are not targeted at the users that use the original application to the fullest. They're targeted more at the casual users. That's fine, but it's not the same program.
And no, I don't think it would be helpful to contact Microsoft. I've also not contact Mozilla after a few lackluster attempts at getting bugs fixed via bugzilla. This has little to do with the closed/open source aspect and much more about the sheer size of a program. Once it gets past a small development team, it becomes much less useful to seek support and much less likely that the bugs that affect your corner of the use case for the application will be addressed.
The company I've actually had the best support from has been Adobe for Flex. I've found that they are very responsive to bug reports. FAR more responsive than any large scale open source program I've ever used. But the end result of that is a new patch or fixes in a new version. Yes, they give these patches out for free, but that is really just an extension of the large original price that was paid for the original product. I don't personally believe this would work if the majority of the users freeloaded and left the purchasing of support to a small handful of users. Especially for a technology like Flex that's just getting off the ground and isn't already embedded in corporate needs.
And, of course, the really major improvements come out in a new, paid, upgrade.
I really do feel your last paragraph is apples to oranges. You're just talking about moving from one method of selling copyrighted material to another method. A better analogy would be if the VCR and movie rental places came out and it had been perfectly legal to dupe the tapes all they wanted. Do you think it would have become a major source of income? Do you think movie studios would ever have joined in and released their movies on videocassette?
I, too, have always written custom software that has a large service component. So I do actually get what you're talking about. However, I just don't think a sample size of two tells you that much about the software market as a whole. I look around at the other software I use on a daily basis - Excel, Word, Photoshop, Delphi, Flex, SQL 2000.
This software IS all that valuable in and of itself. It takes no one at the other end of the line to make it do its job, once the initial programming is complete.
I have never contacted the companies who make these for one single bit of service or support. The closest I've come is using the peer support groups for Delphi and Flex. As many problems as I've had with Photoshop or Office, I still believe they are head and shoulders above the open source alternatives I've tried. At this point, it's all prognostication since you can't scientifically predict what will happen if copyright went away. My prognostication is that you wouldn't have apps at the level of quality of Photoshop and Office.
I don't honestly think my job today would be eliminated. But I do believe when I wanted to switch jobs, my options would be more limited. And I would have to go through the day using lower quality software to try to get my job done.
I really have to think that's an incredibly minor issue. First off, the number of titles that the mass market wants to read that are out of copyright is tiny. Second, they'd have to compete with free (i.e. Project Gutenberg).
You know, normally EULA's are pretty confusing, yet everyone seems to be unable to read plain english. If they don't approve of the methodology, you may not publish the results. Following the EULA, they really have an easy out to just claim they don't like your study and they don't approve. Why would the words "and approved" be in there otherwise?
True. Though that seems to be the very infrequent exception rather than the rule.
It's all about price. If I write a book and someone wants to sell it in one single country, I'm going to get a lot lower of a price from them than someone who wants to sell it worldwide. This is especially true of electronic sales, as it's (unfortunately) tied to certain technologies. Books that only play on the Kindle, audiobooks that only play on the iPod, etc.
This isn't really a major issue with physical goods because you have to pay shipping. This naturally limits the sales outside of your region. So when you go try to shop it around to this new region, you don't actually have to worry about the previous store eating into the sales in the new region. You have an illusion that "nobody has an issue with that", which just isn't true. They just know that it is self-limiting.
So if Amazon wants to sell its Kindle books all over the world, it will need to fork over a much bigger chunk of money. This was be a stupid plan, considering the Kindle may not ever pick up enough steam and fail. Investors aren't going to pony up all that dough to take a global risk when it's much safer to make it succeed in a single country first.
There's an argument there that by not paying for dead authors' works, the living authors actually get more money because you have a certain amount of disposable income. Of course, it's opinion without actual science to back it up, and I can see how it might not work out that way.
It made me think of an additional feature. I often have a different book going that I read at home, one I leave in my car for when I'm waiting on a Dr.'s appointment or eating at a restaurant alone, and another one on my ipod hooked up to my car stereo. It would be great to be able to have a book that I could transition from reading to listening to and back again any time I pleased.