You don't buy a license when you buy a DVD. You buy a DVD.
No license is required to use a DVD you've bought.
Local law might limit what you can and cannot do with copyrighted material. You need a license only if your use falls under the "cannot do" category in your laws. Distribution usually falls under the "cannot do" category. Public performance too. But this is not a result of a restrictive license.
There are disks with better URE than 1 in 10^14. You get rather cheap 7200rpm disks with 1 in 10^15 and fast SCSI and SAS drives tend to have URE of 1 in 10^16.
URE of 1 in 1E14 only applies to desktop drives. More expensive drives have a lower URE rate.
Example: Seagate desktop drives 7200.11 have 1 in 1E14 URE The RAID version ES.2 of the same drive has 1 in 1E15 URE, and their enterprise disks (15k SCSI / SAS) has 1 in 1E16 URE.
My English might be failing me, but I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get across.
In my view there's no need to justify anything. Enjoying the cultural output of society is everyone's right. It's supported by popular opinion, and current laws where I live. I really don't think it's anything wrong with it at all.
Two additional tidbits of information that might help you understand why it's not viewed as a problem here: 1) A large national report concluded that frequent downloaders spend more than 10x the amount of money on music/movies etc. than the general population. Net effect for the content industry was shown to be positive. 2) In addition to heavy subsidies on locally produced music / movies / games, the state pays large amounts of money to rightsholders organizations as compensation for personal copying. (The amount of word-bending and backpedaling from the content industry when someone suggested that sale of drm'd content should not count towards this compensation was truly epic)
I didn't say experiencing art isn't taking part in culture.
Then why are we arguing?
I said piracy isn't taking part in culture.
And now you've lost me again... why does the method of delivery change the experience?
Note that my argument has been against your rant about those who download.
Now you're happy to define for everyone what constitutes art? Ballsy.
Tools are not art. It's not my definition, it's specified in our copyright laws. Making personal copies of art is allowed, for computer programs it's not. There was a supreme court ruling classifying computer games as not cultural significant (in the early 80's). Had the ruling been done today, it might have gone differently.
I think it's you who have a need to redefine language to make it fit your warped world view. How on earth can you say that consuming someones artwork is not taking part in culture? Why does the method of delivery or how much you paid for it affect the cultural influence the work has on you?
Notice that I no where in my post claimed that consumption or distribution of art was in it self a cultural expression. It is not.
And just to clarify something, computer programs does not normally qualify as art and have little cultural impact. And for the record, I've not only worked in a software company, I've owned one. I don't see art and tools as being comparable, but my company had no problem competing with "pirated" versions of our software.
It is not, and will never be morally wrong to take part in culture by consuming and sharing popular cultural expressions. If you think so, there is something seriously wrong with your sense of morallity.
In most countries outside the US it has never been illegal to copy cultural expressions for personal use, and it has not been and hopefully never will be considered morally wrong.
2D barcodes are not necessarily unique to one product. They are usually used to convey a message to the user (in the form of a link), not for identification. (The whole push thing).
1D barcodes used on products follow a unified identification scheme (Universal Product Code), and this is more suitable for the pull thing the article was about.
It's probably possible to embed the UPC number in a 2D barcode, and it's possible to not use it in a 1D barcode. But that's not how it's usually is.
The whole point of using 1D barcodes is that they are EVERYWHERE.
Every packaged item sold anywhere has a UNIQUE 1D barcode. Makes it a bit easier to build a DB from don't you think?
Our profession rings are stainless steel and gold, to symbolize durable/strong and noble/precious. So we wanted something more than gold for our wedding band. We ended up with a titanium-platinum combination, and we're very happy with the choice.
* How would the courts award damages when the harm done is permanent? * How do you put a figure on environmental damage that doesn't translate to damage to humans? Who would the damages be awarded to? * How about harm to future generations? Who would sue on their behalf?
* Who would pay for unbiased research to determine what is harmful and what is not?
Even though the bug deleted a file, it's not possible to lose data due to this bug. The only thing you stand to lose is a few minutes (or hours) of production time due to a non booting system.
You miss the point. 1. We don't use/store all the energy we eat. 2. Some forms of energy we consume, requires energy to metabolize, while others don't.
Point 1. differs from person to person, and from energy source to energy source.
3. The energy used in daily tasks varies from person to person (not directly related to your statement)
And finally: 4. Some unlucky buggers have metabolic abnormalities which cause them to store fat and metabolize stored proteins (mussels) when intake energy used. The mechanisms for this exists in most people, it's a survival reaction that normally never kick in, but for some unlucky buggers it does.
Conclusion: Even your simplification is wrong for a part of the population. The problem is way more complicated, and the energy conservation has no real meaning when it comes to food consumption.
If industrial growth continues while the total carbon credits in circulation declines over time, this should not be a problem.
It's a stated goal in Norway to reduce the domestic carbon credits sold to 0 by 2050. All carbon credits will have to be bought (preferably by paying for emission-reduction technology) in other countries.
Slashdot Mirror
whether laptop OR desktop, and the largest commercial SSD currently is a mere 128 GB.
Wrong
250GB OCZ SSD
You don't buy a license when you buy a DVD. You buy a DVD.
No license is required to use a DVD you've bought.
Local law might limit what you can and cannot do with copyrighted material. You need a license only if your use falls under the "cannot do" category in your laws. Distribution usually falls under the "cannot do" category. Public performance too. But this is not a result of a restrictive license.
There might be something wrong with your PSU(s) if you're getting 100% failure rate.
There are disks with better URE than 1 in 10^14.
You get rather cheap 7200rpm disks with 1 in 10^15 and fast SCSI and SAS drives tend to have URE of 1 in 10^16.
3. SSD/CF/flash chip boot + cable/wifi to file server of cheap TB disks far, far, away
Just boot over net from the server. No SSD/CF/flash needed.
Seagate ES.2 (Cheap SATA RAID drive) 1 in 10E15: Link
Seagate Cheetah 15k.6 1 in 10E16: Link
URE of 1 in 1E14 only applies to desktop drives.
More expensive drives have a lower URE rate.
Example:
Seagate desktop drives 7200.11 have 1 in 1E14 URE
The RAID version ES.2 of the same drive has 1 in 1E15 URE, and their enterprise disks (15k SCSI / SAS) has 1 in 1E16 URE.
The article is just FUD
Desktop drives have 1 in 1E14 URE
Cheap RAID SATA drives have 1 in 1E15 and enterprise disks have 1 in 1E16.
Unless you use 1-2TB desktop drives in your RAID setup, you'll be fine.
My English might be failing me, but I don't think you understand what I'm trying to get across.
In my view there's no need to justify anything. Enjoying the cultural output of society is everyone's right. It's supported by popular opinion, and current laws where I live. I really don't think it's anything wrong with it at all.
Two additional tidbits of information that might help you understand why it's not viewed as a problem here:
1) A large national report concluded that frequent downloaders spend more than 10x the amount of money on music/movies etc. than the general population. Net effect for the content industry was shown to be positive.
2) In addition to heavy subsidies on locally produced music / movies / games, the state pays large amounts of money to rightsholders organizations as compensation for personal copying. (The amount of word-bending and backpedaling from the content industry when someone suggested that sale of drm'd content should not count towards this compensation was truly epic)
I didn't say experiencing art isn't taking part in culture.
Then why are we arguing?
I said piracy isn't taking part in culture.
And now you've lost me again... why does the method of delivery change the experience?
Note that my argument has been against your rant about those who download.
Now you're happy to define for everyone what constitutes art? Ballsy.
Tools are not art. It's not my definition, it's specified in our copyright laws. Making personal copies of art is allowed, for computer programs it's not. There was a supreme court ruling classifying computer games as not cultural significant (in the early 80's). Had the ruling been done today, it might have gone differently.
I think it's you who have a need to redefine language to make it fit your warped world view. How on earth can you say that consuming someones artwork is not taking part in culture? Why does the method of delivery or how much you paid for it affect the cultural influence the work has on you?
Notice that I no where in my post claimed that consumption or distribution of art was in it self a cultural expression. It is not.
And just to clarify something, computer programs does not normally qualify as art and have little cultural impact. And for the record, I've not only worked in a software company, I've owned one. I don't see art and tools as being comparable, but my company had no problem competing with "pirated" versions of our software.
The op talked about people downloading, not uploading.
And some do it because the release is still months (or years) away locally.
It is not, and will never be morally wrong to take part in culture by consuming and sharing popular cultural expressions. If you think so, there is something seriously wrong with your sense of morallity.
In most countries outside the US it has never been illegal to copy cultural expressions for personal use, and it has not been and hopefully never will be considered morally wrong.
How that content is delivered is secondary.
Obviously not for those who pirate...
2D barcodes are not necessarily unique to one product. They are usually used to convey a message to the user (in the form of a link), not for identification. (The whole push thing).
1D barcodes used on products follow a unified identification scheme (Universal Product Code), and this is more suitable for the pull thing the article was about.
It's probably possible to embed the UPC number in a 2D barcode, and it's possible to not use it in a 1D barcode. But that's not how it's usually is.
If you'd bothered to read it all, he explains that it's NOT what the Android app does. This is how regular 2D push barcodes work.
The whole point of using 1D barcodes is that they are EVERYWHERE. Every packaged item sold anywhere has a UNIQUE 1D barcode. Makes it a bit easier to build a DB from don't you think?
I'll give you a hint. It starts with a G
We got our wedding rings at http://www.titaniumera.com/
Our profession rings are stainless steel and gold, to symbolize durable/strong and noble/precious.
So we wanted something more than gold for our wedding band. We ended up with a titanium-platinum combination, and we're very happy with the choice.
Ah. It all makes sense now.
Arbitrary invading sovereign nations was caused by a speech impediment.
* How would the courts award damages when the harm done is permanent?
* How do you put a figure on environmental damage that doesn't translate to damage to humans? Who would the damages be awarded to?
* How about harm to future generations? Who would sue on their behalf?
* Who would pay for unbiased research to determine what is harmful and what is not?
Even though the bug deleted a file, it's not possible to lose data due to this bug.
The only thing you stand to lose is a few minutes (or hours) of production time due to a non booting system.
You miss the point.
1. We don't use/store all the energy we eat.
2. Some forms of energy we consume, requires energy to metabolize, while others don't.
Point 1. differs from person to person, and from energy source to energy source.
3. The energy used in daily tasks varies from person to person (not directly related to your statement)
And finally:
4. Some unlucky buggers have metabolic abnormalities which cause them to store fat and metabolize stored proteins (mussels) when intake energy used.
The mechanisms for this exists in most people, it's a survival reaction that normally never kick in, but for some unlucky buggers it does.
Conclusion: Even your simplification is wrong for a part of the population.
The problem is way more complicated, and the energy conservation has no real meaning when it comes to food consumption.
If industrial growth continues while the total carbon credits in circulation declines over time, this should not be a problem.
It's a stated goal in Norway to reduce the domestic carbon credits sold to 0 by 2050. All carbon credits will have to be bought (preferably by paying for emission-reduction technology) in other countries.