& proxomitron. I love re-shaping the pages I use regularly. When its not on, I feel like my dad when he comes into the city from his hermitage: Oh the noise, the bright lights, acckkphtt!
But what I've always wanted to ask is 'what truly independent research shows p2p hurts sales?' It seems intuitive that it would, but lots of things that 'make sense', turn out to be wrong And further, 'what truly independent research shows that if a legal, convienient, drm-free paid service existed, p2p would hurt sales?' I am not convinced that file sharing has affected the profitablity of any of the content providers. It may have but it may also have had no effect or it may have enhanced sales. If I was a judge/member of a jury, I'd want some hard data before I started throwing people in jail and bankrupting families.
As long as the USA provides services foreign countries need, the dollar will be strong.
need?...Which products would that be? Windows, Hollywood movies, military arms? What exactly does they US provide that other countries can't?
The dollar is weak because foreign countries which lack basic economic knowledge have not opened up to our products.
Examples? Maybe these countries do have a grasp of economics and realize the only way to build an infrastructure is through tarriffs. There is no way a primitive economy can compete with a mature one. Name one country that transitioned to the first world without tarrifs. Aside from that, this comment has the tone of 'if they dont open up, will do it for them, and it'll be for their own good.'
And until everyone in the world has everything they need (a car, house, fridge etc) there is plenty of goods remaining to be provided. Right now, the world lacks the production capacity to make enough goods for everyone. It takes millions more workers than the US has to even supply it's own economy with all the goods and services people want (we now today have more cars and fridges per capita than ever before). Add to that computers, new drugs, and entertainment.
Like it or not, there is a limit to the planet's resources. As the competition for finite resources becomes more deadly, debtor countries with negative balance of payments are going to suffer. The US does not have a god given right to 25% of the world's resources.
We have only a 5% unemployment rate, and that's with more women in the workforce than ever before. The number of hours worked to be able to afford a fridge has reduced a lot since the 1950's. Same with cars.
True, but then add in the massive increases in the costs of education, healthcare, rent/mortages and the decline in real wages as well as the massive decrease in wages as a %tage of GDP. And with the doom and gloom surrounding the fiscal gap, well I'd be worried if I was a middle class american.
Right now, lack of cheap energy is holding the world back. The USA has the knowledge and workers to help countries that need cheap energy get it. For example, we could be building power plants in China.
The chinese can build their own facilities. Haven't you heard of the Yangtze dam? Or the fact they bring 1 new coal plant into the grid every 2 weeks.
Disalination systems for irrigation in the middle east and african desert regions.
Does the US dominate the massive desalination market?
automated harvest systems Etc. In exchange, we'll get cheap manufactured goods from there. If we do things right and advance automation capability (we'll need this because only poorer people/countries tend to have enough kids/workers to replace themselves), someday two hundred years from now people in America and worldwide will only have to work a few hours a day to be able to afford a decent lifestyle. And we'll be arguing how to increase the global population without forced child bearing.
Your strangely deluded. The trend, despite massive gains in worker productivity, is increasing working hours and decreasing real wages.
Yours boils down to: I do what I think is correct. Okay, but please don't call the cops when someone punches you in the face and takes your wallet, because I am sure that it was a perfectly acceptable action to the perpetrator. After all, they really needed the $20 and it's an insignificant amount of $$$ to you, and your nose will heal.
Good post. I remember getting pissed because there was no where in Canada to dL the Daily Show. So instead of paying 2 bucks to an ituney racket, I paid 20 to a usenet host & learned the curve. But my first choice was to pay legally, and
I think most wage earning adults are the same. We are trained from birth to buy things and we like to take the path of least resistance (this also is the reason for windows). But now that I have the p2p humming along ok, I'm going to need some motivation to get legal again. So the longer the media cartels dick around, the more people like me will have crossed over to the dark side.
On the subject of porn, I also remember being disappointed, although this was pre-internet. The stupid moaning, choreographed scenes, the complete lack of enjoyment on the women's part and many times the pain they had to endure yet pretend to enjoy, and well it was like no sex I'd ever had or heard of first hand. I also found that the old saying 'the sexiest parts are the ones you don't see.' was true. Anyone seen the caesarean scar above the hanging wizard sleeves of Brittney's bald crotch? Poof, no more sex appeal.
...so lets legalize smoking ads aimed at kids. Afterall, if behaviour and personality aren't affected by what people see and hear, then who cares about advertising laws.
To the people who think video violence doesn't matter: how do you know this? I am not a psych expert, so I cannot say anything with authority, but intuitively it seems a steady diet of narcissitic, solitary, violence oriented activity might affect child personality development.
I wouldn't. Dude is writing a type of op-ed piece. This style of writing combines the writer's personality (funny, wry, goofy, whatever) with the writers opinion (i.e.judgement) in (hopefully) coherent well reasoned prose. If you are going to condemn a writer for the idiom he is writing in, then you should never read works written in that style because you will always have intellectual blue balls at the end of it. If you need impersonal prose that seeks an Archimedean viewpoint, stick to textbooks and serious journals where the cites are longer than the article. actually, you'd better stick only certain parts of serious journals.
commie bastard, what did jefferson ever do? If we followed his advice, we might create the most powerful enlightened nation on earth. And I know 2% of the population who would hate to see the rabble dissapear.
libertarians espouse liberty for individuals, NOT souless legal fictions. Corporations are not entitled to liberty any more than the starship enterprise is.
An analogy might help: A music artist wants to incorporate other music into his creation. Current ip law says he can't. So his music is impoverished and his creativity restricted. If ip law dissapeared, he would have an immense resource to draw upon when creating (inventing) his piecies. AS an individual, ip restricts his ability to create because ip is a tool for making money, not music. And, because traversing the legal maze of ip law is complicated and expensive, the small content producers cannot fully participate in the system because they don't have all of the collateral resources of a large multinational (lawyers, lobbiests, distribution networks,etc.).
Every man woman and child that has ever paid taxes, paid for health insurance, or paid for drugs. The money for ALL of the drug companies machinations comes from society. Is it not possible to design a system of reward without the souless, profit driven corporations? Or are public universities and philanthopic orgs the the Howard Hughes Medical Institute too stupid and lazy fund and organize research initiatives?
yeah your probably right. Without the CEO's and their 200 million dollar retirement packages (google pfizer + McKinnell) or their 20 million/year in salaries, there would be no quality research. God bless these corporations and their executives.
as a side note, the head of the fda is right. Americans should not be able to re-import drugs from canada at a 50% savings because "...al Qaeda might attack the supply of Canadian drugs." God bless this man for saving american lives from that bearded guy living in a cave without a telephone.
So, because the author isn't jesus christ that makes everything else ok? The questions are about the fundamental structure of the patent system, drug research and manufacture for profit, and marketing--all complicated and deeply rooted systems. Your post makes you look like a knee-jerk prick with the intelligence and wisdom of a FAS ditto-head.
I think you missed the intent of the question. He/she knows its not legally defined as murder, the author wants to know why it is not. What is the moral and ethical culpability of a person who has the means to save someone's life without risking their own or endangering others?
If a person walks by a kiddie pool and sees a newborn in the process of drowning and chooses not to do anything, is that person not morally responsible for the death of that person? And if so, why don't we classify it as murder? Basic legal maxims include the belief that a person is responsible for the consequences of his actions if he is aware of what the outcome of his actions is highly likely to be and chooses to proceed with those actions. So why not include the idea of a person being culpable for the highly predictable consequences of his/her inactions? In the hypothetical, should the person who knowingly left the newborn to die be punished by society for his inaction? And if not, why? Is not the point of law to punish morally and ethically wrong actions that damage society?
The idea that anyone can access the intellectual property of others without paying is just wrong. Librarians are pirates and thieves trying to rob poor starving artists and the hardworking publishing houses, recording companies, and movie studios. Libraries stop people from creating works of art by making them poor.
Who in their right mind is going to write a book knowing it might end up in a library?
Unless you've read the decision and/or the transcripts and you have the expertise, simply dismissing the case based on self defense and the use of a similie is a little arrogant. Maybe you're right, but maybe you're not.
I highly doubt their proggie is designed to defeat the next generation drm in anyway. I think we'll be waiting a long time before "Hdvdecryper" comes out (if ever).
The whole HD thing is over rated. It's kinda like having the deluxe hardcover special edition of a really good (or bad) book. Sure, its nice for a little while, but before long your attention gets pulled into the story, the characters, etc and what kind of paper or what the font is just dosen't matter. Unless its It's crap. Then your attention is on everything but the story. the same applies to movies, imho.
Although, like IMAX, some docs are waaaay better on a huge screen with unbelieveable resolution.
best superhero movie--kinda like the sweetest tasting trash? Hulk--shakespeare...ohh my gut hurts!
Interesting tidbit...my cgi friend at ILM said the director filmed actual dog fights in mexico etc, and made the animators sit through the hours of footage. And he kept saying, "no more real more violent." And he would replay the most god awful video over and over again. It was quite upsetting for the more sensitive/dog loving artists. And thats the reason I refuse to sit through that abomination.
All this money & tech & artistic talent to create a story about a green man and fighting dogs. It's a strange world.
Slashdot Mirror
& proxomitron. I love re-shaping the pages I use regularly. When its not on, I feel like my dad when he comes into the city from his hermitage: Oh the noise, the bright lights, acckkphtt!
in russian courts, with russian judges, based on russian law.
But what I've always wanted to ask is 'what truly independent research shows p2p hurts sales?' It seems intuitive that it would, but lots of things that 'make sense', turn out to be wrong And further, 'what truly independent research shows that if a legal, convienient, drm-free paid service existed, p2p would hurt sales?' I am not convinced that file sharing has affected the profitablity of any of the content providers. It may have but it may also have had no effect or it may have enhanced sales. If I was a judge/member of a jury, I'd want some hard data before I started throwing people in jail and bankrupting families.
need?...Which products would that be? Windows, Hollywood movies, military arms? What exactly does they US provide that other countries can't?
Examples? Maybe these countries do have a grasp of economics and realize the only way to build an infrastructure is through tarriffs. There is no way a primitive economy can compete with a mature one. Name one country that transitioned to the first world without tarrifs. Aside from that, this comment has the tone of 'if they dont open up, will do it for them, and it'll be for their own good.'
Like it or not, there is a limit to the planet's resources. As the competition for finite resources becomes more deadly, debtor countries with negative balance of payments are going to suffer. The US does not have a god given right to 25% of the world's resources.
True, but then add in the massive increases in the costs of education, healthcare, rent/mortages and the decline in real wages as well as the massive decrease in wages as a %tage of GDP. And with the doom and gloom surrounding the fiscal gap, well I'd be worried if I was a middle class american.
The chinese can build their own facilities. Haven't you heard of the Yangtze dam? Or the fact they bring 1 new coal plant into the grid every 2 weeks.
Does the US dominate the massive desalination market?
Your strangely deluded. The trend, despite massive gains in worker productivity, is increasing working hours and decreasing real wages.
Wait is your post a joke? Ok, you got me.
Strawman, next..
I think most wage earning adults are the same. We are trained from birth to buy things and we like to take the path of least resistance (this also is the reason for windows). But now that I have the p2p humming along ok, I'm going to need some motivation to get legal again. So the longer the media cartels dick around, the more people like me will have crossed over to the dark side.
On the subject of porn, I also remember being disappointed, although this was pre-internet. The stupid moaning, choreographed scenes, the complete lack of enjoyment on the women's part and many times the pain they had to endure yet pretend to enjoy, and well it was like no sex I'd ever had or heard of first hand. I also found that the old saying 'the sexiest parts are the ones you don't see.' was true. Anyone seen the caesarean scar above the hanging wizard sleeves of Brittney's bald crotch? Poof, no more sex appeal.
...so lets legalize smoking ads aimed at kids. Afterall, if behaviour and personality aren't affected by what people see and hear, then who cares about advertising laws.
To the people who think video violence doesn't matter: how do you know this? I am not a psych expert, so I cannot say anything with authority, but intuitively it seems a steady diet of narcissitic, solitary, violence oriented activity might affect child personality development.
I wouldn't. Dude is writing a type of op-ed piece. This style of writing combines the writer's personality (funny, wry, goofy, whatever) with the writers opinion (i.e.judgement) in (hopefully) coherent well reasoned prose. If you are going to condemn a writer for the idiom he is writing in, then you should never read works written in that style because you will always have intellectual blue balls at the end of it. If you need impersonal prose that seeks an Archimedean viewpoint, stick to textbooks and serious journals where the cites are longer than the article. actually, you'd better stick only certain parts of serious journals.
cite cite cite. oh and cite. Your prejuidice and hyperbole are embarassing.
commie bastard, what did jefferson ever do? If we followed his advice, we might create the most powerful enlightened nation on earth. And I know 2% of the population who would hate to see the rabble dissapear.
libertarians espouse liberty for individuals, NOT souless legal fictions. Corporations are not entitled to liberty any more than the starship enterprise is.
An analogy might help: A music artist wants to incorporate other music into his creation. Current ip law says he can't. So his music is impoverished and his creativity restricted. If ip law dissapeared, he would have an immense resource to draw upon when creating (inventing) his piecies. AS an individual, ip restricts his ability to create because ip is a tool for making money, not music. And, because traversing the legal maze of ip law is complicated and expensive, the small content producers cannot fully participate in the system because they don't have all of the collateral resources of a large multinational (lawyers, lobbiests, distribution networks,etc.).
And this scientific process has to be a for profit corporate enterprise why?
Who pays for drug R&D?
Every man woman and child that has ever paid taxes, paid for health insurance, or paid for drugs. The money for ALL of the drug companies machinations comes from society. Is it not possible to design a system of reward without the souless, profit driven corporations? Or are public universities and philanthopic orgs the the Howard Hughes Medical Institute too stupid and lazy fund and organize research initiatives?
yeah your probably right. Without the CEO's and their 200 million dollar retirement packages (google pfizer + McKinnell) or their 20 million/year in salaries, there would be no quality research. God bless these corporations and their executives.
as a side note, the head of the fda is right. Americans should not be able to re-import drugs from canada at a 50% savings because "...al Qaeda might attack the supply of Canadian drugs." God bless this man for saving american lives from that bearded guy living in a cave without a telephone.
So, because the author isn't jesus christ that makes everything else ok? The questions are about the fundamental structure of the patent system, drug research and manufacture for profit, and marketing--all complicated and deeply rooted systems. Your post makes you look like a knee-jerk prick with the intelligence and wisdom of a FAS ditto-head.
I think you missed the intent of the question. He/she knows its not legally defined as murder, the author wants to know why it is not. What is the moral and ethical culpability of a person who has the means to save someone's life without risking their own or endangering others?
If a person walks by a kiddie pool and sees a newborn in the process of drowning and chooses not to do anything, is that person not morally responsible for the death of that person? And if so, why don't we classify it as murder? Basic legal maxims include the belief that a person is responsible for the consequences of his actions if he is aware of what the outcome of his actions is highly likely to be and chooses to proceed with those actions. So why not include the idea of a person being culpable for the highly predictable consequences of his/her inactions? In the hypothetical, should the person who knowingly left the newborn to die be punished by society for his inaction? And if not, why? Is not the point of law to punish morally and ethically wrong actions that damage society?
ah, but it is profitable and thats what this all boils down to.
Right now, if the law enforcement agencies were so inclined they could find charges for everyone of us. There are so many laws, we are all criminals.
And society is more likely to lose it's freedoms inch by inch then through one fell swoop.
The idea that anyone can access the intellectual property of others without paying is just wrong. Librarians are pirates and thieves trying to rob poor starving artists and the hardworking publishing houses, recording companies, and movie studios. Libraries stop people from creating works of art by making them poor.
Who in their right mind is going to write a book knowing it might end up in a library?
yeah but then you cant say, "oh my name is on mars. I'm special."
Heres an idea, maybe give the money to the salvation army guy at the mall this xmas and just tell people your name is on mars.
Unless you've read the decision and/or the transcripts and you have the expertise, simply dismissing the case based on self defense and the use of a similie is a little arrogant. Maybe you're right, but maybe you're not.
I highly doubt their proggie is designed to defeat the next generation drm in anyway. I think we'll be waiting a long time before "Hdvdecryper" comes out (if ever).
Thanks, that was quite interesting.
The whole HD thing is over rated. It's kinda like having the deluxe hardcover special edition of a really good (or bad) book. Sure, its nice for a little while, but before long your attention gets pulled into the story, the characters, etc and what kind of paper or what the font is just dosen't matter. Unless its It's crap. Then your attention is on everything but the story. the same applies to movies, imho.
Although, like IMAX, some docs are waaaay better on a huge screen with unbelieveable resolution.
best superhero movie--kinda like the sweetest tasting trash? Hulk--shakespeare...ohh my gut hurts!
Interesting tidbit...my cgi friend at ILM said the director filmed actual dog fights in mexico etc, and made the animators sit through the hours of footage. And he kept saying, "no more real more violent." And he would replay the most god awful video over and over again. It was quite upsetting for the more sensitive/dog loving artists. And thats the reason I refuse to sit through that abomination.
All this money & tech & artistic talent to create a story about a green man and fighting dogs. It's a strange world.