If everyone else is a half-wit who believes that a particular word means something other than what it means to you; how are you going to communicate with them? Hint: not by using the word in the sense that you understand it, if you expect results.
[Disclaimer: 1.74^H^H81 beers have passed my lips.]
What *is* the placebo effect but an indirect measure of the ability of someone to heal themselves when given suitable psychological support - like a child learning to swim whilst holding their parent's hands in the pool - little realising that the adult has released their hold.
Is it so far outside the box to believe that something might be affecting our subconscious' ability to coordinate bodily processes?
You've got to be kidding me. If I have to come to a location multiple times for a job interview, I'm probably wasting my time....
No, you're probably wasting ours.
In my 11 years of experience and many, many job interviews, I've never had to come back to a place for a second interview.
Then you've probably never held a senior position at a LARGE company. Multiple interviews are the norm. There's the preliminary interview with HR, then you'll probably get interviewed by the country/regional director, one of the VP's, or someone on the board, then you'll probably get interviewed by the leader of your team/group and other members of the group. There's at least 3 interviews.
Of course you won't even be CONSIDERED for the position by HR if you haven't taken a number of tests by outside consulting firms that point out your strengths and weaknesses. In fact, continual testing is a part of any serious career.
But then again, I guess we're not talking about the same salary range either.
You appear to like what you describe. To me, it sounds like hell. Enjoy your incarceration.
most of the anger is directed toward the music/movie industry's response to piracy- weaken/destroy fair use, demonize all p2p [possibly restricting its use in the future out of fear] suing people as a scare tactic, excessive/un-constitutional fines, DRMed media etc...
They want to prevent ANY filesharing because if we're sharing files (media, audio, etc..) which we created, it reduces our dependence on THEM. By recovering our heritage, that of free artistic expression amongst all individuals, which has been with us all since the dawn of time, we remove the unwanted middleman and their ability to tax the artistic expression - this is their issue with filesharing in general.
The way they have it at the moment, anyone who wants a career in music must do business with them, because they have all the distribution channels under their control - apart from the 'net. (disclaimer: so I hear - IANAM)
The study is effectively making the assumption that filesharing = copyright infringement.
Are we really to believe that out of every one of those thousands of times we've all seen it implied in print that 'file sharing == illegal', the authour has merely been sloppy or less precise than they might ? OR is there actually a campaign to convince people that sharing files is somehow wrong. If so, why might that be?
Sure, maybe it costs more but that's due to not having to spend the rest of my reading life being extorted by Amazon. Sure, some will say I have a choice but if I want to read something on a Kindle, I need to pay Amazon, yes?
With the iliad, I can obtain the books in countless ways and upload them to it myself rather than via some Amazon 'service'.
Also, I'm interested in better way more than I'm interested in cheaper. Particularly when it's 'cheaper but you'll pay through the nose for the rest of your life':D
I've seen some e-books on Amazon which cost MORE than the paper equivalents. How does that make sense (to the reader) ?
Let's not let such minor technical quibbles regarding whether the current 'rights holders' deserve to hold the rights affect our viewpoint; the fact is they've used some 'legal' sleight-of-hand and now they are to be treated as though they are deserving; apparently.
There is this thing called.. The Free Market where people magically vote with their dollar....
It's my understanding that the free market principle is as broken as the democratic principle; if the 'competition' reads from the same rulebook, how is the customer/voter to express their wishes?
Minor problem...back to pretending we have choice.
Particularly as this relates to 'imaginary property', I see no reason why the buyers, who bought in good faith, should be deprived of their purchases.
If we accept that the rights holder didn't ever give permission to the sales, their wishes have been ignored when offering the items for sale but should their rights be given more weight than those of the customers? I see no reason why this should be so.
As I understand it, the sequence of events went like this:
* publisher decides to sell books through amazon
* people buy books
* publisher changes mind
* amazon takes books back
What I'm saying is that your characterization is effectively identical to slothdead's.. they had the legal right at one point, people bought it legally and so there should be no way to pretend they did otherwise.
You seem to be saying that amazon didn't ever have the right to sell.
The sharing of ideas is necissary for evolution to continue.
This is the key for me; rapid exchange of ideas is leading to a global increase in consciousness; this makes us more difficult to subdue/control - therefore, an all-out attack on sharing under one guise or another.
Not that there's any chance in hell for this to happen but I vote to have any (legal) copyright protection removed for any material that has DRM.
Why limit yourself?
The benefit governments/corporations have over the rest of us is information, organization and commitment. If a sufficiently large chunk of citizens/customers had sufficient information and the ability to come to a consensus viewpoint and take action/inaction to represent this viewpoint, 'we' could have anything we like.
I'm pretty sure this is nominally the role of government but it doesn't seem this way to me; it seems more like a them-and-us situation and I'm tired of being herded around for some politician's/corporate-ghoul's benefit.
I'm a crazy guy who cares about my rights and freedoms and expects that if I bought something not only do I legally own it, but the owner of the IP and company that sold it to me shouldn't be able to take it away from me.
You are crazy. Kneel before your corporate overlords and be happy!
Slashdot Mirror
omg, surely you can't be suggesting that the experimenters don't have control of all their variables!?!?.
Maybe people will start taking responsibility for their actions? Stranger things have happened.
I would imagine that more of it is due to the actual drugs being pushed by these companies. Remember ppl, bodily harmony is like a swinging pendulum.
-1 slashdot-is-wrong-not-me
Yes, they really do.
If everyone else is a half-wit who believes that a particular word means something other than what it means to you; how are you going to communicate with them? Hint: not by using the word in the sense that you understand it, if you expect results.
[Disclaimer: 1.74^H^H81 beers have passed my lips.]
What *is* the placebo effect but an indirect measure of the ability of someone to heal themselves when given suitable psychological support - like a child learning to swim whilst holding their parent's hands in the pool - little realising that the adult has released their hold.
Is it so far outside the box to believe that something might be affecting our subconscious' ability to coordinate bodily processes?
You appear to like what you describe. To me, it sounds like hell. Enjoy your incarceration.
In my experience that consists of asking candidates if they qualify.
Is this ask-slashdot part of the test? :D
What did I win?
They want to prevent ANY filesharing because if we're sharing files (media, audio, etc..) which we created, it reduces our dependence on THEM. By recovering our heritage, that of free artistic expression amongst all individuals, which has been with us all since the dawn of time, we remove the unwanted middleman and their ability to tax the artistic expression - this is their issue with filesharing in general.
The way they have it at the moment, anyone who wants a career in music must do business with them, because they have all the distribution channels under their control - apart from the 'net. (disclaimer: so I hear - IANAM)
So, if you're not paying, I hope you're able to live with the onslaught from your conscience.
Are we really to believe that out of every one of those thousands of times we've all seen it implied in print that 'file sharing == illegal', the authour has merely been sloppy or less precise than they might ? OR is there actually a campaign to convince people that sharing files is somehow wrong. If so, why might that be?
Why is flamebait -1 rather than +1 ? Huh?
Sure, maybe it costs more but that's due to not having to spend the rest of my reading life being extorted by Amazon. Sure, some will say I have a choice but if I want to read something on a Kindle, I need to pay Amazon, yes?
With the iliad, I can obtain the books in countless ways and upload them to it myself rather than via some Amazon 'service'.
Also, I'm interested in better way more than I'm interested in cheaper. Particularly when it's 'cheaper but you'll pay through the nose for the rest of your life' :D
I've seen some e-books on Amazon which cost MORE than the paper equivalents. How does that make sense (to the reader) ?
Let's not let such minor technical quibbles regarding whether the current 'rights holders' deserve to hold the rights affect our viewpoint; the fact is they've used some 'legal' sleight-of-hand and now they are to be treated as though they are deserving; apparently.
Me either; I'm very happy with my iliad reader
It's my understanding that the free market principle is as broken as the democratic principle; if the 'competition' reads from the same rulebook, how is the customer/voter to express their wishes?
Minor problem...back to pretending we have choice.
Particularly as this relates to 'imaginary property', I see no reason why the buyers, who bought in good faith, should be deprived of their purchases.
If we accept that the rights holder didn't ever give permission to the sales, their wishes have been ignored when offering the items for sale but should their rights be given more weight than those of the customers? I see no reason why this should be so.
As I understand it, the sequence of events went like this:
* publisher decides to sell books through amazon
* people buy books
* publisher changes mind
* amazon takes books back
What I'm saying is that your characterization is effectively identical to slothdead's .. they had the legal right at one point, people bought it legally and so there should be no way to pretend they did otherwise.
You seem to be saying that amazon didn't ever have the right to sell.
This is the key for me; rapid exchange of ideas is leading to a global increase in consciousness; this makes us more difficult to subdue/control - therefore, an all-out attack on sharing under one guise or another.
I don't recall them promising to not use the key again.
Why limit yourself?
The benefit governments/corporations have over the rest of us is information, organization and commitment. If a sufficiently large chunk of citizens/customers had sufficient information and the ability to come to a consensus viewpoint and take action/inaction to represent this viewpoint, 'we' could have anything we like.
I'm pretty sure this is nominally the role of government but it doesn't seem this way to me; it seems more like a them-and-us situation and I'm tired of being herded around for some politician's/corporate-ghoul's benefit.
Option (c), neither.
You are crazy. Kneel before your corporate overlords and be happy!
It was legally purchased. Only after the sale did the publisher recant. This decision doesn't somehow ripple back in time making the sale illegal.