Awesome, your reading comprehension missed the "+", indicating "some quantity greater than", and the part where I mentioned "and we assume some people dont report [unemployment]".
I love pedants who manage to make complete asses of themselves by failing to comprehend the very thing they criticize.
Who says the content creator wants you downloading their song off of limewire?
But nothing they had is gone.
And the store can buy more milk. But you seemed to place some value on whether or not the store wanted someone else to acquire its good, regardless of costs-- why does the content creator have no say all of a sudden?
You completely missed my argument, as shown by your final statement:
Actual money is only lost if the pirate went up and robbed the store.
If societal pressures and norms result in a song netting only a single initial sale despite thousands of downloads, then money IS lost, and value WAS lost-- money, because the costs of production and time were not recouped, and value, because that song having been shared made the worth of the "purchase" less than that of the "download".
How can I make this clearer for you? Its not really arguable that the availability of pirated songs has SOME negative affect on sales, all that is arguable is how inflated the figures are and what the exact effects are. I dont think anyone has really done a good job of quantifying that yet, but to see people try to defend wholesale freeloading simply because it suits them drives me up the wall.
I can actually prove to you that there is a negative effect on sales, and its not arguable because it is a personal example. Some number of years ago I DID download songs from limewire et al. Subsequently I had a change of heart (shall we say) and decided to go legit. There are indeed a number of songs that I had downloaded that I would never have bought, but there were also others that, my conscience no longer permitting me to freeload, I paid for. Had I not had qualms about that, I would indeed have merrily grabbed a copy off of P2P, and the creator (or whomever they sold their rights to-- which is honestly their business) would have gotten nothing.
As long as they stop buying into the "business phones need to be multimedia whizzes" bullshit, theyll be fine. People who want touch phones arent going to want a blackberry, and those of us who want blackberries dont want fast CPUs, games, and a touch screen. All we want is a messaging device that works and is reliable.
Seriously, Im kind of pissed that I upgraded to BES os 6.0, and it was optimized for touch, but was less usable and less stable. If they can just focus on what theyre GOOD at-- BES, great keyboards, great battery life, great usability shortcuts-- there will continue to be a market for them from people who actually want to do useful things with their phones.
In four years I'll be starting a company based on the idea of having a device that stores all your photos, emails, and applications locally so you aren't tied to the cloud.
Way to completely not understand how BES works. None of your stuff is stored in RIM's "cloud", whether you use BIS, BES, or neither. All BES and BIS do are provide push functionality. BES can go completely down, and my access to previous email is still there, as is my access to my gmail. My photos and apps, notably, are stored locally.
Some of them do actual work, actually. Thats why we get a device with a physical keyboard, a full-days batterylife, and awesome messaging suite, rather than aiming for the GPU performance and whether or not theres an "app for that" yet.
Yes, Im being disparaging of Android (even as I secretly long for a Galaxy S 2-- if only they had a physical keyboard....).
I saw those, but "being available" isnt the same as "widely known and trusted". They might be solid, and are worth looking at, but something you found on google 5 minutes ago hardly compares to a product thats been out for around a decade and has had its security vetted by the masses.
It takes a whopping 1.5 hours to deploy BES Express. I bet you I could have the server deployed and all of the blackberries configured before you got through configuring your andriods.
If theres a law (or implicit legislative approval) allowing the authorities to search your phone, I dont think an app would solve the legal quagmire you would find yourself in.
I suppose if you really wanted to fight this thing, it would be the quickest way to start a head-on confrontation with the law, however.
Lets say you can work out the costs of producing and shipping a gallon of milk to the store, and it works out to $1.00.
Now, you normally go the store, and pay the retail cost of the milk ($2.89), and the store turns a profit, and operates as normal.
One day, you notice that your friends are just taking the milk, and leaving $1.00 on the milk shelf (ie, zero loss, zero profit). Theyre not checking the milk out nor paying the proper $2.89. They've discovered a path through the store that no employees ever watch, nor are their cameras or security devices to stop them. There is zero risk, and they reason that the store isnt taking a LOSS, so it doesnt hurt the store. They also say that, if they had to pay the full price, they simply wouldnt drink milk at all, so really, theres no problem here.
What does that do for the desirability of full priced milk for YOU? Does not the knowledge of that same good at a lower price effectively make the store compete with a "phantom" competitor whose costs are insignificant? Why should you not join with your friends, knowing that, with so many others doing it, the risk for you is even more insignificant than it was for them?
More to the point of how it hurts the store, if all of their goods all of a sudden start netting 0 profit, what reason does the store even have to exist? This is assuming, of course, that the friends' assumptions on the milk cost were correct, and they were not in fact causing a minor loss of money.
This is why the entire discussion over "IP infringement isnt theft" misses the point entirely. Value is lost, and as there are production costs to creative goods, I would contend that actual money is lost.
Well Put! If a developer of any speciality can't get a job it is not caused by either the government or state of the economy.
I dont think thats what I said in my post, but if you wanted to build a strawman today, you certainly succeeded.
Personally, I kind of thought I was making a simple observation, that if the unemployment rate is around 10% (and we assume some people dont report it), then it must mean that most people have jobs.
This is just another reason why US based manufacturers are screwed by the world market. They have to pay full US taxes on their full profits, the other businesses don't.
Well, Im sure the solution to that is to apply more taxes to the remaining countries in the US, right?
Considering his closed hardware platforms, Jobs showed us that his views were perhaps even more the antithesis of the FOSS movement than those of Mr. Bill.
Apple is in no danger of killing FOSS, and has contributed it in the past. Why is everyone so eager to see another option in the market-- one that many people seem to love (even if it is overpriced)-- disappear? Would that somehow make Ubuntu 11.04 somehow more palatable, or improve the state of btrfs? Im just not getting it here.
If you want to criticize Apple for other things than its closed platform, thats fine-- Im sure there are many good criticisms. But Im just not really getting the issue, PCs arent going away and neither is the ability to tinker with Linux or build your own PC. Possibly if we got to a state where Apple was the only game in town, there would be a legitimate concern-- but that is nowhere close to reality right now.
Note: I dont recommend Apple to anyone (because I think its overpriced nonsense), nor do I own any Apple products.
People affected by scams tend to regret them after having been scammed. Im not aware of anyone who's bought Apple products and then been furious because they felt like they were scammed. Honestly, most of the rage about Apple seems to be that techies are infuriated that their non-techie friends DARE to have an opinion or preference in computing that differs with their own.
"I mean, dont these people know that Apple devours freedom? That it is overpriced hardware?" Well, maybe their priorities are just different than yours. Can everyone take a chill pill and accept that Apple sells legitimate products and is generally a legitimate company? (Excepting, of course, when they turn into litigious monsters, which IS a valid complaint to make about them.)
I dont know if I would call any of the things Apple did "horrible". At worst they did some anticompetitive things (like suing Psystar-type companies), but most of the "horrible" things they do are to people who flock to them willingly BECAUSE of the walled garden approach. People buying apple tend to WANT one company managing the aesthetics from start to finish.
Calling Apple horrible because of that is like calling a girl selling lemonade on the corner "horrible" because you find the lemonade to be too sour. Guess what, some people want it that way.
This argument is flawed. In the case of copying stuff on the internet, you just deny a business some hypothetical sales.
To use your phrase, yeah but no.
Its not that simple. When you take something you havent paid for, even if the original is still there, the actual value of it goes down. In a very real sense, piracy costs the creator money by illegitimately reducing the worth of that product.
You can argue about whether the creator deserves ANY compensation for their work, but acting like piracy doesnt affect the "economy" of creative works is overly simplistic, and incorrect.
The only way to make an honest buck in this economy is to steal it.
Tell that to all the people holding jobs. Suprise suprise, the majority of people in this country actually have jobs where they earn livings.
Unless you intend to accuse 80+% of the country of being dishonest in their work?
Or did you really just want to inject an unrelated rant on politics into the discussion, for no good reason? If so, I hope the mods would use the correct mod of "offtopic", rather than marking a comment insightful when it offers 0 insight into the discussion at hand.
Once again, if your browser is exploited to the extent that the attacker can invoke that remote access plugin unauthorized, the battle is already lost-- they are running arbitrary code and could if desired download that plugin or another userland program on demand.
Thats not 100% accurate, we use Bomgar remote support which allows non-admins to run an agent to give us user-level access to their screen, remotely, even if it is our first time accessing said system. We also trial ran LogMeIn Rescue 2 years ago, which likewise did not require admin rights even for first time access-- even on Windows 7. However, in order to have access to the login screen, we would have to press a button to request UAC elevation.
Pretty much all big-name remote support tools are like this these days, they dont require a low-level driver.
I only read the first few blocks of text, where you appear to be arguing the most insignificant point regarding RAM optimizers. It is generally accepted that whatever benefit they provide, it is minor, and using them to improve performance is time that would have been better spent getting more RAM, if thats truly your bottleneck.
As for the rest, if you plan to argue with Mark Russinovich on Windows, kernels, or anything else of that nature, I really dont envy the whooping youre likely to receive. Im not sure who you are other than an AC who goes by APK, but Mark Russinovich is one of the leading experts on all things windows, and has made some of the absolute best troubleshooting tools for digging into Windows issues out there.
Your entire arguments seem to be centered around your insistence that you really do need memory optimizers on Windows, when noone suggests it, none of the best practices analyzers suggest it, none of the MS documentation mentions it, and the ONLY place such a thing gets a mention is in one tool that basically noone uses. For the entirety of my time working on computers (and of my time in school), I have heard time and again the experts saying "dont use them, they do nothing", which is basically true (there are corner cases where in a pinch it might help for a very brief time of high memory pressure to use such an optimizer, but they are very rare, and usually the problem is more fundamentally a shortage of RAM).
Its so scatterbrained and ridiculous Im not sure why I even bothered to respond, honestly, but here you go.
Slashdot Mirror
,,,,You mean like bitcoin?
Awesome, your reading comprehension missed the "+", indicating "some quantity greater than", and the part where I mentioned "and we assume some people dont report [unemployment]".
I love pedants who manage to make complete asses of themselves by failing to comprehend the very thing they criticize.
Who says they wanted to sell to them?
Who says the content creator wants you downloading their song off of limewire?
But nothing they had is gone.
And the store can buy more milk. But you seemed to place some value on whether or not the store wanted someone else to acquire its good, regardless of costs-- why does the content creator have no say all of a sudden?
You completely missed my argument, as shown by your final statement:
Actual money is only lost if the pirate went up and robbed the store.
If societal pressures and norms result in a song netting only a single initial sale despite thousands of downloads, then money IS lost, and value WAS lost-- money, because the costs of production and time were not recouped, and value, because that song having been shared made the worth of the "purchase" less than that of the "download".
How can I make this clearer for you? Its not really arguable that the availability of pirated songs has SOME negative affect on sales, all that is arguable is how inflated the figures are and what the exact effects are. I dont think anyone has really done a good job of quantifying that yet, but to see people try to defend wholesale freeloading simply because it suits them drives me up the wall.
I can actually prove to you that there is a negative effect on sales, and its not arguable because it is a personal example. Some number of years ago I DID download songs from limewire et al. Subsequently I had a change of heart (shall we say) and decided to go legit. There are indeed a number of songs that I had downloaded that I would never have bought, but there were also others that, my conscience no longer permitting me to freeload, I paid for. Had I not had qualms about that, I would indeed have merrily grabbed a copy off of P2P, and the creator (or whomever they sold their rights to-- which is honestly their business) would have gotten nothing.
In trying to globalize a US brand, they killed what made the Thinkpads unique
I thought what made thinkpads unique was those silly little mouse nobs....
As long as they stop buying into the "business phones need to be multimedia whizzes" bullshit, theyll be fine. People who want touch phones arent going to want a blackberry, and those of us who want blackberries dont want fast CPUs, games, and a touch screen. All we want is a messaging device that works and is reliable.
Seriously, Im kind of pissed that I upgraded to BES os 6.0, and it was optimized for touch, but was less usable and less stable. If they can just focus on what theyre GOOD at-- BES, great keyboards, great battery life, great usability shortcuts-- there will continue to be a market for them from people who actually want to do useful things with their phones.
In four years I'll be starting a company based on the idea of having a device that stores all your photos, emails, and applications locally so you aren't tied to the cloud.
Way to completely not understand how BES works. None of your stuff is stored in RIM's "cloud", whether you use BIS, BES, or neither. All BES and BIS do are provide push functionality. BES can go completely down, and my access to previous email is still there, as is my access to my gmail. My photos and apps, notably, are stored locally.
Blackberry users have no souls. They're all PHBs.
Some of them do actual work, actually. Thats why we get a device with a physical keyboard, a full-days batterylife, and awesome messaging suite, rather than aiming for the GPU performance and whether or not theres an "app for that" yet.
Yes, Im being disparaging of Android (even as I secretly long for a Galaxy S 2-- if only they had a physical keyboard....).
I saw those, but "being available" isnt the same as "widely known and trusted". They might be solid, and are worth looking at, but something you found on google 5 minutes ago hardly compares to a product thats been out for around a decade and has had its security vetted by the masses.
It takes a whopping 1.5 hours to deploy BES Express. I bet you I could have the server deployed and all of the blackberries configured before you got through configuring your andriods.
If theres a law (or implicit legislative approval) allowing the authorities to search your phone, I dont think an app would solve the legal quagmire you would find yourself in.
I suppose if you really wanted to fight this thing, it would be the quickest way to start a head-on confrontation with the law, however.
Probably not, because I think even that might be a stretch.
*countries should be companies
Lets say you can work out the costs of producing and shipping a gallon of milk to the store, and it works out to $1.00.
Now, you normally go the store, and pay the retail cost of the milk ($2.89), and the store turns a profit, and operates as normal.
One day, you notice that your friends are just taking the milk, and leaving $1.00 on the milk shelf (ie, zero loss, zero profit). Theyre not checking the milk out nor paying the proper $2.89. They've discovered a path through the store that no employees ever watch, nor are their cameras or security devices to stop them. There is zero risk, and they reason that the store isnt taking a LOSS, so it doesnt hurt the store. They also say that, if they had to pay the full price, they simply wouldnt drink milk at all, so really, theres no problem here.
What does that do for the desirability of full priced milk for YOU? Does not the knowledge of that same good at a lower price effectively make the store compete with a "phantom" competitor whose costs are insignificant? Why should you not join with your friends, knowing that, with so many others doing it, the risk for you is even more insignificant than it was for them?
More to the point of how it hurts the store, if all of their goods all of a sudden start netting 0 profit, what reason does the store even have to exist? This is assuming, of course, that the friends' assumptions on the milk cost were correct, and they were not in fact causing a minor loss of money.
This is why the entire discussion over "IP infringement isnt theft" misses the point entirely. Value is lost, and as there are production costs to creative goods, I would contend that actual money is lost.
Well Put! If a developer of any speciality can't get a job it is not caused by either the government or state of the economy.
I dont think thats what I said in my post, but if you wanted to build a strawman today, you certainly succeeded.
Personally, I kind of thought I was making a simple observation, that if the unemployment rate is around 10% (and we assume some people dont report it), then it must mean that most people have jobs.
This is just another reason why US based manufacturers are screwed by the world market. They have to pay full US taxes on their full profits, the other businesses don't.
Well, Im sure the solution to that is to apply more taxes to the remaining countries in the US, right?
Considering his closed hardware platforms, Jobs showed us that his views were perhaps even more the antithesis of the FOSS movement than those of Mr. Bill.
Apple is in no danger of killing FOSS, and has contributed it in the past. Why is everyone so eager to see another option in the market-- one that many people seem to love (even if it is overpriced)-- disappear? Would that somehow make Ubuntu 11.04 somehow more palatable, or improve the state of btrfs? Im just not getting it here.
If you want to criticize Apple for other things than its closed platform, thats fine-- Im sure there are many good criticisms. But Im just not really getting the issue, PCs arent going away and neither is the ability to tinker with Linux or build your own PC. Possibly if we got to a state where Apple was the only game in town, there would be a legitimate concern-- but that is nowhere close to reality right now.
Note: I dont recommend Apple to anyone (because I think its overpriced nonsense), nor do I own any Apple products.
People affected by scams tend to regret them after having been scammed. Im not aware of anyone who's bought Apple products and then been furious because they felt like they were scammed. Honestly, most of the rage about Apple seems to be that techies are infuriated that their non-techie friends DARE to have an opinion or preference in computing that differs with their own.
"I mean, dont these people know that Apple devours freedom? That it is overpriced hardware?"
Well, maybe their priorities are just different than yours. Can everyone take a chill pill and accept that Apple sells legitimate products and is generally a legitimate company? (Excepting, of course, when they turn into litigious monsters, which IS a valid complaint to make about them.)
I dont know if I would call any of the things Apple did "horrible". At worst they did some anticompetitive things (like suing Psystar-type companies), but most of the "horrible" things they do are to people who flock to them willingly BECAUSE of the walled garden approach. People buying apple tend to WANT one company managing the aesthetics from start to finish.
Calling Apple horrible because of that is like calling a girl selling lemonade on the corner "horrible" because you find the lemonade to be too sour. Guess what, some people want it that way.
This argument is flawed. In the case of copying stuff on the internet, you just deny a business some hypothetical sales.
To use your phrase, yeah but no.
Its not that simple. When you take something you havent paid for, even if the original is still there, the actual value of it goes down. In a very real sense, piracy costs the creator money by illegitimately reducing the worth of that product.
You can argue about whether the creator deserves ANY compensation for their work, but acting like piracy doesnt affect the "economy" of creative works is overly simplistic, and incorrect.
The only way to make an honest buck in this economy is to steal it.
Tell that to all the people holding jobs. Suprise suprise, the majority of people in this country actually have jobs where they earn livings.
Unless you intend to accuse 80+% of the country of being dishonest in their work?
Or did you really just want to inject an unrelated rant on politics into the discussion, for no good reason? If so, I hope the mods would use the correct mod of "offtopic", rather than marking a comment insightful when it offers 0 insight into the discussion at hand.
Once again, if your browser is exploited to the extent that the attacker can invoke that remote access plugin unauthorized, the battle is already lost-- they are running arbitrary code and could if desired download that plugin or another userland program on demand.
Thats not 100% accurate, we use Bomgar remote support which allows non-admins to run an agent to give us user-level access to their screen, remotely, even if it is our first time accessing said system. We also trial ran LogMeIn Rescue 2 years ago, which likewise did not require admin rights even for first time access-- even on Windows 7. However, in order to have access to the login screen, we would have to press a button to request UAC elevation.
Pretty much all big-name remote support tools are like this these days, they dont require a low-level driver.
No, sudo su is for people who have a random or unknown root password, but have full sudo capabilities.
Remote assistance runs as the logged in user, last I checked, and has no access to the login screen.
UAC doesnt just grant the user admin rights. They need to have an admin account, or know the password to one.
I think we are arguing different things, honestly, I am aware remote desktop control is possible without admin (VNC, LogMeIn, etc etc etc).
I only read the first few blocks of text, where you appear to be arguing the most insignificant point regarding RAM optimizers. It is generally accepted that whatever benefit they provide, it is minor, and using them to improve performance is time that would have been better spent getting more RAM, if thats truly your bottleneck.
As for the rest, if you plan to argue with Mark Russinovich on Windows, kernels, or anything else of that nature, I really dont envy the whooping youre likely to receive. Im not sure who you are other than an AC who goes by APK, but Mark Russinovich is one of the leading experts on all things windows, and has made some of the absolute best troubleshooting tools for digging into Windows issues out there.
Your entire arguments seem to be centered around your insistence that you really do need memory optimizers on Windows, when noone suggests it, none of the best practices analyzers suggest it, none of the MS documentation mentions it, and the ONLY place such a thing gets a mention is in one tool that basically noone uses. For the entirety of my time working on computers (and of my time in school), I have heard time and again the experts saying "dont use them, they do nothing", which is basically true (there are corner cases where in a pinch it might help for a very brief time of high memory pressure to use such an optimizer, but they are very rare, and usually the problem is more fundamentally a shortage of RAM).
Its so scatterbrained and ridiculous Im not sure why I even bothered to respond, honestly, but here you go.