The most important aspect of the definition of theft is that it is about the deprivation of a rival good. If I steal a car from you, you are deprived of that car. That's how the word works, that's how the law works.
You (and just about everyone who makes this argument) keep missing the forest for the trees. No, a physical good is not lost in infringement, but value IS lost.
I would refer you to this item, which is a $50 audio CD by an indie artist. Apparently there is a market for this CD at a $50 pricepoint-- if there were not, the price would be lower. Now what do you suppose happens when something like that gets onto limewire or bittorrent? Do you think perhaps that either A) there are fewer buyers, B) the price is lowered, but revenue still declines, or C) the guy just stops making indie music?
There seem to be several assumptions from people who make your argument that are just wrong. One seems to be an implicit idea that infringement is OK because it lowers the price point and acts as a form of competition, but this ignores the fact that black markets do the same thing. Another seems to be that if the artist cant make money with piracy occuring, then he needs to change how he does things (ie, make less money) or go out of business; this basically says a whole range of small-time creators dont desesrve to exist (like Wo. A third invalid assumption is that since theft has been around forever and infringement has not, infringement must be less valid of a societal law. But copyright was built into the constitution, apparently because some 200 years ago the founders decided that not having copyright was not a good thing, and that certain ideas should in fact count as SOME kind of property for a limited time. You're free to argue that, but "infringement" isnt exactly new, and creative types have for a long time sought ways to protect their ideas.
Im not arguing that you are not correct in technical terms, but its sort of like arguing the difference between a record and a CD to your 60 yo father-- you may be technically right, but its not helpful to the discussion. For the intents and purposes discussed on slashdot, there is no important difference in this digital world between theft and infringement that I can discern.
For the millionth time, while the distinction may be important in a court of law, bringing this into a slashdot discussion is just muddying the waters and attempting to hide the fact that "copyright infringement" STILL results in a party taking something that is not his.
In fact, while they ARE different, I would argue that infringement is the digital equivalent of theft, as in both cases the victim does lose something-- value. If there is an indie artist who wants to sell his MP3s for $40 a piece (and there is a market for it), but then people start stealing it on bittorrent, those MP3s will likely not survive at their $40 price point.
There is no problem because the industry has already acknowledged that PCI-E is better than PCI
Is that acknowledgement really even required? What criticism could you level at PCIe that wouldnt doubly apply to PCI? AFAIK its just better in every conceivable way...
would be perfectly happy to see the rigs gone, lest this get worse, or happen again
Honest question: Why do people seem to accept this argument as valid for oil rigs, but using Chernobyl as a reason against nuclear is (generally, and rightfully) rejected as irrelevant and a piss poor argument?
All server-to-server communication is TLS encrypted and authenticated. All wave origins are verified using digital signatures, so, to quote from wikipedia,
Therefore, a downstream wave provider can verify that the wave provider is not spoofing wavelet operations. It should not be able to falsely claim that a wavelet operation originated from a user on another wave provider or that it was originated in a different context.(source)
Real-time communication is possible-- that is, if you so desire, letter-by-letter updates are possible. This is not possible in email, so wave is in that way "more capable". Ill leave it to marketing droids to find use-cases for this.
you can extend it with native widgets and/ or videos. For example, if you want to discuss where to go on vacation, send a wave with a "vote" widget, and just check the wave for results. Email cannot do this; you need to link to an HTML page to get anything remotely similar.
Waves can be embedded. Blog comment sections can be replaced by waves; forum threads by waves. All comments would appear in your inbox. Email cannot even hope to replicate this other than with the clunky-and-annoying "notify me when someone responds" forum setting.
You can easily add people to the discussion. The only way to do so with email is to re-forward the whole chain of emails to them and ask them to reply-all; or to include them in the next reply-all and hope that noone else responds first. This is a pretty glaring flaw of email that Wave fixes.
You can retract statements and comments and actions on a wave so that they dont appear in the finished result, though they still appear in the history (its only a superficial change). Email doesnt really have this capability.
Waves can be made global and public. Theres no "everyone.on.the.internet@internet.com" email address (i hope)
Waves can be moderated; just because someone is a member of the wave doesnt mean they can forward (copy-paste works tho). Emails cannot-- all participants have equal control.
Need I go on? Lets face it, SMTP was a decent protocol, and has lasted a long time, but its age is showing, and its really time to move past something so antiquated and problem-ridden (spam? spoofing? reply-all fun? lack of encryption-by-default?).
There may indeed be good criticisms of the protocol, but the majority of the posts here seem to boil down to "I dont understand it, therefore it must have no uses". Is it just because it was Google that released it that it must be evil?
It looks like the question of wave's future rests not on whether its better (it is) or its useful (it is) or whether it has email integration (it does)... but on whether people will respond with a "its new, I dont understand it, I'm not going to acknowledge its merit", or if theyre willing to actually give the thing a try, do a little research, and judge it on its merits or lack thereof.
Reading your comment, I had a sudden vision of someone saying the same thing about email-- "wake me up when someone can build an interesting application using the email platform".
It doesnt have to be "interesting" to be phenomenally better or useful.
It seems (so far as I can see) to be a direct replacement for email if it gains enough adoption. All data is encypted, and (as i understand it) all senders are verified, so spam and eavesdropping problems are pretty neatly dealt with. It extends the functionality quite a bit too, allowing for native video, widgets, etc.
It simplifies multi-person communication vs what you get with email-- currently adding a new person to a chain of emails is rather clunky: you have to forward the chain to them, and then hope that they correctly reply-all, otherwise the whole chain is messed up and if you need to add another person, he misses chunks. With wave, just click the "add another person" button, and they can see the entire conversation-- unless you want to keep certain parts private (which is easy to do)
It consolidates messaging on the internet. Currently, you go to JoeSchmoes blog, 2 forums, and slashdot, and leave posts at each. In order to check your replies, you need to visit each site and dig around to find your post.
With wave, the blog comments could be a wave, the forum threads each could be waves, and the slashdot comments be waves. You reply, and your inbox now reflects the subscriptions to each. You could reply from your inbox, while others reply from slashdot or the blog-- but its all one messaging system, which means that doing it mobile is now a lot easier as well (you just need a mobile wave client).
Point 3 is especially big. Its kind of hard to see the benefit until youve actually tinkered with it and seen what it can do. For example I created a blogspot account, set up a test blog, and embedded a wave with an embedded sudoku board, and added the "everyone" member. Within seconds, on my blog, i had about 3-4 people playing sudoku and leaving comments-- in real time and with no refresh. I could later check my wave inbox and see any changes that had been made.
THAT is a big leap forward IMO-- if we can have a better messaging system with unified contacts and a unified interface, thats huge. All of a sudden we dont rely on 30 different websites producing an interface suitable to a 5 inch screen; we can just look for a suitable mobile client.
Because you can post to whatever forums you want, whatever slashdot articles you want, and if they are set up as waves, you will be automatically subscribed to those waves and can view them all from a single inbox. Additionally, email is to wave as txt is to html. You can "do the same things" with both, in only the weakest sense-- Wave is far more capable and (as I understand it) should eliminate a great portion of the anonymous spam that we see now were it to replace email.
I had an experience with them, where a customer's DSL was basically nonfunctional randomly for around half of the time any given week. Calling verizon got a response along the linse of "whats that, no internet? Wow, that sounds awful. Good luck with that!".
We eventually got off of them, but I was a bit taken aback to just how bad customer service can be when the vendor really just doesnt care if you're happy or not.
And slashdot wonders why the rest of the web looks at them and shakes its head in disbelief-- do people here really never read the summary, let alone the article?
Except that wasnt what he said, and I dont think youll find many religions (LDS included) that say that justice is unimportant, or that it sometimes requires the death sentence. In fact I am unaware of any part of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or LDS faith where believers are told that their governments are not to dish out due justice, in the name of mercy. "God grant him mercy" is a statement about his soul; "us granting mercy" is a statement about what we do with him physically.
I get the feeling you already knew this though, and are really trolling for points off of people who uprate posts anytime they blindly drag religion into the debate for no real reason.
Is there a list of inviolable rights somewhere? I ask because people seem to like saying "this is a right" and "that is a right", and it seems really dangerous to not have a definitive source for what is and isnt a right.
Ive never understood the whole "choose your method of execution" or "final meal" thing. If we think the guy deserves death, why does he have a say-so? are we simply attempting to soften the blow because we lack the convictions to say "justice demands his death"? Or is there some other rationale behind allowing the man these few final choices?
Embedding Flash natively is good for YouTube, no doubt, but bad for everyone who doesn't want to support or use something that is so shitty and proprietary.
It may interest you to know that theres an way to disable specific plugins in chrome-- about:plugins. Im sure that theres probably a commandline switch to disable some of them as well.
Holy crap, I cant believe people are actually arguing that a fact is only such so long as you believe it to be. Lets see if dictionary.com can put this stupid debate to rest:
fact [fakt] –noun
1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
Even their example sentence shows that belief has NO bearing on existence of fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, unless you're root they probably can't set up a mail server,
Whys that exactly? Does opening sockets require admin now?
The most important aspect of the definition of theft is that it is about the deprivation of a rival good. If I steal a car from you, you are deprived of that car. That's how the word works, that's how the law works.
You (and just about everyone who makes this argument) keep missing the forest for the trees. No, a physical good is not lost in infringement, but value IS lost.
I would refer you to this item, which is a $50 audio CD by an indie artist. Apparently there is a market for this CD at a $50 pricepoint-- if there were not, the price would be lower. Now what do you suppose happens when something like that gets onto limewire or bittorrent? Do you think perhaps that either A) there are fewer buyers, B) the price is lowered, but revenue still declines, or C) the guy just stops making indie music?
There seem to be several assumptions from people who make your argument that are just wrong. One seems to be an implicit idea that infringement is OK because it lowers the price point and acts as a form of competition, but this ignores the fact that black markets do the same thing. Another seems to be that if the artist cant make money with piracy occuring, then he needs to change how he does things (ie, make less money) or go out of business; this basically says a whole range of small-time creators dont desesrve to exist (like Wo. A third invalid assumption is that since theft has been around forever and infringement has not, infringement must be less valid of a societal law. But copyright was built into the constitution, apparently because some 200 years ago the founders decided that not having copyright was not a good thing, and that certain ideas should in fact count as SOME kind of property for a limited time. You're free to argue that, but "infringement" isnt exactly new, and creative types have for a long time sought ways to protect their ideas.
Im not arguing that you are not correct in technical terms, but its sort of like arguing the difference between a record and a CD to your 60 yo father-- you may be technically right, but its not helpful to the discussion. For the intents and purposes discussed on slashdot, there is no important difference in this digital world between theft and infringement that I can discern.
For the millionth time, while the distinction may be important in a court of law, bringing this into a slashdot discussion is just muddying the waters and attempting to hide the fact that "copyright infringement" STILL results in a party taking something that is not his.
In fact, while they ARE different, I would argue that infringement is the digital equivalent of theft, as in both cases the victim does lose something-- value. If there is an indie artist who wants to sell his MP3s for $40 a piece (and there is a market for it), but then people start stealing it on bittorrent, those MP3s will likely not survive at their $40 price point.
There is no problem because the industry has already acknowledged that PCI-E is better than PCI
Is that acknowledgement really even required? What criticism could you level at PCIe that wouldnt doubly apply to PCI? AFAIK its just better in every conceivable way...
would be perfectly happy to see the rigs gone, lest this get worse, or happen again
Honest question: Why do people seem to accept this argument as valid for oil rigs, but using Chernobyl as a reason against nuclear is (generally, and rightfully) rejected as irrelevant and a piss poor argument?
TBQH, i dont think i would trust AOL ice cream or puppy dogs.
Therefore, a downstream wave provider can verify that the wave provider is not spoofing wavelet operations. It should not be able to falsely claim that a wavelet operation originated from a user on another wave provider or that it was originated in a different context.(source)
Need I go on? Lets face it, SMTP was a decent protocol, and has lasted a long time, but its age is showing, and its really time to move past something so antiquated and problem-ridden (spam? spoofing? reply-all fun? lack of encryption-by-default?).
There may indeed be good criticisms of the protocol, but the majority of the posts here seem to boil down to "I dont understand it, therefore it must have no uses". Is it just because it was Google that released it that it must be evil?
Otherwise the NGage would have been an impossibility.
From a marketability standpoint, i thought it was?
Then type it out manually.
Wave functionality is a superset of email functionality. If it catches on, there would be little reason I can think of for email to continue to exist.
It already has email integration via extensions.
It looks like the question of wave's future rests not on whether its better (it is) or its useful (it is) or whether it has email integration (it does)... but on whether people will respond with a "its new, I dont understand it, I'm not going to acknowledge its merit", or if theyre willing to actually give the thing a try, do a little research, and judge it on its merits or lack thereof.
Reading your comment, I had a sudden vision of someone saying the same thing about email-- "wake me up when someone can build an interesting application using the email platform".
It doesnt have to be "interesting" to be phenomenally better or useful.
With wave, just click the "add another person" button, and they can see the entire conversation-- unless you want to keep certain parts private (which is easy to do)
With wave, the blog comments could be a wave, the forum threads each could be waves, and the slashdot comments be waves. You reply, and your inbox now reflects the subscriptions to each. You could reply from your inbox, while others reply from slashdot or the blog-- but its all one messaging system, which means that doing it mobile is now a lot easier as well (you just need a mobile wave client).
Point 3 is especially big. Its kind of hard to see the benefit until youve actually tinkered with it and seen what it can do. For example I created a blogspot account, set up a test blog, and embedded a wave with an embedded sudoku board, and added the "everyone" member. Within seconds, on my blog, i had about 3-4 people playing sudoku and leaving comments-- in real time and with no refresh. I could later check my wave inbox and see any changes that had been made.
THAT is a big leap forward IMO-- if we can have a better messaging system with unified contacts and a unified interface, thats huge. All of a sudden we dont rely on 30 different websites producing an interface suitable to a 5 inch screen; we can just look for a suitable mobile client.
Because you can post to whatever forums you want, whatever slashdot articles you want, and if they are set up as waves, you will be automatically subscribed to those waves and can view them all from a single inbox. Additionally, email is to wave as txt is to html. You can "do the same things" with both, in only the weakest sense-- Wave is far more capable and (as I understand it) should eliminate a great portion of the anonymous spam that we see now were it to replace email.
I had an experience with them, where a customer's DSL was basically nonfunctional randomly for around half of the time any given week. Calling verizon got a response along the linse of "whats that, no internet? Wow, that sounds awful. Good luck with that!".
We eventually got off of them, but I was a bit taken aback to just how bad customer service can be when the vendor really just doesnt care if you're happy or not.
Wasnt the governor.
And slashdot wonders why the rest of the web looks at them and shakes its head in disbelief-- do people here really never read the summary, let alone the article?
Except that wasnt what he said, and I dont think youll find many religions (LDS included) that say that justice is unimportant, or that it sometimes requires the death sentence. In fact I am unaware of any part of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or LDS faith where believers are told that their governments are not to dish out due justice, in the name of mercy. "God grant him mercy" is a statement about his soul; "us granting mercy" is a statement about what we do with him physically.
I get the feeling you already knew this though, and are really trolling for points off of people who uprate posts anytime they blindly drag religion into the debate for no real reason.
Is there a list of inviolable rights somewhere? I ask because people seem to like saying "this is a right" and "that is a right", and it seems really dangerous to not have a definitive source for what is and isnt a right.
you have to wait 15 minutes while he chokes to death - not pretty.
Seems to me they should have a backup ready in either case, so hes not left slowly dying of whatever method ended up not being lethal.
deserves a bit more than 140 characters in Twitter.
I rather suspect he will get a bit more than 140 characters on twitter. This was just the announcement, what do you want, a eulogy?
It was his choice,
Ive never understood the whole "choose your method of execution" or "final meal" thing. If we think the guy deserves death, why does he have a say-so? are we simply attempting to soften the blow because we lack the convictions to say "justice demands his death"? Or is there some other rationale behind allowing the man these few final choices?
Embedding Flash natively is good for YouTube, no doubt, but bad for everyone who doesn't want to support or use something that is so shitty and proprietary.
It may interest you to know that theres an way to disable specific plugins in chrome-- about:plugins. Im sure that theres probably a commandline switch to disable some of them as well.
Dude, please re-read the very first definition off of there: "reality; truth". Truth and reality are by nature "correct".
Thats the definition I get by reading from an actual dictionary, where the very first definition is "truth".
Its a sad kind of thought process that insists that "facts" depend on the observer.
fact [fakt] –noun
1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
Even their example sentence shows that belief has NO bearing on existence of fact.
and THATS a fact.