Something feels wrong about taking a perfectly new, unscratched CD that could last for decades if looked after and binning it because of course its contents (AOL) are useless.
I don't know...it makes a pretty good support for a coffee cup, and in a pinch they can shim table or desk legs when the floor is uneven. Gee, maybe I should write a book...1001 uses for an AOL CD...I can just see the indignant "cease and desist" letters now...
Suggested reading: Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
Hitler never polled a majority in any of the German elections. He at best only managed votes from 39-40 % of the electorate and was awarded the chancellorship unwillingly by an old and tired Hindenburg who was led to believe that this was the only to break the cycle of repeated elections with no clear winner, followed by dissolved governments.
What immediately followed of course is history: The burning of the Reichstag by agents of the Nazis, followed by Hitler's invocation of "emergency powers" to curb what would today be called "terrorism" (sound familiar anyone?). By the time the average German realized what was happening, it was too late and any who were in a position to mount any sort of opposition were either in the camps, dead, or scattered and demoralized.
Amen to that. I've downloaded several divx movies and after the nuisance of finding it in the first place, followed by a couple of weeks of broken and resumed downloads (and thats with a reasonably friendly file-sharing utility), using the better part of a Gig of bandwidth, and having other miscreants weezing stuff off my hard-drive, I'd rather go out and spend 20 bucks on a DVD. It's a better picture and sometimes they even throw in some other goodies (though I thought the tone poems on the Episode 1 DVD kinda sucked). I really wish someone would clue in the MPAA to this: That downloading movies is a pain in the ass and though I can't speak for everyone else's preferences, I really don't think that movie attendance or DVD sales is going to be threatened by it in any perceivable way. Please leave off the copy-protection shit and the regional encoding...you don't really need it.
From the article:
Security experts have been investigating this problem since coming across it on Friday.
"We're not sure what it is that makes some Morpheus members vulnerable to this," said one, who asked to remain anonymous.
It's definitely an accident from Morpheus' side, probably a worm. This is very dangerous."
Uh huh...rather short on details, arent they?
Anyone else getting the feeling that this "story" is in fact disinformation that probably originates with RIAA?
Must be a ton of disgruntled "shareware" writers here today who having not gotten rich off some little pissant script or third-rate utility who are freaking out because their stuff gets copied and they don't see any dough from said copying, partly because their stuff is overpriced, partly because it's not very wll written. Well, I don't know whether I am hitting my head against the wall trying to clue you lot in, but I will try one more time...
If you intended to spend zero on the product, why did you download the pirated version?
Sigh...in my first post in this thread, I thought I made it quite clear that it is wrong for you to make assumptions about my intent. I INTEND to spend exactly what having a copy of program X is worth to me. If that figure works out to be zero, then zero it shall be, EVEN IF if spending zero means not having a copy of program X! WHAT I AM SAYING IS THIS DOESN"T CONSTITUTE LOST REVENUE!! DO NOT CALL IT LOST REVENUE!!!
In other words, you've gained the advantages of ownership, without paying the required costs.
No...I've gained nothing, and I "own" nothing. You can't own an idea. And if you can't get that thorugh your head, then there's a simple word for you in the English language, stupid.
I hate paying any amount for gasoline, but I still pay for it, because I have to get places (and Indianapolis has no decent public transportation, but I would still have to pay for that!)
I've never had any problem whatsoever with paying for gasoline. You're still stuck in the logic trap of defining software as a "good" or a "service". It's neither...it's intangible, like an idea.
The consumer does NOT set the price.
Yes they do. In Microeconomics, this fact is represented by what is known as the "demand curve"...
I will admit that I have used pirated software that I indeed would have paid for if the pirated version was not so easily available to me. (and often times out of guilt, I almost bought it anyway.)
So have I. Some of which I NEVER would have purchased, had that been the only alternative. That's my point! This cannot be called a "loss" by the software producers! Other software I have purchased, even after downloading a warez version, because I like the product and would like to see more...
I sure hope that you never create anything of worth in your life that you want to offer to others, and then try to tell me that all the hours you put into its development wasn't worth anything, and when someone stole your product and gave it out to hundreds of people, that you hadn't lost anything.
I do it all the time. I create stuff and give it away for free. What I sell are tangible support services...
Unless you are poor and hungry and are stealing something that you need to survive, I see no justification for theft of any kind.
It's NOT theft. The worst thing you could call this is "unauthorized use"...
Another question for you, if you never would have purchased it in the first place, why did you bother downloading it to obtain a pirated version? If you wouldn't even pay $1 for it, why did you go through the trouble of even trying to get it? I'm lost on that one.
There are a number of reasons: One is I won't know if it's worth anything until I try it.
And no, I don't share warez versions of stuff like MS Office with my friends. If they don't want to pay, I point them in the direction of StarOffice... I've downloaded activation code-less versions of XP, but that's for convenience (not having to phone MS), not license circumvention.
And if you're a member of that middle group, it all comes down to whether you think that it's the same morality to deprive someone of making X dollars, as to take away X dollars from them. Either way they're down X dollars, so rationally it's hard to argue that they're different, but it is to a lot of people.
Ahhhh...you're still buying into the myth that the software producers are losing money! (A similar argument is used by the RIAA when they moan about "lost" revenues from music sales that "piracy" is costing them)
They're wrong. they haven't "lost" anything.
My money is still right where it belongs...in my control!
They however, make the ridiculous claim that they are somehow entitled to some of my money based on baseless assumptions regarding my intent.
Here's the point, kiddies...(pay attention now): You are given by me exactly how much money I intend to spend on your product, irregardless of whether a pirated version was available or not! If that amount is zero, than I never would have purchased your product anyway! You've gained nothing, but you've also lost nothing. You cannot base revenue projections on the assumption that I would purchase your product if no pirated version was available because this assumption doesn't take into consideration the fact that I might just decide to "do without".
No self-respecting geek would use AOL...
on
AOL vs. Trillian
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
...for anything other than coasters! (I just got me a new "titanium" one to go with all my "platinum" ones) How is this "News for Nerds" (unless they're going to cut off our coaster supply)???
E-commerce is just a fancy name for mail order, except with a computer. Sears-Roebuck has been doing the same damn thing for the last 100 years...except you sent them an order form or phoned it in. Now you can use your computer...Big frigging deal! THAT's how you gotta look at "e-commerce"...just glorified bloody mail-order, NOT some sort of "magic bullet" where people will be compelled to throw you money because your site's "pretty" or "clever"...
...there are a great many specialty apps (Medical billing software, inventory control, etc) that to date exist only in Windows form. The argument against writing a Linux version, if it even occurs to them to consider it, is: "Well, nobody's using Linux...". On the client side it's, "Well I'd use Linux but we need this app..."
Also there isn't an open source equivalent for scheduling and messaging software, such as Exchange. This is something I would really like to see change before too much more time elapses.
The robber barons realize that this is what would happen if consumers are given choices. That's why they are asking our representives in congress to pass laws making your open hardware illegal.
Don't you be taking my name in vain now! I don't want them bastards touching my open hardware either! Besides, sooner or later if they get whacked in the head enough times, maybe they'll realise that consumer choice is actually better for business.
...is shit anyways! I just recently began again patronizing one of the first great bastions of freely shared "content"...my local library. Guess what? I'm liking it a whole lot more than killing braincells watching mindless shit like Friends or that stupid Pamela Anderson T&A show...I can't even remember what it's called(shows how culturally important THAT is, doesn't it?). I say we should all just tell the so-called "content producers" to fuck off and take their steaming shit they have the temerity to call "entertainment" with them...it isn't worth the price of blank media anyway...and devote our attention to real art and real literature. And let's get out and live our own lives, and not waste time watching somebody else living a stupid fake life on TV.
What kind of volume will it handle? From the looks of the things you'll need almost as many of those little driverless cabs as you do cars in a given urban area. That's going to cost! So what do we do to pay for the system, give up our cars and contribute the money that we spend on them to this system? Then what are we supposed to do if we want/need to travel outside the area serviced by this or other public transit systems? Ride our bikes? What if it's 300 miles away? Pouring rain? I don't think so Vern! I'm sorry but while it's a good attempt at replacing the automobile, it has a ways to go before it replaces the automobile's freedomof movement that our society's become accustomed to to the point of being dependant on it.
I can see this being a really big deal to the type of people who'll have conniptions over anything sciencey and scary-sounding... you know, the same ones who lobby against genetically-engineered foods with signs like "NO FRANKENFOODS!".
I normally don't bother feeding the trolls (even with genetically-modified foods), but here I'll make an exception.
Ever hear of Monsanto?
They're a corporate giant thats a big player in the GM field. Based on their track record, I wouldn't trust them to provide food for my dog or cat...never mind for my own consumption.
Here are a few lowlights:
Monsanto recently sued canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement. The reason? His neighbour had been sowing Monsanto GM canola seed and some of the seed blew onto his property.
The Washington Post recently published this article detailing how for decades Monsanto dumped PCBs into streams in a small Alabama town despite having studies from the '60s describing the damage that was being done.
Monsanto is the parent company of Nutrasweet, one of the nastiest substances approved for human consumption.
Monsanto is also involved with a GM seed technology known as terminator. Terminator involves producing seeds that grow sterile plants, requiring the farmer to aquire new seeds from the company every growing season. It shouldn't take much imagination to realise that if these plants cross-polinate with unmodified plants, the results could be catastrophic.
Is this a company you would trust and whose products you want to be putting in your mouth?
Maybe next time you see people waving signs that that say "NO FRANKENFOODS", you might ask why before pointing the finger and screaming "Conspiracy nut!"
With other technologies, there's an element of trust involved. Break the trust and you will get flak every time you try to introduce something new...good or bad. Have the individuals making these sorts of decisions shown themselves to be responsible, looking out for our best interests? Here's your answer: After approving Nutrasweet for use in carbonated beverages, the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr left his post and went to work for Nutrasweet's PR division.
Slashdot Mirror
CE stands for Common Era!
Something feels wrong about taking a perfectly new, unscratched CD that could last for decades if looked after and binning it because of course its contents (AOL) are useless.
I don't know...it makes a pretty good support for a coffee cup, and in a pinch they can shim table or desk legs when the floor is uneven. Gee, maybe I should write a book...1001 uses for an AOL CD...I can just see the indignant "cease and desist" letters now...
Suggested reading: Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
Hitler never polled a majority in any of the German elections. He at best only managed votes from 39-40 % of the electorate and was awarded the chancellorship unwillingly by an old and tired Hindenburg who was led to believe that this was the only to break the cycle of repeated elections with no clear winner, followed by dissolved governments.
What immediately followed of course is history: The burning of the Reichstag by agents of the Nazis, followed by Hitler's invocation of "emergency powers" to curb what would today be called "terrorism" (sound familiar anyone?). By the time the average German realized what was happening, it was too late and any who were in a position to mount any sort of opposition were either in the camps, dead, or scattered and demoralized.
Does this imply the presence of Karma Pimps?
Yes...they're also known as moderators...
...Katz, how about you work on mastering "intelligence" first?
You mean you've sprayed it all over your keyboard...
Somethings that are free are not worth the price.
Amen to that. I've downloaded several divx movies and after the nuisance of finding it in the first place, followed by a couple of weeks of broken and resumed downloads (and thats with a reasonably friendly file-sharing utility), using the better part of a Gig of bandwidth, and having other miscreants weezing stuff off my hard-drive, I'd rather go out and spend 20 bucks on a DVD. It's a better picture and sometimes they even throw in some other goodies (though I thought the tone poems on the Episode 1 DVD kinda sucked). I really wish someone would clue in the MPAA to this: That downloading movies is a pain in the ass and though I can't speak for everyone else's preferences, I really don't think that movie attendance or DVD sales is going to be threatened by it in any perceivable way. Please leave off the copy-protection shit and the regional encoding...you don't really need it.
From the article:
Security experts have been investigating this problem since coming across it on Friday.
"We're not sure what it is that makes some Morpheus members vulnerable to this," said one, who asked to remain anonymous.
It's definitely an accident from Morpheus' side, probably a worm. This is very dangerous."
Uh huh...rather short on details, arent they?
Anyone else getting the feeling that this "story" is in fact disinformation that probably originates with RIAA?
Must be a ton of disgruntled "shareware" writers here today who having not gotten rich off some little pissant script or third-rate utility who are freaking out because their stuff gets copied and they don't see any dough from said copying, partly because their stuff is overpriced, partly because it's not very wll written. Well, I don't know whether I am hitting my head against the wall trying to clue you lot in, but I will try one more time...
If you intended to spend zero on the product, why did you download the pirated version?
Sigh...in my first post in this thread, I thought I made it quite clear that it is wrong for you to make assumptions about my intent. I INTEND to spend exactly what having a copy of program X is worth to me. If that figure works out to be zero, then zero it shall be, EVEN IF if spending zero means not having a copy of program X! WHAT I AM SAYING IS THIS DOESN"T CONSTITUTE LOST REVENUE!! DO NOT CALL IT LOST REVENUE!!!
In other words, you've gained the advantages of ownership, without paying the required costs.
No...I've gained nothing, and I "own" nothing. You can't own an idea. And if you can't get that thorugh your head, then there's a simple word for you in the English language, stupid.
I hate paying any amount for gasoline, but I still pay for it, because I have to get places (and Indianapolis has no decent public transportation, but I would still have to pay for that!)
I've never had any problem whatsoever with paying for gasoline. You're still stuck in the logic trap of defining software as a "good" or a "service". It's neither...it's intangible, like an idea.
The consumer does NOT set the price.
Yes they do. In Microeconomics, this fact is represented by what is known as the "demand curve"...
I will admit that I have used pirated software that I indeed would have paid for if the pirated version was not so easily available to me. (and often times out of guilt, I almost bought it anyway.)
So have I. Some of which I NEVER would have purchased, had that been the only alternative. That's my point! This cannot be called a "loss" by the software producers! Other software I have purchased, even after downloading a warez version, because I like the product and would like to see more...
I sure hope that you never create anything of worth in your life that you want to offer to others, and then try to tell me that all the hours you put into its development wasn't worth anything, and when someone stole your product and gave it out to hundreds of people, that you hadn't lost anything.
I do it all the time. I create stuff and give it away for free. What I sell are tangible support services...
Unless you are poor and hungry and are stealing something that you need to survive, I see no justification for theft of any kind.
It's NOT theft. The worst thing you could call this is "unauthorized use"...
Another question for you, if you never would have purchased it in the first place, why did you bother downloading it to obtain a pirated version? If you wouldn't even pay $1 for it, why did you go through the trouble of even trying to get it? I'm lost on that one.
There are a number of reasons: One is I won't know if it's worth anything until I try it.
And no, I don't share warez versions of stuff like MS Office with my friends. If they don't want to pay, I point them in the direction of StarOffice... I've downloaded activation code-less versions of XP, but that's for convenience (not having to phone MS), not license circumvention.
Ahhhh...you're still buying into the myth that the software producers are losing money! (A similar argument is used by the RIAA when they moan about "lost" revenues from music sales that "piracy" is costing them)
They're wrong. they haven't "lost" anything.
My money is still right where it belongs...in my control!
They however, make the ridiculous claim that they are somehow entitled to some of my money based on baseless assumptions regarding my intent.
Here's the point, kiddies...(pay attention now): You are given by me exactly how much money I intend to spend on your product, irregardless of whether a pirated version was available or not! If that amount is zero, than I never would have purchased your product anyway! You've gained nothing, but you've also lost nothing. You cannot base revenue projections on the assumption that I would purchase your product if no pirated version was available because this assumption doesn't take into consideration the fact that I might just decide to "do without".
...aw shit! Now you got me worried!
That's no moon, it's a space station!
E-commerce is just a fancy name for mail order, except with a computer. Sears-Roebuck has been doing the same damn thing for the last 100 years...except you sent them an order form or phoned it in. Now you can use your computer...Big frigging deal! THAT's how you gotta look at "e-commerce"...just glorified bloody mail-order, NOT some sort of "magic bullet" where people will be compelled to throw you money because your site's "pretty" or "clever"...
Dude, if I haden't wasted all my mod points sending Linux-WINErs to oblivion yesterday, you'd be getting 'em!
Also there isn't an open source equivalent for scheduling and messaging software, such as Exchange. This is something I would really like to see change before too much more time elapses.
Metropolis (the original) was ripped off by Madonna for her "Express Yourself" video. I liked the original much better.
'nuff said.
Wow! I just made a poem!
The robber barons realize that this is what would happen if consumers are given choices. That's why they are asking our representives in congress to pass laws making your open hardware illegal.
Don't you be taking my name in vain now! I don't want them bastards touching my open hardware either! Besides, sooner or later if they get whacked in the head enough times, maybe they'll realise that consumer choice is actually better for business.
I bet it won't even notice whatever content protection scheme they put in!
...is shit anyways! I just recently began again patronizing one of the first great bastions of freely shared "content"...my local library. Guess what? I'm liking it a whole lot more than killing braincells watching mindless shit like Friends or that stupid Pamela Anderson T&A show...I can't even remember what it's called(shows how culturally important THAT is, doesn't it?). I say we should all just tell the so-called "content producers" to fuck off and take their steaming shit they have the temerity to call "entertainment" with them...it isn't worth the price of blank media anyway...and devote our attention to real art and real literature. And let's get out and live our own lives, and not waste time watching somebody else living a stupid fake life on TV.
What kind of volume will it handle? From the looks of the things you'll need almost as many of those little driverless cabs as you do cars in a given urban area. That's going to cost! So what do we do to pay for the system, give up our cars and contribute the money that we spend on them to this system? Then what are we supposed to do if we want/need to travel outside the area serviced by this or other public transit systems? Ride our bikes? What if it's 300 miles away? Pouring rain? I don't think so Vern! I'm sorry but while it's a good attempt at replacing the automobile, it has a ways to go before it replaces the automobile's freedomof movement that our society's become accustomed to to the point of being dependant on it.
Bloated hackers hacking bloatware...sounds like something out of Dr Seuss!
I can see this being a really big deal to the type of people who'll have conniptions over anything sciencey and scary-sounding... you know, the same ones who lobby against genetically-engineered foods with signs like "NO FRANKENFOODS!".
I normally don't bother feeding the trolls (even with genetically-modified foods), but here I'll make an exception.
Ever hear of Monsanto?
They're a corporate giant thats a big player in the GM field. Based on their track record, I wouldn't trust them to provide food for my dog or cat...never mind for my own consumption.
Here are a few lowlights:
Monsanto recently sued canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement. The reason? His neighbour had been sowing Monsanto GM canola seed and some of the seed blew onto his property.
The Washington Post recently published this article detailing how for decades Monsanto dumped PCBs into streams in a small Alabama town despite having studies from the '60s describing the damage that was being done.
Monsanto is the parent company of Nutrasweet, one of the nastiest substances approved for human consumption.
Monsanto is also involved with a GM seed technology known as terminator. Terminator involves producing seeds that grow sterile plants, requiring the farmer to aquire new seeds from the company every growing season. It shouldn't take much imagination to realise that if these plants cross-polinate with unmodified plants, the results could be catastrophic.
Is this a company you would trust and whose products you want to be putting in your mouth?
Maybe next time you see people waving signs that that say "NO FRANKENFOODS", you might ask why before pointing the finger and screaming "Conspiracy nut!"
With other technologies, there's an element of trust involved. Break the trust and you will get flak every time you try to introduce something new...good or bad. Have the individuals making these sorts of decisions shown themselves to be responsible, looking out for our best interests? Here's your answer: After approving Nutrasweet for use in carbonated beverages, the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr left his post and went to work for Nutrasweet's PR division.
I believe the correct term is "Far Side" ie: the side that'salways turned away from the earth and is therefore (far)thest away.