There, I fixed that for you. I was referring to parent's vision of a future with no privacy at all, where we might even read minds. So we would know that they were honest.
I used to be very concerned with privacy and keeping my secrets "safe" from prying eyes. But as I've grown I've come to realize my secrets are very similar to everyone else's secrets and I've just stopped caring about privacy. Privacy really only served to make me more self-important; like I was so special and so different from everyone else that I had to hide. That attitude was so harmful. I can just as easily be unique and proud instead of unique and ashamed.
It's so much work walling parts of our lives off from everyone around us. I'm glad we're working to move past it and just be honest with each other. Wouldn't it be nice if we knew our family and friends, the teller at the bank, the mayors of our towns were being honest? I'm not giving up the war - I'm buying into the solution.
I think the assumption was that, over time, this delay will hurt them as more people will turn to alternative means of watching the content. This probably won't hurt them right away, as you said, since Netflix will still buy the same amount. But over time if people start to pirate or rent WB content from local stores instead of Netflix, it wouldn't be in Netflix's best interest to stock as many of their videos since the demand is lower. So ultimately, they stand to lose long-term sales to a major purchaser for some short-term gain. One could argue that the increased demand on local stores might make up for some of the sales there but I'd bet the piracy angle will cut deep over time.
Ultimately, I doubt the short-term profit they make from this deal will offset the long term costs associated with alienating their audience and damaging their brand.
From the above wikipedia article:
"No special new copyright protection was given to movies on video and DVD by the two above amendments, and consequently buyers of retail DVDs in the United States are free to sell or exchange them, and rent and lend them to others. This right was underlined by the US courts in the case of NEBG v Weinstein[4], in which a film-industry defendant accepted that it had no right to restrict buyers of DVDs from renting them to third parties."
So actually, that would appear to be legal as the parent said. Please RTFS yourself in the future.
I've always wondered about this. What does a poor college student do when they are given a fine like that? Does a bankruptcy wipe out that judgment? If so, does it really matter to a poor college kid that they had to file for bankruptcy? Aren't college students stereotypically poor already? Don't they have bad credit histories already? I don't see the point.
Now, if they can't just erase the fines with a bankruptcy, that gives them less incentive than ever to stop file sharing. If they already have a life sentence, what more do they have to lose?
I wish there were a few good stories of some people this happened to and how it all played out for them. It'd make for a good read.
Having just taken a quick look through the config files and readme from the binary.zip file, it's pretty obvious this is very much a Proof of Concept release. You need to hard-code the number of sketched items, label them each in the config file, download the potential matched images to a specified directory, etc. It involves enough guess-work and too little documentation for me to proceed further, which is unfortunate. Has anyone else actually gotten it to work as described to confirm it does what it claims it can?
I disagree. Evil is not a factual property naturally accuring in the universe. It is not something that can be scientifically measured. It is something we humans have created and assign to the world around us. Different people and groups of people define different things and actions as evil. Sometimes those definitions are directly opposed to each other.
Since evil deeds are not inherently evil, only subjectively judged to be, any number of factors can be used to make said judgements. Contrary to what you've said, intent is a very common factor in determing what is evil and that which is said to be "not evil," or good.
For instance, the act of a human killing an animal could be seen as evil or good based solely on that human's intent. If the human killed the animal out of idle boredome, many would call that act evil. On the other hand, if that human killed the animal out of necessity to survive, many would call that good. Of course, PETA would likely call both evil. And there may be some who would call both good.
Many legal systems are built on the notion that laws exist to promote the good and/or punish evil. Many account for intent and weigh their judgements based on it. For instance, in the US, there are varying degrees of penalties for murder depending on intent. In some cases, there is no penalty as the action is considered justified, as is the case with self-defence.
Very true. Banks are just concerned with making and keeping money so they don't care about security until the risk outweights the cost. Personally, I think the risks are higher than the cost most have put into prevention but that's not my call to make.
To be fair, Paypal is trying. For around $10, you can purchase an RSA key from them that receives a satellite signal that changes every 60 seconds. Then when you login you are required to enter the number on the device and your password. That's 2 out of 4. The text-messaged code would be another way to incorporate the "have" requirement. The problem is that they don't require more than a password as a minimum - users can choose to pay extra for more security but they don't have to.
Well, to be considered secure they are supposed to have at least 3 of the following: Something you know Something you have Something you are Something you can do
Sadly, I've yet to run into an online banking system that fits that criteria. That's not to say it's impossible, it just requires someone to get creative and nobody has yet. I'd like to say that I avoid online banking because of it but I still occasionally check my balance through their website despite that lack of security. The alternative would be to call them and that's even less secure.
That being said, most banks do much better with in-person transactions. Many require you to show your ATM card or an ID (have), your picture is on the card and/or in their system (are), and then you need to know a PIN number (know) or sign something (do). So I do try my best to go into the bank for most of my transactions.
Honestly, the only reason I use online banking is to make sure I am not going to go overdrawn. Sadly going overdrawn costs more to clean up than if someone were to hack my account so I'm willing to live with that security risk.
Pushing someone off a cliff is very different than harassing them until they choose to kill themselves. The keyword here is choice. In the one scenario, you forcefully remove their choice to live while in the other you convince them to choose death over life. I didn't think it was that subtle of a point but apparently you missed it. But hey, nothing to kill yourself over.
EtherPad does not save in a binary format either - it just supports plaintext. So using SVN on a plaintext file should have a similar effect, you just wouldn't be able to see the changes immediately as they're happening - only after the file is checked-in. The benefit of EtherPad is that it gives instant gratification.
PS: Isn't it awesome that after 2 years of what was essentially political science classes running 24/7 on American TV that we can skip right over the rhetoric and cut into the issues without falling into these "he's a socialist!" arguments?:D And people say Fox news isn't helpful.
Would you vote for a stupid and incapable man who agrees with your every fundamental value?
Again, probably not. Real people don't just have one of two extreme values - they exist in shades of gray. If you're not willing to settle in some ways, you would end up either not voting or voting for yourself because you could never trust anyone else to have the exact values you have.
Our government is a compromise. One of the drawbacks of that compromise is that those governing may do things you don't agree with. The benefits, of course, being that you don't feel as responsible when things go wrong and you don't have to spend as much of your time managing things. On the whole, it works well enough. If it didn't we'd all pull a Thoreau and stop paying taxes or a Gandhi and clog up the streets in protest.
Most people agree that the government isn't perfect and neither are the candidates. Ideally we'd have a candidate who is brilliant and charismatic and capable who can bridge the differences between the people at home and away. They'd also be able to work closely with the other branches of the government to get the most done for the citizens who they represent. And ideally the core values of the majority would be supported while the core values of the minority would be respected. But that's not always the case and it certainly isn't the case with either McCain or Obama.
That being said, I think Obama is close enough for me. I don't agree with all of his core values but I trust him enough to believe if my values fall into the minority under his presidency that he'll at least respect mine.
You obviously don't understand America at all. Talking loudly about nothing while spending shameful amounts of money are basically all we do! I hope the next election is super-sized too! *wanders off to order a triple quarter-pounder with bacon and a gallon of cola*
Slashdot Mirror
Some politicians are idiots! More at 11.
But you don't know that yet!
There, I fixed that for you. I was referring to parent's vision of a future with no privacy at all, where we might even read minds. So we would know that they were honest.
I used to be very concerned with privacy and keeping my secrets "safe" from prying eyes. But as I've grown I've come to realize my secrets are very similar to everyone else's secrets and I've just stopped caring about privacy. Privacy really only served to make me more self-important; like I was so special and so different from everyone else that I had to hide. That attitude was so harmful. I can just as easily be unique and proud instead of unique and ashamed.
It's so much work walling parts of our lives off from everyone around us. I'm glad we're working to move past it and just be honest with each other. Wouldn't it be nice if we knew our family and friends, the teller at the bank, the mayors of our towns were being honest? I'm not giving up the war - I'm buying into the solution.
Done! http://instantlose.com/
I think the assumption was that, over time, this delay will hurt them as more people will turn to alternative means of watching the content. This probably won't hurt them right away, as you said, since Netflix will still buy the same amount. But over time if people start to pirate or rent WB content from local stores instead of Netflix, it wouldn't be in Netflix's best interest to stock as many of their videos since the demand is lower. So ultimately, they stand to lose long-term sales to a major purchaser for some short-term gain. One could argue that the increased demand on local stores might make up for some of the sales there but I'd bet the piracy angle will cut deep over time.
Ultimately, I doubt the short-term profit they make from this deal will offset the long term costs associated with alienating their audience and damaging their brand.
From the above wikipedia article: "No special new copyright protection was given to movies on video and DVD by the two above amendments, and consequently buyers of retail DVDs in the United States are free to sell or exchange them, and rent and lend them to others. This right was underlined by the US courts in the case of NEBG v Weinstein[4], in which a film-industry defendant accepted that it had no right to restrict buyers of DVDs from renting them to third parties." So actually, that would appear to be legal as the parent said. Please RTFS yourself in the future.
OMG that was you in the sheep sex video? You're my homepage!
I've always wondered about this. What does a poor college student do when they are given a fine like that? Does a bankruptcy wipe out that judgment? If so, does it really matter to a poor college kid that they had to file for bankruptcy? Aren't college students stereotypically poor already? Don't they have bad credit histories already? I don't see the point.
Now, if they can't just erase the fines with a bankruptcy, that gives them less incentive than ever to stop file sharing. If they already have a life sentence, what more do they have to lose?
I wish there were a few good stories of some people this happened to and how it all played out for them. It'd make for a good read.
Having just taken a quick look through the config files and readme from the binary.zip file, it's pretty obvious this is very much a Proof of Concept release. You need to hard-code the number of sketched items, label them each in the config file, download the potential matched images to a specified directory, etc. It involves enough guess-work and too little documentation for me to proceed further, which is unfortunate. Has anyone else actually gotten it to work as described to confirm it does what it claims it can?
I disagree. Evil is not a factual property naturally accuring in the universe. It is not something that can be scientifically measured. It is something we humans have created and assign to the world around us. Different people and groups of people define different things and actions as evil. Sometimes those definitions are directly opposed to each other.
Since evil deeds are not inherently evil, only subjectively judged to be, any number of factors can be used to make said judgements. Contrary to what you've said, intent is a very common factor in determing what is evil and that which is said to be "not evil," or good.
For instance, the act of a human killing an animal could be seen as evil or good based solely on that human's intent. If the human killed the animal out of idle boredome, many would call that act evil. On the other hand, if that human killed the animal out of necessity to survive, many would call that good. Of course, PETA would likely call both evil. And there may be some who would call both good.
Many legal systems are built on the notion that laws exist to promote the good and/or punish evil. Many account for intent and weigh their judgements based on it. For instance, in the US, there are varying degrees of penalties for murder depending on intent. In some cases, there is no penalty as the action is considered justified, as is the case with self-defence.
Don't forget incredimail and desktop snow. Those are crucial parts of any productivity suite.
In soviet russia, windows owns you!
Very true. Banks are just concerned with making and keeping money so they don't care about security until the risk outweights the cost. Personally, I think the risks are higher than the cost most have put into prevention but that's not my call to make.
To be fair, Paypal is trying. For around $10, you can purchase an RSA key from them that receives a satellite signal that changes every 60 seconds. Then when you login you are required to enter the number on the device and your password. That's 2 out of 4. The text-messaged code would be another way to incorporate the "have" requirement. The problem is that they don't require more than a password as a minimum - users can choose to pay extra for more security but they don't have to.
That's true - we didn't seem to pick any of those, did we
Well, to be considered secure they are supposed to have at least 3 of the following:
Something you know
Something you have
Something you are
Something you can do
Sadly, I've yet to run into an online banking system that fits that criteria. That's not to say it's impossible, it just requires someone to get creative and nobody has yet. I'd like to say that I avoid online banking because of it but I still occasionally check my balance through their website despite that lack of security. The alternative would be to call them and that's even less secure.
That being said, most banks do much better with in-person transactions. Many require you to show your ATM card or an ID (have), your picture is on the card and/or in their system (are), and then you need to know a PIN number (know) or sign something (do). So I do try my best to go into the bank for most of my transactions.
Honestly, the only reason I use online banking is to make sure I am not going to go overdrawn. Sadly going overdrawn costs more to clean up than if someone were to hack my account so I'm willing to live with that security risk.
Pushing someone off a cliff is very different than harassing them until they choose to kill themselves. The keyword here is choice. In the one scenario, you forcefully remove their choice to live while in the other you convince them to choose death over life. I didn't think it was that subtle of a point but apparently you missed it. But hey, nothing to kill yourself over.
EtherPad does not save in a binary format either - it just supports plaintext. So using SVN on a plaintext file should have a similar effect, you just wouldn't be able to see the changes immediately as they're happening - only after the file is checked-in. The benefit of EtherPad is that it gives instant gratification.
Because "they" can?
I, for one, welcome our new I-less overlords!
Wah wah waaahhh
Hey, you sass that hoopy UnknowingFool, there's a frood who really knows where his towel is
Check those noodly appendages... intelligent design indeed!
Just further proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's great tentacle guides us all across the saucy plate of life
PS: Isn't it awesome that after 2 years of what was essentially political science classes running 24/7 on American TV that we can skip right over the rhetoric and cut into the issues without falling into these "he's a socialist!" arguments? :D And people say Fox news isn't helpful.
Would you vote for a stupid and incapable man who agrees with your every fundamental value?
Again, probably not. Real people don't just have one of two extreme values - they exist in shades of gray. If you're not willing to settle in some ways, you would end up either not voting or voting for yourself because you could never trust anyone else to have the exact values you have.
Our government is a compromise. One of the drawbacks of that compromise is that those governing may do things you don't agree with. The benefits, of course, being that you don't feel as responsible when things go wrong and you don't have to spend as much of your time managing things. On the whole, it works well enough. If it didn't we'd all pull a Thoreau and stop paying taxes or a Gandhi and clog up the streets in protest.
Most people agree that the government isn't perfect and neither are the candidates. Ideally we'd have a candidate who is brilliant and charismatic and capable who can bridge the differences between the people at home and away. They'd also be able to work closely with the other branches of the government to get the most done for the citizens who they represent. And ideally the core values of the majority would be supported while the core values of the minority would be respected. But that's not always the case and it certainly isn't the case with either McCain or Obama.
That being said, I think Obama is close enough for me. I don't agree with all of his core values but I trust him enough to believe if my values fall into the minority under his presidency that he'll at least respect mine.
You obviously don't understand America at all. Talking loudly about nothing while spending shameful amounts of money are basically all we do! I hope the next election is super-sized too! *wanders off to order a triple quarter-pounder with bacon and a gallon of cola*