Disregarding the validity of the position, apparently the OP felt that the cons were based largely on positions already proven false. As a result, enlightenment in this case would have been based on cons based on results considered less inflammatory.
Assuming the OP truly was not looking for a 'yes man' style of article, it is reasonable to believe a review detailing true failings of Firefox without resorting to questionable statistics would have met the requirements for 'enlightenment'.
Well, that's your view. The view of the RIAA is that P2P is like a nuclear bomb. You can use it to remove trees (and, well, pretty much everything else) from your back yard or you can use it to blow up your local city block. But just because you can use it for creative gardening purposes doesn't mean we shouldn't prohibit everyone from using a nuclear bomb.
And that's the point of the Supreme Court looking at this case: to decide whether P2P is more like a kitchen knife (a helpful thing that can be used to harm others) or a nuclear bomb (a harmful thing that can be used to help others.. er, well, I hope you get my point).
I was going to make a similar comment. Frankly, as posed, the article's question should be answered with a resounding 'Yes'.
The problem is in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the crime because of the game.
In other words, if people who make and sell [insert anything here] are causing their clients to commit crimes, yes they ought to be held liable.
But if the clients are committing crimes with perhaps only a slight increase in chance due to [again, anything here], then no, that's not a reasonable basis to sue the original maker/seller.
Er, no. Apple loves people to play with their toys but only in Apple approved ways.
I am the developer for QTConvert, an app that just exposes the QuickTime API for format exporting, a feature normally only available for folks who've upgraded to QuickTime Pro. When iTMS first came out, the QuickTime API still supported exporting from Protected AAC to whatever formats were valid targets. However QuickTime Pro had disabled this, by doing a simple check. Since I didn't really care to have my tunes in an encumbered format, and was only using the API Apple had exposed, I slapped together the app and let it loose.
Within a few months, Apple had released an updated to several of their iApps and to the QuickTime API essentially removing the Protected AAC format as an import format for conversion.
So while I wasn't doing anything illegal and was making simple use of their API, it wasn't something Apple liked. Now I'm sure my little app wasn't the main reason, or even a big reason, for the API change, but the timing is certainly intriguing enough.
So the OP was quite on topic about this point, if a bit paranoid.
To respond to folks who seem to think I'm in favor of Microsoft "not playing nice" and basically crucifying any and all competition, I personally think it's not nice to compete on other than the merits. I can't say it's immoral or unethical, but it certainly doesn't pass muster as nice, and I think in the long run, maintaining such a posture will hurt their image enough to be a bad strategy.
The point of my original post, however, was not to outline what I thought they should do, but instead to point out that a) Microsoft acts as a corporate entity out to protect its interests and b) anyone wishing to change their behavior has to provide Microsoft a reason to want to change.
Most folks discuss how it's wrong of them to do what they do, they heckle and deride them for their actions, but in the end Microsoft doesn't care what Linux users have said about them. They care about what affects their bottom line. They might even care about long term factors or unquantifiable factors. But until they are convinced that they want to act differently from how they currently act, they will continue to act as they have always acted.
Microsoft exists as a business entity. They offer an OS with arguably the most exposure of any OS, one many folks associated directly with general computer use. They offer a number of other products which tie in to, add to and build upon that OS and it's market share.
Why then shouldn't they go ahead and pursue a patent attack strategy in order to crush what they see as the competition? They are bound only to act within the confines of the law. There is no legal reason why they should play nice.
I'm not saying this because I like the possibility, but rather because if Linux supporters can come up with a cogent response to the question and present it to Microsoft in a manner likely to be received without substantial hostility (i.e. something different from "Don't use patents you m!@#$!@# a$$hatz"), then perhaps Microsoft would avoid this approach.
Um, except there's a problem with that theory. No one buys MP3s from the major labels through channels accepted by those labels (that last bit is included because of places like AllofMP3 which do sell major label music, but the labels are screaming bloody murder about it).
If anything, it's likely to cause a percentage increase in the MP3 share of music files. Or at least an increase for non-DRM-encumbered music files.
I think you nailed the problem for many folks though.. they've already set aside the time to play the game, having already gotten up and watched some news and been involved for a bit. Now they want to blow off some steam, go level up for a bit, or just chat with some folks they only know through WoW. And now, having set aside this time, having cleared the slate and, moreover, having payed the money, they can't access the game.
Unless I'm mistaken (quite possible here), what Marx is indicating here is that there is a time where the proletariat class must rule absolutely. This differs from communism in that communism attempts to avoid class distinction altogether. This proletariat dictatorship differs from the capitalist (pig dog!.. er, sorry) regime mostly based on who is in charge and the fact that the proles, by definition, have no power, politically or economically.
This argument only holds if productivity is how you are measured. In most cases, software developers who do as you suggest, accomplishing more in 2 hours than the next guy, do one of two things. They either work fewer hours, which penalizes them at review time for being "the guy who's never around" and also penalizes them if they are docked for not being there for a full 8 hours per day... OR... they work just as many hours as the next guy, get more done, and get a few pats on the back, a little recognition, and possibly a slight increase in salary at review time, but not much else.
As a result, except for personal pride and professionalism, which ought to be enough, there really is no benefit to being that more productive person in most cases. And when crunch time happens, it happens to the whole team. And if a union can guarantee you get paid for those extra hours, then perhaps it can be of use in this industry.
...about the boss, various photographs, certain individuals in risque positions, clothing optional vacations on the company dime, the boss' wife, her lack of knowledge of these events, and any correlation between this knowledge and how it might affect your standing in the company.
Indeed, it is most definitely what you know that counts.
I actually called up my senators and simply voiced my concerns to the person answering the phone who, naturally, said they would note my concerns and pass them on to the senator in question. To others who call their senators, do you actually try to speak directly to the senator or do you settle for the person answering the phone?
because the previous guys would've committed hari-kari in the bathroom
Ooooooohhh.
Is that what they're calling it now?
Re:XBox less than 200 units? Is that really accura
on
DS Preorders Outsell PS2
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Veering wildly off topic here, but... are you serious? I mean, really, the only viewpoints I see here stateside via the media indicate a level of loathing typically reserved for child molesters and people who talk during movies toward anything American.
So you're actually saying statistically significant numbers of people in (at least) France actually like America?
Why is this an OS issue? In Linux or OS X what's to stop me from writing a similar application? If I run the harvester part as a background process run as root (i.e. Administrator on Windows), I'll be able to grab everything. If the client is allowed to communicate with this daemon in order to pull up the information, I'll still see your stuff, unless you've encrypted it.
But encryption is atypical as yet. And on a public terminal you aren't likely to be logging in as another user anyway, but rather as an unprivileged guest account. But then the harvesting and viewing could all happen without root/Administrator access.
Slashdot Mirror
What would?
Disregarding the validity of the position, apparently the OP felt that the cons were based largely on positions already proven false. As a result, enlightenment in this case would have been based on cons based on results considered less inflammatory.
Assuming the OP truly was not looking for a 'yes man' style of article, it is reasonable to believe a review detailing true failings of Firefox without resorting to questionable statistics would have met the requirements for 'enlightenment'.
Well, that's your view. The view of the RIAA is that P2P is like a nuclear bomb. You can use it to remove trees (and, well, pretty much everything else) from your back yard or you can use it to blow up your local city block. But just because you can use it for creative gardening purposes doesn't mean we shouldn't prohibit everyone from using a nuclear bomb.
And that's the point of the Supreme Court looking at this case: to decide whether P2P is more like a kitchen knife (a helpful thing that can be used to harm others) or a nuclear bomb (a harmful thing that can be used to help others.. er, well, I hope you get my point).
No, that would be the wraith leeches from SG:Atlantis.
Dark Tick of the Sith.
Hmm... Spoooooooooon!!
Wow. A 10 GHz processor? 30,000 GB of HDD? Da-yum!
How do you know you don't already have one?
I was going to make a similar comment. Frankly, as posed, the article's question should be answered with a resounding 'Yes'.
The problem is in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the crime because of the game.
In other words, if people who make and sell [insert anything here] are causing their clients to commit crimes, yes they ought to be held liable.
But if the clients are committing crimes with perhaps only a slight increase in chance due to [again, anything here], then no, that's not a reasonable basis to sue the original maker/seller.
Er, no. Apple loves people to play with their toys but only in Apple approved ways.
I am the developer for QTConvert, an app that just exposes the QuickTime API for format exporting, a feature normally only available for folks who've upgraded to QuickTime Pro. When iTMS first came out, the QuickTime API still supported exporting from Protected AAC to whatever formats were valid targets. However QuickTime Pro had disabled this, by doing a simple check. Since I didn't really care to have my tunes in an encumbered format, and was only using the API Apple had exposed, I slapped together the app and let it loose.
Within a few months, Apple had released an updated to several of their iApps and to the QuickTime API essentially removing the Protected AAC format as an import format for conversion.
So while I wasn't doing anything illegal and was making simple use of their API, it wasn't something Apple liked. Now I'm sure my little app wasn't the main reason, or even a big reason, for the API change, but the timing is certainly intriguing enough.
So the OP was quite on topic about this point, if a bit paranoid.
To respond to folks who seem to think I'm in favor of Microsoft "not playing nice" and basically crucifying any and all competition, I personally think it's not nice to compete on other than the merits. I can't say it's immoral or unethical, but it certainly doesn't pass muster as nice, and I think in the long run, maintaining such a posture will hurt their image enough to be a bad strategy.
The point of my original post, however, was not to outline what I thought they should do, but instead to point out that a) Microsoft acts as a corporate entity out to protect its interests and b) anyone wishing to change their behavior has to provide Microsoft a reason to want to change.
Most folks discuss how it's wrong of them to do what they do, they heckle and deride them for their actions, but in the end Microsoft doesn't care what Linux users have said about them. They care about what affects their bottom line. They might even care about long term factors or unquantifiable factors. But until they are convinced that they want to act differently from how they currently act, they will continue to act as they have always acted.
Microsoft exists as a business entity. They offer an OS with arguably the most exposure of any OS, one many folks associated directly with general computer use. They offer a number of other products which tie in to, add to and build upon that OS and it's market share.
Why then shouldn't they go ahead and pursue a patent attack strategy in order to crush what they see as the competition? They are bound only to act within the confines of the law. There is no legal reason why they should play nice.
I'm not saying this because I like the possibility, but rather because if Linux supporters can come up with a cogent response to the question and present it to Microsoft in a manner likely to be received without substantial hostility (i.e. something different from "Don't use patents you m!@#$!@# a$$hatz"), then perhaps Microsoft would avoid this approach.
Um, except there's a problem with that theory. No one buys MP3s from the major labels through channels accepted by those labels (that last bit is included because of places like AllofMP3 which do sell major label music, but the labels are screaming bloody murder about it).
If anything, it's likely to cause a percentage increase in the MP3 share of music files. Or at least an increase for non-DRM-encumbered music files.
Good grief, my handwriting must be terrible. I was able to read that. Even with the spelling errors.
I think you nailed the problem for many folks though.. they've already set aside the time to play the game, having already gotten up and watched some news and been involved for a bit. Now they want to blow off some steam, go level up for a bit, or just chat with some folks they only know through WoW. And now, having set aside this time, having cleared the slate and, moreover, having payed the money, they can't access the game.
Unless I'm mistaken (quite possible here), what Marx is indicating here is that there is a time where the proletariat class must rule absolutely. This differs from communism in that communism attempts to avoid class distinction altogether. This proletariat dictatorship differs from the capitalist (pig dog!.. er, sorry) regime mostly based on who is in charge and the fact that the proles, by definition, have no power, politically or economically.
You mean you've never... I mean with a Mac it's like... really, you've not... oh man you just don't know what you're missing.
You mean the R&D which results in the hardware you are so fond of?
This argument only holds if productivity is how you are measured. In most cases, software developers who do as you suggest, accomplishing more in 2 hours than the next guy, do one of two things. They either work fewer hours, which penalizes them at review time for being "the guy who's never around" and also penalizes them if they are docked for not being there for a full 8 hours per day... OR ... they work just as many hours as the next guy, get more done, and get a few pats on the back, a little recognition, and possibly a slight increase in salary at review time, but not much else.
As a result, except for personal pride and professionalism, which ought to be enough, there really is no benefit to being that more productive person in most cases. And when crunch time happens, it happens to the whole team. And if a union can guarantee you get paid for those extra hours, then perhaps it can be of use in this industry.
Dude. Really. If you have to search your dates, you probably need to raise your standards just a *wee* bit, wouldn't you say?
Indeed, it is most definitely what you know that counts.
I actually called up my senators and simply voiced my concerns to the person answering the phone who, naturally, said they would note my concerns and pass them on to the senator in question. To others who call their senators, do you actually try to speak directly to the senator or do you settle for the person answering the phone?
Ooooooohhh.
Is that what they're calling it now?
Veering wildly off topic here, but... are you serious? I mean, really, the only viewpoints I see here stateside via the media indicate a level of loathing typically reserved for child molesters and people who talk during movies toward anything American.
So you're actually saying statistically significant numbers of people in (at least) France actually like America?
And I'm actually serious here, not trolling.
Whoops. Nope, I just missed the semi colon. Read right past it. Looks like I've joined your little club. Do I get a certificate or something?
Why is this an OS issue? In Linux or OS X what's to stop me from writing a similar application? If I run the harvester part as a background process run as root (i.e. Administrator on Windows), I'll be able to grab everything. If the client is allowed to communicate with this daemon in order to pull up the information, I'll still see your stuff, unless you've encrypted it.
But encryption is atypical as yet. And on a public terminal you aren't likely to be logging in as another user anyway, but rather as an unprivileged guest account. But then the harvesting and viewing could all happen without root/Administrator access.
Maybe I'm being dense, but I'm missing the issue. Or should we assume that condition in some way involved checking the non-zero-ness of myvar?