Maybe they just wised up and stopped killing innocent civilians. It would be so convenient to blame the "progress" on some new technology, when it could easily be something much more fundamental. It's not that I have any contempt or disrespect for those that were unfortunate enough to be sent into this Iraq mess, but it when you consider why it ever happened in the first place, anything coming from the PR machine is suspect.
Like the states have done with all of the defective electronic voting machines the Diebold and others have unloaded on the American public? I think it's safer to consider it money flushed.
This is an easy win. It's just that nobody wants to accept the responsibility. It's one of the easiest "jobs" they'll ever have. It's not that anyone has to do anything, it's that they have to *stop* doing something. It's not that they have give anyone any money, it's that they have to *stop* giving money. So easy, yet so elusive. Oh and for Pete's sake, stop the copyright infringement. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.
I currelty use OpenOffice, and I've used KOffice as well. I like them both. They are both viable efforts. I do agree that OpenOffice has some rough spots, but I don't think that they're serious enough to completely dismiss it as a workable alternative.
This quote... And CCTV pictures mean there has been an enormous increase in guilty verdicts....seems to directly contradict a quote from another article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1): Billions of pounds has been spent on kit, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court. It's been an utter fiasco: only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV.
I guess what you hear depends on whether or not the person you're speaking to is a stakeholder.
I know people hate rules, but from what I've seen, these are the people that hate the idea behaving in a civil manner. Yes, this includes things like keeping up your property and and keeping your pets from crapping on other people's property. I've seen one instance where neighbors with dogs will pick up after their pets, but then stop short of actually disposing of it. Instead, they leave it sitting on their front step, or in little plastic bags right nest to the stair case so that we can ALL enjoy these little gifts. One has even turned their porch into a dog toilet, letting waste pile up over several days before cleaning it up. Others have apportioned parts of the common elements as their own little personal storage areas for junk like barbecues, chairs, and other assorted crap. It's all quite repugnant. I personally think these people would be better off living in a ghetto, since that's exactly how they treat the property. Suffice it to say, as long as there are stupid and lazy people, ordinances like this will be necessary.
And so the circle continues. How are you helping anything (except your own erroneous sense of entitlement) if you decide to illegally download stuff again?
First, people who have engaged in illegal copyright infringement, continuing to push the envelope and up the ante, are responsible for this. They have effectively given the RIAA something to (legitimately) complain about. Second, there is no law that can be passed requiring consumers to purchase content from RIAA-backed entities. If you think about it, despite all the whining the RIAA does, they aren't hurting. If consumers suddenly grew a backbone and decided that they were going to stop supporting this insanity, do you seriously think such a sudden shift in revenue could be chalked up to copyright infringement? In my mind, this is a market correction that should take place. Being that illegal copying has been so pervasive, keeping the RIAA honest about the real causes of any revenue shift isn't going to be easy. But that's not their fault.
I'm talking about natural market forces, not ways of circumventing copyright. In fact, several of the "solutions" that you've mentioned are in part, responsible for the situation we have now.
The government is shutting them down, but only because of lobbies belonging to certain entities that want them shut down.
Perhaps, but we, as consumers, keep handing money over to the entities that are responsible for this madness. Keep these entities in check, and these kinds of problems will be much less pervasive.
Seems to me they could take this a step further and implement a sort of convolution matrix, but instead of modifying neighboring pixels, they'd be making subtle modifications to facial features.
Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the consumer. We can blame the government all we want, but where the market is concerned, the buck does stop here. Literally. The real problem is that consumers have become lazy.
I'm not a fan of *everything* that Google does. But let's face it - right now Google is an 800lb gorilla, dealing with other 800lb gorillas. The interesting thing about Google is that it's in a position to usher in some change that has the very real potential to upset the status quo. You can bet that the old guard will be fighting this, since they do have a vested interest. No little guy could afford these kinds of confrontations, and the government certainly isn't going to change anything, because too many politicians' would be risking future bri^w campaign funds.
Let's not kid ourselves. You're thought implies that the people who do this have anything other than their own, immediate, self-interest in mind. They certainly aren't doing it for the social good, because they aren't that sophisticated. It's because of an unfortunate (but painfully obvious) inability to do anything else.
You forgot one - for a modern device in a culture that is bent on style, the kindle is quite hideous. iPhone, iPod, iMac, etc...though I'm not a big Apple fan (I do own an iPod), the style factor is why these things sell. The Kindle looks like it's still a prototype.
If I were the one accepting the donations for the Apache Software Foundation, I'd return the donation with a politely-worded letter explaining that it would not be in the best long-term interest of the open-source community to accept the participation of someone whose adversarial nature has been well established.
Problem is, many people don't agree with that self-serving definition of ownership. Many citizens, in fact judging by the amount of piracy going on the vast majority of citizens, think that current copyright law is badly broken.
I doubt the average person knows much at all about copyright law, much less cares about whether or not they are in violation. What they care about is their perceived entitlement to copyrighted material, and this is where the breakdown occurs. If consumers would learn to treat copyrighted material like any tangible commodity, the problem would solve itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they just wised up and stopped killing innocent civilians. It would be so convenient to blame the "progress" on some new technology, when it could easily be something much more fundamental. It's not that I have any contempt or disrespect for those that were unfortunate enough to be sent into this Iraq mess, but it when you consider why it ever happened in the first place, anything coming from the PR machine is suspect.
Then it's defective. I'd return it and ask for a refund.
Like the states have done with all of the defective electronic voting machines the Diebold and others have unloaded on the American public? I think it's safer to consider it money flushed.
This is an easy win. It's just that nobody wants to accept the responsibility. It's one of the easiest "jobs" they'll ever have. It's not that anyone has to do anything, it's that they have to *stop* doing something. It's not that they have give anyone any money, it's that they have to *stop* giving money. So easy, yet so elusive. Oh and for Pete's sake, stop the copyright infringement. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.
Ditch Internet Explorer. Problem solved.
I currelty use OpenOffice, and I've used KOffice as well. I like them both. They are both viable efforts. I do agree that OpenOffice has some rough spots, but I don't think that they're serious enough to completely dismiss it as a workable alternative.
This quote... ...seems to directly contradict a quote from another article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1):
And CCTV pictures mean there has been an enormous increase in guilty verdicts.
Billions of pounds has been spent on kit, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court. It's been an utter fiasco: only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV.
I guess what you hear depends on whether or not the person you're speaking to is a stakeholder.
I know people hate rules, but from what I've seen, these are the people that hate the idea behaving in a civil manner. Yes, this includes things like keeping up your property and and keeping your pets from crapping on other people's property. I've seen one instance where neighbors with dogs will pick up after their pets, but then stop short of actually disposing of it. Instead, they leave it sitting on their front step, or in little plastic bags right nest to the stair case so that we can ALL enjoy these little gifts. One has even turned their porch into a dog toilet, letting waste pile up over several days before cleaning it up. Others have apportioned parts of the common elements as their own little personal storage areas for junk like barbecues, chairs, and other assorted crap. It's all quite repugnant. I personally think these people would be better off living in a ghetto, since that's exactly how they treat the property. Suffice it to say, as long as there are stupid and lazy people, ordinances like this will be necessary.
We feel that everything on Earth is for our exclusive personal use until someone tries to stop us.
Truer words were never spoken. It sucks donkey dookie, but the attitude is everywhere.
Alright, my analogy wasn't appropriate. I was thinking of the Convolver function in a Painter plugin called Kai's Power Tools.
And so the circle continues. How are you helping anything (except your own erroneous sense of entitlement) if you decide to illegally download stuff again?
First, people who have engaged in illegal copyright infringement, continuing to push the envelope and up the ante, are responsible for this. They have effectively given the RIAA something to (legitimately) complain about. Second, there is no law that can be passed requiring consumers to purchase content from RIAA-backed entities. If you think about it, despite all the whining the RIAA does, they aren't hurting. If consumers suddenly grew a backbone and decided that they were going to stop supporting this insanity, do you seriously think such a sudden shift in revenue could be chalked up to copyright infringement? In my mind, this is a market correction that should take place. Being that illegal copying has been so pervasive, keeping the RIAA honest about the real causes of any revenue shift isn't going to be easy. But that's not their fault.
I'm talking about natural market forces, not ways of circumventing copyright. In fact, several of the "solutions" that you've mentioned are in part, responsible for the situation we have now.
The government is shutting them down, but only because of lobbies belonging to certain entities that want them shut down.
Perhaps, but we, as consumers, keep handing money over to the entities that are responsible for this madness. Keep these entities in check, and these kinds of problems will be much less pervasive.
Seems to me they could take this a step further and implement a sort of convolution matrix, but instead of modifying neighboring pixels, they'd be making subtle modifications to facial features.
Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the consumer. We can blame the government all we want, but where the market is concerned, the buck does stop here. Literally. The real problem is that consumers have become lazy.
I'm not a fan of *everything* that Google does. But let's face it - right now Google is an 800lb gorilla, dealing with other 800lb gorillas. The interesting thing about Google is that it's in a position to usher in some change that has the very real potential to upset the status quo. You can bet that the old guard will be fighting this, since they do have a vested interest. No little guy could afford these kinds of confrontations, and the government certainly isn't going to change anything, because too many politicians' would be risking future bri^w campaign funds.
Let's not kid ourselves. You're thought implies that the people who do this have anything other than their own, immediate, self-interest in mind. They certainly aren't doing it for the social good, because they aren't that sophisticated. It's because of an unfortunate (but painfully obvious) inability to do anything else.
You forgot one - for a modern device in a culture that is bent on style, the kindle is quite hideous. iPhone, iPod, iMac, etc...though I'm not a big Apple fan (I do own an iPod), the style factor is why these things sell. The Kindle looks like it's still a prototype.
If I were the one accepting the donations for the Apache Software Foundation, I'd return the donation with a politely-worded letter explaining that it would not be in the best long-term interest of the open-source community to accept the participation of someone whose adversarial nature has been well established.
Me too. I haven't had an Intel box in I don't know how long. And I hope I will be able to continue.
Problem is, many people don't agree with that self-serving definition of ownership. Many citizens, in fact judging by the amount of piracy going on the vast majority of citizens, think that current copyright law is badly broken.
I doubt the average person knows much at all about copyright law, much less cares about whether or not they are in violation. What they care about is their perceived entitlement to copyrighted material, and this is where the breakdown occurs. If consumers would learn to treat copyrighted material like any tangible commodity, the problem would solve itself.
I disagree. Accessing information and understanding it are different matters entirely.
There's man and fsck, too.
Are you forgetting about what we've done over in Iraq? Irony has never seen the light of day so clearly.