but Starbucks isn't just selling beverages. It's delivering a multisensory aesthetic experience,
Oh please...people pay Starbucks' exorbitant prices because that's what's in. It's about all about image. It's all about "how do others see me, and how can I make myself look cool?" It's the plastic, superficial existence that we've adopted as part of our day-to-day lives, that stresses cool over things that matter, like integrity, legitimate achievement, and character. While I might be inclined to believe that Starbucks once offered a more unique experience, that was shot to hell when they decided that it was much cheaper to make each store a nearly exact replica of every other. Now it's all about image and cool.
Because, if you haven't noticed, about 90%+ of the citizens of the United States want to leave it as it is now.
Here's the problem. On one hand, you hear constant references to our 'forefathers' and their intent with respect to the constitution. The pledge was not incorporated as part this document, and in fact, the original pledge didn't even exist at the time. It was, however, incorporated many years later through a congressional action based on an effort to promote a nationalistic mentality that was being masqueraded as patriotism. This having been said, those who support the pledge (and also claim to support the intentions of our 'forefathers') are in a bit of a bind. Basically, you can't have it both ways. Either stick with what our 'forefathers' intended (and ditch the pledge), or admit that you don't support their intention, and that you support instead, an attempt to change the foundation upon which this country was built.
You think it's irrational, or inaccurate to claim that Marajuana alters your mental accuity, thereby making it easier to render decisions that probably wouldn't occur under normal circumstances? Kids have enough trouble just navigating day-to-day life...throw drugs like alcohol and pot into the mix, and you've just made things much more difficult.
Drugs won't "give" someone a dirty little mind, but because they affect your judgement, they make it a hell of a lot easier to walk down that path.
The latter clearly patents the method by which amazon.com suggests items for you to buy based on your prior buying habits and the popularity of the suggested items
This ought to be thrown out as well. McDonald's has been doing something similar for years..."Would you like fries with that?"
What tomorrow? I see this a way to get justify getting their foot in the "report everything back to the mothership" door. The problem is that once any kind of data stream is established from a user's computer to a third party, the user usually has no idea what's being sent, and where it's going, or what/how it's being used.
As a matter of principle, I never use the reporting feature in Mozilla. However, if I should happen to slip up and submit something, I'd be a lot less worried about it than if I slipped and sent something back to Microsoft.
Look a little further. Some courses even offer the BOOKS online. I wish all of them did that, but for the ones that don't, they have links to the publisher.
I am left with the impression that the world of academic text books has become a racket. The fees for books are higher and higher, and it's not necessarily because the books are any better, or that they contain any astoundingly new information, it's because publishers can get away with it. Just like Universities can keep raising the cost of tuition, and at the same time, allowing their tenured 'teaching' staff to spend less time in the classroom (time for which students are paying big bucks), and more time publishing papers.
I remember reading a while ago about the push for e-text books, which, if widely adopted, would put an end to the textbook paradigm as we know it. You will no longer own a book, but be licensed to use the material for a semester. End of semester = end of material. I have no idea how much acceptance the e-textbook has gained over the past few years, but it's one of those things that could really change way we think of education.
I see strong parallels between the above scenario and what has happened with music and the internet: technology enabled the common person to duplicate an experience which formerly cost them money
But NOT by their own doing. People who copy music are taking/enjoying/experiencing something that someone else has created. Your example cites a situation where someone created something else that offered the same kind of experience. These two scenarios are distinctly different- at least in my mind.
This might be a way for Microsoft to guarantee it a very long life. The U.S. military (afaik) regularly sells outdated military hardware to foreign governments. But the funny part is that it then uses this to justify having to spend more money on military research- to stay ahead of those with the newest outdated U.S. weapons. It creates a vicious treadmill, very similar to the manner in which endless upgrades are created to further the life (and revenue) associated with a given software product. So, MS lets China have the source, and now China has very intimate knowledge of the one piece of software that runs on the vast majority of PCs in this country (including those in very sensitive areas). What better reason could exist for spending HUGE amounts of money 'upgrading' everything to stay ahead of what foreign powers know about this operating system?
That having been said, I find it particularly ironic that the U.S. government was practically wetting its pants over the export of encryption technology (as if no one else in the world had even heard the term, much less knew about the technology), but is apparently letting this go without incident.
One reason that the government is going after him is that private interests have lobbied to have laws set that make what he did a very severe crime under law.
And irony of all irony, Jay Sekulow, who is involved with the American Center for Law and Justice (which is really just a right-wing pro-Christian activist group), was bragging on the radio the other day about how they had participated in either formulating or reviewing at least some of the provisions in the Act. It's not all commercial interests at work here.
Re:Gotta give them credit
on
TIA Project to End
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
DARPA's dreaded Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, formerly administered by convicted felon and Republican hero John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame...
Very few articles about TIA seem to mention the fact that Poindexter is a person that cannot be trusted, or that he's associated with a political party that has pushed the notion of 'patriotism' onto a dangerous, rocky slope that has every American citizen under suspicion for possible terrorist activity. TIA will not provide any protection against terrorism, but if history is any indication, it will provide plenty of opportunity for abuse.
This seems a bit awkward. There's the difference between "removing" and "duplicating"; one leaves a vaccuum in its wake, the other does not.
I don't see why this matters. With copyrighted material, you basically have a contract (of sorts) between the creator, and the beneficiary. The creators says: "I have this music. I am offering you the ability to enjoy it, and here is what it will cost you." When someone copies it without paying for it, they're basically doing an end-run around the creator's offer. They're "taking" the benefit they derive from the creator's talent, skill, and creativity, and the creator gets nothing.
Personally, I believe the idea that theft is based on physical acquisition is an antiquated notion, supposing that everything has to have a physical manifestation in order to have value. With software, and anything that can be converted to a digital format, this is clearly not the case. You have it, you use it, you derive value or enjoyment from it, you pay for it. Simple as that.
However, I know plenty of musicians who have "moved on" to careers or scholastics, and their music just stagnates. They just don't have the time to devote to it, so it becomes atrophied.
On the other hand, an acquaintance of mine manages an office building, and also writes and performs classical guitar. Last time I spoke with him, he'd finished a symphony, and even had it performed. It's like anything else - set your priorities, and tailor your lifestyle (and commitments) accordingly.
and I tell you that I will give you money and you'll get fame and airplay, and you can quit your day job because of the advance, wouldn't you do it?
Absolutely NOT. There's an odd bybroduct of fame- artists no longer become creators, but they become their worst competitors. The expectations of fans, as well as the fear of falling out of favor (and hitting the ground hard) make for all kinds of psychological issues.
I'd rather keep both feet planted firmly on the ground, enjoy my sense of who I am (a rational, drug-free realist), and walk along my merry way. If it means a day job in order to support myself, to be it. I'll take that any day over being 'owned' by my fans and the record company that signed me.
I run a domain complete with web server, mail server, FTP server, secure tunnel, Telnet server, and HTTP proxy. Dial up is simply not an option. That's like suggesting that one could "grow a spine, cancel their electric service, and put up with candles and fires for a while longer."
Not really. If you're that dependent on your speed and the reliability, then you need a different class of service. As long as you're expecting first-class service from a standby (coach) ticket, I think you'll be frustrated with the results.
And if you use it, then they'll kick you off for excessive bandwidth usage. What good does it do to have 3.0mpbs of throughput if 30 minutes of usage per day will put you over their (unpublished) cap?
This illustrates a common misconception people have that faster equals more. It doesn't. It simply means faster.
It's no secret that there will always be a small minority that will spoil it for everyone else. With respect to capping excessive use, I have no sympathy. This small minority is typically self-centered, unable to assess how their actions will impact others - they share the same mentality with the boomcar crowd: Usurp the commons for your own personal gain, and screw everyone else. It might work for a while, but fortunately, they won't always get away with it.
But then again, it's like anything else...the high speed is nice (and lord knows, I was amazed at the speed when my cable connection was first installed), but it all comes down to a choice: Do you put up with the monopoly and enjoy whatever speed you get, or do you grow a spine, cancel the cable internet, and stick with dialup for a while longer. The way I see it, there's plenty of blame to go around - Comcast, for allegedly being a monopolistic control freak, and the its customers, for putting up with it. Monopolies LOVE lazy customers.
In fact, despite all the vitriol regarding Comcast, I personally have yet to experience any real problems (except their rather LAME website, with flash-based navigation), and I've even read that Comcast will be doubling the available bandwidth for their cable internet customers (from 1.5 mbps to 3.0 mbps) sometime in December.
Please, let's keep the rationalization to a minimum. The fact is that drugs like marajuana and alcohol affect your mind, and hinder your ability to make rational, coherent choices. They also affect motor skills and reduce the acuity with which one can perceive and determine what is going on around them.
Yes, people are dumb. But I'd argue that people who make stupid choices while under the influence of alocohol, marajuana, or any other drug, are even dumber, because they often do so knowing full well the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean patenting methods of swinging? (#6,368,227) Get real.
My impression is that this was done as a satirical gesture, using the system itself to show how outrageous it really is.
but Starbucks isn't just selling beverages. It's delivering a multisensory aesthetic experience,
Oh please...people pay Starbucks' exorbitant prices because that's what's in. It's about all about image. It's all about "how do others see me, and how can I make myself look cool?" It's the plastic, superficial existence that we've adopted as part of our day-to-day lives, that stresses cool over things that matter, like integrity, legitimate achievement, and character. While I might be inclined to believe that Starbucks once offered a more unique experience, that was shot to hell when they decided that it was much cheaper to make each store a nearly exact replica of every other. Now it's all about image and cool.
Because, if you haven't noticed, about 90%+ of the citizens of the United States want to leave it as it is now.
Here's the problem. On one hand, you hear constant references to our 'forefathers' and their intent with respect to the constitution. The pledge was not incorporated as part this document, and in fact, the original pledge didn't even exist at the time. It was, however, incorporated many years later through a congressional action based on an effort to promote a nationalistic mentality that was being masqueraded as patriotism. This having been said, those who support the pledge (and also claim to support the intentions of our 'forefathers') are in a bit of a bind. Basically, you can't have it both ways. Either stick with what our 'forefathers' intended (and ditch the pledge), or admit that you don't support their intention, and that you support instead, an attempt to change the foundation upon which this country was built.
So how is it they can 'license' something they no longer own?
You think it's irrational, or inaccurate to claim that Marajuana alters your mental accuity, thereby making it easier to render decisions that probably wouldn't occur under normal circumstances? Kids have enough trouble just navigating day-to-day life...throw drugs like alcohol and pot into the mix, and you've just made things much more difficult.
Drugs won't "give" someone a dirty little mind, but because they affect your judgement, they make it a hell of a lot easier to walk down that path.
You can better control the populace if you outlaw depictions of sex, because sex is normal and natural.
But unrestrained sex is disasterous. Sex isn't a toy, but making it so can be a very costly proposition.
The latter clearly patents the method by which amazon.com suggests items for you to buy based on your prior buying habits and the popularity of the suggested items
This ought to be thrown out as well. McDonald's has been doing something similar for years..."Would you like fries with that?"
What tomorrow? I see this a way to get justify getting their foot in the "report everything back to the mothership" door. The problem is that once any kind of data stream is established from a user's computer to a third party, the user usually has no idea what's being sent, and where it's going, or what/how it's being used.
As a matter of principle, I never use the reporting feature in Mozilla. However, if I should happen to slip up and submit something, I'd be a lot less worried about it than if I slipped and sent something back to Microsoft.
Look a little further. Some courses even offer the BOOKS online. I wish all of them did that, but for the ones that don't, they have links to the publisher.
I am left with the impression that the world of academic text books has become a racket. The fees for books are higher and higher, and it's not necessarily because the books are any better, or that they contain any astoundingly new information, it's because publishers can get away with it. Just like Universities can keep raising the cost of tuition, and at the same time, allowing their tenured 'teaching' staff to spend less time in the classroom (time for which students are paying big bucks), and more time publishing papers.
I remember reading a while ago about the push for e-text books, which, if widely adopted, would put an end to the textbook paradigm as we know it. You will no longer own a book, but be licensed to use the material for a semester. End of semester = end of material. I have no idea how much acceptance the e-textbook has gained over the past few years, but it's one of those things that could really change way we think of education.
I see strong parallels between the above scenario and what has happened with music and the internet: technology enabled the common person to duplicate an experience which formerly cost them money
But NOT by their own doing. People who copy music are taking/enjoying/experiencing something that someone else has created. Your example cites a situation where someone created something else that offered the same kind of experience. These two scenarios are distinctly different- at least in my mind.
This might be a way for Microsoft to guarantee it a very long life. The U.S. military (afaik) regularly sells outdated military hardware to foreign governments. But the funny part is that it then uses this to justify having to spend more money on military research- to stay ahead of those with the newest outdated U.S. weapons. It creates a vicious treadmill, very similar to the manner in which endless upgrades are created to further the life (and revenue) associated with a given software product. So, MS lets China have the source, and now China has very intimate knowledge of the one piece of software that runs on the vast majority of PCs in this country (including those in very sensitive areas). What better reason could exist for spending HUGE amounts of money 'upgrading' everything to stay ahead of what foreign powers know about this operating system?
That having been said, I find it particularly ironic that the U.S. government was practically wetting its pants over the export of encryption technology (as if no one else in the world had even heard the term, much less knew about the technology), but is apparently letting this go without incident.
One reason that the government is going after him is that private interests have lobbied to have laws set that make what he did a very severe crime under law.
And irony of all irony, Jay Sekulow, who is involved with the American Center for Law and Justice (which is really just a right-wing pro-Christian activist group), was bragging on the radio the other day about how they had participated in either formulating or reviewing at least some of the provisions in the Act. It's not all commercial interests at work here.
DARPA's dreaded Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, formerly administered by convicted felon and Republican hero John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame...
Very few articles about TIA seem to mention the fact that Poindexter is a person that cannot be trusted, or that he's associated with a political party that has pushed the notion of 'patriotism' onto a dangerous, rocky slope that has every American citizen under suspicion for possible terrorist activity. TIA will not provide any protection against terrorism, but if history is any indication, it will provide plenty of opportunity for abuse.
This seems a bit awkward. There's the difference between "removing" and "duplicating"; one leaves a vaccuum in its wake, the other does not.
I don't see why this matters. With copyrighted material, you basically have a contract (of sorts) between the creator, and the beneficiary. The creators says: "I have this music. I am offering you the ability to enjoy it, and here is what it will cost you." When someone copies it without paying for it, they're basically doing an end-run around the creator's offer. They're "taking" the benefit they derive from the creator's talent, skill, and creativity, and the creator gets nothing.
Personally, I believe the idea that theft is based on physical acquisition is an antiquated notion, supposing that everything has to have a physical manifestation in order to have value. With software, and anything that can be converted to a digital format, this is clearly not the case. You have it, you use it, you derive value or enjoyment from it, you pay for it. Simple as that.
However, I know plenty of musicians who have "moved on" to careers or scholastics, and their music just stagnates. They just don't have the time to devote to it, so it becomes atrophied.
On the other hand, an acquaintance of mine manages an office building, and also writes and performs classical guitar. Last time I spoke with him, he'd finished a symphony, and even had it performed. It's like anything else - set your priorities, and tailor your lifestyle (and commitments) accordingly.
and I tell you that I will give you money and you'll get fame and airplay, and you can quit your day job because of the advance, wouldn't you do it?
Absolutely NOT. There's an odd bybroduct of fame- artists no longer become creators, but they become their worst competitors. The expectations of fans, as well as the fear of falling out of favor (and hitting the ground hard) make for all kinds of psychological issues.
I'd rather keep both feet planted firmly on the ground, enjoy my sense of who I am (a rational, drug-free realist), and walk along my merry way. If it means a day job in order to support myself, to be it. I'll take that any day over being 'owned' by my fans and the record company that signed me.
I for one would prefer my child not to recieve morality lessons
What do you call the acquisition of value or benefit, derived from something that belongs to someone else, without their knowledge or consent?
webster.com says that "theft" is: "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it".
With respect to IP, this definition can (and probably should) be logically extended to include, "...the rightful owner of it, or its value."
why don't copyright owners have to pay property tax?
Um, because it's not real estate?
I run a domain complete with web server, mail server, FTP server, secure tunnel, Telnet server, and HTTP proxy. Dial up is simply not an option. That's like suggesting that one could "grow a spine, cancel their electric service, and put up with candles and fires for a while longer."
Not really. If you're that dependent on your speed and the reliability, then you need a different class of service. As long as you're expecting first-class service from a standby (coach) ticket, I think you'll be frustrated with the results.
And if you use it, then they'll kick you off for excessive bandwidth usage. What good does it do to have 3.0mpbs of throughput if 30 minutes of usage per day will put you over their (unpublished) cap?
This illustrates a common misconception people have that faster equals more. It doesn't. It simply means faster.
The effects and consequences of drug use (not including those used for medicinal purposes) are often far from "good". Therein lies my confusion.
It's no secret that there will always be a small minority that will spoil it for everyone else. With respect to capping excessive use, I have no sympathy. This small minority is typically self-centered, unable to assess how their actions will impact others - they share the same mentality with the boomcar crowd: Usurp the commons for your own personal gain, and screw everyone else. It might work for a while, but fortunately, they won't always get away with it.
But then again, it's like anything else...the high speed is nice (and lord knows, I was amazed at the speed when my cable connection was first installed), but it all comes down to a choice: Do you put up with the monopoly and enjoy whatever speed you get, or do you grow a spine, cancel the cable internet, and stick with dialup for a while longer. The way I see it, there's plenty of blame to go around - Comcast, for allegedly being a monopolistic control freak, and the its customers, for putting up with it. Monopolies LOVE lazy customers.
In fact, despite all the vitriol regarding Comcast, I personally have yet to experience any real problems (except their rather LAME website, with flash-based navigation), and I've even read that Comcast will be doubling the available bandwidth for their cable internet customers (from 1.5 mbps to 3.0 mbps) sometime in December.
Please, let's keep the rationalization to a minimum. The fact is that drugs like marajuana and alcohol affect your mind, and hinder your ability to make rational, coherent choices. They also affect motor skills and reduce the acuity with which one can perceive and determine what is going on around them.
Yes, people are dumb. But I'd argue that people who make stupid choices while under the influence of alocohol, marajuana, or any other drug, are even dumber, because they often do so knowing full well the consequences.