Same with Dell who's laptops are made there, as are Compaq's and HP's, and Microsoft's products including the Xbox 360 -- in which the factory where Apple was getting all the hate because Foxcon employees were threatening suicide weren't even manufacturing Apple products -- but the XBOX360 and Kinect in the ramp up to Christmas.
Its funny that Apple gets all the shit, when in fact, they make up a small part of this company's output -- and they are the only ones that for the last several years have been asking for reports from the companies involved, been actively reducing child labor (they fired a company that was found to have child labor two years in a row), they have asked the wages of the employees making the devices in these companies be raised (far more than the ones making the XBOX products), and are actively trying to change the culture. Last year, a lot of the products that were being manufactured by hand were transitioned to robots because of the repetitive nature of the task...and were shit on for 'firing employees' when they did this.
Its fucked up how much Apple gets shit on with this...its like Greenpeace going after Apple and listing them lower when their practices were far better than any other manufacture with Greenpeace first stating that they were looking for improvement from a baseline (i.e., where was the company a few years ago vs. now...not who is actually better), and then pretty much admitting it was a publicity stunt because of Apple's image...never actually admitting that their products were far ahead of the competition.
That said, I would fucking shoot myself in the head if I had to work in conditions like in Foxcon...that is if my family wasn't fined for me doing so and put into prison camps to pay for my crime against society. Even the best fucking sucks...
In a sense, Apple forced Amazon to treat the publishing industry fairly.
Amazon was devaluing books by buying them at one price and selling them for a lot less than they paid for, ensuring that because of their size that they would eventually be the only company to deal with...and thus set prices exactly where they wanted to in order to make the most money.
It was a very monopolistic act and ironic that the only company that forced them to stop doing this wasn't a bookstore but a company that sold phones. Pretty much because they killed off all the other bookstores by selling books cheaper by not needing to pay sales tax or to have a physical location (back when people would come to most other bookstores to browse the books and then turn around and buy online).
That said, I browsed bookstores and bought online too. And I never reported the tax savings either. Then again, I rarely buy ebooks unless its cheap enough...I buy a physical version and then scrounge the next for an electronic one that I'm not going to pay for (why should I pay for something I already have). Actually, there have been a few times where I couldn't find the book and sent my physical book to a conversion service (and it STILL was cheaper than a lot of books!) Sadly, when you do this, you don't get the book back because they've practically destroyed it in the process.
But regardless, the point was Amazon was using monopolistic practices to pressure publishers into lowering prices so that they could drive out even more small businesses. And most of us were all too willing to help out.
Nah...Cory represents some of the worst I find about the FOSS community. He is a prettier version of RMS. Sorry.
I *LOVE* opensource, but I've been burned several times by people like him. No matter what you do, its not good enough.
Again, I am not a fan of GPL with my own works...I straight out PD it when I get around to it (I keep about a 2 to 3 year cycle that anything I sell myself is open)...and yeah, I know I technically need a copyright for it. I put out a few statistical routines for a number of languages last year...ones that actually work (i.e., I was surprised how many actually didn't). These were for running my own experiments and I needed them to work correctly. Honestly, I find it odd that someone would try to copyright something that is another representation of a mathematical formula. I got shit on because I didn't explain how some of this works...I mean FUCKING TAKE A GRADUATE LEVEL STATS COURSE IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO REGRESSIONS OR FACTOR ANALYSIS...I'M NOT GOING TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU.
These were public domain...as they should be. And I have no idea how these people tracked me down because they aren't intended to be used by people that don't know stats. If you know stats? You know how to implement them. Wasn't supposed to be a text book, nor was it supposed to be for the nerd that their boss said HEY I NEED THIS FEATURE, FIND IT...
Most of the opensource people I know are pragmatic. Its the 1% that seem to actually represent the movement that make it look bad. I could care less about telling someone what to do with the product after I'm finished. GPL does that. Telling someone how to live their life and mandating their morality is not free. BSD gets a little closer...it says HEY, AT LEAST GIVE ME CREDIT...I don't even want the credit.
But yes, Cory represents the part of the FOSS movement I can't stand. He is a cheerleader that puts out shitty works and people pay him for cheerleading. You should find out the inside story of how he convinced a nonprofit to move him overseas, spent most of his time promoting his own works, and then quit once they paid for his expenses. Not even a great evangelist if you dig deep enough...more like an opportunist. So yes...he represents the opensores part of opensource.
Not a troll...just someone that has interacted with the man for a long time and realized that he is a bigger douche than I am. And that is telling...
"I don't tip the waitress until I get the check. "
No, but you do pay for the food. The content creator isn't asking for a tip...they are asking for a specific amount of money to watch their movie. In the case of a loaned DVD...the person paying for the DVD originally paid for the right to loan this. When I wrote software and it had to run from disc (this was YEARS ago), my only rule for loans was that you had to loan the original media -- not copies. I gave a shit load of my software away for free -- both opensourcing the older stuff (actually public domaining it and disavowing the code...I stripped all references to my name because most of what people were paying for was my personal service and support and for some reason people thought free software with the code gave them the right to call me an asshole publicly when I told them they could pay if they wanted any support or communication what so ever...and I specifically wrote in the code DO NOT CONTACT ME FOR SUPPORT).
Hell...then again, sometimes poor musicians would write me and ask for my software and I'd give them a copy if they weren't dicks about it. 90% of the time I did.
I'm not a bit fan of the current copyright code, but at the same time, I'm almost 40 and there is only about 5 years of my songwriting or code that wouldn't be covered by the 20 years. I would be happy with it being exactly as it was. And places like TPB would STILL be dealing with software that was 3 months old.
As for Doctorow...I've had conversations with him for 15 years and he has always been wrong about so many things. He use to be a hypercard 'hacker' back in the day...until Apple wouldn't suck his cock and he got righteous about it. His works suck. I use to buy them because I thought he was a decent guy...but my god the man cannot write. I know a lot of others that feel the same way and buy his works...almost like a pat on the head because he is the most outspoken opensores evangelist that doesn't publicly eat his toe cheese in public...he is grating, but acceptable company if he isn't lecturing you. As such, he is a big deal to a lot of nerds who reward him for this, not his writings. As for his other success stories...he points out artists that have made a shit ton of money through the use of their copyrights, live comfortably and then realize they can give a little back and STILL make a shit ton because they have the name to do it. He doesn't talk about the 99% of the people that try this and fail. For me? I sold a shit ton of music over my life and I love the obscurity. Every so often someone will find my name in the credits of an album, but even then...I'd rather my name be on the books in some labels safe and let those that are more talented in performing or comfortable doing PR and interviews take the credit. And they paid well to take the credit.
A true artist doesn't give a fuck who's name is on the works. All I ever cared about was making enough money to be able to continue to do what I needed to do. Fuck obscurity...it never hurt me a bit...it paid for my house and 4 years of college and I've been pimping some of my works to friends again after almost a decade out of the industry so that I can go to med school without having to take on loans. Van Gogh...did a lot of work in obscurity that paid the bills. His paintings were an afterthough and personal. His life as an art collector made a lot of things easier. He used his collection -- and the fact that these works were like currency -- to live a good life that allowed him to paint obscurely. And it didn't hurt him...what would have hurt him? If someone could have come along and made exact works of the paintings in his collection from others that allowed him to live well.
Point is, Cory is wrong about those going broke from piracy but starving from obscurity. They aren't connected...and yet, I've known a lot of talented well known people quit industries because their work was too widely available and they weren't getting compensation for their work (or the investment that it took to create it).
"That's what the Pirate Bay is for. I'm not going to pay to watch something I wouldn't pay to watch..."
I've never understood this idea...if it isn't worth paying for, it isn't worth stealing / copyright infringing / taking something that cost someone else to make that you find crap and thus shouldn't even view unless willing to pony up for it. At least if you REALLY wanted to see someting and couldn't afford it, it would at least make sense...
It just doesn't seem right even if you don't believe in intellectual properties...someday when people don't make bad movies or television for money and are compensated in other ways...I'll agree, but for now, the expectation is that people are compensated for their work if you use.
I figure if I don't want to compensate someone for entertaining me, I don't let them entertain me. It isn't that hard to avoid the garbage...especially if you have to resort to TPB for it.
As for priorities? I agree...I don't drink coffee...and one cup of tea at Starbucks that I can refill all day long and get out of my office for 20 minutes at a time...costs me less that $2. At the same time, I know plenty of people that don't bat an eye at paying for this, and yet they complain about Netflix.
Quality isn't about the bells and whistles...its about the content.
I have tapes recorded in lowfi mono that are far more artful than anything in 7.1 recorded at 192khz. This is not quality...its a numbers game. Does 7.1 sound nice? Yes...but if the content is good, it shouldn't matter.
I look at Netflix as something that I can test out movies I wouldn't have otherwise watched. For $7 a month, I'm not sure if I'm going to care if I don't get 7.1 out of something that costs as much as 2 coffees. And yet, this is exactly why Hastings was kicked in the gonads pretty hard...people were upset about having to pay the equivalent of one days coffee for something that lasts a lot longer and enriches their lives far more. (it is just television...but c'mon...in the scheme of things, it is still better than coffee!). People getting upset that they are getting something that if it would have come down coax instead of Cat5 and they didn't have a choice of what was being played or when that they would be paying 3x that just for the basics (let alone premium channels) and yet people still found reason to complain.
But some people want to complain about $7 and talk about flashy audio formats that really don't add much to 99% of the films out there...
A large percentage of people believe speeding to be perfectly legitimate because speed laws are artificially low to increase revenues from fines and otherwise. Or may believe that they are good enough to speed, but most others shouldn't. Or that disregarding the law is perfectly legitimate if there is an excuse.
Not one of these tells us they feel speeding it wrong...they feel it is justified under many many circumstances.
I don't speed...and yet I don't find speeding wrong. I find breaking laws that were made that don't affect my life to be wrong. There is nothing that the speeding laws stop me from doing that wasn't my fault to begin with (i.e., get up 5 minutes earlier to get to work). As such, I find it moronic to break the law. I also feel the same about drug laws...I don't like drug laws, but I don't make up excuses as to why the law is bad when all I'd want to do is to get high. I don't see this as a human right that needs to be protected by breaking the laws. At the same time, I don't judge someone that wants to get high...its their life. I do find people that go to jail for this to be morons that took a risk for no apparent reason knowing its against the law.
Taking these ideas out, lot of people could believe that cheating might be wrong EXCEPT IF IT IS JUSTIFYABLE....i.e., they know the material, but just didn't study. Or feel more worthy than someone else. Or otherwise...cheating isn't wrong...others cheating is wrong.
This is the problem with a decade of psychology behind me...these things are not simple questions nor answers...
I keep track of the types of tests and the students that were suspected of cheating. I've been doing this for 10 years. A few years back, I was asked to see which tests were being cheated on the most. A large international exam testing English speaking skills (not going to say the name) was the one that by and far was the largest group of suspected cheating. Note: suspected cheating is most likely actual cheating, but in a lot of cases, I couldn't take the risk of accusation. For instance, I can dismiss someone for talking to someone else, but I can't really say its 'cheating' unless I knew what was being said.
When I went in to names and otherwise, sometimes I have their country of origin...and sometimes just the names...but I can make a pretty good determination that over 10 years that students from certain countries by and far elicit more cheating than others. And not just a little...a LOT. Even when I look at the other tests other than this English Language test...its the same thing.
Who knows, you may be right...unless I went to another large university and repeated these results, I don't know if it is just the locals that have congregated here and not an indictment of the countries...but an indictment of the locals that just happen to cluster from those countries and have heard it was easy to cheat. However, though friends on the national collegiate testing association...this is generally true anecdotally -- even if they haven't kept the same records I have.
You seem to have a lot invested in your belief that it is systematic and not just localized to cultures. I've spent a LOT of time with two diverse cultures -- I am white, but I really don't have many white friends -- living with one family for 15 years, and growing up with another where I spent more time with them than my own family I can definitely tell you they have very different values and norms compared to the average 'white' family (what ever that may be). There are things that make you say What The Fuck...and then when you leave and go back to your 'own' culture...you realize in some ways theirs is so much fucking better and you sit around going WHAT THE FUCK about your own...90% of it all is going to be the same. But where it deviates...it really deviates. And understanding the cultures...it makes sense why.
But going around believing everyone is the same? No...cultures differ and values differ and this is why its great to get out of a monoculture and live with others to see the world for what it is...you might end up agreeing with your own more...or you might go back sickened by your own...I did the latter...
I do a lot of student testing a part of my job (I design testing methodology as well as designing psychological instruments) and I can tell you this...on exams that are not even for grades but ones just for placement purposes, I have NEVER caught an American cheating. I catch foreigners cheating all the time. Again, these are not even for grade...it's to pick the most appropriate course.
The funny thing is, getting caught cheating will actually keep them from taking courses because of the academic dishonesty...where failing and getting a big fat zero won't...
The problem is, in other parts of the world, if you fall on your face you are done...this as far as you get. It's not racism, it's culture specific. The more authoritarian a country, the more likely they are to cheat. And it's understandable...I would probably cheat if I were given the odds they were as well. If it meant more freedom for me and my family, there is no question...sure I'll want to do well on my own as well, but id do what I can to minimize the odds.
There are two countries in particular that I ALWAYS have to watch for...one guy actually offered to buy me a car to have me look the other way...I told him I was stopping his test because I hadn't actually caught him cheating (I was 99% certain, but I couldn't get to the phone in time and not allowed to search students) but I was planning on dismissing him (he could take it again later). I told him I was going to have to report this, and told him that this country wasn't like his and to go to his advisor IMMEDIATELY and beg for forgiveness about the 'joke' that he tried to bribe me...
Over the years, I actually got to know that kid and I know he actually has the resources to have bought me a car, but his ethics are far better these days. And we've discussed this once or twice about the differences in our cultures and school...
But there is nothing racist or jingoistic in pointing out that other countries have different values...quite a few things I hate about American culture that should be thrown back in our face as well...all cultures have weak points...
"shows that parts of the foundations of some psychology is a sham, not a science"
So, looking at Freud and then applying these tests of pseudoscience to him is an indictment of psychology because some of the roots of the field have not panned out?
So what does that say about the alchemists in conjunction to modern chemistry or physics? Quite a bit of scientific understanding of the world and what it is made up of and how it all fits together were put together by men whose methodology was on par with sorcery.
You go far enough back in any field and you realize that someone important probably got something so wrong that it would invalidate their whole work if applied to todays standards.
That said, I find most of what Freud professed to be utter bullshit...and it pissed me off through most of my undergrad and into my postgraduate work...people would bring up theories of his and I would just shudder. And then I realized that without the application and expansion of his beliefs, psychology may be 50 to 100 years behind what it is today. And we realize that even with his flawed beliefs, we can make a pretty accurate assessment of the world, or more to the point...the people that live within it. We know that with his talking therapies, even with his overemphasis on genitalia and the mommy problems, people are around 60% more likely to have measurable healing compared to those that receive nothing. We know that some interpretations of dreams or beliefs while inaccurate using the Freudian perspective, can lead to a better understanding of the person. In some ways, until imaging scanners and technology to analyze this comes into place, we realize we will most certainly be wrong...but in some ways correct.
In 50 years from now, discoveries made through things like the Hadron Collider may show that the gods of physics may have been wrong...will that mean they are not scientists because they are only postulating that which they have not yet been able to observe? Until the first atomic bomb was detonated, we could not observe, let alone replicate what we had believed. And yet, it worked.
That said, I pretty much moved from psychology to another science and I really don't have a dog in the fight any more. However, the more I deal with other sciences, the more I realize that they are grasping at straws in much the same fashion psychology has done...simply waiting for technology to catch up so that things can be proven or disproven...luckily, most other fields don't have to deal with quite as much human subjects protection / IRB that stop us from finding the truth. Not to go Godwin on things, but if you want to see true science in psychology, one only need to look back at Nazi Germany where one didn't need approval to do bad things to people to be able to reproducibly get results under a number of scenarios and stimuli. I think most would agree that the pseudoscience nature of psychology today is far more civilized and humane even while limiting the research and validity of what could be.
I can wait for Netflix to eventually offer it, maybe in 6 months...maybe never...and it is rare that I want anything that is so new that I NEED to pay for it.
As such, just because I can get other content for a much cheaper rate -- this doesn't lower the cost for other things I might want. If it costs too much, I find something else...I'll go through the Netflix archives and find something 6 years old and watch it...
Some of us tried the freedom and realized it got us no where.
I was a unix enthusiast for 20 years. I set up a BSD box on a 486 and then later a linux one. I still run a business off of 4 linux boxes I had colocated somewhere, now they are emulated in the cloud...probably everywhere. At the time, it gave me all the tools I wanted...20 years later...those same tools are pretty much exactly where they were when I started.
I was a FOSS enthusiast for years. I got sick of dealing with the personalities when I'd make a package simpler to use, I'd get shit on for doing so...my background is in psychology, and its not hard to pare these things down to something that the average person can use -- while still giving the same power to the nerds. I got kicked out of one project for making a wrapper app that allowed non-nerds to use it. I regularly released software as public domain -- because I felt the freedom of the person with the software should be more important that telling them what they needed to do with it after it was out of my hands. I got crapped on by several people in the community when I did this...one of my projects ended up forking with people acting like I was an asshole -- and I fully agreed with them forking it. It wasn't my project any more, so they could do what they wanted...however, I was still treated like crap by these people that could only see past their own zealotry.
All in all, the Stallman view of freedom is slavery IMHO. I can't stand his perspective. It is too absolute and demanding.
As for Apple, I don't really like the walled garden idea...but when I see whats on the other side of the walled garden, I don't complain too much. I have jailbroken my apps, only to find that the jailbroken apps that were supposed to be currated by others are completely shitty, they 'leak' info to servers oversea, they waste battery, and screw with the stability of the system...there are two jailbroken apps I use and have paid for...one I know does shitty things, but I use it because it is useful for me. The other? Makes life simpler and gets around some of the things the phone company thinks I should pay for. Maybe I should...
Either way, the Apple way seems to be far better than the alternatives -- even if I disagree with a lot of this in principle.
So how would you be a consumer of the ATV anyways then?
You want to buy a product that is specifically for streaming...nothing on the box says anything BUT streaming...and then complain that it costs too much to steam?
Ok...some of us research our products before we buy them...
I bought an ATV and only use Netflix on it. I had XBMC on it for a while, but an upgrade wiped it out...it was getting to be a pain to keep hulu running on it anyways...
No AppleTax for me...and even if there were? It isn't like paying $3 to rent a movie is all that much (especially when it costs me $8 to rent a RedBox because I can never seem to get back to the box in any reasonable amount of time).
"Why should 80% of the people pay no income taxes on their income?"
Because they end up paying taxes regardless. income is only one tax...we have multiple taxible sources to equilize the process.
The poor tend to spend their money on essentials. These get taxed...the things that aren't essential get taxed much higher -- booze, cigs...
However, you can't make it ONLY sales tax, because quite a few of us go out of our way to buy things that aren't taxed for one reason or another. The more money you make, the easier it is to do this...I buy a LOT of shit overseas...and the few times I am required to declare its value...well...lets just say there isn't an appraiser there to say if it is right or not.
Beyond that, a lot of services are not taxed / taxible. The more money you have, the less likely you need STUFF and the more likely you want specific services. Sure, you will have the stuff, but you won't be like the poor white trash that buy a big screen and it breaks, and repeats the cycle ever year not realizing if they had the money in the first place, they could have just bought something decent and kept it for much longer and actually saved money on the deal...more 'poor' people have more stuff than I do...but mine lasts a hell of a lot longer and the TCO is far less. But you need the initial money sitting around to do this.
And then you get into the idea of the rich screaming about wanting only income tax...when 90% of what they bring home isn't income but something else. They may actually have $1M in stock, but they don't want to be judged on this until they cash it in because it might not be worth that much when they do.
I do think the tax laws need to be simplified...but the idea that some people are not paying taxes is ridiculous. Are they paying their fair share? Who knows...I've always felt that those that could afford to burden the load more should...but thats just my Christian nature...
He also 'shamelessly' paid for these ideas and 'ripped off' Xerox by allowing them to loan some of their best engineers for the project by allowing the company to invest in Apple and making them millions of dollars.
But don't let facts get in the way of your criticism...
I use to write medical applications and instruments years ago, and one of the most expensive things was testing the work, and running it past lawyers -- who tested the work one more time with a different team.
And my products were generally known as being good, accurate, and scientifically tested....
And then I would see competitors put out similar works that was not tested, and often times inaccurate. And much cheaper. Hell, one of my competitors put a disclaimer and lawyerly notice with the same guys I had been working with and I asked them if it was a conflict of interest...my guys said that if they were involved, they couldn't talk about it because of client lawyer priv...but then came back and said they could talk about it because they never heard from the guy. And yet, people thought his work was as scientifically tested and rigorous mine.
In my case, I was doing mostly psychological work...I was careful about my clients. I only licensed my software to legitimate psychologists or MDs with the appropriate background. My competitors didn't care...schools would try to buy my work to test kids to see if they were psychos or needed kicked out...and wants software that could take the place of a trained professional (where as I actually took out a few automations that would have been easier to diagnose, BUT it made it easier for people that had no right to diagnose, nor actually understood the ramification of doing this...I wanted the diagnosis to come from a licensed psychologist).
The whole point is, there is too much unregulated work in this world. Too many people that think they are experts, just because they have a book with equations and knowledge of programming. Too many people that are willing to put their name on a product for a percentage of the sales without ever looking at it. I spend the money on making certain things were right -- and it cut into my profit A LOT -- but it was the right thing to do. Everything I hear from this law is that it will actually make the law a little more uniform and a lot of stuff that we had to guess at is now concrete and no guessing needed. It will be actually cheaper to do this than what I paid before...the only people complaining are those that took shortcuts and didn't really care about your health.
(and sadly, these days I have the credentials to do the work...and yet I do no programming any more).
"but around here, resisting arrest is a bullshit charge lumped on by prosecutors who aren't sure they can make anything else stick."
I've been arrested for resisting arrest as well in the past, and I've had it removed.
And yet, I still agree it is a legitimate thing to arrest someone for. If you are ILLEGALLY being arrested, you most certainly have the right -- and most likely the responsibility -- to try to resist. For instance, I got pulled over by a cop when I was 16 because I briefly dated his daughter. I dumped her because I didn't care for her moral values (hmm...had to rewrite this because I realize I am now much worse than she ever was!)...he accused me of fucking his daughter and dumping her (which actually never happened...because I was a 'good' churchboy back then).
The arrest was totally illegal...and pulling someone over 'just to talk' is an arrest. If you cannot leave, you are under arrest...I told the officer to go fuck himself, and next thing I know my car was impounded and I was in jail...for resisting arrest.
Judge didn't believe me at first, but the cop actually admitted to this when I goaded him into it (first informal hearing)...and I got out of it.
This, however, doesn't mean that resisting arrest is a bullshit charge...if you are pulled over for speeding, and decide to leave -- you can be arrested for resisting arrest. Or if a cop has a legitimate reason to question you and you resist...I think its wise for society to teach these people that its not good manners. Sometimes, a cop has a legitimate right to stop you -- even if you aren't doing anything wrong -- just to talk. If they do it once, I'm cool with it...if it is a pattern of harassment...I'm not. Its funny how certain people see where the line is...the cop haters think that one time is harrassment, and the cop lovers...I'm not sure where they stand (some will say its never harassment...at least until it happens to them).
There are a lot of reasons to arrest someone for resisting. I've had my share of bad cops in my day, but I'm also lucky to have known a lot of good ones too. I realize they are people, and like most people -- there are always dicks in the crowd that stick out...
I did work at one point for a politician that went to great extremes to look up my background (deleted the part about the party and his position just before I posted this...could be relevant, but I don't think it really is).
During the interview, I was asked by one of his staff to explain my online behavior...and I asked if I was being hired for what I did outside of work...and as they hemmed and hawed about it I stated, I Date Younger Women, All Over The Age of 21 And Yes, I Like My Friends To Know This...I made some comment about them not looking hard enough because there were photos of me dancing at a friends show at a gay bar where some dude totally grabbed my crotch just as the photo was taken. I said this should be more of an embarrassment for your people than me showing that I'm a red blooded heterosexual...
I got the job (consulting) and was asked to come on permanently, which I declined (I felt comfortable getting them up to speed with the subject I knew and hopefully influence them towards my beliefs...but I sure as fuck wasn't going to play propaganda with things I am not an expert on, and they wanted me to give them the opinion they wanted).
That said, I have an ex that I am still friends with who CONSTANTLY complains about her BF's porn viewing habits...I finally got fed up with it -- and I try to make it a point not to give advice to my friends about relationships considering I am not the greatest at them -- but I said something about You Know I Looked At Porn And Never Said Anything...Did You Bitch About Me Too??? And she responded that, no, she never complained because I was upfront about it and never needed to sneak off in hiding to do it. In her mind, what I did was normal...but since he hid it and was ashamed of it...he was doing something dirty. From a psychological perspective, he was doing something dirty because he felt it was dirty. It is the same thing...if you are constantly in fear of those seeing something that is out of the norm -- you are going to appear weird. If you embrace it, its much harder to impeach your credibility...my weird background that I use to hide (I was a musician for a decade before I got into my current world...along with all the crap that goes on with this world)...it ends up being a point of conversation where I can tell people Yes, I Use To Be A Freak, But Now I Wear A Suit, And I'm Probably A Bigger Freak But I Fit In Better...and it has worked out well...my lack of privacy ends up being a selling point for me...I am an open book except to those so entrenched in deception that they have to believe there is more to it than I am willing to tell...and honestly, they do me a favor by not associating themselves with me as it would be a bad match...
Being watched has as many triggers for safety as it does danger. A family member watching you is (generally) a good thing. In the right society, police officers watching is a good thing. In the animal world, the alpha male of the herd watching you can make you braver and feel far safer allowing you to sleep in an area full of predators...not watching for the predators, but watching you.
Being watched is a biological neutral.
As a cognitive being, you are far more in control of how you you choose to see the watchers. You can choose if it is a negative, if it is a positive...or if it is an overall neutral.
I've seen studies where students doing testing (my main field is in assessment of knowledge) where a photo is placed with a forced perspective on the eyes (I think this is what its called...its where the eyes seem to follow you)...doing so with an inspiring figure, you can elicit far better grades that without. You can also retard grades the opposite direction with the right stimuli.
Either way, the privacy issue is one of fear. You may not want to admit it, but it is. Once you stop externalizing fear, privacy needs go away.
But then again, fear is built into all of us...its how our species has survived. It also keeps us back in a lot of ways. You thrive far more in an environment that has no fear.
Would I want a society that DEMANDS that I give away privacy? Fuck no...I wouldn't want to live in one that did that...a society that demands invasion is one that is looking for faults. Then again, I don't have anything anyone can use against me...for instance, dept chair got upset one year because of rumors I was dating a student...looked into things and I got called in...said there was a rumor...and I said Yes I Am...Find In My Contract Where This Is Wrong...and it isn't. The ONLY thing they could have got me on would have been if I would have lied about it...and this is where most of the people in my situation get in trouble...they lie about it.
So I understand why privacy is a big deal, but at the same time, it is an expression of fear (half of our actions are either expressions of fear or connection / love). Once you stop minimizing fear and maximizing love, it really isn't a big deal. Then again, getting rid of fear works for me...who knows how it works for anyone else. I just wish the privacy freaks would shut the fuck up about those of us that freely give away our privacy and stop acting as if we are idiots for doing so:-)
Ok...enough from me...I don't care much about psychology any more except as a hobby...I have a study or two I'll probably publish before I get to my next career (based around finding happiness)...but it really isn't something I need to defend...
"IT attracts more people that are arrogant and think they are right more than any other industry."
I take it that IT is the only industry you've been in? I've been in two other industries, and soon a third that have far more arrogance than IT.
I started off in entertainment (I wrote a fairly popular musical software for my own use that got picked up by someone in the industry, I got to know them and ended up writing songs for a decade). Entertainment has FAR more arrogance than IT...and worse, its about an art...in which there are no right answers.
Moved on to psychology (with some IT / programming...I was a cognitive researcher in the AI world)...researchers are very cocky...psychologists seem to think they know more about what you are thinking than you do...luckily, they are right a good deal of the time. I would have my PhD in this area and have a few thousand hours of practice, but...
Moving from this world to the medical field (as soon as I can pass courses I took 20 years ago and did poorly back then because I never thought I'd need those classes -- but need to pass the MCAT) -- I can safely say surgeons are FAR worse than anyone on my list...and they won't even disagree because 'if they are wrong, people die'...or some other line of BS they have to tell themselves...
IT is just full of people with poor social skills. Not all...but more than any other field I've ever been in.
As for privacy, again, you are externalizing your fears. Someone taking away privacy from a fully rationalized person will not cause any problems. Why? because you wouldn't care. I do a lot of things I really don't want people to know about...but if the world finds out that I like to masturbate while watching porn, I'm not going to be upset. Heck, if they find out the kinds of porn I like, I might be a little wierded out about, but I'd get over it relatively quickly. If my health records were released...yeah...I have things in there that I don't want family to worry about, but honestly, it would be a road bump I'd get past. Why? Because it doesn't really matter to me any more. Use to...use to be a VERY private person...and my friends still tease me because I code name a lot of the women I date because I don't want them knowing and interfering...but that is the extent of my privacy these days.
People that get bent out of shape over privacy do so because they feel things they do should not be broadcast...that they are bad for doing these things. That there is some shame or fear of reprisal. And sometimes its justified...most of the time, it isn't.
As for the biological sides of this...doesn't work in this manner. When fear is a factor, it might work...we aren't in an environment where there is fear of being watched...it might be a little uncomfortable at first, but if you don't have any other problems, it won't matter. That said we ALL have some mental problems...just like we all have some physical problems.
My Privacy invaded day by day
My Government and the US government is massively corrupt, doesn't tax companies
The unjust succeed while the moral wither
Everyone thinks they are right so nothing gets done"
This is all external, and nothing is an internal. Your privacy? Who cares...the problem is that you think someone does care. Stop worrying about how others judge you, and it doesn't matter about your privacy. The gov't is corrupt? The gov't has always been corrupt. The world has always had more corruption than it has righteousness. It is far easier to be corrupt than it is to be righteous. What does this matter towards your powerlessness? You have the choice to be corrupt or righteous. This seems as though it proves you have power. Same with the very next argument...the unjust succeed. How are you defining success? Money? Power over others? These shouldn't determine your success. You are allowing it to determine your success and you have defined success in a way that allows the unjust to get the upper hand in your world.
As for everyone thinking they are right...maybe you need to stop trying to be right as well. I'm probably wrong about all of this...I'm right in my world, but my success in life doesn't depend on you agreeing...if you do, that's cool...but I'm not going to base my concept of success on this. If someone else wants to be right, let them...if you want to be right, don't make your success based on others believing it. Believe that you can be right and someone else can hold an opposing view and still be right too. In most complex situations, there can be multiple paths to the right solution...
Again, who knows if I'm right...I do know I'm happy more often than most people I know...
Note on your sig...most of the people I know that are hardcore unix fans have moved to OSX simply because you can get around the GUI shell to do mundane things...and yet, we can still pull up the terminal to do the heavy lifting.
Compare this to Microsoft...horrible shell, horrible GUI. Compare to Linux...same exact killer shell and CLI...mixed with a GUI that borders on unusable unless you want to pull up a terminal. I don't believe there is any paradox here...other than the freetards who want to get exactly what they pay for...the rest use OS X because it is the best of both worlds. I still own a few Linux / BSD boxes for various businesses of mine. I think your paradox is one you've invented in your mind...
Did you not read my post? I specifically said I did quite a few conferences where we showed this off. Beyond that, I actually gave code away to anyone that asked. I taught people how to do this...it was something I found to be pretty simple...other than the TCPIP stack and interfacing to the hypercard (it communicated via AppleEvents and it was a new thing to me trying to learn how to do this under C++) it was actually a dead simple idea.
So did I publish it? Yes. I said that already. Was it a trade secret? Couldn't be given what I had previously stated.
And if it was a trade secret and someone else patented it? I'd be a stupid motherfucker to complain...I shared what I did with the public. Sounds like you are one of these knee jerk idiots that think unless someone is screaming GPL...INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES SUCK AND IS NONREAL...that I get what I deserve. I don't believe in GPL...I believe in the public domain and / or BSD. I also believe that things should be able to be copyrighted if I so choose, and even patented if it were a novel idea. I think appending "on the web' does not make anything new...
Slashdot Mirror
Same with Dell who's laptops are made there, as are Compaq's and HP's, and Microsoft's products including the Xbox 360 -- in which the factory where Apple was getting all the hate because Foxcon employees were threatening suicide weren't even manufacturing Apple products -- but the XBOX360 and Kinect in the ramp up to Christmas.
Its funny that Apple gets all the shit, when in fact, they make up a small part of this company's output -- and they are the only ones that for the last several years have been asking for reports from the companies involved, been actively reducing child labor (they fired a company that was found to have child labor two years in a row), they have asked the wages of the employees making the devices in these companies be raised (far more than the ones making the XBOX products), and are actively trying to change the culture. Last year, a lot of the products that were being manufactured by hand were transitioned to robots because of the repetitive nature of the task...and were shit on for 'firing employees' when they did this.
Its fucked up how much Apple gets shit on with this...its like Greenpeace going after Apple and listing them lower when their practices were far better than any other manufacture with Greenpeace first stating that they were looking for improvement from a baseline (i.e., where was the company a few years ago vs. now...not who is actually better), and then pretty much admitting it was a publicity stunt because of Apple's image...never actually admitting that their products were far ahead of the competition.
That said, I would fucking shoot myself in the head if I had to work in conditions like in Foxcon...that is if my family wasn't fined for me doing so and put into prison camps to pay for my crime against society. Even the best fucking sucks...
In a sense, Apple forced Amazon to treat the publishing industry fairly.
Amazon was devaluing books by buying them at one price and selling them for a lot less than they paid for, ensuring that because of their size that they would eventually be the only company to deal with...and thus set prices exactly where they wanted to in order to make the most money.
It was a very monopolistic act and ironic that the only company that forced them to stop doing this wasn't a bookstore but a company that sold phones. Pretty much because they killed off all the other bookstores by selling books cheaper by not needing to pay sales tax or to have a physical location (back when people would come to most other bookstores to browse the books and then turn around and buy online).
That said, I browsed bookstores and bought online too. And I never reported the tax savings either. Then again, I rarely buy ebooks unless its cheap enough...I buy a physical version and then scrounge the next for an electronic one that I'm not going to pay for (why should I pay for something I already have). Actually, there have been a few times where I couldn't find the book and sent my physical book to a conversion service (and it STILL was cheaper than a lot of books!) Sadly, when you do this, you don't get the book back because they've practically destroyed it in the process.
But regardless, the point was Amazon was using monopolistic practices to pressure publishers into lowering prices so that they could drive out even more small businesses. And most of us were all too willing to help out.
Nah...Cory represents some of the worst I find about the FOSS community. He is a prettier version of RMS. Sorry.
I *LOVE* opensource, but I've been burned several times by people like him. No matter what you do, its not good enough.
Again, I am not a fan of GPL with my own works...I straight out PD it when I get around to it (I keep about a 2 to 3 year cycle that anything I sell myself is open)...and yeah, I know I technically need a copyright for it. I put out a few statistical routines for a number of languages last year...ones that actually work (i.e., I was surprised how many actually didn't). These were for running my own experiments and I needed them to work correctly. Honestly, I find it odd that someone would try to copyright something that is another representation of a mathematical formula. I got shit on because I didn't explain how some of this works...I mean FUCKING TAKE A GRADUATE LEVEL STATS COURSE IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO REGRESSIONS OR FACTOR ANALYSIS...I'M NOT GOING TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU.
These were public domain...as they should be. And I have no idea how these people tracked me down because they aren't intended to be used by people that don't know stats. If you know stats? You know how to implement them. Wasn't supposed to be a text book, nor was it supposed to be for the nerd that their boss said HEY I NEED THIS FEATURE, FIND IT...
Most of the opensource people I know are pragmatic. Its the 1% that seem to actually represent the movement that make it look bad. I could care less about telling someone what to do with the product after I'm finished. GPL does that. Telling someone how to live their life and mandating their morality is not free. BSD gets a little closer...it says HEY, AT LEAST GIVE ME CREDIT...I don't even want the credit.
But yes, Cory represents the part of the FOSS movement I can't stand. He is a cheerleader that puts out shitty works and people pay him for cheerleading. You should find out the inside story of how he convinced a nonprofit to move him overseas, spent most of his time promoting his own works, and then quit once they paid for his expenses. Not even a great evangelist if you dig deep enough...more like an opportunist. So yes...he represents the opensores part of opensource.
Not a troll...just someone that has interacted with the man for a long time and realized that he is a bigger douche than I am. And that is telling...
"I don't tip the waitress until I get the check. "
No, but you do pay for the food. The content creator isn't asking for a tip...they are asking for a specific amount of money to watch their movie. In the case of a loaned DVD...the person paying for the DVD originally paid for the right to loan this. When I wrote software and it had to run from disc (this was YEARS ago), my only rule for loans was that you had to loan the original media -- not copies. I gave a shit load of my software away for free -- both opensourcing the older stuff (actually public domaining it and disavowing the code...I stripped all references to my name because most of what people were paying for was my personal service and support and for some reason people thought free software with the code gave them the right to call me an asshole publicly when I told them they could pay if they wanted any support or communication what so ever...and I specifically wrote in the code DO NOT CONTACT ME FOR SUPPORT).
Hell...then again, sometimes poor musicians would write me and ask for my software and I'd give them a copy if they weren't dicks about it. 90% of the time I did.
I'm not a bit fan of the current copyright code, but at the same time, I'm almost 40 and there is only about 5 years of my songwriting or code that wouldn't be covered by the 20 years. I would be happy with it being exactly as it was. And places like TPB would STILL be dealing with software that was 3 months old.
As for Doctorow...I've had conversations with him for 15 years and he has always been wrong about so many things. He use to be a hypercard 'hacker' back in the day...until Apple wouldn't suck his cock and he got righteous about it. His works suck. I use to buy them because I thought he was a decent guy...but my god the man cannot write. I know a lot of others that feel the same way and buy his works...almost like a pat on the head because he is the most outspoken opensores evangelist that doesn't publicly eat his toe cheese in public...he is grating, but acceptable company if he isn't lecturing you. As such, he is a big deal to a lot of nerds who reward him for this, not his writings. As for his other success stories...he points out artists that have made a shit ton of money through the use of their copyrights, live comfortably and then realize they can give a little back and STILL make a shit ton because they have the name to do it. He doesn't talk about the 99% of the people that try this and fail. For me? I sold a shit ton of music over my life and I love the obscurity. Every so often someone will find my name in the credits of an album, but even then...I'd rather my name be on the books in some labels safe and let those that are more talented in performing or comfortable doing PR and interviews take the credit. And they paid well to take the credit.
A true artist doesn't give a fuck who's name is on the works. All I ever cared about was making enough money to be able to continue to do what I needed to do. Fuck obscurity...it never hurt me a bit...it paid for my house and 4 years of college and I've been pimping some of my works to friends again after almost a decade out of the industry so that I can go to med school without having to take on loans. Van Gogh...did a lot of work in obscurity that paid the bills. His paintings were an afterthough and personal. His life as an art collector made a lot of things easier. He used his collection -- and the fact that these works were like currency -- to live a good life that allowed him to paint obscurely. And it didn't hurt him...what would have hurt him? If someone could have come along and made exact works of the paintings in his collection from others that allowed him to live well.
Point is, Cory is wrong about those going broke from piracy but starving from obscurity. They aren't connected...and yet, I've known a lot of talented well known people quit industries because their work was too widely available and they weren't getting compensation for their work (or the investment that it took to create it).
"That's what the Pirate Bay is for. I'm not going to pay to watch something I wouldn't pay to watch..."
I've never understood this idea...if it isn't worth paying for, it isn't worth stealing / copyright infringing / taking something that cost someone else to make that you find crap and thus shouldn't even view unless willing to pony up for it. At least if you REALLY wanted to see someting and couldn't afford it, it would at least make sense...
It just doesn't seem right even if you don't believe in intellectual properties...someday when people don't make bad movies or television for money and are compensated in other ways...I'll agree, but for now, the expectation is that people are compensated for their work if you use.
I figure if I don't want to compensate someone for entertaining me, I don't let them entertain me. It isn't that hard to avoid the garbage...especially if you have to resort to TPB for it.
As for priorities? I agree...I don't drink coffee...and one cup of tea at Starbucks that I can refill all day long and get out of my office for 20 minutes at a time...costs me less that $2. At the same time, I know plenty of people that don't bat an eye at paying for this, and yet they complain about Netflix.
Quality isn't about the bells and whistles...its about the content.
I have tapes recorded in lowfi mono that are far more artful than anything in 7.1 recorded at 192khz. This is not quality...its a numbers game. Does 7.1 sound nice? Yes...but if the content is good, it shouldn't matter.
I look at Netflix as something that I can test out movies I wouldn't have otherwise watched. For $7 a month, I'm not sure if I'm going to care if I don't get 7.1 out of something that costs as much as 2 coffees. And yet, this is exactly why Hastings was kicked in the gonads pretty hard...people were upset about having to pay the equivalent of one days coffee for something that lasts a lot longer and enriches their lives far more. (it is just television...but c'mon...in the scheme of things, it is still better than coffee!). People getting upset that they are getting something that if it would have come down coax instead of Cat5 and they didn't have a choice of what was being played or when that they would be paying 3x that just for the basics (let alone premium channels) and yet people still found reason to complain.
But some people want to complain about $7 and talk about flashy audio formats that really don't add much to 99% of the films out there...
We do not all believe speeding is wrong.
A large percentage of people believe speeding to be perfectly legitimate because speed laws are artificially low to increase revenues from fines and otherwise. Or may believe that they are good enough to speed, but most others shouldn't. Or that disregarding the law is perfectly legitimate if there is an excuse.
Not one of these tells us they feel speeding it wrong...they feel it is justified under many many circumstances.
I don't speed...and yet I don't find speeding wrong. I find breaking laws that were made that don't affect my life to be wrong. There is nothing that the speeding laws stop me from doing that wasn't my fault to begin with (i.e., get up 5 minutes earlier to get to work). As such, I find it moronic to break the law. I also feel the same about drug laws...I don't like drug laws, but I don't make up excuses as to why the law is bad when all I'd want to do is to get high. I don't see this as a human right that needs to be protected by breaking the laws. At the same time, I don't judge someone that wants to get high...its their life. I do find people that go to jail for this to be morons that took a risk for no apparent reason knowing its against the law.
Taking these ideas out, lot of people could believe that cheating might be wrong EXCEPT IF IT IS JUSTIFYABLE....i.e., they know the material, but just didn't study. Or feel more worthy than someone else. Or otherwise...cheating isn't wrong...others cheating is wrong.
This is the problem with a decade of psychology behind me...these things are not simple questions nor answers...
All anecdotal?
I keep track of the types of tests and the students that were suspected of cheating. I've been doing this for 10 years. A few years back, I was asked to see which tests were being cheated on the most. A large international exam testing English speaking skills (not going to say the name) was the one that by and far was the largest group of suspected cheating. Note: suspected cheating is most likely actual cheating, but in a lot of cases, I couldn't take the risk of accusation. For instance, I can dismiss someone for talking to someone else, but I can't really say its 'cheating' unless I knew what was being said.
When I went in to names and otherwise, sometimes I have their country of origin...and sometimes just the names...but I can make a pretty good determination that over 10 years that students from certain countries by and far elicit more cheating than others. And not just a little...a LOT. Even when I look at the other tests other than this English Language test...its the same thing.
Who knows, you may be right...unless I went to another large university and repeated these results, I don't know if it is just the locals that have congregated here and not an indictment of the countries...but an indictment of the locals that just happen to cluster from those countries and have heard it was easy to cheat. However, though friends on the national collegiate testing association...this is generally true anecdotally -- even if they haven't kept the same records I have.
You seem to have a lot invested in your belief that it is systematic and not just localized to cultures. I've spent a LOT of time with two diverse cultures -- I am white, but I really don't have many white friends -- living with one family for 15 years, and growing up with another where I spent more time with them than my own family I can definitely tell you they have very different values and norms compared to the average 'white' family (what ever that may be). There are things that make you say What The Fuck...and then when you leave and go back to your 'own' culture...you realize in some ways theirs is so much fucking better and you sit around going WHAT THE FUCK about your own...90% of it all is going to be the same. But where it deviates...it really deviates. And understanding the cultures...it makes sense why.
But going around believing everyone is the same? No...cultures differ and values differ and this is why its great to get out of a monoculture and live with others to see the world for what it is...you might end up agreeing with your own more...or you might go back sickened by your own...I did the latter...
I do a lot of student testing a part of my job (I design testing methodology as well as designing psychological instruments) and I can tell you this...on exams that are not even for grades but ones just for placement purposes, I have NEVER caught an American cheating. I catch foreigners cheating all the time. Again, these are not even for grade...it's to pick the most appropriate course.
The funny thing is, getting caught cheating will actually keep them from taking courses because of the academic dishonesty...where failing and getting a big fat zero won't...
The problem is, in other parts of the world, if you fall on your face you are done...this as far as you get. It's not racism, it's culture specific. The more authoritarian a country, the more likely they are to cheat. And it's understandable...I would probably cheat if I were given the odds they were as well. If it meant more freedom for me and my family, there is no question...sure I'll want to do well on my own as well, but id do what I can to minimize the odds.
There are two countries in particular that I ALWAYS have to watch for...one guy actually offered to buy me a car to have me look the other way...I told him I was stopping his test because I hadn't actually caught him cheating (I was 99% certain, but I couldn't get to the phone in time and not allowed to search students) but I was planning on dismissing him (he could take it again later). I told him I was going to have to report this, and told him that this country wasn't like his and to go to his advisor IMMEDIATELY and beg for forgiveness about the 'joke' that he tried to bribe me...
Over the years, I actually got to know that kid and I know he actually has the resources to have bought me a car, but his ethics are far better these days. And we've discussed this once or twice about the differences in our cultures and school...
But there is nothing racist or jingoistic in pointing out that other countries have different values...quite a few things I hate about American culture that should be thrown back in our face as well...all cultures have weak points...
"shows that parts of the foundations of some psychology is a sham, not a science"
So, looking at Freud and then applying these tests of pseudoscience to him is an indictment of psychology because some of the roots of the field have not panned out?
So what does that say about the alchemists in conjunction to modern chemistry or physics? Quite a bit of scientific understanding of the world and what it is made up of and how it all fits together were put together by men whose methodology was on par with sorcery.
You go far enough back in any field and you realize that someone important probably got something so wrong that it would invalidate their whole work if applied to todays standards.
That said, I find most of what Freud professed to be utter bullshit...and it pissed me off through most of my undergrad and into my postgraduate work...people would bring up theories of his and I would just shudder. And then I realized that without the application and expansion of his beliefs, psychology may be 50 to 100 years behind what it is today. And we realize that even with his flawed beliefs, we can make a pretty accurate assessment of the world, or more to the point...the people that live within it. We know that with his talking therapies, even with his overemphasis on genitalia and the mommy problems, people are around 60% more likely to have measurable healing compared to those that receive nothing. We know that some interpretations of dreams or beliefs while inaccurate using the Freudian perspective, can lead to a better understanding of the person. In some ways, until imaging scanners and technology to analyze this comes into place, we realize we will most certainly be wrong...but in some ways correct.
In 50 years from now, discoveries made through things like the Hadron Collider may show that the gods of physics may have been wrong...will that mean they are not scientists because they are only postulating that which they have not yet been able to observe? Until the first atomic bomb was detonated, we could not observe, let alone replicate what we had believed. And yet, it worked.
That said, I pretty much moved from psychology to another science and I really don't have a dog in the fight any more. However, the more I deal with other sciences, the more I realize that they are grasping at straws in much the same fashion psychology has done...simply waiting for technology to catch up so that things can be proven or disproven...luckily, most other fields don't have to deal with quite as much human subjects protection / IRB that stop us from finding the truth. Not to go Godwin on things, but if you want to see true science in psychology, one only need to look back at Nazi Germany where one didn't need approval to do bad things to people to be able to reproducibly get results under a number of scenarios and stimuli. I think most would agree that the pseudoscience nature of psychology today is far more civilized and humane even while limiting the research and validity of what could be.
I can wait for Netflix to eventually offer it, maybe in 6 months...maybe never...and it is rare that I want anything that is so new that I NEED to pay for it.
As such, just because I can get other content for a much cheaper rate -- this doesn't lower the cost for other things I might want. If it costs too much, I find something else...I'll go through the Netflix archives and find something 6 years old and watch it...
Some of us tried the freedom and realized it got us no where.
I was a unix enthusiast for 20 years. I set up a BSD box on a 486 and then later a linux one. I still run a business off of 4 linux boxes I had colocated somewhere, now they are emulated in the cloud...probably everywhere. At the time, it gave me all the tools I wanted...20 years later...those same tools are pretty much exactly where they were when I started.
I was a FOSS enthusiast for years. I got sick of dealing with the personalities when I'd make a package simpler to use, I'd get shit on for doing so...my background is in psychology, and its not hard to pare these things down to something that the average person can use -- while still giving the same power to the nerds. I got kicked out of one project for making a wrapper app that allowed non-nerds to use it. I regularly released software as public domain -- because I felt the freedom of the person with the software should be more important that telling them what they needed to do with it after it was out of my hands. I got crapped on by several people in the community when I did this...one of my projects ended up forking with people acting like I was an asshole -- and I fully agreed with them forking it. It wasn't my project any more, so they could do what they wanted...however, I was still treated like crap by these people that could only see past their own zealotry.
All in all, the Stallman view of freedom is slavery IMHO. I can't stand his perspective. It is too absolute and demanding.
As for Apple, I don't really like the walled garden idea...but when I see whats on the other side of the walled garden, I don't complain too much. I have jailbroken my apps, only to find that the jailbroken apps that were supposed to be currated by others are completely shitty, they 'leak' info to servers oversea, they waste battery, and screw with the stability of the system...there are two jailbroken apps I use and have paid for...one I know does shitty things, but I use it because it is useful for me. The other? Makes life simpler and gets around some of the things the phone company thinks I should pay for. Maybe I should...
Either way, the Apple way seems to be far better than the alternatives -- even if I disagree with a lot of this in principle.
So how would you be a consumer of the ATV anyways then?
You want to buy a product that is specifically for streaming...nothing on the box says anything BUT streaming...and then complain that it costs too much to steam?
Ok...some of us research our products before we buy them...
I bought an ATV and only use Netflix on it. I had XBMC on it for a while, but an upgrade wiped it out...it was getting to be a pain to keep hulu running on it anyways...
No AppleTax for me...and even if there were? It isn't like paying $3 to rent a movie is all that much (especially when it costs me $8 to rent a RedBox because I can never seem to get back to the box in any reasonable amount of time).
"Why should 80% of the people pay no income taxes on their income?"
Because they end up paying taxes regardless. income is only one tax...we have multiple taxible sources to equilize the process.
The poor tend to spend their money on essentials. These get taxed...the things that aren't essential get taxed much higher -- booze, cigs...
However, you can't make it ONLY sales tax, because quite a few of us go out of our way to buy things that aren't taxed for one reason or another. The more money you make, the easier it is to do this...I buy a LOT of shit overseas...and the few times I am required to declare its value...well...lets just say there isn't an appraiser there to say if it is right or not.
Beyond that, a lot of services are not taxed / taxible. The more money you have, the less likely you need STUFF and the more likely you want specific services. Sure, you will have the stuff, but you won't be like the poor white trash that buy a big screen and it breaks, and repeats the cycle ever year not realizing if they had the money in the first place, they could have just bought something decent and kept it for much longer and actually saved money on the deal...more 'poor' people have more stuff than I do...but mine lasts a hell of a lot longer and the TCO is far less. But you need the initial money sitting around to do this.
And then you get into the idea of the rich screaming about wanting only income tax...when 90% of what they bring home isn't income but something else. They may actually have $1M in stock, but they don't want to be judged on this until they cash it in because it might not be worth that much when they do.
I do think the tax laws need to be simplified...but the idea that some people are not paying taxes is ridiculous. Are they paying their fair share? Who knows...I've always felt that those that could afford to burden the load more should...but thats just my Christian nature...
He also 'shamelessly' paid for these ideas and 'ripped off' Xerox by allowing them to loan some of their best engineers for the project by allowing the company to invest in Apple and making them millions of dollars.
But don't let facts get in the way of your criticism...
I use to write medical applications and instruments years ago, and one of the most expensive things was testing the work, and running it past lawyers -- who tested the work one more time with a different team.
And my products were generally known as being good, accurate, and scientifically tested. ...
And then I would see competitors put out similar works that was not tested, and often times inaccurate. And much cheaper. Hell, one of my competitors put a disclaimer and lawyerly notice with the same guys I had been working with and I asked them if it was a conflict of interest...my guys said that if they were involved, they couldn't talk about it because of client lawyer priv...but then came back and said they could talk about it because they never heard from the guy. And yet, people thought his work was as scientifically tested and rigorous mine.
In my case, I was doing mostly psychological work...I was careful about my clients. I only licensed my software to legitimate psychologists or MDs with the appropriate background. My competitors didn't care...schools would try to buy my work to test kids to see if they were psychos or needed kicked out...and wants software that could take the place of a trained professional (where as I actually took out a few automations that would have been easier to diagnose, BUT it made it easier for people that had no right to diagnose, nor actually understood the ramification of doing this...I wanted the diagnosis to come from a licensed psychologist).
The whole point is, there is too much unregulated work in this world. Too many people that think they are experts, just because they have a book with equations and knowledge of programming. Too many people that are willing to put their name on a product for a percentage of the sales without ever looking at it. I spend the money on making certain things were right -- and it cut into my profit A LOT -- but it was the right thing to do. Everything I hear from this law is that it will actually make the law a little more uniform and a lot of stuff that we had to guess at is now concrete and no guessing needed. It will be actually cheaper to do this than what I paid before...the only people complaining are those that took shortcuts and didn't really care about your health.
(and sadly, these days I have the credentials to do the work...and yet I do no programming any more).
"but around here, resisting arrest is a bullshit charge lumped on by prosecutors who aren't sure they can make anything else stick."
I've been arrested for resisting arrest as well in the past, and I've had it removed.
And yet, I still agree it is a legitimate thing to arrest someone for. If you are ILLEGALLY being arrested, you most certainly have the right -- and most likely the responsibility -- to try to resist. For instance, I got pulled over by a cop when I was 16 because I briefly dated his daughter. I dumped her because I didn't care for her moral values (hmm...had to rewrite this because I realize I am now much worse than she ever was!)...he accused me of fucking his daughter and dumping her (which actually never happened...because I was a 'good' churchboy back then).
The arrest was totally illegal...and pulling someone over 'just to talk' is an arrest. If you cannot leave, you are under arrest...I told the officer to go fuck himself, and next thing I know my car was impounded and I was in jail...for resisting arrest.
Judge didn't believe me at first, but the cop actually admitted to this when I goaded him into it (first informal hearing)...and I got out of it.
This, however, doesn't mean that resisting arrest is a bullshit charge...if you are pulled over for speeding, and decide to leave -- you can be arrested for resisting arrest. Or if a cop has a legitimate reason to question you and you resist...I think its wise for society to teach these people that its not good manners. Sometimes, a cop has a legitimate right to stop you -- even if you aren't doing anything wrong -- just to talk. If they do it once, I'm cool with it...if it is a pattern of harassment...I'm not. Its funny how certain people see where the line is...the cop haters think that one time is harrassment, and the cop lovers...I'm not sure where they stand (some will say its never harassment...at least until it happens to them).
There are a lot of reasons to arrest someone for resisting. I've had my share of bad cops in my day, but I'm also lucky to have known a lot of good ones too. I realize they are people, and like most people -- there are always dicks in the crowd that stick out...
I did work at one point for a politician that went to great extremes to look up my background (deleted the part about the party and his position just before I posted this...could be relevant, but I don't think it really is).
During the interview, I was asked by one of his staff to explain my online behavior...and I asked if I was being hired for what I did outside of work...and as they hemmed and hawed about it I stated, I Date Younger Women, All Over The Age of 21 And Yes, I Like My Friends To Know This...I made some comment about them not looking hard enough because there were photos of me dancing at a friends show at a gay bar where some dude totally grabbed my crotch just as the photo was taken. I said this should be more of an embarrassment for your people than me showing that I'm a red blooded heterosexual...
I got the job (consulting) and was asked to come on permanently, which I declined (I felt comfortable getting them up to speed with the subject I knew and hopefully influence them towards my beliefs...but I sure as fuck wasn't going to play propaganda with things I am not an expert on, and they wanted me to give them the opinion they wanted).
That said, I have an ex that I am still friends with who CONSTANTLY complains about her BF's porn viewing habits...I finally got fed up with it -- and I try to make it a point not to give advice to my friends about relationships considering I am not the greatest at them -- but I said something about You Know I Looked At Porn And Never Said Anything...Did You Bitch About Me Too??? And she responded that, no, she never complained because I was upfront about it and never needed to sneak off in hiding to do it. In her mind, what I did was normal...but since he hid it and was ashamed of it...he was doing something dirty. From a psychological perspective, he was doing something dirty because he felt it was dirty. It is the same thing...if you are constantly in fear of those seeing something that is out of the norm -- you are going to appear weird. If you embrace it, its much harder to impeach your credibility...my weird background that I use to hide (I was a musician for a decade before I got into my current world...along with all the crap that goes on with this world)...it ends up being a point of conversation where I can tell people Yes, I Use To Be A Freak, But Now I Wear A Suit, And I'm Probably A Bigger Freak But I Fit In Better...and it has worked out well...my lack of privacy ends up being a selling point for me...I am an open book except to those so entrenched in deception that they have to believe there is more to it than I am willing to tell...and honestly, they do me a favor by not associating themselves with me as it would be a bad match...
Being watched has as many triggers for safety as it does danger. A family member watching you is (generally) a good thing. In the right society, police officers watching is a good thing. In the animal world, the alpha male of the herd watching you can make you braver and feel far safer allowing you to sleep in an area full of predators...not watching for the predators, but watching you.
Being watched is a biological neutral.
As a cognitive being, you are far more in control of how you you choose to see the watchers. You can choose if it is a negative, if it is a positive...or if it is an overall neutral.
I've seen studies where students doing testing (my main field is in assessment of knowledge) where a photo is placed with a forced perspective on the eyes (I think this is what its called...its where the eyes seem to follow you)...doing so with an inspiring figure, you can elicit far better grades that without. You can also retard grades the opposite direction with the right stimuli.
Either way, the privacy issue is one of fear. You may not want to admit it, but it is. Once you stop externalizing fear, privacy needs go away.
But then again, fear is built into all of us...its how our species has survived. It also keeps us back in a lot of ways. You thrive far more in an environment that has no fear.
Would I want a society that DEMANDS that I give away privacy? Fuck no...I wouldn't want to live in one that did that...a society that demands invasion is one that is looking for faults. Then again, I don't have anything anyone can use against me...for instance, dept chair got upset one year because of rumors I was dating a student...looked into things and I got called in...said there was a rumor...and I said Yes I Am...Find In My Contract Where This Is Wrong...and it isn't. The ONLY thing they could have got me on would have been if I would have lied about it...and this is where most of the people in my situation get in trouble...they lie about it.
So I understand why privacy is a big deal, but at the same time, it is an expression of fear (half of our actions are either expressions of fear or connection / love). Once you stop minimizing fear and maximizing love, it really isn't a big deal. Then again, getting rid of fear works for me...who knows how it works for anyone else. I just wish the privacy freaks would shut the fuck up about those of us that freely give away our privacy and stop acting as if we are idiots for doing so :-)
Ok...enough from me...I don't care much about psychology any more except as a hobby...I have a study or two I'll probably publish before I get to my next career (based around finding happiness)...but it really isn't something I need to defend...
"IT attracts more people that are arrogant and think they are right more than any other industry."
I take it that IT is the only industry you've been in? I've been in two other industries, and soon a third that have far more arrogance than IT.
I started off in entertainment (I wrote a fairly popular musical software for my own use that got picked up by someone in the industry, I got to know them and ended up writing songs for a decade). Entertainment has FAR more arrogance than IT...and worse, its about an art...in which there are no right answers.
Moved on to psychology (with some IT / programming...I was a cognitive researcher in the AI world)...researchers are very cocky...psychologists seem to think they know more about what you are thinking than you do...luckily, they are right a good deal of the time. I would have my PhD in this area and have a few thousand hours of practice, but...
Moving from this world to the medical field (as soon as I can pass courses I took 20 years ago and did poorly back then because I never thought I'd need those classes -- but need to pass the MCAT) -- I can safely say surgeons are FAR worse than anyone on my list...and they won't even disagree because 'if they are wrong, people die'...or some other line of BS they have to tell themselves...
IT is just full of people with poor social skills. Not all...but more than any other field I've ever been in.
As for privacy, again, you are externalizing your fears. Someone taking away privacy from a fully rationalized person will not cause any problems. Why? because you wouldn't care. I do a lot of things I really don't want people to know about...but if the world finds out that I like to masturbate while watching porn, I'm not going to be upset. Heck, if they find out the kinds of porn I like, I might be a little wierded out about, but I'd get over it relatively quickly. If my health records were released...yeah...I have things in there that I don't want family to worry about, but honestly, it would be a road bump I'd get past. Why? Because it doesn't really matter to me any more. Use to...use to be a VERY private person...and my friends still tease me because I code name a lot of the women I date because I don't want them knowing and interfering...but that is the extent of my privacy these days.
People that get bent out of shape over privacy do so because they feel things they do should not be broadcast...that they are bad for doing these things. That there is some shame or fear of reprisal. And sometimes its justified...most of the time, it isn't.
As for the biological sides of this...doesn't work in this manner. When fear is a factor, it might work...we aren't in an environment where there is fear of being watched...it might be a little uncomfortable at first, but if you don't have any other problems, it won't matter. That said we ALL have some mental problems...just like we all have some physical problems.
" I feel powerless because of the following:
My Privacy invaded day by day
My Government and the US government is massively corrupt, doesn't tax companies
The unjust succeed while the moral wither
Everyone thinks they are right so nothing gets done"
This is all external, and nothing is an internal. Your privacy? Who cares...the problem is that you think someone does care. Stop worrying about how others judge you, and it doesn't matter about your privacy. The gov't is corrupt? The gov't has always been corrupt. The world has always had more corruption than it has righteousness. It is far easier to be corrupt than it is to be righteous. What does this matter towards your powerlessness? You have the choice to be corrupt or righteous. This seems as though it proves you have power. Same with the very next argument...the unjust succeed. How are you defining success? Money? Power over others? These shouldn't determine your success. You are allowing it to determine your success and you have defined success in a way that allows the unjust to get the upper hand in your world.
As for everyone thinking they are right...maybe you need to stop trying to be right as well. I'm probably wrong about all of this...I'm right in my world, but my success in life doesn't depend on you agreeing...if you do, that's cool...but I'm not going to base my concept of success on this. If someone else wants to be right, let them...if you want to be right, don't make your success based on others believing it. Believe that you can be right and someone else can hold an opposing view and still be right too. In most complex situations, there can be multiple paths to the right solution...
Again, who knows if I'm right...I do know I'm happy more often than most people I know...
If someone has something in their sig that is stupid, I'm going to comment on it...it was an Apple topic, so it really isn't that far off.
You are just upset that I have a belief different than your own...and that you realize yours is wrong.
Note on your sig...most of the people I know that are hardcore unix fans have moved to OSX simply because you can get around the GUI shell to do mundane things...and yet, we can still pull up the terminal to do the heavy lifting.
Compare this to Microsoft...horrible shell, horrible GUI. Compare to Linux...same exact killer shell and CLI...mixed with a GUI that borders on unusable unless you want to pull up a terminal. I don't believe there is any paradox here...other than the freetards who want to get exactly what they pay for...the rest use OS X because it is the best of both worlds. I still own a few Linux / BSD boxes for various businesses of mine. I think your paradox is one you've invented in your mind...
I dont get comments like this.
WTF?
Did you not read my post? I specifically said I did quite a few conferences where we showed this off. Beyond that, I actually gave code away to anyone that asked. I taught people how to do this...it was something I found to be pretty simple...other than the TCPIP stack and interfacing to the hypercard (it communicated via AppleEvents and it was a new thing to me trying to learn how to do this under C++) it was actually a dead simple idea.
So did I publish it? Yes. I said that already. Was it a trade secret? Couldn't be given what I had previously stated.
And if it was a trade secret and someone else patented it? I'd be a stupid motherfucker to complain...I shared what I did with the public. Sounds like you are one of these knee jerk idiots that think unless someone is screaming GPL...INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES SUCK AND IS NONREAL...that I get what I deserve. I don't believe in GPL...I believe in the public domain and / or BSD. I also believe that things should be able to be copyrighted if I so choose, and even patented if it were a novel idea. I think appending "on the web' does not make anything new...