Setting aside the fact that a journal being more or less "authoritative" doesn't add nor subtract anything to the experiment itself , you are correct when saying it's quite a journal in Italy.
In Italy, in which an university professor of mathematics publicly pointed out that some articles published on the paper don't report factual lies, but they don't necessarily tell the whole story as well or report it very accurately.
Particularly, when it comes to articles that may or may not suggest some people to invest in privately owned pension funds, a good faith omission may quickly turn into a financial disaster for the little investor.
Nobody is saying that anybody is being paid or rewarded for emphasizing only some aspect of reality and not others, not at all! That would be so unethical that many of the prestigeous writers on IlSole would never sell out for money! Never, professionals don't sell their integrity for money.
A prohibition of ex post fact extends to any interpretation , as long as it involves preparing a retroactive law. Generally speaking one shouldn't be punishable NOW for an act that was NOT illegal in the past ; therefore, no law should be made to punish (now) people for doing something that wasn't illegal (in the past) , because they didn't act against law.
But, there is no expression mentioning the possibility of making illegal actions, commited against the law in the past, as if they were done NOT against the law. At best, one could consider not punishing the behavior today , but I don't see any reason to deny the fact something was done against the law in the past and to recognize the criminals as such and to notice how and why and who decided today that these actions are not to be punished ; simply wiping out the crime doesn't allow any constructive discussion on what was illegally done and why it is not to be considered illegal today.
Let's just say that nobody wants to PAY for good mentoring, nor doing it themselves because it is quite hard and expensive.
Indeed you are correct when you say that university prepared people primarily to be trained again and that part of their curriculum wasn't targeted well enough to best fit present demand ; yet sometimes private universities can be worse then some public ones, because they charge greatly for something you could probably obtain for much less money from a public one, but with the payment comes the illusion you will be hired by some company because your private university is "prestigeous" or there is some "alpha phi something" group that constantly hires Alpha Phis. That's bullshit, but it helps selling expensive university.
One point that you didn't notice is that a well prepared student is , indeed, quite trainable to do more and better. More importantly, none of the training cost was sustained by the hiring company, which if that wasn't enough has the bold face of complaining about not receiving perfectly rounded, cost and risk free workers, while paying little to no taxes. University provided a very good and unexpensive cotton, for private enterprises to tailor to their own needs.
But that's what hit'n'run capitalism is about : getting the most out of a country and then move away, for instance to exploit China, while spending a dime to train thousands that will be, in the near future, exploited even more. It's parasitic capitalism and it has to go, as it discourages the consolidation of a nation because it doesn't invest into the nation, but runs where there's profit to be made, at any cost so as long as it's not paid by "us".
Market forces ? What, do you still believe in fairy tales ? Gravity is a force, market isn't.
Fact is large public education courses are the most efficient , even if obviously suboptimal, way to create a numerous skilled workforce. One thing is to access a pool of 1M college graduate, of which maybe 100K are the best and can command higher wages, another is accessing a pool of 100K college graduates , as all of them can ask whatever they want because there's only 100K of them. This obviously makes workforces from other countries a lot more attractive, considering some of them also enjoy state subsidized school and are therefore a lot less expensive for any private company hiring them.
This also discourages less rich persons from entering the school , considering that not everybody is so foolish to accept starting a life of work in DEBT position, even a "communist liberal" like a certain Mr.Rockfeller said this is the worst that can happen to a young man/woman. Notoriously, richer kids are also more likely to be spoiled not only or primarily by the extra money they can enjoy, but by the fact they are often treated like their revered parents, learning that it is normal to have people bend over and tolerate any behavior.
But the ignorant poor, when by chance and stroke of luck or ABUSE become leader is primarily concerned with maintaining its own wealth and position, and an well educate, diverse, culturally rich middle class is a menace to idiocracy ; unfortunately (for them) it is exactly what is need to *progress*...the Shuttle wasn't built by a bunch "multiple choice only" quizkids.
The usual economist point of view looks at rational approaches to efficiency, surplus, how capital steals surplus and moves risks to the masses. That's fine an dandy, what is missing is data from mobster influencing.
Sometime the mobsters or similar force-impositions work for the corporate environment, see fascism and union breakers , or white collar criminals scheming ways to substract people by exploiting goodwill and ignorance. Sometime they realize they can earn a lot more by working for two side, one time harrassing the corporations (their management are still humans) another time the workers.
It's only a matter of time till the wave is reversed and the exploitation is directed toward the incredibly wealthy people, which is still gullible and weak anyway. Expecially banks, immense coffers of immense amounts of money..not necessarily cash.
That's correct, but what kind of security concern ? Bush or not Bush, will this jammer block phone calls to emergency service, maybe endangering the lives of citizens ? That's a security concern too and if any alleged prez security endangers citizens, terrorists have won.
I'm just as rapidly running out of compassion for people who don't have the nerve to man up
Man up ? So why don't you throw yourself against the evil RIAA empire, narq yourself and stand up for the cause ! Because your putting yourself on the frontline will serve something else than getting you shoot ?
While blaming the addicts MAY help some of them feel a push to change, thinking that they deserve the consequences of their behaviors is typical of a mentality that puts ALL the blame on the person, regardless of circumstances. We don't live in void.
Most addicts are in denial, thinking they really aren't and that they can quit anytime. Many addicts don't even know why are so much attached to a behavior ; usually addictions doesn't bring much pleasure either even if some of the addictive substances or activities are usually pleasurable, like playing games.
As for the opportunist that take advantage of addiciton, I blame them for prolonging the addiction and enabling a person behavior, for instance by suggesting with advertising that "everybody else is doing it" or that "only suckers don't do that" , as they usually wish to sell the product they try to suggest the product as much as possible, regardless of consequences.
For instance cigaratte smoke has addictive properties as it affects brain at a chemical level, making it needlessy harder for a person to quit. Even removing the advertising doesn't always work, as way too many people still smoke and take example from other people or movies.
We may not force a business NOT to sell its product, but that doesn't imply we must tolerate the consequences of that business.
And just like Earth, the republicans are in denial of any pollution effects at all.
Really the party of Universal Denial
* No, we are not losing the war , it is a perennial readjustment ! * No, we didn't just lose the election, it's fresh ideas ! * No, there is no tempest on Saturn, it's a liberal optical effect !
Quite a transparent attempt to collect info on people , just give a look at the article
Online mobs first demonise those they disagree with, then the victim's home address, credit card details, and even their boss's phone numbers get passed around.
Yeah it is possible, it ALWAYS was possible, it's hardly news. Why don't people do that all the time ? Because they a LOT better and more entertaining stuff to do , only a few deraged psycopaths looking for attention do that stuff routinely.
Chun Seong Lee, Liaison Officer at the Cyber Terror Response Centre."It's happening a lot. In these situations people could lose their job, or it could affect their social life, even causing mental illness. That's all happening because of the development of the internet, of course."
That's insane, that's blaming internet for the trouble caused by few psycopaths. One can see a close parallel in american paranoid obsession for terrorism and the damage caused by this obsession, such as attacks on citizens accused to be "terror supporter" for merely DISAGREEING with the obsessed people, accusation of treason by keyboard warrior chickenhawks, incitation to hate. Some people profited on this obsession, expecially these around the "jingoism" business.
Similarly, the obsession with people exposing your personal data on the internet isn't CAUSED by the possibility of remaining _partially_ anonymous on the internet, but is caused by terrorizing tactiques of few "bullies" that can be traced with a little effort from police, without forcing the whole population to give up personal relevant information WHICH could also be easily hacked into and _really_ abused.
Next year a new law will come into force which will force Koreans to reveal their name and ID number before they share their opinions online.
Sure and if another iunta governemt, or quasi fascist government a-la GWB reach the power, your opinions may come back to haunt you. Or more probably, your employer doesn't like your exposing wrongdoing..or even more probable, your opinion about people having actual human rights isn't appreciated in this company, we value profit above all thank you.
And if the cyberbully harrasses you tell him to fuck off and then leave them alone..without attention, they quickly go find themselves an easier target...maybe you can also pretend to be scared and then scare them back, if you really wanna be so frivolous to waste time with them.
Some strategical sector is deemed to be worthy of protection for the sustainment of individuals, like for instance agricolture. The way it is sustained may raise question, but few argue that agriculture or other strategial sectors should be left completely to market rules (ie no rules)
Music industry and generally speaking copyright industry is nowhere nearly as strategical, yet this method of collecting a levy on -blank media- is born on the assumption that the buyer is *guilty* of a crime so nefarious as copying a good ! Oh my ! On top of this the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is completely discarded and the *completely virtual*-assumed-extimated loss-of-profit is moved directly on the shoulders of ANY buyer.
Curiously, when my company fails to pay me or pays late or scams me into financial investment I am supposed to take ALL the risk and I am supposed to do MYSELF the diversification of risk, sustaining the entier cost of diverisification, usually pocketed by financial "experts". YET my loss-of-profit isn't protected by any special law, but copyright holder have this right to profit.
Initially, massive investments into infrastracture may be so risky nobody , except the government, has the financial strenght and credibility to deliver. That's the reason behind the formation of corporation and the concept of limitation of liability, which allowed investors to risk their money without having necessarily all their capital at risk.
So initially a monopoly may be granted to encourage investment by privates or investment by government as contractor : many argue that monopolist necessarily are detrimental to competion, but the same often fail at seeing that lack of a state-run monopoly may lead to the formation of a private-run monopoly or oligopoly that is as bad if not worse then a public monopoly, which is run by an oligarchy anyway.
Without incisive anti-trust action, oligopoly and monopoly will naturally form and try to suppress any attempt to they see as risky to their position , customers being the last of their concerns. Yet any government is ill-equipped at practicing serious anti-trust action because it basically rests on the goodwill of the officiers and politicians, which can be bought for a price.
Real change happen when a product reaches mass market and user figure new ways to exploit the tools ; RIAA and MPAA being the first manifestation of this need to suppress consumers as -leaders- of consumption, instead of mere receivers.
$250 Billion is most probably an estimate based on the following hypothesis
a) given that some people wanted the copy they got for free b) therefore they would have bought a copy for $20 (or any amount greater then $0)
Obviously it is impossible to prove this claim, but it seems not reasonable because
1) some people wouldn't have bought a copy at $XY 2) fact that people can afford to give out $XY doesn't imply they will for any product at any price.
That alone is strikingly obvious, but the MPAA/RIAA experts keep treating people as if they were idiots. You are doing an heck of a job !
Consider also that many anti-piracy instruments are already in place also in other countries
1) antipiracy tax on CD-R/DVD-R and all other media, with assumption of buyer being guilty 2) periodical raids of police on people doing mass-reproduction of goods sold as "orginal" which are indeed counterfeit copies, with cost of this enforcing going on the taxpayer and not on the copyright owners.
Also consider that piracy and imitation on patents, industrial espionage and far worse crimes are tolerated if
a) one has a production going on in some cheap workforce country b) one has control over it and you are selling somewhere else in the world c) one has the right connections and is paying the right people
So if an engine is copied almost verbatim and the copied product is introduced into local market at a fraction of a fraction of cost this is considered good competition (while it's "dumping") and the ensuing reduction of workforce is seen as a natural effect of competition, f*ck you you don't have a right to a job ; yet the considerably less harmful (if not completely harmless) reproduction of a movie of a record is considered a crime against national economy, a job position destroyer, I have a copy-right to profit !
Excuse my realistic cynism, but SOX isn't forcing anybody to do anything. Consider the enormous body of accounting rules and laws that were supposed to _discourage_ and possibily _prevent_ Enron, Worldcom et al ; they work only if they are rigorously implemented and above all if they are -respected- yet even so they put quite a burden on many firms without apparently producing positive results for the masses.
Considering that , apparently from what we see, many firms don't want to respect rules or consider the rules inconvenient for their growth, maybe it could be wiser to change the rules so that they are relieved of the burden of compliance, yet are also reduced to a point becoming harmless.
For instance, if a firm can't demostrate that extremely tight security is being implemented it loses any right to collect and maintain information concerting consumer..and I mean ANY information. Now that is a little draconian, but I doubt ordinary people without money for lawsuit AND affected by data leaks will be reimbursed or treated better then manure.
First, our technologies is linked to far more then mere porn and the little military sector.
Second, ease sexual repression, introduce rationality with sexuality and the problem solves itself : porn is just a byproduct of repressive behavior, fears and poor social skills. Porn doesn't cause porn, repression and unfulfilled legitimate fantasies do.
Third, in order to ease violent behavior one have to shown the product of rationality and the product of violence: rational behavior leads human to harness the good of the world and reduce the damages , violence can only escalate up to the point nobody is alive to continue the spiral ; sometime the effects are delayed , but they always betray the fears and ignorance that generated them.
The great enemies are ignorance (meaning not knowing) and fear and their byproducts, like delusional toughts.
Fail and success are just to labels that mean nothing without context. What if you fail 3 time and have one success ? That doesn't mean the net result is positive or desiderable or that you haven't rendered your life in a misery in the meantime.
This must be the biggest concentration of nonsensical rambling I have heard in some time
Read up on Arthur Andersen to see what happens when you go from the boring accountants to the exciting ones.
The emotive characteristic of a person have little to share with their intellectual honesty: there could be a boring obnoxious accountant stealing billions and an extremely extroverted accountant that becomes near-to-infinity accurate in classification and proper representation of economics and financial facts.
How much are you willing to bet that if these women ever want to have a position with any importance later in life these pictures will come back to haunt them?
To haunt ? What the fuck is wrong with a picture of sexual behavior ? There is people that remain fully clothed and absurdly incompetent and people who enjoy having pictures of themselves taken and you can bet your jewels they know exactly what to do and how. Why should a person, even an incompetent one, be haunted by pictures of his/her body ?
Curiously enough some people , on the contrary, think it is OK to vote professional, well dressed, moralistic thieves who often are caught in shady dealings ; some think it's ok to vote them because they really never got caught stealing..and if they were stealing, that doesn't imply they are now.
Life ain't fair, that boss who drives his suv while drunk will not hire the kid who smoked a joint and the boss who fucks his secretary half his age will not give a promotion to a woman who got her kit off.
The boss can drive his SUV drunk, so as long as he doesn't crash on anybody. He can certainly fuck the secretary half his age no problem, but the fact he may not hire the joint smoking kid and secretary is NOT caused by is being preoccupied by "evidence" they may have left of "immoral" behavior (if he was preoccupied he would not be doing "immoral" things himself to begin with) but it is caused also by his desire to appear as a "moral policeman" who chastized a convient victim to show he/she is a guardian of 'good' and 'irreprensible'
Such people will suggest that the thing you should most preoccupied with is "not getting caught" doing something your boss disapproves of personally or chastizes by company policy ; but in doing soing the person that is "hiding" is accepting to do the hard job of covering up leaving not traces . On top of this, the person is accepting to be moralized-by-proxy, comformed into having a lifestyle dictated by a loser mentality, the losing mentality of "keeping things secret"..it simply doesn't work, secret don't remain secret for long and if you are caught keeping some "forbidden behavior" secret you end up like Clinton, accused of covering up something he shouldn't be moralized into covering up to being with. It's the moral of cover up that is faulty.
Such kind of boss is far too preoccupied by morals he doesn't respect to begin with and he/she is a liability to any company, because he is the most likely to have _hidden_ tons of "evidence" that may come back to haunt the company.
Yes the cause of one person problem are often caused by that person, but are you at fault of your ignorance ? Ignorance isn't a fault in the sense that "it is your fault" that you are ignorant..one is born ignorant, it's an human condition.
Some like to say that if you are ignorant it is your own problem because you were too lazy not to study enough to reduce ignorance ! Except that no matter how much you study, no matter how much you know or work a lifetime isn't enough to know what you need to know , except that when one people exploits your ignorance to exploit you AND then blame you for being ignorant is like having a thief blame you because you allowed the thief to rob you !
t's not insane to think that the police will follow up IPs of DLing torrents and use this as "reasonable" evidence to investigate further in other countries
Certainly they could and they already did to an extent. Except it's an expensive strategy that is also giving a lot of bad publicity. Consider that they wouldn't ordinarily mount a scare-campaign for a few thousand copies..they don't care, the profit is already enormous.
Yet they can't find a way to justify a 10000% markup on a copy, expecially these days one customer can download from the net at a fraction of the fraction of the cost and in perfectly legal ways ! Yet that is not fine enough, because they still fear people will copy , expecially they fear youngster as they communicate and socialize more easily then adults (how depressing !) and adapt more quickly.
Consider that the idea of copyright isn't a vile, repulsive idea. It does make commercial sense and even practical sense. Yet the implementation of copyright is completely repulsive, vile, criminal !
a) how is it possible that copyright extends AFTER the life of the author(s) ??
b) how is possible that a law conceived to REDUCE the cost of single copy makes the single copy offer 100000% markup or more ? It means its being abused by the usual rentiers do-nothing-you-takecost-Itakeprofit white collar criminals !
c) how is it possible artist receive only an handful of the revenus ? What's the incentive for an artist/author to produce if the greater portion of money is pocketed by people who CLAIM they are absoring risk, yet many times aren't ?
surely they see that that is all they are doing, no?
Some do, some don't. What do they have in common ? They still think repression and fearmongering works.
To an extent and for a period of time it does work, but not on the long term. They probably tought people would take more years to adapt (like transition vhs->dvd) but it happening a lot faster, they lost control. Indeed acute observes may have notice the attempts aren't primarily on restoring the Fear of God on Copyright (but for stupid attempts like Capt.Copyright) but on taking control of the hardware and the distribution methods ; a pirate without a boat doesn't pirate much.
Except that there in a historical period in which fearmongering (either by US/Western pundits or by terrorist) is being increasingly rejected by masses, tired of being told they should fear fear fear and respect people that don't feed them and don't help making their work life better.
The hypothesis is that it is easier to raid a bunch of real "hippies" than a group of lawyers-paying, well politically connected individuals and their limited liability companies.
Considering TPB probably wasn't obtaining money from the alleged infringement of copyright, they probably don't have the resources and organization of well prepared criminals or people operating borderline criminality.
It seems that if you steal an apple, harm yourself with drugs , copy a good without stealing it you are worse then a violent offender, certainly far worse then a white collar criminal. Except that for each Kennet Lay apparently-convicted we still have one thousand dangerous financial felons devouring society in absurdly, but almost legal ways.
Let's make a little scenario of different points of view :
The ISP/Network wants : a) more customer attracted to their networks , which they obtained by lowering broadband cost. b) more customers equals more revenue streams, significantly reduced risks, better looking company
Yet at the same time they claim they are paying the price of bandwidth intensive users (who were invited by them btw) They don't want to scare them away with per-giga , but don't want to raise the broadband flat monthly price either.
They also are bothered by the prospect of people sharing, but so as long as they pay for the line it's not really troublesome.
The Content provider wants:
a) total control over revenue from the service/virtual goods they sell b) as many customers as possible
Yet they indirectly and signficantly benefit by the relatively low cost-of-broadband, because this helps customer jump on the inet bus. Network operators know and they want to tap into this benefit directly, bypassing the content industry by charging the line customer directly.
One better remember that they BOTH want to reduce consumer surplus ; the internet you are enjoying now is TOO GOOD according to many, even if it is technically and economically possible to run it the way you know it ; production cost of bandwidth is going to -decrease- in the future, compression technology will make more content avaiable for less bandwidth, caching technology and efficient realtime mirroring (bittorrent et similar) are going to make the net experience even better , but not more intolerably expensive for networks. Also charging customers more for their broadband will become possible once a big customer base is installed.
We shouldn't summarily discard the true and tested method of having the investor pay for advertising, which is the model that made terrestrial TV possible before cable and satellite ; consider also that some satellite radio are still using advertising (even if reduced when compared to "free" tv/radio) and will continue to because it's a good revenue stream.
It's not about making internet possible or sustainable, it's about exploiting it and its users even more, that's the real target of network and content companies. Bathing in DOM is not only nice, some thinks, it's an imperative to some people.
Slashdot Mirror
Setting aside the fact that a journal being more or less "authoritative" doesn't add nor subtract anything to the experiment itself , you are correct when saying it's quite a journal in Italy.
In Italy, in which an university professor of mathematics publicly pointed out that some articles published on the paper don't report factual lies, but they don't necessarily tell the whole story as well or report it very accurately.
Particularly, when it comes to articles that may or may not suggest some people to invest in privately owned pension funds, a good faith omission may quickly turn into a financial disaster for the little investor.
Nobody is saying that anybody is being paid or rewarded for emphasizing only some aspect of reality and not others, not at all! That would be so unethical that many of the prestigeous writers on IlSole would never sell out for money! Never, professionals don't sell their integrity for money.
A prohibition of ex post fact extends to any interpretation , as long as it involves preparing a retroactive law. Generally speaking one shouldn't be punishable NOW for an act that was NOT illegal in the past ; therefore, no law should be made to punish (now) people for doing something that wasn't illegal (in the past) , because they didn't act against law.
But, there is no expression mentioning the possibility of making illegal actions, commited against the law in the past, as if they were done NOT against the law. At best, one could consider not punishing the behavior today , but I don't see any reason to deny the fact something was done against the law in the past and to recognize the criminals as such and to notice how and why and who decided today that these actions are not to be punished ; simply wiping out the crime doesn't allow any constructive discussion on what was illegally done and why it is not to be considered illegal today.
In other words, it's a cover up.
Let's just say that nobody wants to PAY for good mentoring, nor doing it themselves because it is quite hard and expensive.
Indeed you are correct when you say that university prepared people primarily to be trained again and that part of their curriculum wasn't targeted well enough to best fit present demand ; yet sometimes private universities can be worse then some public ones, because they charge greatly for something you could probably obtain for much less money from a public one, but with the payment comes the illusion you will be hired by some company because your private university is "prestigeous" or there is some "alpha phi something" group that constantly hires Alpha Phis. That's bullshit, but it helps selling expensive university.
One point that you didn't notice is that a well prepared student is , indeed, quite trainable to do more and better. More importantly, none of the training cost was sustained by the hiring company, which if that wasn't enough has the bold face of complaining about not receiving perfectly rounded, cost and risk free workers, while paying little to no taxes. University provided a very good and unexpensive cotton, for private enterprises to tailor to their own needs.
But that's what hit'n'run capitalism is about : getting the most out of a country and then move away, for instance to exploit China, while spending a dime to train thousands that will be, in the near future, exploited even more. It's parasitic capitalism and it has to go, as it discourages the consolidation of a nation because it doesn't invest into the nation, but runs where there's profit to be made, at any cost so as long as it's not paid by "us".
Market forces ? What, do you still believe in fairy tales ? Gravity is a force, market isn't.
...the Shuttle wasn't built by a bunch "multiple choice only" quizkids.
Fact is large public education courses are the most efficient , even if obviously suboptimal, way to create a numerous skilled workforce. One thing is to access a pool of 1M college graduate, of which maybe 100K are the best and can command higher wages, another is accessing a pool of 100K college graduates , as all of them can ask whatever they want because there's only 100K of them. This obviously makes workforces from other countries a lot more attractive, considering some of them also enjoy state subsidized school and are therefore a lot less expensive for any private company hiring them.
This also discourages less rich persons from entering the school , considering that not everybody is so foolish to accept starting a life of work in DEBT position, even a "communist liberal" like a certain Mr.Rockfeller said this is the worst that can happen to a young man/woman. Notoriously, richer kids are also more likely to be spoiled not only or primarily by the extra money they can enjoy, but by the fact they are often treated like their revered parents, learning that it is normal to have people bend over and tolerate any behavior.
But the ignorant poor, when by chance and stroke of luck or ABUSE become leader is primarily concerned with maintaining its own wealth and position, and an well educate, diverse, culturally rich middle class is a menace to idiocracy ; unfortunately (for them) it is exactly what is need to *progress*
The usual economist point of view looks at rational approaches to efficiency, surplus, how capital steals surplus and moves risks to the masses. That's fine an dandy, what is missing is data from mobster influencing.
..not necessarily cash.
Sometime the mobsters or similar force-impositions work for the corporate environment, see fascism and union breakers , or white collar criminals scheming ways to substract people by exploiting goodwill and ignorance. Sometime they realize they can earn a lot more by working for two side, one time harrassing the corporations (their management are still humans) another time the workers.
It's only a matter of time till the wave is reversed and the exploitation is directed toward the incredibly wealthy people, which is still gullible and weak anyway. Expecially banks, immense coffers of immense amounts of money
That's correct, but what kind of security concern ? Bush or not Bush, will this jammer block phone calls to emergency service, maybe endangering the lives of citizens ? That's a security concern too and if any alleged prez security endangers citizens, terrorists have won.
I'm just as rapidly running out of compassion for people who don't have the nerve to man up
Man up ? So why don't you throw yourself against the evil RIAA empire, narq yourself and stand up for the cause ! Because your putting yourself on the frontline will serve something else than getting you shoot ?
While blaming the addicts MAY help some of them feel a push to change, thinking that they deserve the consequences of their behaviors is typical of a mentality that puts ALL the blame on the person, regardless of circumstances. We don't live in void.
Most addicts are in denial, thinking they really aren't and that they can quit anytime. Many addicts don't even know why are so much attached to a behavior ; usually addictions doesn't bring much pleasure either even if some of the addictive substances or activities are usually pleasurable, like playing games.
As for the opportunist that take advantage of addiciton, I blame them for prolonging the addiction and enabling a person behavior, for instance by suggesting with advertising that "everybody else is doing it" or that "only suckers don't do that" , as they usually wish to sell the product they try to suggest the product as much as possible, regardless of consequences.
For instance cigaratte smoke has addictive properties as it affects brain at a chemical level, making it needlessy harder for a person to quit. Even removing the advertising doesn't always work, as way too many people still smoke and take example from other people or movies.
We may not force a business NOT to sell its product, but that doesn't imply we must tolerate the consequences of that business.
And just like Earth, the republicans are in denial of any pollution effects at all.
Really the party of Universal Denial
* No, we are not losing the war , it is a perennial readjustment !
* No, we didn't just lose the election, it's fresh ideas !
* No, there is no tempest on Saturn, it's a liberal optical effect !
Quite a transparent attempt to collect info on people , just give a look at the article
..or even more probable, your opinion about people having actual human rights isn't appreciated in this company, we value profit above all thank you.
Online mobs first demonise those they disagree with, then the victim's home address, credit card details, and even their boss's phone numbers get passed around.
Yeah it is possible, it ALWAYS was possible, it's hardly news. Why don't people do that all the time ? Because they a LOT better and more entertaining stuff to do , only a few deraged psycopaths looking for attention do that stuff routinely.
Chun Seong Lee, Liaison Officer at the Cyber Terror Response Centre."It's happening a lot. In these situations people could lose their job, or it could affect their social life, even causing mental illness. That's all happening because of the development of the internet, of course."
That's insane, that's blaming internet for the trouble caused by few psycopaths. One can see a close parallel in american paranoid obsession for terrorism and the damage caused by this obsession, such as attacks on citizens accused to be "terror supporter" for merely DISAGREEING with the obsessed people, accusation of treason by keyboard warrior chickenhawks, incitation to hate. Some people profited on this obsession, expecially these around the "jingoism" business.
Similarly, the obsession with people exposing your personal data on the internet isn't CAUSED by the possibility of remaining _partially_ anonymous on the internet, but is caused by terrorizing tactiques of few "bullies" that can be traced with a little effort from police, without forcing the whole population to give up personal relevant information WHICH could also be easily hacked into and _really_ abused.
Next year a new law will come into force which will force Koreans to reveal their name and ID number before they share their opinions online.
Sure and if another iunta governemt, or quasi fascist government a-la GWB reach the power, your opinions may come back to haunt you. Or more probably, your employer doesn't like your exposing wrongdoing
And if the cyberbully harrasses you tell him to fuck off and then leave them alone..without attention, they quickly go find themselves an easier target...maybe you can also pretend to be scared and then scare them back, if you really wanna be so frivolous to waste time with them.
Some strategical sector is deemed to be worthy of protection for the sustainment of individuals, like for instance agricolture. The way it is sustained may raise question, but few argue that agriculture or other strategial sectors should be left completely to market rules (ie no rules)
Music industry and generally speaking copyright industry is nowhere nearly as strategical, yet this method of collecting a levy on -blank media- is born on the assumption that the buyer is *guilty* of a crime so nefarious as copying a good ! Oh my ! On top of this the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is completely discarded and the *completely virtual*-assumed-extimated loss-of-profit is moved directly on the shoulders of ANY buyer.
Curiously, when my company fails to pay me or pays late or scams me into financial investment I am supposed to take ALL the risk and I am supposed to do MYSELF the diversification of risk, sustaining the entier cost of diverisification, usually pocketed by financial "experts". YET my loss-of-profit isn't protected by any special law, but copyright holder have this right to profit.
Initially, massive investments into infrastracture may be so risky nobody , except the government, has the financial strenght and credibility to deliver. That's the reason behind the formation of corporation and the concept of limitation of liability, which allowed investors to risk their money without having necessarily all their capital at risk.
So initially a monopoly may be granted to encourage investment by privates or investment by government as contractor : many argue that monopolist necessarily are detrimental to competion, but the same often fail at seeing that lack of a state-run monopoly may lead to the formation of a private-run monopoly or oligopoly that is as bad if not worse then a public monopoly, which is run by an oligarchy anyway.
Without incisive anti-trust action, oligopoly and monopoly will naturally form and try to suppress any attempt to they see as risky to their position , customers being the last of their concerns. Yet any government is ill-equipped at practicing serious anti-trust action because it basically rests on the goodwill of the officiers and politicians, which can be bought for a price.
Real change happen when a product reaches mass market and user figure new ways to exploit the tools ; RIAA and MPAA being the first manifestation of this need to suppress consumers as -leaders- of consumption, instead of mere receivers.
Obviously it is impossible to prove this claim, but it seems not reasonable because
1) some people wouldn't have bought a copy at $XY
2) fact that people can afford to give out $XY doesn't imply they will for any product at any price.
That alone is strikingly obvious, but the MPAA/RIAA experts keep treating people as if they were idiots. You are doing an heck of a job !
Consider also that many anti-piracy instruments are already in place also in other countries
Also consider that piracy and imitation on patents, industrial espionage and far worse crimes are tolerated if
a) one has a production going on in some cheap workforce country
b) one has control over it and you are selling somewhere else in the world
c) one has the right connections and is paying the right people
So if an engine is copied almost verbatim and the copied product is introduced into local market at a fraction of a fraction of cost this is considered good competition (while it's "dumping") and the ensuing reduction of workforce is seen as a natural effect of competition, f*ck you you don't have a right to a job ; yet the considerably less harmful (if not completely harmless) reproduction of a movie of a record is considered a crime against national economy, a job position destroyer, I have a copy-right to profit !
This is insulting to anyone with half a brain.
sarbanes oxley is forcing the private sector
Excuse my realistic cynism, but SOX isn't forcing anybody to do anything. Consider the enormous body of accounting rules and laws that were supposed to _discourage_ and possibily _prevent_ Enron, Worldcom et al ; they work only if they are rigorously implemented and above all if they are -respected- yet even so they put quite a burden on many firms without apparently producing positive results for the masses.
Considering that , apparently from what we see, many firms don't want to respect rules or consider the rules inconvenient for their growth, maybe it could be wiser to change the rules so that they are relieved of the burden of compliance, yet are also reduced to a point becoming harmless.
For instance, if a firm can't demostrate that extremely tight security is being implemented it loses any right to collect and maintain information concerting consumer..and I mean ANY information. Now that is a little draconian, but I doubt ordinary people without money for lawsuit AND affected by data leaks will be reimbursed or treated better then manure.
First, our technologies is linked to far more then mere porn and the little military sector.
Second, ease sexual repression, introduce rationality with sexuality and the problem solves itself : porn is just a byproduct of repressive behavior, fears and poor social skills. Porn doesn't cause porn, repression and unfulfilled legitimate fantasies do.
Third, in order to ease violent behavior one have to shown the product of rationality and the product of violence: rational behavior leads human to harness the good of the world and reduce the damages , violence can only escalate up to the point nobody is alive to continue the spiral ; sometime the effects are delayed , but they always betray the fears and ignorance that generated them.
The great enemies are ignorance (meaning not knowing) and fear and their byproducts, like delusional toughts.
What in the world makes you fault democracy for corruption and incompetence of politicians ?
YOU probably look like an hippy slob, troll.
Fail and success are just to labels that mean nothing without context. What if you fail 3 time and have one success ? That doesn't mean the net result is positive or desiderable or that you haven't rendered your life in a misery in the meantime.
This must be the biggest concentration of nonsensical rambling I have heard in some time
..it simply doesn't work, secret don't remain secret for long and if you are caught keeping some "forbidden behavior" secret you end up like Clinton, accused of covering up something he shouldn't be moralized into covering up to being with. It's the moral of cover up that is faulty.
Read up on Arthur Andersen to see what happens when you go from the boring accountants to the exciting ones.
The emotive characteristic of a person have little to share with their intellectual honesty: there could be a boring obnoxious accountant stealing billions and an extremely extroverted accountant that becomes near-to-infinity accurate in classification and proper representation of economics and financial facts.
How much are you willing to bet that if these women ever want to have a position with any importance later in life these pictures will come back to haunt them?
To haunt ? What the fuck is wrong with a picture of sexual behavior ? There is people that remain fully clothed and absurdly incompetent and people who enjoy having pictures of themselves taken and you can bet your jewels they know exactly what to do and how. Why should a person, even an incompetent one, be haunted by pictures of his/her body ?
Curiously enough some people , on the contrary, think it is OK to vote professional, well dressed, moralistic thieves who often are caught in shady dealings ; some think it's ok to vote them because they really never got caught stealing..and if they were stealing, that doesn't imply they are now.
Life ain't fair, that boss who drives his suv while drunk will not hire the kid who smoked a joint and the boss who fucks his secretary half his age will not give a promotion to a woman who got her kit off.
The boss can drive his SUV drunk, so as long as he doesn't crash on anybody. He can certainly fuck the secretary half his age no problem, but the fact he may not hire the joint smoking kid and secretary is NOT caused by is being preoccupied by "evidence" they may have left of "immoral" behavior (if he was preoccupied he would not be doing "immoral" things himself to begin with) but it is caused also by his desire to appear as a "moral policeman" who chastized a convient victim to show he/she is a guardian of 'good' and 'irreprensible'
Such people will suggest that the thing you should most preoccupied with is "not getting caught" doing something your boss disapproves of personally or chastizes by company policy ; but in doing soing the person that is "hiding" is accepting to do the hard job of covering up leaving not traces . On top of this, the person is accepting to be moralized-by-proxy, comformed into having a lifestyle dictated by a loser mentality, the losing mentality of "keeping things secret"
Such kind of boss is far too preoccupied by morals he doesn't respect to begin with and he/she is a liability to any company, because he is the most likely to have _hidden_ tons of "evidence" that may come back to haunt the company.
Yes the cause of one person problem are often caused by that person, but are you at fault of your ignorance ? Ignorance isn't a fault in the sense that "it is your fault" that you are ignorant..one is born ignorant, it's an human condition.
Some like to say that if you are ignorant it is your own problem because you were too lazy not to study enough to reduce ignorance ! Except that no matter how much you study, no matter how much you know or work a lifetime isn't enough to know what you need to know , except that when one people exploits your ignorance to exploit you AND then blame you for being ignorant is like having a thief blame you because you allowed the thief to rob you !
t's not insane to think that the police will follow up IPs of DLing torrents and use this as "reasonable" evidence to investigate further in other countries
Certainly they could and they already did to an extent. Except it's an expensive strategy that is also giving a lot of bad publicity. Consider that they wouldn't ordinarily mount a scare-campaign for a few thousand copies..they don't care, the profit is already enormous.
Yet they can't find a way to justify a 10000% markup on a copy, expecially these days one customer can download from the net at a fraction of the fraction of the cost and in perfectly legal ways ! Yet that is not fine enough, because they still fear people will copy , expecially they fear youngster as they communicate and socialize more easily then adults (how depressing !) and adapt more quickly.
Consider that the idea of copyright isn't a vile, repulsive idea. It does make commercial sense and even practical sense. Yet the implementation of copyright is completely repulsive, vile, criminal !
a) how is it possible that copyright extends AFTER the life of the author(s) ??
b) how is possible that a law conceived to REDUCE the cost of single copy makes the single copy offer 100000% markup or more ? It means its being abused by the usual rentiers do-nothing-you-takecost-Itakeprofit white collar criminals !
c) how is it possible artist receive only an handful of the revenus ? What's the incentive for an artist/author to produce if the greater portion of money is pocketed by people who CLAIM they are absoring risk, yet many times aren't ?
surely they see that that is all they are doing, no?
Some do, some don't. What do they have in common ? They still think repression and fearmongering works.
To an extent and for a period of time it does work, but not on the long term. They probably tought people would take more years to adapt (like transition vhs->dvd) but it happening a lot faster, they lost control. Indeed acute observes may have notice the attempts aren't primarily on restoring the Fear of God on Copyright (but for stupid attempts like Capt.Copyright) but on taking control of the hardware and the distribution methods ; a pirate without a boat doesn't pirate much.
Except that there in a historical period in which fearmongering (either by US/Western pundits or by terrorist) is being increasingly rejected by masses, tired of being told they should fear fear fear and respect people that don't feed them and don't help making their work life better.
If you are a private club with no serious barriers to entry
How do you measure how "serious" is a barrier ? Suppose you place an armed guard at a door, is it a serious enough and who defines what is enough ?
The hypothesis is that it is easier to raid a bunch of real "hippies" than a group of lawyers-paying, well politically connected individuals and their limited liability companies.
Considering TPB probably wasn't obtaining money from the alleged infringement of copyright, they probably don't have the resources and organization of well prepared criminals or people operating borderline criminality.
It seems that if you steal an apple, harm yourself with drugs , copy a good without stealing it you are worse then a violent offender, certainly far worse then a white collar criminal. Except that for each Kennet Lay apparently-convicted we still have one thousand dangerous financial felons devouring society in absurdly, but almost legal ways.
Let's make a little scenario of different points of view :
The ISP/Network wants :
a) more customer attracted to their networks , which they obtained by lowering broadband cost.
b) more customers equals more revenue streams, significantly reduced risks, better looking company
Yet at the same time they claim they are paying the price of bandwidth intensive users (who were invited by them btw) They don't want to scare them away with per-giga , but don't want to raise the broadband flat monthly price either.
They also are bothered by the prospect of people sharing, but so as long as they pay for the line it's not really troublesome.
The Content provider wants:
a) total control over revenue from the service/virtual goods they sell
b) as many customers as possible
Yet they indirectly and signficantly benefit by the relatively low cost-of-broadband, because this helps customer jump on the inet bus. Network operators know and they want to tap into this benefit directly, bypassing the content industry by charging the line customer directly.
One better remember that they BOTH want to reduce consumer surplus ; the internet you are enjoying now is TOO GOOD according to many, even if it is technically and economically possible to run it the way you know it ; production cost of bandwidth is going to -decrease- in the future, compression technology will make more content avaiable for less bandwidth, caching technology and efficient realtime mirroring (bittorrent et similar) are going to make the net experience even better , but not more intolerably expensive for networks. Also charging customers more for their broadband will become possible once a big customer base is installed.
We shouldn't summarily discard the true and tested method of having the investor pay for advertising, which is the model that made terrestrial TV possible before cable and satellite ; consider also that some satellite radio are still using advertising (even if reduced when compared to "free" tv/radio) and will continue to because it's a good revenue stream.
It's not about making internet possible or sustainable, it's about exploiting it and its users even more, that's the real target of network and content companies. Bathing in DOM is not only nice, some thinks, it's an imperative to some people.