You spot a PS3 off the side of the road. Cars are whooshing by. What would you do? > get ps3
You bend down to pick it up, ignoring the cars whooshing by. One whooshes too close, knocking the PS3 out of your hands and into the middle of the road. What do you do? > get ps3
Still ignoring the whooshing cars, you move to the PS3. A car whooshes into you. You are dead.
"Let me give you a few examples that illustrate why this mindset is wrong (thinking that piracy should be illegal because it 'hurts sales')."
I like your examples. They illustrate normal activities that probably cause a much greater impact to a particular company's gross revenues than piracy does, and it helps to put things into perspective. Having said that, it does not exactly prove that piracy does "no harm," and I would argue that the producers are indeed made worse off as a result of piracy, which I would define as a sort of "harm" caused to them:-)
In your first example, a person buys (!) media, then convinces N of their friends not to do the same, resulting in the company losing N potential customers. If this person had pirated that media instead (even though we know that they would otherwise have paid for it) and then convinced N of their friends not to buy it, then the company just lost N + 1 potential customers. The difference may be insignificant, but it is certainly non-zero. The flip side of this example is that the person pirates that media, likes it, then buys it and convinces N of their friends to buy it too. That probably happens less often, though.
In your second example, a person makes the decision to buy their media from XYZ instead of ABC, and ABC loses 1 potential customer. In markets where the product is identical among all sellers, this is a little more relevant; in this instance, not so much. I can't (legally) get Microsoft Office, e.g., from anybody without Microsoft getting a share, so I really only have one "choice": pay Microsoft, or don't use Microsoft Office. If Microsoft charges too much for Microsoft Office, I might go to a competitor that offers a similar product like OpenOffice.org, but that's not the same thing.
Let me give my own example to illustrate when piracy might cause harm to one party, even when there are competitors offering a similar product. For this example, X is a rational consumer who needs office productivity software to do independent contract work, and OpenOffice.org (pretty good, and it's free) and Microsoft Office (better, but it costs $50) are the only two choices; for simplicity, assume that the cost for Microsoft to manufacture another copy of Microsoft Office is negligible (this doesn't change the general outcome of the situation), and Microsoft will not charge any more or any less than $50. X would be a potential buyer of Microsoft Office if the value that it adds on top of OpenOffice.org is greater than the $50 difference in their licensing fees; let's say that in X's specific case, X would be able to finish a $1200 contract using Microsoft Office in the time that it would take to finish a $1000 contract using the same amount of effort. X, a rational consumer, receives a marginal benefit of $150 ($1200 - $1000 - $50) buying Microsoft Office, and Microsoft, a rational producer, has a marginal benefit of $50 ($50 - $negligible, $0 for simplicity) to sell Microsoft Office. This transaction does not take place, however, when X pirates Microsoft Office and receives a marginal benefit of $200 ($1200 - $1000 - cost of pirating, $0 for simplicity), and Microsoft gets a marginal benefit of $0. The only difference between the two scenarios is that X pirates Microsoft Office in one case, and purchases it in the other. Therefore, all of the differences in the outcomes of the two scenarios must be the result of the piracy. Value-added by piracy:
X: $200 - $150 = $50 Microsoft: $0 - $50 = -$50
Because of piracy, Microsoft is harmed by $50, and X is benefited by $50. I will count this as a loss for Microsoft, because X is a rational consumer and would pay Microsoft $50 to gain $200 if piracy were not an option.
Now, to illustrate when piracy might not cause any harm (which may or may not be what you're getting at), let's look at the same scenario with the only difference being that instead of $1200 for the Microsoft Office contract, it's $1020, (and we'll change X's name to Y). Y w
"I believe P2P is only hurting sales a few percent at most"
More like not at all. That's like saying consumer choice is hurting sales because people can choose whether or not they will buy something.
I hypothesize that there are some potential consumers that do not end up buying a digital media product, because they know how to get it for free via P2P, if they can afford the extra risk associated with doing this.
Given that this hypothesis is correct, then there is some amount of harm done to the gross revenues of copyright holders, more than "not at all". However, I do not believe that this group is as large as the group of those people who would not otherwise buy the product (maybe because they've never heard of it, are poor, have no credit card because they are young, etc.), and to whom P2P offers a way to experience that product.
I further believe that both of these groups combined are much smaller than the group of people who are not directly involved with P2P who will inadvertently be affected by Hadopi.
There's a difference between (a) there isn't a football dispenser in my new car, and (b) my new car actively prevents me from putting a football dispenser in it, and the car manufacturers actively working to make it illegal for me to do so.
"Fuck doing business with India or Indian corporation/nationals," does not, by itself, mean "Fuck India, I'm only doing business with the US / China where they don't do this." If anything, it carries with it the implication that it's also not OK for the US, China, or any other governmental entity to do this either. You've created a false dichotomy.
If the fact is unambiguously true you'll also be able to find it somewhere other than Wikipedia.
Yes, but Wikipedia is a great place to find information that's unambiguously true. Such information is usually worded plainly there, unlike many other sources I find myself having to use (often published journal articles that define the term within the context of the research). If no parties object to the use of Wikipedia (or, rather, "this piece of information retrieved from this URL on this date at this time") then there is no problem, and it's probably just a stepping stone for both sides to use in performing contentious dissemination anyway (otherwise, you wouldn't be in court, you'd be sitting there agreeing on definitions and such).
Maybe it's because I'm not browsing low enough, but the feel of the threads on this story seems to be along the lines of "OS X will go by the wayside, and we will be forced to program iOS apps on iOS, a platform developed for phones and tablets, or else the iOS SDK will be prohibitively expensive." I have two responses to that.
First, what happens when Apple stops selling Macs with traditional OS X in favor of the desktop progeny of iOS? Those who would not be developing for iOS anyway (shot in the dark: most Apple consumers) may or may not applaud the decision and will probably not be majorly impacted by the decision. Those who would develop or consider developing for the platform (shot in the dark: most people with negative feelings in the comment threads here) are likely faced with serious barriers to entry for development on the platform. Has Apple traditionally been known for making it difficult to develop for their platforms? I don't know. Would they seriously consider the impact on developers for their unified desktop/phone/tablet platform before they make a decision like this? Absolutely. If developers are going to have a comparatively hard time developing for iOS, they will both do it less and do it worse.
Second, if Apple does finally stick with pushing only a desktop version of iOS and you don't like it, then there is no better time (in my book) to move away from Apple (or not move to Apple) and support a Linux distribution whose interface more closely resembles OS X. In the technology's current state, I struggle to find fault in Mac OS X proper, and iOS works pretty well on my iPod Touch. To take iOS and put it onto every new Apple desktop/laptop computer, even with serious usability tweaks to be at least something like what I would want in a desktop/laptop computer, would be a big "fuck you!" to everybody I know that does a lot of serious work on a Mac that wouldn't translate well at all into an iOS environment. ("everybody I know that does a lot of serious work on a Mac" uses their Mac because of OS X's convenient and consistent interfaces and would be using a Linux distribution otherwise.)
If you don't want iOS, and that's all that Apple is selling, then you know better than to buy it, I hope.
I totally agree with you, here. I had a Dell Inspiron 6400 laptop with an ATI Mobility Radeon X1400. This card had good 3D acceleration with ATI's binary driver, and I played World of Warcraft fairly decently in Ubuntu up to 8.10. With Ubuntu 9.04, however, the xorg-server version was incremented, and the binary driver that supported that xorg-server version no longer supported my old card, so I was stuck with an older version of xorg-server (and thus, Ubuntu) if I wanted acceptable 3D acceleration.
So, my needs: hardware that has open-source drivers. There is a much better chance of seeing drivers tweaked to work with newer versions of supporting technologies if they are open-source (at least in my mind, you may disagree), and I want to be able to upgrade my system software without either having to buy new hardware or rely on the manufacturer to care enough about making tweaks to drivers for hardware that is no longer generating revenue for them.
Open-source gets a point for "stability", in my book.
Please point me to where Ubuntu keeps pieces of any particular Web browser throughout the OS - and has for the better part of a decade, if not longer.
You may include Debian, if it helps, to support the second part of your claim, since I know Ubuntu hasn't been remotely mainstream for the better part of a decade.
Wait, what? I would just write you off as an AC troll, but I've heard arguments like this before (hell, when I was 13, I might have written something like this), and I feel the need to be the one to do the grunt work of arguing against you, because someone felt that something somewhere in your post deserved a "+1 Insightful". It's grunt work, because you don't really have any good arguments at all. Before I begin, I want to point something out. The idea was on the table at some point to offer users a choice, either at install-time or anytime afterward, between several browsers to install for Windows 7. Anything remotely resembling legitimate reasons for bundling IE with Windows would be solved by keeping it uninstalled by default, with an easy way to install a web browser afterwards.
Let me go paragraph-by-paragraph, here.
MS is not 'out to get you'. Putting IE into the system makes sense since for 3 reasons. 1) they have a doc system built in for helping users no reason to have 2 systems (die.hlp files die). 2) it was going to be a bases for presenting all information to users, icons, desktop, everything (never was going to happen due to backwards compatibility). 3) EVERYONE and I mean everyone who actually likes and uses Windows at the time was demanding it. We were getting tired of install OS spend 2 hours installing everything else for the OS. We wanted 1 disc streamlined install. No building our own. We wanted it out of the box from MS streamlined and ready to rock. It just worked. If you think I am full of it go find magazines from that era. Not stupid junk you find on the internet. I mean things like PC World, ComputerShopper, etc... You will see article after article begging MS to put it in, or how they are missing the internet...
1) There aren't enough drugs on the planet to make me understand where you're going with this one. Are you arguing the point for the removal of WinHelp from Windows Vista in an attempt to make it look like you have more reasons for bundling IE with Windows? 2) You're saying that it makes sense to bundle a browser with the operating system because of a separate idea that was never going to be included in the system to begin with? If you think that that argument helps your position, then you need to "put down the bong dude". 3) Please point me towards the "everyone who actually likes and uses Windows at the time" installing Windows so frequently that they were "getting tired" of spending the comparatively short amount of time afterwards to finish setting up their environment by installing an application that was not bundled with the operating system and why their complaints were somehow more justified because it was a web browser than they would have been if it were any other non-web browser application, such as WordPerfect or Oregon Trail.
Not having it there would be like downloading say Ubuntu and then spending 20 mins figuring out which ftp site to go to to install a browser. Not even going to the repository to get it (remember its not built in). No that is silly, there is one built in even if it is one you 'dont like'. Web browsers come with the OS. Think you need to deal with it. Every OS since 1994 has had one cooked in even if it is some open source thing. If anything MS was late to the party (as usual) by not having one built in until 96.
Can you please share with us your definition of the term "built in"? Just because something isn't built in doesn't mean you can't download it from the Ubuntu repositories. Also, I think that at one point, there was a technology that allowed you to make physical copies of files that you normally would have to spend "20 mins figuring out which ftp site to go to" just to get, and you could even trade some of your lunch money with the man at the corner store in exchange for all kinds of programs, like web browsers or operating systems. Furthermore, web browsers don't have to come with the OS; there's no te
From the sound of it, the GP's problem isn't primarily with the quality of the submissions, but rather with the integrity and accuracy of the summaries that do end up getting posted as stories, after ostensibly being reviewed.
Look at the quote from the summary that the GP pointed out:
He defines 'aggressive monetization' to mean how much money will advance you 'unfairly' in the game.
In less direct words, it sounded like the GP was pointing out that the word "unfairly" is in quotation marks, yet the notion of fairness isn't even mentioned in the article, let alone the word "unfairly". This is not a good thing; it is ascribing to the author of the article an idea that he did not espouse, which is not a very nice thing to do.
I don't have a major problem with Soulskill about this; it's easily explained by oversight. Oversights happen. But I do recognize that putting words into an author's mouth is bad, and I think that's what the GP was saying here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
You spot a PS3 off the side of the road. Cars are whooshing by.
What would you do?
> get ps3
You bend down to pick it up, ignoring the cars whooshing by. One whooshes too close, knocking the PS3 out of your hands and into the middle of the road.
What do you do?
> get ps3
Still ignoring the whooshing cars, you move to the PS3. A car whooshes into you.
You are dead.
"Let me give you a few examples that illustrate why this mindset is wrong (thinking that piracy should be illegal because it 'hurts sales')."
I like your examples. They illustrate normal activities that probably cause a much greater impact to a particular company's gross revenues than piracy does, and it helps to put things into perspective. Having said that, it does not exactly prove that piracy does "no harm," and I would argue that the producers are indeed made worse off as a result of piracy, which I would define as a sort of "harm" caused to them :-)
In your first example, a person buys (!) media, then convinces N of their friends not to do the same, resulting in the company losing N potential customers. If this person had pirated that media instead (even though we know that they would otherwise have paid for it) and then convinced N of their friends not to buy it, then the company just lost N + 1 potential customers. The difference may be insignificant, but it is certainly non-zero.
The flip side of this example is that the person pirates that media, likes it, then buys it and convinces N of their friends to buy it too. That probably happens less often, though.
In your second example, a person makes the decision to buy their media from XYZ instead of ABC, and ABC loses 1 potential customer. In markets where the product is identical among all sellers, this is a little more relevant; in this instance, not so much. I can't (legally) get Microsoft Office, e.g., from anybody without Microsoft getting a share, so I really only have one "choice": pay Microsoft, or don't use Microsoft Office. If Microsoft charges too much for Microsoft Office, I might go to a competitor that offers a similar product like OpenOffice.org, but that's not the same thing.
Let me give my own example to illustrate when piracy might cause harm to one party, even when there are competitors offering a similar product. For this example, X is a rational consumer who needs office productivity software to do independent contract work, and OpenOffice.org (pretty good, and it's free) and Microsoft Office (better, but it costs $50) are the only two choices; for simplicity, assume that the cost for Microsoft to manufacture another copy of Microsoft Office is negligible (this doesn't change the general outcome of the situation), and Microsoft will not charge any more or any less than $50.
X would be a potential buyer of Microsoft Office if the value that it adds on top of OpenOffice.org is greater than the $50 difference in their licensing fees; let's say that in X's specific case, X would be able to finish a $1200 contract using Microsoft Office in the time that it would take to finish a $1000 contract using the same amount of effort.
X, a rational consumer, receives a marginal benefit of $150 ($1200 - $1000 - $50) buying Microsoft Office, and Microsoft, a rational producer, has a marginal benefit of $50 ($50 - $negligible, $0 for simplicity) to sell Microsoft Office. This transaction does not take place, however, when X pirates Microsoft Office and receives a marginal benefit of $200 ($1200 - $1000 - cost of pirating, $0 for simplicity), and Microsoft gets a marginal benefit of $0.
The only difference between the two scenarios is that X pirates Microsoft Office in one case, and purchases it in the other. Therefore, all of the differences in the outcomes of the two scenarios must be the result of the piracy. Value-added by piracy:
X: $200 - $150 = $50
Microsoft: $0 - $50 = -$50
Because of piracy, Microsoft is harmed by $50, and X is benefited by $50. I will count this as a loss for Microsoft, because X is a rational consumer and would pay Microsoft $50 to gain $200 if piracy were not an option.
Now, to illustrate when piracy might not cause any harm (which may or may not be what you're getting at), let's look at the same scenario with the only difference being that instead of $1200 for the Microsoft Office contract, it's $1020, (and we'll change X's name to Y).
Y w
"I believe P2P is only hurting sales a few percent at most"
More like not at all. That's like saying consumer choice is hurting sales because people can choose whether or not they will buy something.
I hypothesize that there are some potential consumers that do not end up buying a digital media product, because they know how to get it for free via P2P, if they can afford the extra risk associated with doing this.
Given that this hypothesis is correct, then there is some amount of harm done to the gross revenues of copyright holders, more than "not at all". However, I do not believe that this group is as large as the group of those people who would not otherwise buy the product (maybe because they've never heard of it, are poor, have no credit card because they are young, etc.), and to whom P2P offers a way to experience that product.
I further believe that both of these groups combined are much smaller than the group of people who are not directly involved with P2P who will inadvertently be affected by Hadopi.
Here's an idea: do it, rather than posting on Slashdot about it.
radish may already plan on doing it, you don't know. Posting on Slashdot about it does not take away his/her ability to do so.
But why would Superman need YOU?
Perhaps he's from Soviet Russia?
There's a difference between (a) there isn't a football dispenser in my new car, and (b) my new car actively prevents me from putting a football dispenser in it, and the car manufacturers actively working to make it illegal for me to do so.
Common use/misuse aside...
If I know you, then you're the person whom I know.
If you know that I know you, then you're the person who knows whom I know.
If it can be replaced by "him/her", then it's "whom".
If it can be replaced by "he/she", then it's "who".
As always - it's not who you know, it's whom you know.
"Fuck doing business with India or Indian corporation/nationals," does not, by itself, mean "Fuck India, I'm only doing business with the US / China where they don't do this." If anything, it carries with it the implication that it's also not OK for the US, China, or any other governmental entity to do this either. You've created a false dichotomy.
If the fact is unambiguously true you'll also be able to find it somewhere other than Wikipedia.
Yes, but Wikipedia is a great place to find information that's unambiguously true. Such information is usually worded plainly there, unlike many other sources I find myself having to use (often published journal articles that define the term within the context of the research). If no parties object to the use of Wikipedia (or, rather, "this piece of information retrieved from this URL on this date at this time") then there is no problem, and it's probably just a stepping stone for both sides to use in performing contentious dissemination anyway (otherwise, you wouldn't be in court, you'd be sitting there agreeing on definitions and such).
When parts of your body are potentially valuable to society, they're lost unless you donate them, which is what this story is about.
So, in this case, nothing of value was lost.
What's "Troll" about that?
And nothing of value was lost.
Link: http://www.hulu.com/watch/126486/saturday-night-live-burn-notice-game-show
Flawed by design for this purpose. I can see all the words I typed without hitting "Preview", so "Preview" does not add value here.
It's best used to make sure that formatting works and to make sure you know how slow Slashdot is.
You're not selling a product.
Maybe it's because I'm not browsing low enough, but the feel of the threads on this story seems to be along the lines of "OS X will go by the wayside, and we will be forced to program iOS apps on iOS, a platform developed for phones and tablets, or else the iOS SDK will be prohibitively expensive." I have two responses to that.
First, what happens when Apple stops selling Macs with traditional OS X in favor of the desktop progeny of iOS? Those who would not be developing for iOS anyway (shot in the dark: most Apple consumers) may or may not applaud the decision and will probably not be majorly impacted by the decision. Those who would develop or consider developing for the platform (shot in the dark: most people with negative feelings in the comment threads here) are likely faced with serious barriers to entry for development on the platform.
Has Apple traditionally been known for making it difficult to develop for their platforms? I don't know. Would they seriously consider the impact on developers for their unified desktop/phone/tablet platform before they make a decision like this? Absolutely. If developers are going to have a comparatively hard time developing for iOS, they will both do it less and do it worse.
Second, if Apple does finally stick with pushing only a desktop version of iOS and you don't like it, then there is no better time (in my book) to move away from Apple (or not move to Apple) and support a Linux distribution whose interface more closely resembles OS X. In the technology's current state, I struggle to find fault in Mac OS X proper, and iOS works pretty well on my iPod Touch. To take iOS and put it onto every new Apple desktop/laptop computer, even with serious usability tweaks to be at least something like what I would want in a desktop/laptop computer, would be a big "fuck you!" to everybody I know that does a lot of serious work on a Mac that wouldn't translate well at all into an iOS environment.
("everybody I know that does a lot of serious work on a Mac" uses their Mac because of OS X's convenient and consistent interfaces and would be using a Linux distribution otherwise.)
If you don't want iOS, and that's all that Apple is selling, then you know better than to buy it, I hope.
I will buy only what meets my needs, ...
I totally agree with you, here. I had a Dell Inspiron 6400 laptop with an ATI Mobility Radeon X1400. This card had good 3D acceleration with ATI's binary driver, and I played World of Warcraft fairly decently in Ubuntu up to 8.10. With Ubuntu 9.04, however, the xorg-server version was incremented, and the binary driver that supported that xorg-server version no longer supported my old card, so I was stuck with an older version of xorg-server (and thus, Ubuntu) if I wanted acceptable 3D acceleration.
So, my needs: hardware that has open-source drivers. There is a much better chance of seeing drivers tweaked to work with newer versions of supporting technologies if they are open-source (at least in my mind, you may disagree), and I want to be able to upgrade my system software without either having to buy new hardware or rely on the manufacturer to care enough about making tweaks to drivers for hardware that is no longer generating revenue for them.
Open-source gets a point for "stability", in my book.
I think you might want to check your room for elephants.
I can't believe this thread is Still Alive.
Please point me to where Ubuntu keeps pieces of any particular Web browser throughout the OS - and has for the better part of a decade, if not longer.
You may include Debian, if it helps, to support the second part of your claim, since I know Ubuntu hasn't been remotely mainstream for the better part of a decade.
Wait, what? I would just write you off as an AC troll, but I've heard arguments like this before (hell, when I was 13, I might have written something like this), and I feel the need to be the one to do the grunt work of arguing against you, because someone felt that something somewhere in your post deserved a "+1 Insightful". It's grunt work, because you don't really have any good arguments at all.
Before I begin, I want to point something out. The idea was on the table at some point to offer users a choice, either at install-time or anytime afterward, between several browsers to install for Windows 7. Anything remotely resembling legitimate reasons for bundling IE with Windows would be solved by keeping it uninstalled by default, with an easy way to install a web browser afterwards.
Let me go paragraph-by-paragraph, here.
MS is not 'out to get you'. Putting IE into the system makes sense since for 3 reasons. 1) they have a doc system built in for helping users no reason to have 2 systems (die .hlp files die). 2) it was going to be a bases for presenting all information to users, icons, desktop, everything (never was going to happen due to backwards compatibility). 3) EVERYONE and I mean everyone who actually likes and uses Windows at the time was demanding it. We were getting tired of install OS spend 2 hours installing everything else for the OS. We wanted 1 disc streamlined install. No building our own. We wanted it out of the box from MS streamlined and ready to rock. It just worked. If you think I am full of it go find magazines from that era. Not stupid junk you find on the internet. I mean things like PC World, ComputerShopper, etc... You will see article after article begging MS to put it in, or how they are missing the internet...
1) There aren't enough drugs on the planet to make me understand where you're going with this one. Are you arguing the point for the removal of WinHelp from Windows Vista in an attempt to make it look like you have more reasons for bundling IE with Windows?
2) You're saying that it makes sense to bundle a browser with the operating system because of a separate idea that was never going to be included in the system to begin with? If you think that that argument helps your position, then you need to "put down the bong dude".
3) Please point me towards the "everyone who actually likes and uses Windows at the time" installing Windows so frequently that they were "getting tired" of spending the comparatively short amount of time afterwards to finish setting up their environment by installing an application that was not bundled with the operating system and why their complaints were somehow more justified because it was a web browser than they would have been if it were any other non-web browser application, such as WordPerfect or Oregon Trail.
Not having it there would be like downloading say Ubuntu and then spending 20 mins figuring out which ftp site to go to to install a browser. Not even going to the repository to get it (remember its not built in). No that is silly, there is one built in even if it is one you 'dont like'. Web browsers come with the OS. Think you need to deal with it. Every OS since 1994 has had one cooked in even if it is some open source thing. If anything MS was late to the party (as usual) by not having one built in until 96.
Can you please share with us your definition of the term "built in"? Just because something isn't built in doesn't mean you can't download it from the Ubuntu repositories. Also, I think that at one point, there was a technology that allowed you to make physical copies of files that you normally would have to spend "20 mins figuring out which ftp site to go to" just to get, and you could even trade some of your lunch money with the man at the corner store in exchange for all kinds of programs, like web browsers or operating systems.
Furthermore, web browsers don't have to come with the OS; there's no te
On a side note, what does GP stand for?
Grandparent
See? This is on a newline. All I did was hit the enter (return) key on my keyboard. A
Please tell me that "A" at the end was a joke in a comment about how easy it is to type comments on Slas
This is not a good thing; it is ascribing to the author of the article an idea that he did not espouse, which is not a very nice thing to do...
But I do recognize that putting words into an author's mouth is bad...
Heh... after reading that comment again, it seems that I need to add another unit test to my post-Preview test suite:
Accuracy check... pass!
Coherence check... pass!
Grammar/Punctuation check... pass!
Vocabulary usage check... pass!
Redundancy check... failed!
Redundancy check... failed!
2 tests failed. Please click "Continue Editing" and try again.
From the sound of it, the GP's problem isn't primarily with the quality of the submissions, but rather with the integrity and accuracy of the summaries that do end up getting posted as stories, after ostensibly being reviewed.
Look at the quote from the summary that the GP pointed out:
He defines 'aggressive monetization' to mean how much money will advance you 'unfairly' in the game.
In less direct words, it sounded like the GP was pointing out that the word "unfairly" is in quotation marks, yet the notion of fairness isn't even mentioned in the article, let alone the word "unfairly". This is not a good thing; it is ascribing to the author of the article an idea that he did not espouse, which is not a very nice thing to do.
I don't have a major problem with Soulskill about this; it's easily explained by oversight. Oversights happen. But I do recognize that putting words into an author's mouth is bad, and I think that's what the GP was saying here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.