On one side we have a massive industry with an unlimited supply of lawyers (and public officials) and on the other side we have somebody who's obviously right.
Let's see which way this one swings.
[Although the phrase "Michigan's legislature and governor have backed the agency's position that an investigator's license was required" does make me cautiously optimistic - Let's get this one right, Michigan!]
And I thought the write-up was fine. TFS focused on the '68 molecules' thing, which is nothing new. TFA just mentions that his research includes the illustration, but the thrust seems to be encouraging a focus on lipid and glycan research for disease control and steering away from our current tunnel vision of genetic research. Seems like a reasonable and interesting opinion considering that the lion's share of funding is going to the genetic researchers.
Sure, it means losing one element and we'd have to give up a few things - I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But picture it - A world without disease. So which is better - A world with carbon compounds and rampant disease or a world where we give up carbon compounds and rid the planet of all disease? You decide.
=P
Re:Lifetime of Beetle parts...
on
DIY Hybrid Car Kit
·
· Score: 4, Funny
You don't keep all 10 operative. You keep 2 operative and put your 8 organ donors in the barn. 4-to-1 seems like about the right ratio to keep an old Beetle together.
Maybe AC IIL. He sure pretends to be pretty often.
Although in this case, whether AC IIL or INAL, I think he nailed it. RIAA/MPAA made sure that they could allege whatever they damned well feel like without researching whether or not their allegations have any merit with no fear of reprisal. The alleged infringer, however, must testify under penalty of perjury that he's done no wrong. Guilty until proven innocent.
I [can't] think of one album and one movie that I've purchased more than once.
Well, then you're simply too young. The industry has been changing formats every decade or so in order to force you to upgrade.
For the record, that wasn't a typo - I've repurchased 1 album and 1 movie. Toad the Wet Sprocket - Fear and The Little Mermaid (my wife did the Little Mermaid - Pissed the hell out of me - I hate giving $$ to Disney). And it's not an age issue - I've spent many hours copying reel-to-reel and vinyl onto CD. That may be illegal and some may call me a hypocrite, but I do copy stuff ad infinitum as long as it's for my own personal use. And, as was implied when I purchased it, I don't share.
It's still not perfect, but if you've got a better model, implement it and put them out of business.
That's kind of like trying to put drug dealers and the mafia out of business with a "better business model". It's absurd.
I've got a better business model for those. Open legal casinos and brothels and start selling weed at Walgreen's to anyone with a valid license to purchase recreational drugs. What's absurd about that? I call bad analogy - Hulu, RealRhapsody, and Amazon have radically different models for distributing copyrighted content. If you've got a better one, kick it off.
Equilibrium pricing doesn't enter this equation at all. People typically want to get the most for their money. If a movie costs $X in the store or $0 online, many people will save themselves the trip to the store and download it. If the store can provide it faster, gives the purchaser some premium content, if the consumer just likes the pretty box, or if the consumer has some aversion to acquiring the movie illegally, it may be worth it to them to pay the $X and buy legit. Otherwise, $0 is less than $X so they'll download. The equilibrium pricing only comes into play when there's some advantage to the store version - Often not the case to many consumers.
This is economics 101, if you don't understand what an equilibrium price is then I suggest you avoid talking about economics all together.
Companies don't implement DRM to combat piracy, they implement DRM to limit fair use. Without DRM, within a decade, there would be so many perfect, legitimate copies in the market that they couldn't make any more profit.
That sounds like a load. I can think of one album and one movie that I've purchased more than once. Sure the industry would like us to buy one copy for home, one for work, one for the car, etc. But I think they know that's not a realistic model. Amazon's sales are a case in point. They sell mp3s that can be transferred or copied wherever you like, but can be traced to you if they're found on P2P. And the movies, although they can only be downloaded to 2 computers, can be watched limitlessly online (I infer from the link that's from any computer where you can log into your account, but can't find anything that says that explicitly). That sure sounds to me like they're just making sure you don't just give it to all of your friends (i.e. combatting piracy not limiting fair use). Amazon's just doing a better job of tuning their DRM in the right direction than most of the industry. It's still not perfect, but if you've got a better model, implement it and put them out of business.
So, when hollywood paid congress to enact retro-active copyright extensions, essentially stealing from the public domain, that's OK because hollywood is not too cheap to pay for what they want, eh?
That was pretty sleazy. I guess that, as long as you're downloading material that was re-copyrighted under the Copyright Term Extension Act, it seems just fine. But if you're downloading anything made in the last 50 years, that argument seems pretty unrelated.
But when little guys take the matter into their own hands instead of paying off congress they are just a bunch of gutless bastards.
I never said that they were gutless, although I fail to see how it takes any amount of guts to download a movie. I'd respect someone much more who had the conviction to just refuse to deal with the industries they're objecting to rather than partaking of their wares, refusing to pay, and trying to puff themselves up as a "little guy taking the matter into their own hands". You're not striking back at the industry - You're expressing interest and encouraging them to inflict DRM on the rest of us. I also never said they were bastards - I know nothing about the average pirate's parental lineage.
Yeah, you've been drinking the kool-aid alright.
No - I really dislike the RIAA/MPAA and they get very little of my $$ - Most of what they put out isn't worth what they're charging for it IMO. But it does sound like you're deluding yourself into thinking that you're somehow striking back and standing up for the little guy when in fact you're just too cheap to pay for what you want and too weak to just do the right thing and go without it.
If you think that the asking price to view/read/listen to copyrighted content is too high, then don't pay it and don't view/read/listen to it. But don't try to justify your illegal activities because you're trying to help the industry revise their business model. The truth is that you want what they have to offer, you don't feel like paying for it, and you don't want to admit that you're a criminal. The way to combat their broken business model is boycott, not copyright infringement. Piracy tells the industry that you want what they have to offer but want to avoid paying.
In short, pirates are the reason that we all have to deal with DRM BS. Pirates are not Robin Hood - They're just people too cheap to pay for what they want and too weak to just go without it.
Arrgh! Pirates with mod points off the port bow! Ack - I've been struck with a -1 Troll!
Actually in the 2004 US election, 60.7% of the elegible voters turned out. Not great, but more than double your 30% guess and not too far from the 61.3% turnout in the 2005 UK election.
Of course, if you're talking about the 2006 elections, the US turnout was only ~37%... I concede that we just don't seem to care unless there's a presidency on the line...
Consider that you have to go to the video rental place twice...
Why? You enroll with Blockbuster and shell out $10 for a BlockBuster-Blue USB stick. When you want to rent a movie, you take it in, have the movie loaded on to your stick with a DRM time bomb making it playable for 48 hours, and take it home. No need to return until you rent your next flick.
It may be something along the lines of invalidating any contract of adhesion that cannot reasonably be understood by the person it's being applied to. I'll bet that suddenly companies would find a way to make EULAs understandable.
While setting some complexity standard may be a good idea, "reasonably be understood by the person it's being applied to" seems like a pretty bad idea. It would basically allow "I'm sorry your honor, I am an idiot and have several character witnesses that will testify to that effect. I didn't understand what I was signing and, even though I signed it anyway, I cannot reasonably be held to its terms." to be a valid argument in court.
Exactly. The only things in a code which the electrical engineer wouldn't be able to work out are things put there arbitrarily by state officials. Do we really need a new lot of self-important busybodies to protect us from another?
IAAEE.
I'm fully capable of figuring out how to safely wire my house up and, knowing about my somewhat unusual power demands, may do a much better job than a certified electrician. But, for major jobs, I'll certainly contract out. I do not know what the code specifications are about gas-line spacing, conduit demands, etc. And, even though I'd do a good, safe job, I want to be able to sell my house some day and want to be sure that I'm not violating any building codes.
Are some of those codes BS? Maybe. Are some of the hoops that the certified electrician has to jump through BS? Maybe. But when I look at a house that I'm considering buying and I ask who did the electrical work, I'd much rather hear "A certified electrician whose work has been inspected to ensure that it meets local building codes" than "I did it myself - I'm an EE and know what I'm doing - I'm not sure whether it meets code, but I assure you it's safe".
No more so than an electron is an antiproton. Antiprotons are made of antiquarks (anti-up, anti-up, anti-down).
Two anti-ups and an anti-down? That must be why electrons are lousy gamblers - It's supposed to be one up and two downs. Everyone knows that you have to ante up before doubling down.
It gets worse. I used to watch the incoming google searches on their site just out of curiosity. Every once in a while I'd see somebody search google for "http://www.cnn.com" or similar.
Also, it doesn't sound like she's just shot-gunning out every SSN she finds. FTA:
Ostergren routinely posts the Social Security numbers of high-profile individuals that she claims to have easily obtained from county and state government Web sites. The list includes former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, former Missouri Sen. Jean Carnahan and several county clerks in Virginia.
That doesn't say explicitly that she's not posting everything, but it does seem to imply that she's just calling out very public government figures. Sure it's a bid for attention, but it's an effective one. And, since it was the State that publicized them, it seems like she's re-publicizing just enough to call the appropriate level of attention to the issue. Good on her.
Slashdot Mirror
On one side we have a massive industry with an unlimited supply of lawyers (and public officials) and on the other side we have somebody who's obviously right.
Let's see which way this one swings.
[Although the phrase "Michigan's legislature and governor have backed the agency's position that an investigator's license was required" does make me cautiously optimistic - Let's get this one right, Michigan!]
Sorry for the self-reply, but I just realized the flaw in my logic and realized why my 'Ban carbon compounds' proposal won't fly...
There are carbon compounds in oil - No way the lobbyists are letting us get that through Washington... Oh well, I can dream.
The same thing that happened this time?
You have to admit, it is an awfully pretty picture: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/2008/09-08MolecularBuildingBlocksBIG.jpg
And I thought the write-up was fine. TFS focused on the '68 molecules' thing, which is nothing new. TFA just mentions that his research includes the illustration, but the thrust seems to be encouraging a focus on lipid and glycan research for disease control and steering away from our current tunnel vision of genetic research. Seems like a reasonable and interesting opinion considering that the lion's share of funding is going to the genetic researchers.
Solution:
Ban carbon compounds.
Sure, it means losing one element and we'd have to give up a few things - I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But picture it - A world without disease. So which is better - A world with carbon compounds and rampant disease or a world where we give up carbon compounds and rid the planet of all disease? You decide.
=P
You don't keep all 10 operative. You keep 2 operative and put your 8 organ donors in the barn. 4-to-1 seems like about the right ratio to keep an old Beetle together.
Maybe AC IIL. He sure pretends to be pretty often.
Although in this case, whether AC IIL or INAL, I think he nailed it. RIAA/MPAA made sure that they could allege whatever they damned well feel like without researching whether or not their allegations have any merit with no fear of reprisal. The alleged infringer, however, must testify under penalty of perjury that he's done no wrong. Guilty until proven innocent.
I [can't] think of one album and one movie that I've purchased more than once.
Well, then you're simply too young. The industry has been changing formats every decade or so in order to force you to upgrade.
For the record, that wasn't a typo - I've repurchased 1 album and 1 movie. Toad the Wet Sprocket - Fear and The Little Mermaid (my wife did the Little Mermaid - Pissed the hell out of me - I hate giving $$ to Disney). And it's not an age issue - I've spent many hours copying reel-to-reel and vinyl onto CD. That may be illegal and some may call me a hypocrite, but I do copy stuff ad infinitum as long as it's for my own personal use. And, as was implied when I purchased it, I don't share.
It's still not perfect, but if you've got a better model, implement it and put them out of business.
That's kind of like trying to put drug dealers and the mafia out of business with a "better business model". It's absurd.
I've got a better business model for those. Open legal casinos and brothels and start selling weed at Walgreen's to anyone with a valid license to purchase recreational drugs. What's absurd about that? I call bad analogy - Hulu, RealRhapsody, and Amazon have radically different models for distributing copyrighted content. If you've got a better one, kick it off.
Equilibrium pricing doesn't enter this equation at all. People typically want to get the most for their money. If a movie costs $X in the store or $0 online, many people will save themselves the trip to the store and download it. If the store can provide it faster, gives the purchaser some premium content, if the consumer just likes the pretty box, or if the consumer has some aversion to acquiring the movie illegally, it may be worth it to them to pay the $X and buy legit. Otherwise, $0 is less than $X so they'll download. The equilibrium pricing only comes into play when there's some advantage to the store version - Often not the case to many consumers.
This is economics 101, if you don't understand what an equilibrium price is then I suggest you avoid talking about economics all together.
Companies don't implement DRM to combat piracy, they implement DRM to limit fair use. Without DRM, within a decade, there would be so many perfect, legitimate copies in the market that they couldn't make any more profit.
That sounds like a load. I can think of one album and one movie that I've purchased more than once. Sure the industry would like us to buy one copy for home, one for work, one for the car, etc. But I think they know that's not a realistic model. Amazon's sales are a case in point. They sell mp3s that can be transferred or copied wherever you like, but can be traced to you if they're found on P2P. And the movies, although they can only be downloaded to 2 computers, can be watched limitlessly online (I infer from the link that's from any computer where you can log into your account, but can't find anything that says that explicitly). That sure sounds to me like they're just making sure you don't just give it to all of your friends (i.e. combatting piracy not limiting fair use). Amazon's just doing a better job of tuning their DRM in the right direction than most of the industry. It's still not perfect, but if you've got a better model, implement it and put them out of business.
So, when hollywood paid congress to enact retro-active copyright extensions, essentially stealing from the public domain, that's OK because hollywood is not too cheap to pay for what they want, eh?
That was pretty sleazy. I guess that, as long as you're downloading material that was re-copyrighted under the Copyright Term Extension Act, it seems just fine. But if you're downloading anything made in the last 50 years, that argument seems pretty unrelated.
But when little guys take the matter into their own hands instead of paying off congress they are just a bunch of gutless bastards.
I never said that they were gutless, although I fail to see how it takes any amount of guts to download a movie. I'd respect someone much more who had the conviction to just refuse to deal with the industries they're objecting to rather than partaking of their wares, refusing to pay, and trying to puff themselves up as a "little guy taking the matter into their own hands". You're not striking back at the industry - You're expressing interest and encouraging them to inflict DRM on the rest of us. I also never said they were bastards - I know nothing about the average pirate's parental lineage.
Yeah, you've been drinking the kool-aid alright.
No - I really dislike the RIAA/MPAA and they get very little of my $$ - Most of what they put out isn't worth what they're charging for it IMO. But it does sound like you're deluding yourself into thinking that you're somehow striking back and standing up for the little guy when in fact you're just too cheap to pay for what you want and too weak to just do the right thing and go without it.
If you think that the asking price to view/read/listen to copyrighted content is too high, then don't pay it and don't view/read/listen to it. But don't try to justify your illegal activities because you're trying to help the industry revise their business model. The truth is that you want what they have to offer, you don't feel like paying for it, and you don't want to admit that you're a criminal. The way to combat their broken business model is boycott, not copyright infringement. Piracy tells the industry that you want what they have to offer but want to avoid paying.
In short, pirates are the reason that we all have to deal with DRM BS. Pirates are not Robin Hood - They're just people too cheap to pay for what they want and too weak to just go without it.
Arrgh! Pirates with mod points off the port bow! Ack - I've been struck with a -1 Troll!
=)
Actually in the 2004 US election, 60.7% of the elegible voters turned out. Not great, but more than double your 30% guess and not too far from the 61.3% turnout in the 2005 UK election.
Of course, if you're talking about the 2006 elections, the US turnout was only ~37%... I concede that we just don't seem to care unless there's a presidency on the line...
Consider that you have to go to the video rental place twice...
Why? You enroll with Blockbuster and shell out $10 for a BlockBuster-Blue USB stick. When you want to rent a movie, you take it in, have the movie loaded on to your stick with a DRM time bomb making it playable for 48 hours, and take it home. No need to return until you rent your next flick.
It may be something along the lines of invalidating any contract of adhesion that cannot reasonably be understood by the person it's being applied to. I'll bet that suddenly companies would find a way to make EULAs understandable.
While setting some complexity standard may be a good idea, "reasonably be understood by the person it's being applied to" seems like a pretty bad idea. It would basically allow "I'm sorry your honor, I am an idiot and have several character witnesses that will testify to that effect. I didn't understand what I was signing and, even though I signed it anyway, I cannot reasonably be held to its terms." to be a valid argument in court.
Writing like this is intended to obfuscate rather than illuminate, and its sole purpose is usually to impress you with how intelligent the moron is.
I think you meant:
Writing like this is intended to confuse the reader rather than communicate clearly...
Eschew obfuscation.
Cheers =)
I envision a middle finger, a guy bent over, and maybe a frowny face.
These could be combined. When I bend over and encounter somebody's finger, I assure you that I make a frowny face.
Exactly. The only things in a code which the electrical engineer wouldn't be able to work out are things put there arbitrarily by state officials. Do we really need a new lot of self-important busybodies to protect us from another?
IAAEE.
I'm fully capable of figuring out how to safely wire my house up and, knowing about my somewhat unusual power demands, may do a much better job than a certified electrician. But, for major jobs, I'll certainly contract out. I do not know what the code specifications are about gas-line spacing, conduit demands, etc. And, even though I'd do a good, safe job, I want to be able to sell my house some day and want to be sure that I'm not violating any building codes.
Are some of those codes BS? Maybe. Are some of the hoops that the certified electrician has to jump through BS? Maybe. But when I look at a house that I'm considering buying and I ask who did the electrical work, I'd much rather hear "A certified electrician whose work has been inspected to ensure that it meets local building codes" than "I did it myself - I'm an EE and know what I'm doing - I'm not sure whether it meets code, but I assure you it's safe".
No more so than an electron is an antiproton. Antiprotons are made of antiquarks (anti-up, anti-up, anti-down).
Two anti-ups and an anti-down? That must be why electrons are lousy gamblers - It's supposed to be one up and two downs. Everyone knows that you have to ante up before doubling down.
LHC - D'oh!
Research rich in omega-sub-b particles may help garner attention and increase LHD funding.
It gets worse. I used to watch the incoming google searches on their site just out of curiosity. Every once in a while I'd see somebody search google for "http://www.cnn.com" or similar.
Oof.
Sorry, UNIT hasn't been seen lately. All we've got now is Torchwood.
Please add "of cents" or "of customers" to the end of the sentence in your mind please.
I don't know how you knew what sentence was in my mind, but tacking on those phrases made it no more coherent.
Also, it doesn't sound like she's just shot-gunning out every SSN she finds. FTA:
Ostergren routinely posts the Social Security numbers of high-profile individuals that she claims to have easily obtained from county and state government Web sites. The list includes former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, former Missouri Sen. Jean Carnahan and several county clerks in Virginia.
That doesn't say explicitly that she's not posting everything, but it does seem to imply that she's just calling out very public government figures. Sure it's a bid for attention, but it's an effective one. And, since it was the State that publicized them, it seems like she's re-publicizing just enough to call the appropriate level of attention to the issue. Good on her.