True, it doesn't prove causation, but it is interesting evidence nonetheless.
For one thing, it is the start of a good inductive case. If we were able to add and remove Napster a few more times, then we could get a better handle on the dynamics of the relationship. (Good luck convincing people that experimental governance is a good idea.)
For another thing, it may not be very robust evidence in favor of the theory that Napster helped sales, but it is pretty nice evidence against the theory that Napster hurt sales. Consider it a rather poor experiment (plenty of noise around). It is very reasonable to think that the theory that Napster hurt sales, given the removal of Napster, would predict that sales would go up, or at least stay the same. Just as it would only take one instance of a massive object not falling when released in order to give the current theory of gravitation major grief, it only takes the one instance of counter-evidence to give the RIAA's theory grief.
Why does Madonna need to provide a mechanism to pay her when the good people of Fairtunes are happy to provide such a service on their own? Download music, use Fairtunes, there is no problem.
Re:Salon lost major tech and street cred
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 1
Well, first off, you should never completely trust everything that a news/information source says. But even given that and this silly piece of shit Salon ran, why reduce your trust in the entire news/information source? It seems more reasonable to reduce your trust in the writer, editor and whatever other people went into this. I think you are filtering on a rather broad level when only a more low level filtering is warranted.
You come across as using a "one particular failure, never trust in general" update strategy. Those just aren't very effecient at getting good sets. In other words, reliabilty is more complex than that. I suggest a subcatagory-weighted moving average scheme instead.
I know why I don't want a full sized keyboard. I would like take a small portable, plug in a twiddler, sound out, my phone, and maybe some extra memory to make a wearable. Keyboards take space I don't need taken up.
I do the prompting thing myself, I would do as you say, but I don't want to go around trusting that many sites. What they need is something like a "trust this site for 10 minutes" category that one can put a page in via the right-click contextualized menu. Why make the user have to think about moving something back out of trusted status?
Agreed. I've been coming up with ideas for various "key" arrangements for years. Most of which would be totally unfeasable for any physical object to model. This sort of thing, if we users can teach the neural net new layouts, would be great.
Imagine just hanging your hands down at your sides and twitching your fingers and wrists to type. There could be a scheme for a wearable that allowed typing with your hands in your pockets, so as to be unobtrusive.
People are naysaying this thing hard, and they have good reason, since it probably has a ways to go before reliability. However, in a few more generations of development these things should be great, and until then there are a couple of niches that might like them.
I think they have medication that could help you with your aggression. Or maybe just a good vacation to a warm climate would do the trick. Either way, you seem all too wound up.
"Is it only a non-profit use, for example trading or a give away?"
That was the criteria that courts used in the past for these types of decisions. Thus that is what they should continue to use. Otherwise they are showing favoritism or worse, being bought.
"The court must decide the line where fair use ends and illegal activity begins."
Funny, they already have for technology after technology though history. The critira of those decisions was typically commercial vs. non-commercial activity. My participation in file-sharing is not commercial. Case closed.
"I found so many new (and old) artists that I hadn't added to my collection, and it's easier to buy the damn CD than spend x hours searching for every track with a flawless rip."
That is because you were silly and didn't have a clever little software bot to do all of the looking for you.
Bin Laden is going to order Afghanis to clog up all the world's bandwidth by downloading the new Britney Spears album on Gnutella all at the same time?
All of the Afghan computers? All of them?
Somehow I'm not concerned. I think we can take the load.
Your use of the phrase "begging the question" is confusing. Due to similar uses, that phrase is loosing its meaning as a term for a certain type of reasoning and coming to mean "raising the question" for which we already have a perfectly good phrase. There is no need to diminish a nice piece of terminology and risk ambiguity to say what you meant.
History is riddled with convergence. Before humans, animals such as primates and wolves organized based on the family group. The family group extended to the tribes/clans/gens. Clans eventually fused in to city states, that controlled empires. Empires slowly morphed in to modern nation states. Soon, it will be time for the nation state to go the way of the dinosaur, and be replaced by a global governance.
Strange, dinosaurs are gone, but families, city states, and empires are still around. The nation state won't disappear, nor should it. However, there will be layers added on top. Well, really some have already have been added, so better to say that more and stronger layers will be added.
So in other words "take part in the plutocratic system that exists"? Sorry, but some of us want the republic that we were promised back in civics, oh and in those founding documents.
"Join the broken system" may be the best we can do for now, but it still sucks.
But how do I then prevent the phone number, contact information, interests, etc that I just gave out to Sears (et al) from getting stored in their own database and being resold to someone else?
You can't, that is why you only give them some temporary contact info. I'm thinking of something like a sneakemail address, iwantawasher9382@myhomenetwork.whatever. When you buy the washer you want, you kill the address. Then you no longer have to care if they sell it to whoever is stupid enough to pay for a dead address.
Yeah, but then one would have to use some sort of epaper printer. The epaper would be reusable, sure, but one couldn't switch what book one is reading without running all the sheets through the printer again. Which means any books made from these have to come apart easy. It would be cheaper than dynamic epaper, and there are likely some niches where such a product would be just right (maybe office memos or newspapers). However, most want the dynamic stuff.
Who said anything about stopping at AIDS? The conversation is beginning with AIDS because it doesn't seem to be close to the threshold of any slippery slope. The US has declared the global epidemic a national security issue. A fat lot of good that does when the same people oppose the use of the provisions in IP law for emergencies just such as this.
Who said anything about nationalizing anything? You seem to be overassuming your knowledge of my position.
I'm sure many won't give a damn, and will do whatever is politically expediant.
You seem like you might be singling them out for blame on that charge, which would be ironic, since that's just what politicians everywhere else do.
Slashdot Mirror
For one thing, it is the start of a good inductive case. If we were able to add and remove Napster a few more times, then we could get a better handle on the dynamics of the relationship. (Good luck convincing people that experimental governance is a good idea.)
For another thing, it may not be very robust evidence in favor of the theory that Napster helped sales, but it is pretty nice evidence against the theory that Napster hurt sales. Consider it a rather poor experiment (plenty of noise around). It is very reasonable to think that the theory that Napster hurt sales, given the removal of Napster, would predict that sales would go up, or at least stay the same. Just as it would only take one instance of a massive object not falling when released in order to give the current theory of gravitation major grief, it only takes the one instance of counter-evidence to give the RIAA's theory grief.
You come across as using a "one particular failure, never trust in general" update strategy. Those just aren't very effecient at getting good sets. In other words, reliabilty is more complex than that. I suggest a subcatagory-weighted moving average scheme instead.
I know why I don't want a full sized keyboard. I would like take a small portable, plug in a twiddler, sound out, my phone, and maybe some extra memory to make a wearable. Keyboards take space I don't need taken up.
Imagine just hanging your hands down at your sides and twitching your fingers and wrists to type. There could be a scheme for a wearable that allowed typing with your hands in your pockets, so as to be unobtrusive.
People are naysaying this thing hard, and they have good reason, since it probably has a ways to go before reliability. However, in a few more generations of development these things should be great, and until then there are a couple of niches that might like them.
I think they have medication that could help you with your aggression. Or maybe just a good vacation to a warm climate would do the trick. Either way, you seem all too wound up.
... always make me think something like, "Go, Homo sapiens, go."
That was the criteria that courts used in the past for these types of decisions. Thus that is what they should continue to use. Otherwise they are showing favoritism or worse, being bought.
Funny, they already have for technology after technology though history. The critira of those decisions was typically commercial vs. non-commercial activity. My participation in file-sharing is not commercial. Case closed.
That is because you were silly and didn't have a clever little software bot to do all of the looking for you.
Somehow I'm not concerned. I think we can take the load.
"Join the broken system" may be the best we can do for now, but it still sucks.
Btw, why is their no category for software? That seems really stupid.
Who said anything about nationalizing anything? You seem to be overassuming your knowledge of my position.
You seem like you might be singling them out for blame on that charge, which would be ironic, since that's just what politicians everywhere else do.