A jeweler once told me about why platinum is a considered such a precious metal. He said the platinum industry used to sell almost exclusively to the military for fuses in bombs. Somewhere in the 20C the demand dropped off as bomb-makers found cheaper alternatives. Having lost their biggest customer, this idea that platinum was as/more precious than gold for jewelry was created in the public mind, though he himself found it to be a much worse metal for the purpose. Your link at "Platinum Today" might not be an unbiased view of how useful the metal is.
And if the floor price for a used game is 35£ that creates a much narrower window for Steam-style sales. You wouldn't price a new copy below a used one.
I'm thinking here of ACTA that uses the intellectual property label around counterfeiting and lumps in copyright violations. I think I'm with you on the idea that copyright has its set of legal rules and counterfeiting another. Increasingly they seem to be talked about in the same terms though that doesn't sit right with me.
"I want to encourage clear thinking about copyright law. Separately, I want to encourage clear thinking about patent law."
I have also seen (in these days of international trade pacts) counterfeiting lumped in with copyright infringement and patent violations. I am unsure of how the law looks upon this, but to me it seems different enough. If one illegally downloads a song or a movie and violates copyright, they know it is not an official copy, and are getting an exact copy of the original. I think of counterfeit products as in-exact copies being passed off as official ones. I don't want to put a value judgement on these scenarios here, but point out that grouping this too under "Intellectual Property" is a barrier to clearly thinking about these activities and how they should be dealt with.
Banning people from the Internet will take away "the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online" in an overbroad and potentially inaccurate attempt to punish piracy.
I once signed up for a license to distribute the Acrobat Reader on a CD-ROM my organization was using as a give-away, and I had to agree not to let the program end up in places like Cuba. Now, in the same week I learn about Russian spies being arrested and swapped with the USA, I hear that Microsoft is giving out the source code to Windows 7 to the Russian spy agency. Wow.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to pave a road?;)
Slightly more seriously, there is a lot of benefit you can derive from those around you (that do use government services) not being pushed to the brink of poverty and desperation.
The difference is consumers think they understand the benefit of those features. They're still seeking a benefit, whether they have it right nor not. Android is doing great, but as "the phone to beat" I think iPhone is still at the top of the heap in popular opinion.
Just because phone tech specs aren't a person's field of expertise, doesn't mean they shouldn't be helped to understand why they should care about something. There are plenty of things you don't understand the technical details about, but that doesn't mean someone shouldn't try to put it in terms you understand before expecting you to make an informed decision.
When you hear "over 300ppi" you understand the benefit without having it put into more simple terms. Why not give someone, who might enjoy the product as much (or more) than you, the same chance to understand what they're buying without doing hours of research?
Specs might speak to the slashdot crowd, but I think Apple owes a lot of its success to a realizing that most consumers buy benefits, not features. The endless list of would-be iPod/iPhone killers that touted better features but failed to have an impact in the market are evidence of this.
Right. The point is these groups can often server themselves by writing their own apps that use government data, freeing government to focus on the other areas of the problem.
I understand that government needs to concern itself with building things that help the most people, but opening up interaction with government so that user groups can define how they want to interact is a good thing. It's sort of like the long tail.
If you create conditions where someone makes an app for smartphones (open government data), and it only gets used by people with smartphones, this is a net gain for the society. It didn't cost government what it would cost to develop from scratch, including the cost of coming up with the idea. The smartphone people interact with government in a way they couldn't before: the way they want to. This potentially lessens visits to brick and mortar offices and calls to support centres. It might cost something to maintain the app, but in the end it might be saving you money and serving more people.
Let every small interest groups create their own way to interact with government, and you end up serving more people than you would have if you had just focused on a solution that helped the majority.
All he had to say was "I choose not to sell that stuff in my store" and no one could argue with that position. This "moral responsibility" statement sets him up for all kinds of criticism.
Slashdot Mirror
Digital Reproduction Management
A jeweler once told me about why platinum is a considered such a precious metal. He said the platinum industry used to sell almost exclusively to the military for fuses in bombs. Somewhere in the 20C the demand dropped off as bomb-makers found cheaper alternatives. Having lost their biggest customer, this idea that platinum was as/more precious than gold for jewelry was created in the public mind, though he himself found it to be a much worse metal for the purpose. Your link at "Platinum Today" might not be an unbiased view of how useful the metal is.
"The DNS hijacking attack was resolved within an hour, Moore said."
Is that a DNS joke?
And if the floor price for a used game is 35£ that creates a much narrower window for Steam-style sales. You wouldn't price a new copy below a used one.
I'm thinking here of ACTA that uses the intellectual property label around counterfeiting and lumps in copyright violations. I think I'm with you on the idea that copyright has its set of legal rules and counterfeiting another. Increasingly they seem to be talked about in the same terms though that doesn't sit right with me.
"I want to encourage clear thinking about copyright law. Separately, I want to encourage clear thinking about patent law." I have also seen (in these days of international trade pacts) counterfeiting lumped in with copyright infringement and patent violations. I am unsure of how the law looks upon this, but to me it seems different enough. If one illegally downloads a song or a movie and violates copyright, they know it is not an official copy, and are getting an exact copy of the original. I think of counterfeit products as in-exact copies being passed off as official ones. I don't want to put a value judgement on these scenarios here, but point out that grouping this too under "Intellectual Property" is a barrier to clearly thinking about these activities and how they should be dealt with.
Are you... serious?
No. See here. http://thesocialmuser.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/olympics-started-3000-years-ago-twitter_14.html
But it's only 2012!
Banning people from the Internet will take away "the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online" in an overbroad and potentially inaccurate attempt to punish piracy.
So I guess the government's position that access to the Internet is as important as freedom of speech only applies to communist countries http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-15/politics/clinton.internet_1_internet-freedom-repression-expression?_s=PM:POLITICS
I always pictured a black panther http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_panther which isn't the same as a Puma.
It's Jon St. John, not John St. John.
I once signed up for a license to distribute the Acrobat Reader on a CD-ROM my organization was using as a give-away, and I had to agree not to let the program end up in places like Cuba. Now, in the same week I learn about Russian spies being arrested and swapped with the USA, I hear that Microsoft is giving out the source code to Windows 7 to the Russian spy agency. Wow.
Kind of like Fight Club
Police Officer: You said that if anyone ever interferes with Project Mayhem, even you, we gotta get his balls.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to pave a road? ;)
Slightly more seriously, there is a lot of benefit you can derive from those around you (that do use government services) not being pushed to the brink of poverty and desperation.
"Sure you're free to take this phone to another carrier, just don't circumvent the DRM to do it"
I think the Great Lake Swimmers were on to this a long time ago with their song See You On the Moon.
The difference is consumers think they understand the benefit of those features. They're still seeking a benefit, whether they have it right nor not. Android is doing great, but as "the phone to beat" I think iPhone is still at the top of the heap in popular opinion.
Just because phone tech specs aren't a person's field of expertise, doesn't mean they shouldn't be helped to understand why they should care about something. There are plenty of things you don't understand the technical details about, but that doesn't mean someone shouldn't try to put it in terms you understand before expecting you to make an informed decision.
When you hear "over 300ppi" you understand the benefit without having it put into more simple terms. Why not give someone, who might enjoy the product as much (or more) than you, the same chance to understand what they're buying without doing hours of research?
Specs might speak to the slashdot crowd, but I think Apple owes a lot of its success to a realizing that most consumers buy benefits, not features. The endless list of would-be iPod/iPhone killers that touted better features but failed to have an impact in the market are evidence of this.
My work here is done, then.
I'll totally mod up the first person who makes a joke about a guy named Wang heading up military underwear research. Doh!
Right. The point is these groups can often server themselves by writing their own apps that use government data, freeing government to focus on the other areas of the problem.
I understand that government needs to concern itself with building things that help the most people, but opening up interaction with government so that user groups can define how they want to interact is a good thing. It's sort of like the long tail.
If you create conditions where someone makes an app for smartphones (open government data), and it only gets used by people with smartphones, this is a net gain for the society. It didn't cost government what it would cost to develop from scratch, including the cost of coming up with the idea. The smartphone people interact with government in a way they couldn't before: the way they want to. This potentially lessens visits to brick and mortar offices and calls to support centres. It might cost something to maintain the app, but in the end it might be saving you money and serving more people.
Let every small interest groups create their own way to interact with government, and you end up serving more people than you would have if you had just focused on a solution that helped the majority.
All he had to say was "I choose not to sell that stuff in my store" and no one could argue with that position. This "moral responsibility" statement sets him up for all kinds of criticism.