Not many people really operate like this. Yes, the perceived entertainment 'value' vs cost is a factor, and yes, people often think movies are ripoff. But then $10 for a movie ticket that sucked isn't as much a loss as $60 for a game that sucked.
But you can rarely get refunds for movies, on the other hand if you have a game that you think sucked you can ebay the thing for only about a 10-20 dollar loss if its new enough.
Clearly our method of placing a value on how we spend our time is more complex than a a simple minimization of cost function.
Assuming you enjoy movies just as much as video games, its about the same.
You'll always just end up going for a walk, flying a kite, shooting hoops, playing cards, reading a book from the libary, contributing to an oss project,
Sure, but many people would rather play video games then that. I really don't enjoy walking any more than I have to and a bit more just to keep in decent health, flying a kite depends on the wind. Most geeks really suck at any type of athletic sports, cards usually end up losing more money then a video game, books from the library are ok every now and then, and have you even contributed to an OSS project? Coding it is fun, but then the approval process is just plain annoying (at least on many projects)
The problem is theres really no other alternative. There are nearly no cheap AT&T handsets that A) Have a multi-touch enabled captive touchscreen B) A decent browser C) Lots of (quality) applications to download for free.
Sure, Android is great... Unfortunately here in the US there are only one or two phones released with it officially and both are on T-Mobile. Windows Mobile doesn't support captive touch screens officially, and almost anyone who has used WinMo can tell you it basically sucks. Blackberry looks promising, but as of now their only touch screen phone is hampered by SureType or whatever they call it making your typing speed really slow, and its locked in to Verizion. And other than Symbian (which AFAIK doesn't have a phone with a touchscreen), there aren't any other major smartphone OSes to choose from.
Until we get cell phone networks that actually embrace new and advanced hardware, it seems like we will be stuck with crappy phones.
The problem with that is, WINE is still very much a work in progress. The newest version occasionally has regressions. You could find a version that worked with your game and bundle it there, but unless you did some clever hacking it could conflict with other WINE versions/libraries.
There's everything you can imagine available for linux
Ok, I'm a Linux user and I even think theres a lack of good apps. Sure, the basics are covered, great browser, great file manager, great desktop environments, great e-mail client, decent word processor, decent simple games, great programming features, decent enough replacement for Photoshop, etc. But Linux lacks games. Sure, there are a few shining examples of some in almost every category, Battle for Wesnoth is an amazing strategy RPG, Doom/Quake are good FPS games, SuperTux is a decent platforming game, there are many card games, etc. But you can't really find any complete FPS games that don't use the Doom or Quake engine for Linux. Etc. There is a total lack of variety of games. Sure, you can emulate a lot of them in WINE but more often than not you get a performance hit (not always because of WINE itself but because many distros enable compositing by default and that can slow down the games).
As one example, to install software, I can go on the web, find the primary site for it, make sure it passes malware tests, and install it. On Linux, there's a repository (as I understand, never figured that part out). That may be a technologically superior option, but that means I have to trust the repository buildier. And it's not as though Linux is somehow immmune to malware that lets me skip that step. Anytime I install software it can do something I didn't except, on any OS.
But generally with a repository they have already A) checked the source for malware (most malware scanners only search for patterns in the binary that indicate a virus) B) Tested the software to make sure it is at least (somewhat) working. You have to have trust somewhere unless you are really skilled in writing software purely in binary. With most Linux software you have A) The option of going through the source yourself B) Have a fully open environment C) Have a community that has no profit incentive. The reason of having no profit incentive is good is because they have to compete based on features. MS can cripple software to make a quick buck, trying to do that on Linux just leads someone to move to a better distro.
There are many more paranoid Linux users than paranoid Windows users. Security is a great concern. If Ubuntu was adding in malware in a repository, someone would know and the software would be taken down. A site with a trojan on it for Windows is considered typical. I don't know of a single modern case of malware being in "trusted" repositories (such as Ubuntu's main repository, etc).
But it would cut down on a lot of pointless service calls. Sure, have the advanced part and use (standard) codes for mechanics, but I'd rather know that my check engine light is something trivial like the gas cap is off or not screwed in tightly. Lets just say that its the cooling system. Most people who don't know much about cars can't fix it themselves, so they take it into a mechanic. However if they keep getting the check engine light for trivial things, they will ignore it and might end up damaging the engine.
It wouldn't be perfect but I'd rather know if its something thats easily fixable or something I need a pro to do.
The thing is, playing a violent video game, *gasp* won't totally mess up your 8 year old. Some parents don't seem to understand it. Now, if your kid is obsessed with some violent video game then you might possibly have some issues. If a kid goes over to a friends house and plays Halo all night he isn't going to come back some violent sociopath.
What exactly is the harm with a young kid playing a violent video game?
Yeah, try paying $50 for that same game, we all did once... And what makes $5 for Tetris or SMB3 overpriced? Because they have 10 times the substance of Wii Sports or the others people are going to mention here.
Exactly, we did once. We did when the NES was still a state-of-the-art system. Today, because Nintendo owns all the licenses, the game already broke records in sales, made a profit, etc. So that $5 is $5 in pure profit. That same game can be found in physical NES cart format for no more than $3. Theres little to no marketing involved, a near zero cost of distribution, no licensing costs, etc. So yes, $5 is too much.
Now, it would be worth $5 if you could get ROMs that would play on your PC, iPhone, GP2x, DS, etc. via the virtual console. But, alas Nintendo tries to make it seem like emulators don't exist. Heck, even letting you download the games to your DS to play on the go would be decent. But you pay $5 for a ROM that isn't transferable and is only playable on the Wii.
But you seem to hate all consoles by reading the rest of your post.
Just most current generation systems because they all have tons of flaws. I don't remember any (moderately successful) hardware having as many flaws as the 360, nor as many pure crap games as the Wii has (sure, all consoles have had some level of crap, but none so deliberate as for the Wii). The PS3 just doesn't excel in anything other then the shiny hardware which is nice, but theres not many must-have games for it, so it kinda defeats the purpose.
Um, the difference is Office 2007 formats aren't a standard. OOXML is, but even MS's own implementation doesn't match up to the specs.
ODF on the other hand has an open implementation, free source code, open specs, royalty free, etc.
ODF alliance warning about sub-par ODF support on Office 2007 which ODF is totally open, is different than MS warning about not supporting their closed, undocumented format.
I'm a Nintendo loyalist and I have to still say that the Wii's software library sucks. Nintendo's first-party games are really good on it, Brawl, Super Mario Galaxy, etc. On the other hand most third party games are either A) Remakes of old PS2 games B) mini-game compilations C) Movie tie-in games that are crap D) Rip offs of Nintendo's games like the million Wii Fit clones and Wii Sports clones out there or E) Plain old crap games.
Wii Sports is an over-hyped tech demo. Sure, its fun every now and then, but it lacks... substance. The Virtual Console games, while many are quite fun, are over-priced ($5 for an NES game?), Wii Ware showcases Nintendo's faults in the Wii hardware, larger games could be developed if not for the pathetic amount of internal storage.
Basically in the current generation you have the Wii which has fun software that won't hold your interest for longer than a few hours, is cheap, innovative and well built. The 360 which has software for many hours of gameplay and a good variety, however the hardware is plain crap, even though they have improved it, and the hardware is cheap-ish (you have to buy separately many of the components that other consoles have built in). The PS3 has amazing hardware, however its software library is less than impressive, its incredibly expensive, can't play PS2 games, however it can play Blu-Ray.
But it still makes no sense. Its like buying a book, smudging the ink, making a copy of that, etc, until it is virtually unreadable. For example, lets say the phrase "I ate a cookie" is under copyright. I doubt that saying "I ate a cook" would be infringing on the phrase. Similarly "I ate" wouldn't be infringing on the phrase. Lets take this another step further and say I have a program that randomly picks A noun, past tense verb, a or an and another noun. And lets say it comes up with the phrase. Is that infringing it too? You see, its quite hard to randomly make an entire song, but when lawsuits are reached because of simple elements that could be randomly generated via aid of a computer, the lack of a solid MD5 sum or way of checking the real file, can lead to accidental infringement to the point where it makes no sense to prosecute based off impossible evidence. Essentially theres no way to prove, without a doubt that Brittney_spears.mp3 is really the newest Brittney Spears song. Sure, there may be hints, but in today's digital age it lacks solid evidence that can pass without reasonable doubt.
Not really. I can take the same CD and have an infinite amount of MD5 hashes due to the file format (for example a 96KBS MP3 will be different than a 256Kbs MP3, a 96KBS OGG will be different too, etc). But as another poster said, most forensics software looks at the header and can quickly determine the file.
At what point does a song lose copyright? For example, lets take an artist who has not legally released any music for digital downloads only for CDs. Because an MP3 of the song sounds different than the CD version can you argue that copyright has truly been violated? Or lets say that MP3 was then transcoded with some loss of quality, at what point can it be said that it wasn't the original recording? The case is rather cut and dry with purchased music (everything sold on iTunes is the same file minus some metadata) but with ripped music, there can be significant differences. Also, with metadata what happens if you legally obtain a copy of a good cover of a song by a different band, label it as the original band, can they then get you for copyright infringment based on the fact they can sue for a low-quality MP3?
I can't think of any reason to bomb a village, especially a poor one like in the scenario. Unless we have another WWII where some African dictator is actually threatening the USA, there is always the option of leaving the village alone. Sure, some may die in the power struggle, but its a lot better than the chaos of a bombing raid.
Thats a nice idea in principle, but it won't happen. Currently few people are buying houses and property because of the media-led housing scare. Because of this scare, some people have simply stopped making house payments leading to foreclosure of many homes, this leads to banks being tight with money, this leads to few people buying houses.
Making places even more expensive is not the answer. Even with many homes and properties being sold at a loss there are still relatively few buyers. By mandating trivial things, it only hurts the free market.
But who wants a low powered Pentium III and slow RAM? Sure, its energy efficient but I'd much rather be able to run something other than an ultra-minimal Linux distro, e-mail, and a laggy browser. Plus, whats the point of entirely off of solar? There are some occasions that running off of solar is impossible (at night, inside, etc).
Sure, we could do it, but it would be expensive, underpowered, and have no real reason.
It depends. For example with a lot of computers, you get the same product (essentially) if you buy a whitebox PC, a cheap Dell, or an overpriced Sony with the same specs. Brand name has a lot to do with the price and not so much on the quality. When you buy the cheap batteries from some unpronounceable Chinese company, you could just as easily bought a sub-standard battery, or bought the same sub-standard battery as if you would have paid $40 more and gone with the "official" battery which is simply a relabeled version of that.
But they still sell them, and they still sell them in a much more direct way than Best Buy selling replacement batteries or Wal-Mart selling them. Essentially they become part of the HP laptop and thus should be held responsible.
Even if MS got $200/computer (which I doubt); a downgrade would be the cost of MS software - support costs for Linux. While the OS may be free; supporting it is not and will require Dell to factor those costs in as part of the option. Depending on the cost of the number of units they would expect to sell the cost for Linux per unit may actually be higher than for MS software.
How about Dell arranges with Canonical for, say 14 days free tech support, and in exchange Canonical gets an agreement to put Ubuntu as an option on all desktops/laptops for say, 3 years with an option of extended paid support with Canonical. Dell still would do the hardware part of support.
Every time they change hardware they'd have to test to see if Linux supported the new configuration properly and fix any issues before they released the machine (in theory at least; after all we are talking about a hardware vendor here); and any release any mods back to the community essentially being a free development resource for other companies to boot. Why would Dell want to get into the driver business anyway?
They do it with Windows anyways, and this is mostly a non-issue, a modern Linux distro is going to support more hardware out-of-the-box than Windows out-of-the-box, if only because of more frequent updates/releases. And theres no need to keep drivers closed, it just makes supporting them harder. Effectively if Dell can release enough specs, after a while Ubuntu will have adapted to the point where only a few lines needed to be changed to make a driver and the community could do that.
Finally, if Dell or HP were really serious about using a free OS why not go with BSD and keep any improvements to your self, like Apple does? In theory, if it was a good enough OS they could sell it separately as well.
Because neither Dell, HP, Levino, Asus, etc. Have enough of a strong following to pull it off. Apple gets people who really really like Macs, they won't use Windows, on the other hand, A Dell desktop and an HP desktop are only slightly different so its just a price war.
If it involves unlearning Windows, then people claim the learning-curve is too high.
Then there is the support matter, by keeping it all to yourself the community isn't going to release drivers, software, bugfixes, etc so Dell would have to do it all themselves. With Ubuntu Dell only has to give the specs and there are people who literally will code their stuff for free! Open specs = open drivers.
I don't really understand what you are meaning. ISPs are given safe harbor, so basically it means that if I'm downloading Metallica_new_song.mp3, they can't sue my ISP.
Hosting providers are given a sort of limited safe harbor where they aren't responsible but must take down content that isn't legal. My ISP that I use to host my site is free of whatever I choose to have my site on (for the most part, some governments and corporations attempt to convince them to take down certain sites though), the hardware is also mine. I'm the only one that can get sued if they pursue a lawsuit. A hosting company that doesn't comply with takedown notices can be sued too, legal counsel is expensive. So most of the time its economical for hosting companies to simply force the takedown notices.
-- Does my home FIOS plan (asynchronous, no static IP, servers explicitly banned) count as "internet access"? I would argue that it technically does not, though it is very close.
If it is advertised as internet, or the general definition of it is internet access, yes it should count.
-- What about the related immunity from liability for things running on your computer without your knowledge?
Sure, that would be nice, but it would be better done on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps not by computer-illiterate judges, but there are too many ways of making a rootkit yourself and claiming it wasn't you.
--I don't follow.
Basically, if you have the software and the software's capabilities, you can use it for whatever you feel like. This is to prevent software from being made that won't let you use it a certain way. Can't think of a good example right of this moment.
--There has to be some takedown process though, for information that is untrue. You never get to publish without any fear, there just needs to be a counter-takedown notice process.
Yes, thats basically what I meant, just worded a bit better;)
--So, no copyrights? What about stolen credit card numbers? I'm actually in favor of this one, by and large, but I do feel that something here needs to be more precise: possession of data is *never* a crime by itself. (A civil matter, sure. Evidence of a crime, sure. Not a crime on it's own).
No, not a lack of copyright but basically, I can't be charged for possessing information, such as I can't be charged for having BrittneySpears.mp3 or SuperMarioMegaROM.smc on my computer. Downloading things might be still considered a civil matter though, but after you downloaded them you are free.
For stolen credit card numbers, it can be used as evidence, but just because you have a set of random numbers you can't be charged.
--How is this different from 7?
Hardware rather then software. Basically its so I can use any phone on any network that its possible, etc.
--Except when violating the rights of others? Do I have the right to anonymously make false statements defaming people? (Again, I'm not opposed to the idea, but playing devil's advocate).
No, because you have no right to defame. However you still have the right to be anonymous. Similar to how I might have a right to wear a red shirt, I have the right to wear the red shirt, but I can't rob a bank with the red shirt on because robbing a bank is still illegal, red shirt or no.
--Except when violating the rights of others? Do I have the right to freely display images of you that I obtained illegally? (Devil's advocate again).
Sure, but the act of taking them illegally may be evidence to be used against you.
While we can all* agree that CP is bad, the problems raise several questions on the ethics of banning information. If we can gain such wide support for banning CP, what comes next? The banning of "radical" political parties? The banning of various political commentaries? CP should without a doubt be highly illegal to produce, however the banning of information has a chilling effect on free speech. Put the ones making it behind bars, but the possession of information, even information that we might not agree with needs to be legal in a free society.
The problem with that is it leads to compromise somewhere down the line, or insane rates for rented webspace. For example, lets say I pay $20 a month for rented webspace on a controversial topic. *Insert large corporation/the government here* says that some of the content needs to be taken down. Your webspace provider notifies you of this, yet you think it is still legal. In order to maintain a right of non-censorship the webspace provider would need to provide costly legal protection for themselves because they could not take down the site without violating said laws.
I agree with it in principle, but if you implement it, it would get broken pretty easily.
Article 1. Any individual shall be able to choose anonymity when posting to Internet sites
I disagree with this. While I do believe in the fundamental right to anonymity, it is totally up to the sites owners to make them anonymous or not. For example, lets say this happened to Facebook, you would be instantly hit by a whirlpool of spam, bots, etc.
I believe you have a right to remain fundamentally anonymous, for example I believe in the right to be able to use temporary anonymous e-mail accounts, the right to use Tor and other anonymity proxies, You should have a right to remain anonymous if you so choose, however sites should have the right to require registration to maintain the sanity of the site. But, similarly allowing anonymous postings on a site should be a right for the owners of the site too.
Slashdot Mirror
Not many people really operate like this. Yes, the perceived entertainment 'value' vs cost is a factor, and yes, people often think movies are ripoff. But then $10 for a movie ticket that sucked isn't as much a loss as $60 for a game that sucked.
But you can rarely get refunds for movies, on the other hand if you have a game that you think sucked you can ebay the thing for only about a 10-20 dollar loss if its new enough.
Clearly our method of placing a value on how we spend our time is more complex than a a simple minimization of cost function.
Assuming you enjoy movies just as much as video games, its about the same.
You'll always just end up going for a walk, flying a kite, shooting hoops, playing cards, reading a book from the libary, contributing to an oss project,
Sure, but many people would rather play video games then that. I really don't enjoy walking any more than I have to and a bit more just to keep in decent health, flying a kite depends on the wind. Most geeks really suck at any type of athletic sports, cards usually end up losing more money then a video game, books from the library are ok every now and then, and have you even contributed to an OSS project? Coding it is fun, but then the approval process is just plain annoying (at least on many projects)
The problem is theres really no other alternative. There are nearly no cheap AT&T handsets that A) Have a multi-touch enabled captive touchscreen B) A decent browser C) Lots of (quality) applications to download for free.
Sure, Android is great... Unfortunately here in the US there are only one or two phones released with it officially and both are on T-Mobile. Windows Mobile doesn't support captive touch screens officially, and almost anyone who has used WinMo can tell you it basically sucks. Blackberry looks promising, but as of now their only touch screen phone is hampered by SureType or whatever they call it making your typing speed really slow, and its locked in to Verizion. And other than Symbian (which AFAIK doesn't have a phone with a touchscreen), there aren't any other major smartphone OSes to choose from.
Until we get cell phone networks that actually embrace new and advanced hardware, it seems like we will be stuck with crappy phones.
The problem with that is, WINE is still very much a work in progress. The newest version occasionally has regressions. You could find a version that worked with your game and bundle it there, but unless you did some clever hacking it could conflict with other WINE versions/libraries.
There's everything you can imagine available for linux
Ok, I'm a Linux user and I even think theres a lack of good apps. Sure, the basics are covered, great browser, great file manager, great desktop environments, great e-mail client, decent word processor, decent simple games, great programming features, decent enough replacement for Photoshop, etc. But Linux lacks games. Sure, there are a few shining examples of some in almost every category, Battle for Wesnoth is an amazing strategy RPG, Doom/Quake are good FPS games, SuperTux is a decent platforming game, there are many card games, etc. But you can't really find any complete FPS games that don't use the Doom or Quake engine for Linux. Etc. There is a total lack of variety of games. Sure, you can emulate a lot of them in WINE but more often than not you get a performance hit (not always because of WINE itself but because many distros enable compositing by default and that can slow down the games).
As one example, to install software, I can go on the web, find the primary site for it, make sure it passes malware tests, and install it. On Linux, there's a repository (as I understand, never figured that part out). That may be a technologically superior option, but that means I have to trust the repository buildier. And it's not as though Linux is somehow immmune to malware that lets me skip that step. Anytime I install software it can do something I didn't except, on any OS.
But generally with a repository they have already A) checked the source for malware (most malware scanners only search for patterns in the binary that indicate a virus) B) Tested the software to make sure it is at least (somewhat) working. You have to have trust somewhere unless you are really skilled in writing software purely in binary. With most Linux software you have A) The option of going through the source yourself B) Have a fully open environment C) Have a community that has no profit incentive. The reason of having no profit incentive is good is because they have to compete based on features. MS can cripple software to make a quick buck, trying to do that on Linux just leads someone to move to a better distro.
There are many more paranoid Linux users than paranoid Windows users. Security is a great concern. If Ubuntu was adding in malware in a repository, someone would know and the software would be taken down. A site with a trojan on it for Windows is considered typical. I don't know of a single modern case of malware being in "trusted" repositories (such as Ubuntu's main repository, etc).
But it would cut down on a lot of pointless service calls. Sure, have the advanced part and use (standard) codes for mechanics, but I'd rather know that my check engine light is something trivial like the gas cap is off or not screwed in tightly. Lets just say that its the cooling system. Most people who don't know much about cars can't fix it themselves, so they take it into a mechanic. However if they keep getting the check engine light for trivial things, they will ignore it and might end up damaging the engine.
It wouldn't be perfect but I'd rather know if its something thats easily fixable or something I need a pro to do.
The thing is, playing a violent video game, *gasp* won't totally mess up your 8 year old. Some parents don't seem to understand it. Now, if your kid is obsessed with some violent video game then you might possibly have some issues. If a kid goes over to a friends house and plays Halo all night he isn't going to come back some violent sociopath.
What exactly is the harm with a young kid playing a violent video game?
Yeah, try paying $50 for that same game, we all did once... And what makes $5 for Tetris or SMB3 overpriced? Because they have 10 times the substance of Wii Sports or the others people are going to mention here.
Exactly, we did once. We did when the NES was still a state-of-the-art system. Today, because Nintendo owns all the licenses, the game already broke records in sales, made a profit, etc. So that $5 is $5 in pure profit. That same game can be found in physical NES cart format for no more than $3. Theres little to no marketing involved, a near zero cost of distribution, no licensing costs, etc. So yes, $5 is too much.
Now, it would be worth $5 if you could get ROMs that would play on your PC, iPhone, GP2x, DS, etc. via the virtual console. But, alas Nintendo tries to make it seem like emulators don't exist. Heck, even letting you download the games to your DS to play on the go would be decent. But you pay $5 for a ROM that isn't transferable and is only playable on the Wii.
But you seem to hate all consoles by reading the rest of your post.
Just most current generation systems because they all have tons of flaws. I don't remember any (moderately successful) hardware having as many flaws as the 360, nor as many pure crap games as the Wii has (sure, all consoles have had some level of crap, but none so deliberate as for the Wii). The PS3 just doesn't excel in anything other then the shiny hardware which is nice, but theres not many must-have games for it, so it kinda defeats the purpose.
Um, the difference is Office 2007 formats aren't a standard. OOXML is, but even MS's own implementation doesn't match up to the specs.
ODF on the other hand has an open implementation, free source code, open specs, royalty free, etc.
ODF alliance warning about sub-par ODF support on Office 2007 which ODF is totally open, is different than MS warning about not supporting their closed, undocumented format.
I'm a Nintendo loyalist and I have to still say that the Wii's software library sucks. Nintendo's first-party games are really good on it, Brawl, Super Mario Galaxy, etc. On the other hand most third party games are either A) Remakes of old PS2 games B) mini-game compilations C) Movie tie-in games that are crap D) Rip offs of Nintendo's games like the million Wii Fit clones and Wii Sports clones out there or E) Plain old crap games.
Wii Sports is an over-hyped tech demo. Sure, its fun every now and then, but it lacks... substance. The Virtual Console games, while many are quite fun, are over-priced ($5 for an NES game?), Wii Ware showcases Nintendo's faults in the Wii hardware, larger games could be developed if not for the pathetic amount of internal storage.
Basically in the current generation you have the Wii which has fun software that won't hold your interest for longer than a few hours, is cheap, innovative and well built. The 360 which has software for many hours of gameplay and a good variety, however the hardware is plain crap, even though they have improved it, and the hardware is cheap-ish (you have to buy separately many of the components that other consoles have built in). The PS3 has amazing hardware, however its software library is less than impressive, its incredibly expensive, can't play PS2 games, however it can play Blu-Ray.
But it still makes no sense. Its like buying a book, smudging the ink, making a copy of that, etc, until it is virtually unreadable. For example, lets say the phrase "I ate a cookie" is under copyright. I doubt that saying "I ate a cook" would be infringing on the phrase. Similarly "I ate" wouldn't be infringing on the phrase. Lets take this another step further and say I have a program that randomly picks A noun, past tense verb, a or an and another noun. And lets say it comes up with the phrase. Is that infringing it too? You see, its quite hard to randomly make an entire song, but when lawsuits are reached because of simple elements that could be randomly generated via aid of a computer, the lack of a solid MD5 sum or way of checking the real file, can lead to accidental infringement to the point where it makes no sense to prosecute based off impossible evidence. Essentially theres no way to prove, without a doubt that Brittney_spears.mp3 is really the newest Brittney Spears song. Sure, there may be hints, but in today's digital age it lacks solid evidence that can pass without reasonable doubt.
Not really. I can take the same CD and have an infinite amount of MD5 hashes due to the file format (for example a 96KBS MP3 will be different than a 256Kbs MP3, a 96KBS OGG will be different too, etc). But as another poster said, most forensics software looks at the header and can quickly determine the file.
At what point does a song lose copyright? For example, lets take an artist who has not legally released any music for digital downloads only for CDs. Because an MP3 of the song sounds different than the CD version can you argue that copyright has truly been violated? Or lets say that MP3 was then transcoded with some loss of quality, at what point can it be said that it wasn't the original recording? The case is rather cut and dry with purchased music (everything sold on iTunes is the same file minus some metadata) but with ripped music, there can be significant differences. Also, with metadata what happens if you legally obtain a copy of a good cover of a song by a different band, label it as the original band, can they then get you for copyright infringment based on the fact they can sue for a low-quality MP3?
I can't think of any reason to bomb a village, especially a poor one like in the scenario. Unless we have another WWII where some African dictator is actually threatening the USA, there is always the option of leaving the village alone. Sure, some may die in the power struggle, but its a lot better than the chaos of a bombing raid.
Thats a nice idea in principle, but it won't happen. Currently few people are buying houses and property because of the media-led housing scare. Because of this scare, some people have simply stopped making house payments leading to foreclosure of many homes, this leads to banks being tight with money, this leads to few people buying houses.
Making places even more expensive is not the answer. Even with many homes and properties being sold at a loss there are still relatively few buyers. By mandating trivial things, it only hurts the free market.
But who wants a low powered Pentium III and slow RAM? Sure, its energy efficient but I'd much rather be able to run something other than an ultra-minimal Linux distro, e-mail, and a laggy browser. Plus, whats the point of entirely off of solar? There are some occasions that running off of solar is impossible (at night, inside, etc).
Sure, we could do it, but it would be expensive, underpowered, and have no real reason.
It depends. For example with a lot of computers, you get the same product (essentially) if you buy a whitebox PC, a cheap Dell, or an overpriced Sony with the same specs. Brand name has a lot to do with the price and not so much on the quality. When you buy the cheap batteries from some unpronounceable Chinese company, you could just as easily bought a sub-standard battery, or bought the same sub-standard battery as if you would have paid $40 more and gone with the "official" battery which is simply a relabeled version of that.
But they still sell them, and they still sell them in a much more direct way than Best Buy selling replacement batteries or Wal-Mart selling them. Essentially they become part of the HP laptop and thus should be held responsible.
Even if MS got $200/computer (which I doubt); a downgrade would be the cost of MS software - support costs for Linux. While the OS may be free; supporting it is not and will require Dell to factor those costs in as part of the option. Depending on the cost of the number of units they would expect to sell the cost for Linux per unit may actually be higher than for MS software.
How about Dell arranges with Canonical for, say 14 days free tech support, and in exchange Canonical gets an agreement to put Ubuntu as an option on all desktops/laptops for say, 3 years with an option of extended paid support with Canonical. Dell still would do the hardware part of support.
Every time they change hardware they'd have to test to see if Linux supported the new configuration properly and fix any issues before they released the machine (in theory at least; after all we are talking about a hardware vendor here); and any release any mods back to the community essentially being a free development resource for other companies to boot. Why would Dell want to get into the driver business anyway?
They do it with Windows anyways, and this is mostly a non-issue, a modern Linux distro is going to support more hardware out-of-the-box than Windows out-of-the-box, if only because of more frequent updates/releases. And theres no need to keep drivers closed, it just makes supporting them harder. Effectively if Dell can release enough specs, after a while Ubuntu will have adapted to the point where only a few lines needed to be changed to make a driver and the community could do that.
Finally, if Dell or HP were really serious about using a free OS why not go with BSD and keep any improvements to your self, like Apple does? In theory, if it was a good enough OS they could sell it separately as well.
Because neither Dell, HP, Levino, Asus, etc. Have enough of a strong following to pull it off. Apple gets people who really really like Macs, they won't use Windows, on the other hand, A Dell desktop and an HP desktop are only slightly different so its just a price war.
If it involves unlearning Windows, then people claim the learning-curve is too high.
Then there is the support matter, by keeping it all to yourself the community isn't going to release drivers, software, bugfixes, etc so Dell would have to do it all themselves. With Ubuntu Dell only has to give the specs and there are people who literally will code their stuff for free! Open specs = open drivers.
Cross platform, royalty free, support from all major vendors... etc.
I don't really understand what you are meaning. ISPs are given safe harbor, so basically it means that if I'm downloading Metallica_new_song.mp3, they can't sue my ISP.
Hosting providers are given a sort of limited safe harbor where they aren't responsible but must take down content that isn't legal. My ISP that I use to host my site is free of whatever I choose to have my site on (for the most part, some governments and corporations attempt to convince them to take down certain sites though), the hardware is also mine. I'm the only one that can get sued if they pursue a lawsuit. A hosting company that doesn't comply with takedown notices can be sued too, legal counsel is expensive. So most of the time its economical for hosting companies to simply force the takedown notices.
-- Does my home FIOS plan (asynchronous, no static IP, servers explicitly banned) count as "internet access"? I would argue that it technically does not, though it is very close.
If it is advertised as internet, or the general definition of it is internet access, yes it should count.
-- What about the related immunity from liability for things running on your computer without your knowledge?
Sure, that would be nice, but it would be better done on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps not by computer-illiterate judges, but there are too many ways of making a rootkit yourself and claiming it wasn't you.
--I don't follow.
Basically, if you have the software and the software's capabilities, you can use it for whatever you feel like. This is to prevent software from being made that won't let you use it a certain way. Can't think of a good example right of this moment.
--There has to be some takedown process though, for information that is untrue. You never get to publish without any fear, there just needs to be a counter-takedown notice process.
Yes, thats basically what I meant, just worded a bit better ;)
--So, no copyrights? What about stolen credit card numbers? I'm actually in favor of this one, by and large, but I do feel that something here needs to be more precise: possession of data is *never* a crime by itself. (A civil matter, sure. Evidence of a crime, sure. Not a crime on it's own).
No, not a lack of copyright but basically, I can't be charged for possessing information, such as I can't be charged for having BrittneySpears.mp3 or SuperMarioMegaROM.smc on my computer. Downloading things might be still considered a civil matter though, but after you downloaded them you are free.
For stolen credit card numbers, it can be used as evidence, but just because you have a set of random numbers you can't be charged.
--How is this different from 7?
Hardware rather then software. Basically its so I can use any phone on any network that its possible, etc.
--Except when violating the rights of others? Do I have the right to anonymously make false statements defaming people? (Again, I'm not opposed to the idea, but playing devil's advocate).
No, because you have no right to defame. However you still have the right to be anonymous. Similar to how I might have a right to wear a red shirt, I have the right to wear the red shirt, but I can't rob a bank with the red shirt on because robbing a bank is still illegal, red shirt or no.
--Except when violating the rights of others? Do I have the right to freely display images of you that I obtained illegally? (Devil's advocate again).
Sure, but the act of taking them illegally may be evidence to be used against you.
While we can all* agree that CP is bad, the problems raise several questions on the ethics of banning information. If we can gain such wide support for banning CP, what comes next? The banning of "radical" political parties? The banning of various political commentaries? CP should without a doubt be highly illegal to produce, however the banning of information has a chilling effect on free speech. Put the ones making it behind bars, but the possession of information, even information that we might not agree with needs to be legal in a free society.
*The pedophiles aside
The problem with that is it leads to compromise somewhere down the line, or insane rates for rented webspace. For example, lets say I pay $20 a month for rented webspace on a controversial topic. *Insert large corporation/the government here* says that some of the content needs to be taken down. Your webspace provider notifies you of this, yet you think it is still legal. In order to maintain a right of non-censorship the webspace provider would need to provide costly legal protection for themselves because they could not take down the site without violating said laws.
I agree with it in principle, but if you implement it, it would get broken pretty easily.
Article 1. Any individual shall be able to choose anonymity when posting to Internet sites
I disagree with this. While I do believe in the fundamental right to anonymity, it is totally up to the sites owners to make them anonymous or not. For example, lets say this happened to Facebook, you would be instantly hit by a whirlpool of spam, bots, etc.
I believe you have a right to remain fundamentally anonymous, for example I believe in the right to be able to use temporary anonymous e-mail accounts, the right to use Tor and other anonymity proxies, You should have a right to remain anonymous if you so choose, however sites should have the right to require registration to maintain the sanity of the site. But, similarly allowing anonymous postings on a site should be a right for the owners of the site too.