Your argument is that the labor is what's ultimately being sold, with the implication that on the Internet digital information (music, literature, film, etc.) isn't the product in itself but a proxy for the value of your labor. Clearly you're arguing for the service model of value exchange and applying the universally accepted principle of "theft of services" to describe what happens when someone utilizes your labor proxy without your permission or compensation.
Unfortunately the service model doesn't fit.
One glaring mismatch is that due to the nature of digital information your labor proxy can be duplicated infinitely for effectively zero cost -- especially when uncontracted parties duplicate it using their own resources -- but you have only performed the original labor once. Since in the real world you can't have absolute control over the number of digital copies of your labor proxy available for download, your original labor has an indefinite value under the service model, and you have a non-determinable number of customers. By contrast, a landscaper can agree to cut your lawn once for 50 dollars but refuse to service you a second time, and thus controls both the value and dispatch of his labor.
Another mismatch is that the service model requires a mutual agreement for each transaction. Without an agreement neither party has an obligation. In a service transaction you wouldn't give the landscaper 50 dollars for nothing, and the landscaper wouldn't cut your lawn for free (nor without your permission). A digital copy of the product of the original labor -- especially an uncontracted one -- does not constitute a service agreement. The theft of services principle isn't applicable where the receiving party does not or cannot agree to the transaction.
The service model just doesn't describe what you envision, so the burden is on you to create a new model that will gain wide acceptance. I wish you luck, but I don't think you'll get very far misrepresenting your vision as something it cannot be.
No worries sharing the data since you've got nothing to hide, right Eric Schmidt? Oh, wait, you really don't have anything to hide -- the data you're handing over is on private wi-fi networks. Thanks for coughing it up to the gubmints, they (like Google) would never use that data for nefarious purposes.
Whoa there. Bolting a spoiler and ground effects onto a Prius doesn't make it a Formula One car. JavaScript is fundamentally a procedural (and therefore non-declarative) language. It has first-class functions and closures in addition to some superficial support for programming in a functional style, but the function is not the main focus of the language design and using it as a serious functional language is akin to ricing.
Correct. David Deutsch proved that "spooky action at a distance" is information being transferred via classical channels after all. The same principle should apply to energy transfer.
Maybe I'm being dumb, but how did they know it wasn't already going to be exhausted before it reached the capital?
The mayor consults an expert team of babushkas stationed on the front steps of tenement buildings across Moscow. If the babushkas begin complaining about their arthritic knees more than usual it means rain is imminent.
Flash should only be considered if the government can mandate that Adobe provide and competently maintain a Flash player of comparable quality for all major desktop, mobile, and handheld OSes and platforms. The alpha-quality Flash player for 64-bit Linux sucks donkey balls while Windows gets star treatment. Open source would be another plus, but right now I'd settle for a 64-bit Linux binary that didn't crash my browsers constantly.
I just the other day got, a Congress was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Congress commercially. [...] They want to deliver vast amounts of campaign contributions over the Congress. And again, the Congress is not something you just deposit something in. It's not a big bank. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your money in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of cash, enormous amounts of cash. -- Former Senator Ted Stevens, (R) Alaska
I didn't have time to wait around for Google to fix its system, so I had no choice but to play in the field that they created.
Then what you're doing is tantamount to playing football on a baseball field. The purpose of Google's main search engine is not to rank businesses or serve as yellow pages (although you can pay for placement within results that appear at the top of the page and are clearly marked as being paid for). Yahoo's yellow pages, BBBonline and Angie's List are more appropriate indexes/venues for your business's publicity.
I realize that most people probably stop by Google first when looking for a plumber, computer repair, etc., but as you point out that strategy is sub-optimal for them and for you, as it's more akin to asking their friends and neighbors about something than it is to looking in the yellow pages. Between the customers ignorant of all the online resources available to them, and SEOs gaming search results forcing Google to approximate something it's not designed for, can you really ever expect a satisfactory outcome for any party involved?
Oh great, my site drops from position #4 to position #44, with no explanation as to why.
Conversely, if a search result goes from #44 to #4 simply because someone paid some SEO firm to make that happen, the search results should state so explicitly. When you pay for SEO you're feeding a disease that renders the search algorithms increasingly ineffective. Gaming a public resource is selfish, and with this "reset" by Google you're witnessing how your actions can come back to hurt you in the long run.
And it makes no sense from an objective relevance standpoint.
Please explain how paid gaming of the system is objective.
So it's basically true that pirates are simply avoiding compensating the creators of a work?
For some pirates that is true; for others, not. But let's not define who "pirates" are too narrowly. Are the RIAA member companies compensating the creators of a work? We might find out soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is that the labor is what's ultimately being sold, with the implication that on the Internet digital information (music, literature, film, etc.) isn't the product in itself but a proxy for the value of your labor. Clearly you're arguing for the service model of value exchange and applying the universally accepted principle of "theft of services" to describe what happens when someone utilizes your labor proxy without your permission or compensation.
Unfortunately the service model doesn't fit.
One glaring mismatch is that due to the nature of digital information your labor proxy can be duplicated infinitely for effectively zero cost -- especially when uncontracted parties duplicate it using their own resources -- but you have only performed the original labor once. Since in the real world you can't have absolute control over the number of digital copies of your labor proxy available for download, your original labor has an indefinite value under the service model, and you have a non-determinable number of customers. By contrast, a landscaper can agree to cut your lawn once for 50 dollars but refuse to service you a second time, and thus controls both the value and dispatch of his labor.
Another mismatch is that the service model requires a mutual agreement for each transaction. Without an agreement neither party has an obligation. In a service transaction you wouldn't give the landscaper 50 dollars for nothing, and the landscaper wouldn't cut your lawn for free (nor without your permission). A digital copy of the product of the original labor -- especially an uncontracted one -- does not constitute a service agreement. The theft of services principle isn't applicable where the receiving party does not or cannot agree to the transaction.
The service model just doesn't describe what you envision, so the burden is on you to create a new model that will gain wide acceptance. I wish you luck, but I don't think you'll get very far misrepresenting your vision as something it cannot be.
This is the clearest (if a little oversimplified) layman's illustration I've seen of what was proven in this paper.
Spoken like someone who doesn't browse at -1.
Yes, that's the satirical point. :)
No worries sharing the data since you've got nothing to hide, right Eric Schmidt? Oh, wait, you really don't have anything to hide -- the data you're handing over is on private wi-fi networks. Thanks for coughing it up to the gubmints, they (like Google) would never use that data for nefarious purposes.
I'm using KDE 4.4.3 on Linux and it has this same feature enabled by default.
You're serious, there's someone on /. who doesn't recognize a Monty Python reference?
He has a wife, you know. You know what she's called? She's called... Incontinentia.
Whoa there. Bolting a spoiler and ground effects onto a Prius doesn't make it a Formula One car. JavaScript is fundamentally a procedural (and therefore non-declarative) language. It has first-class functions and closures in addition to some superficial support for programming in a functional style, but the function is not the main focus of the language design and using it as a serious functional language is akin to ricing.
Correct. David Deutsch proved that "spooky action at a distance" is information being transferred via classical channels after all. The same principle should apply to energy transfer.
You only think you did.
The mayor consults an expert team of babushkas stationed on the front steps of tenement buildings across Moscow. If the babushkas begin complaining about their arthritic knees more than usual it means rain is imminent.
Even so, blue jean jackets have been out of style since the 80s, dude.
I believe you're thinking of Drum Hero.
Flash should only be considered if the government can mandate that Adobe provide and competently maintain a Flash player of comparable quality for all major desktop, mobile, and handheld OSes and platforms. The alpha-quality Flash player for 64-bit Linux sucks donkey balls while Windows gets star treatment. Open source would be another plus, but right now I'd settle for a 64-bit Linux binary that didn't crash my browsers constantly.
Full audio here. ;-)
I just the other day got, a Congress was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Congress commercially. [...] They want to deliver vast amounts of campaign contributions over the Congress. And again, the Congress is not something you just deposit something in. It's not a big bank. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your money in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of cash, enormous amounts of cash. -- Former Senator Ted Stevens, (R) Alaska
Cool story bro.
(Score:0)
I think you've already found it.
They both have pussies.
Then what you're doing is tantamount to playing football on a baseball field. The purpose of Google's main search engine is not to rank businesses or serve as yellow pages (although you can pay for placement within results that appear at the top of the page and are clearly marked as being paid for). Yahoo's yellow pages, BBBonline and Angie's List are more appropriate indexes/venues for your business's publicity.
I realize that most people probably stop by Google first when looking for a plumber, computer repair, etc., but as you point out that strategy is sub-optimal for them and for you, as it's more akin to asking their friends and neighbors about something than it is to looking in the yellow pages. Between the customers ignorant of all the online resources available to them, and SEOs gaming search results forcing Google to approximate something it's not designed for, can you really ever expect a satisfactory outcome for any party involved?
Conversely, if a search result goes from #44 to #4 simply because someone paid some SEO firm to make that happen, the search results should state so explicitly. When you pay for SEO you're feeding a disease that renders the search algorithms increasingly ineffective. Gaming a public resource is selfish, and with this "reset" by Google you're witnessing how your actions can come back to hurt you in the long run.
Please explain how paid gaming of the system is objective.
For some pirates that is true; for others, not. But let's not define who "pirates" are too narrowly. Are the RIAA member companies compensating the creators of a work? We might find out soon.
Sorry, posting this from ISS.
has always been the cup holder. That shit always snaps under the strain of my 48-oz. coffee.