Then maybe it's time to look for a new business model. Not necessarily one where imaginary property is free, but one where the system works. Clearly the current one doesn't.
I say we quit patching the problem and actually solve issues. But of course that would require a government that cared about its people.
I agree, but Apache is just once piece of software. I think judging all oss projects by apache or [insert oss app known for security holes here, I'm drawing a blank] makes about as much sense as judging all "proprietary" software by the example of windows or [insert proprietary app known for bug-free, secure operation, also drawing a blank]. It's silly. And even if there were a correlation, vague fear, uncertainty, and doubt do not make sense on software model.
Haven't hate groups been spreading stories of people intentionally spreading HIV for ages? I could have sworn it was mentioned in more than one Chick tract.
That's called an "illegal order" for one thing, and you're/not/ authorized to follow them. You are, in fact, required to refuse and, if necessary, arrest your commanding officer.
Milgram's experiment is too fresh in my mind to disagree with your general point, but let me say this: I don't have much of an opinion on whether piracy is, in general, immoral. I definitely have an opinion in specific cases, and it can go both ways. There's so much to consider that I'm not sure I'll ever have an opinion, but I do get sick of simple-minded arguments like STEALING IS WRONG or ZOMG GREEDY CORPORATIONS.
Rhetoric aside, downloading an unauthorized copy of some software is/not/ the same as stealing a tangible good (http://i.justrealized.com/2008/08/27/why-piracy-is-not-theft/). That doesn't mean it can't also be wrong, but it is absurd to class them together blindly.
If I don't have a moral opinion, it becomes a [serious] business matter, and I delegate it to those who are responsible for such decisions. If I were that person, I'd buy it because and only because it makes good business sense to run a legit shop.
I can't wait for my first girlfriend! I'll get her one! It'll be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO romantic! I'll be able to trust her because I'll know where she is at all times and we can be together forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not necessarily a moral matter. That's debatable. What it is, is a business matter. And if you're not authorized to make decisions about that business matter, it's fine to pass the buck to those who are.
Though yea, if they start throttling it all the time and just constantly saying, "Whoa boys that traffic is sure mighty high today HA HA HA," then yea, they need to pay.
Every "throttling" scheme so far has amounted to this. But I'm sure we can put our faith in the free market to make this one different. If my bittorrent is suffering so should everyone's YouTube, since it's not "work related" or "urgent" either. See how silly we sound when we start prioritizing how other people get to use their resources?
Are you honestly suggesting that duly-elected officials in this fine Christian nation would even consider putting corporate interests over the welfare of those they represent, should the two come into conflict?
I don't think we need to artificially emphasize the openness of our projects to garner a good reception on Slashdot.
Hey, it's a guarantee that all the fanbois will comment and argue to no end about topics that bore you to hell! Don't believe me, see above comment about urinating in a bucket.
I was stuck with these bastards for a year. They went out of their way to get file sharers (this was two years ago before it was cool), had terrible speeds (we were lucky to get 100 kbps down and we were on a 10Mbps plan), and frequent outages.
It was slower to connect to my school's servers from two blocks away than from 2000 miles away in Michigan (using a Comcast "5Mbps" connection that was 2/3 the price)
I also blame the lack of competition, at least in most of the country. Not claiming there's an easy solution or anything, but for one of the companies to try to encroach on another's turf is expensive and high risk.
The amount of money we'd spend feeding them is negligible compared to the amount of money we'd save in the mailservers alone. Imagine how many spam messages are relayed every day. Even if no human ever reads it?
Plus, the internet isn't a truck, it's a series of tubes...(but if we assume 500 bytes per spam (a low number), then one 350 MB movie is about 700000 spam messages)
1) Everyone is more likeable when not in power. 2) Neither party actually practices what it preaches to any reasonable degree. If you want to vote for a balanced budget, exactly who do you vote for? Tax and spend democrats or borrow and spend republicans? (feel free to translate to non-depression times to make the question fair)
Of course that's a gross oversimplification, but balance is always in the middle, so we see parties break with their stereotypical views on issues from time to time. If anything I'd be more worried if we didn't.
Also not every single member of a party is in complete alignment with the party. I lean left, but I'm still in favor of guns, free markets (to the degree that this is possible while keeping them competitive), and against racism by any name. I fail to see why politicians should be any different, except perhaps more tacit on their views.
When I was schooled in a very liberal town, with very good public schools, we learned many theories that are now thought to be incorrect. The teachers were careful to stress that, though we may call a theory "wrong" or "right", it's only short hand for supported by evidence.
Granted, most of what I'm thinking of here involves chemistry and physics.
I say we need to teach better theory of science, and the fundamental assumption that science makes without any absolute proof whatsoever, that observation can, in fact, describe the world, and that there is no Cartesian demon deceiving our senses.
Of course, there are quite a few people who would prefer that most of us don't consider why we believe what we believe, regardless of what that may be.
Slashdot Mirror
Then maybe it's time to look for a new business model. Not necessarily one where imaginary property is free, but one where the system works. Clearly the current one doesn't.
I say we quit patching the problem and actually solve issues. But of course that would require a government that cared about its people.
I agree, but Apache is just once piece of software. I think judging all oss projects by apache or [insert oss app known for security holes here, I'm drawing a blank] makes about as much sense as judging all "proprietary" software by the example of windows or [insert proprietary app known for bug-free, secure operation, also drawing a blank]. It's silly. And even if there were a correlation, vague fear, uncertainty, and doubt do not make sense on software model.
Haven't hate groups been spreading stories of people intentionally spreading HIV for ages? I could have sworn it was mentioned in more than one Chick tract.
If they are to take a pound of my flesh, then they must do so without spilling a drop of my blood.
That's called an "illegal order" for one thing, and you're /not/ authorized to follow them. You are, in fact, required to refuse and, if necessary, arrest your commanding officer.
Milgram's experiment is too fresh in my mind to disagree with your general point, but let me say this: I don't have much of an opinion on whether piracy is, in general, immoral. I definitely have an opinion in specific cases, and it can go both ways. There's so much to consider that I'm not sure I'll ever have an opinion, but I do get sick of simple-minded arguments like STEALING IS WRONG or ZOMG GREEDY CORPORATIONS.
Rhetoric aside, downloading an unauthorized copy of some software is /not/ the same as stealing a tangible good (http://i.justrealized.com/2008/08/27/why-piracy-is-not-theft/). That doesn't mean it can't also be wrong, but it is absurd to class them together blindly.
If I don't have a moral opinion, it becomes a [serious] business matter, and I delegate it to those who are responsible for such decisions. If I were that person, I'd buy it because and only because it makes good business sense to run a legit shop.
I can't wait for my first girlfriend! I'll get her one! It'll be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO romantic! I'll be able to trust her because I'll know where she is at all times and we can be together forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not necessarily a moral matter. That's debatable. What it is, is a business matter. And if you're not authorized to make decisions about that business matter, it's fine to pass the buck to those who are.
Better than the other way around. That would be like digging your own grave or training your successor after being given notice.
Though yea, if they start throttling it all the time and just constantly saying, "Whoa boys that traffic is sure mighty high today HA HA HA," then yea, they need to pay.
Every "throttling" scheme so far has amounted to this. But I'm sure we can put our faith in the free market to make this one different. If my bittorrent is suffering so should everyone's YouTube, since it's not "work related" or "urgent" either. See how silly we sound when we start prioritizing how other people get to use their resources?
This reasoning is fine by me, provided that everyone gets an equal share (in terms of dollar cost) of food.
I don't care if my ISP charges me by the bit, it's more fair than this "traffic shaping" censorship bullshit.
Are you honestly suggesting that duly-elected officials in this fine Christian nation would even consider putting corporate interests over the welfare of those they represent, should the two come into conflict?
I don't think we need to artificially emphasize the openness of our projects to garner a good reception on Slashdot.
Hey, it's a guarantee that all the fanbois will comment and argue to no end about topics that bore you to hell! Don't believe me, see above comment about urinating in a bucket.
Given I reboot my laptop about once a month, I really wouldn't care if it took my linux forever to load. Though it's only like a minute or so.
Suspend to disk/ram are useful
That's why God made egd. I mean google just might have the processing power to break some encryption, but I'm willing to gamble they won't en masse.
Still feels a bit like cheating them, though, given that they'll likely offer it for free and use targetted ads.
Or I just get a bunch of ads for encryption softwares like I do when I receive/send pgp-encrypted gmail.
Eric Schimdt likes porn just like every other guy.
He just happens to archive it in the pedabytes instead of gigabytes.
Fixed that for you.
I was stuck with these bastards for a year. They went out of their way to get file sharers (this was two years ago before it was cool), had terrible speeds (we were lucky to get 100 kbps down and we were on a 10Mbps plan), and frequent outages.
It was slower to connect to my school's servers from two blocks away than from 2000 miles away in Michigan (using a Comcast "5Mbps" connection that was 2/3 the price)
I also blame the lack of competition, at least in most of the country. Not claiming there's an easy solution or anything, but for one of the companies to try to encroach on another's turf is expensive and high risk.
When Comcast did this, it didn't "slightly inconvenience" P2P, it made it take well over a year to download an Ubuntu image.
Of course, Cox's implementation may vary.
Great...so my multitouch tablet just got patented out of innovation. Ah well.
I love noscript:-)
The amount of money we'd spend feeding them is negligible compared to the amount of money we'd save in the mailservers alone. Imagine how many spam messages are relayed every day. Even if no human ever reads it?
Plus, the internet isn't a truck, it's a series of tubes...(but if we assume 500 bytes per spam (a low number), then one 350 MB movie is about 700000 spam messages)
I don't suppose you're paying tuition to the school...'cause that's a whole 'nother angle:-)
Sure, and let's hire cheap migrant labor to build it!
1) Everyone is more likeable when not in power.
2) Neither party actually practices what it preaches to any reasonable degree. If you want to vote for a balanced budget, exactly who do you vote for? Tax and spend democrats or borrow and spend republicans? (feel free to translate to non-depression times to make the question fair)
Of course that's a gross oversimplification, but balance is always in the middle, so we see parties break with their stereotypical views on issues from time to time. If anything I'd be more worried if we didn't.
Also not every single member of a party is in complete alignment with the party. I lean left, but I'm still in favor of guns, free markets (to the degree that this is possible while keeping them competitive), and against racism by any name. I fail to see why politicians should be any different, except perhaps more tacit on their views.
When I was schooled in a very liberal town, with very good public schools, we learned many theories that are now thought to be incorrect. The teachers were careful to stress that, though we may call a theory "wrong" or "right", it's only short hand for supported by evidence.
Granted, most of what I'm thinking of here involves chemistry and physics.
I say we need to teach better theory of science, and the fundamental assumption that science makes without any absolute proof whatsoever, that observation can, in fact, describe the world, and that there is no Cartesian demon deceiving our senses.
Of course, there are quite a few people who would prefer that most of us don't consider why we believe what we believe, regardless of what that may be.