They aren't doing this because of piracy. Piacy amounts to a drop in the bucket compared to the additional revenue they can squeeze out of honest customers thanks to the fair-use stiffling effects of DRM. The whole piracy thing is to give the honest customers someone else to blame.
"It's teh evil PIRATES wots doing this to you, not us honest content providers!"
It's not. Them fucking over loyal customers, lying, acting arrogantly and still expecting us to buy their overpriced console is unfair. That's why it feels good to learn that people aren't buying.
Of course, this all hinges on whether you think the things Sony did were unfair. One person's schadenfraude is another person's callous mockery.
Leave it to the Germans to come up with a word for "Pleasure taken in witnessing the deserved suffering of others." Most of us are genetically programmed to find fairness and justice pleasurable. When someone gets away with something unjust or unfair, it hurts us a little. Conversely, when their uppance comes, we get a little thrill of pleasure. This isn't actually a bad thing.
No, not really jaded. The language I used was for effect, to be funny, but the idea feels true to me. I'm not bitter about it though. I think in order to be jaded, one needs to have one's expectations dashed. I've never bothered with expectations, they always lead to regret. Expectations are a luxury for those better off and more secure than I.
Rather than jaded, I'm a cynic of the old school. I suppose a lot, but I don't believe or disbelieve in anything.
Yes, I've felt it. So has my wife. But studies seem to show that most of that biological pressure is actually situational. The wealthier and more comfortable a couple is, the less they will want to have kids. This is why, barring immigration, some countries such as Italy have negative population growth, while third world parents are still having 6-10 kids.
He's an agent, lead is just another metal, it is dense so it makes an even better antenna! If you reall want to block the signal, the only real solution is lunch meat affixed to the head with peanut butter. Bologna and Extra-Chunky works best.
What's wrong with people? Lots of things. In relation to kids? Too many stupid fuckers don't actually want them, but society tells them having kids is the expected, normal thing to do. We all remember the one important lesson from school, right? Be normal or be an outcast. So these stupid fuckers do what is expected of them, but they never really wanted a kid. Or rather, they never really wanted the responsibility that comes with having a kid.
They never stopped to think about it because society said they don't have to, just do it, have a kid, God will love you and you get great tax breaks! So the kid pops out and the parents say, "Wait a minute, THIS isn't what we ordered! I'm sorry, we ordered the model that would love us unconditionally and justify our existence? This one just seems to cry and poop. We were promised fulfillment, where's that? I don't see any of that, but I sure see a lot of poop."
These schmucks then turn to any solution that purports to take responsibility for the kids. TV, schools, grandparents, toys, magic AI programs, anything that will shut the little fuckers up for a second or two.
And those kids go on to make up the perfectly well-adjusted bulk of humanity that we all know and love. Circle of life, ain't it grand?
Here's the Wikipedia article on the effects of ionizing radiation on animals. Seems a low dose like this MAY actually protect against further damage from exposure. So the dose you get from the scanner could possibly protect you from the dose you get in-flight.
Look you toffy-nosed, malodorous pervert, I got as far as "whoever heard of a Slashdot reader" and I just had to respond. Now admittedly, I have no idea what the rest of your post may or may not say, but I've never let facts, or lack thereof, stand in my way before.
Plenty of people have heard of a slashdot reader, only a moron would say otherwise.
This is precisely what is wrong with the anglo-saxon economic "model". You "make" money by doing nothing at all (but making others work).
Boy there is going to be lots of tears when you run out of people who are willing to work while you sit on your fat arse!!!
You aren't allowed to point that fact out. Now we'll have to label you a communist^Wterrorist and ship you off to Gitmo.
Now, the rest of you, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. We can ALL sit on our fat asses and make money by making others work for us. Don't ask how that's possible, or we'll have to ship you off to Gitmo, too.
Ah, well, it's the STOCK MARKET. That makes fucking people over okay then. That's just the way it's done, eh? Nothing we can do, beyond our control, it just happens, people get fucked over, what are you going to do? The fact that it's the magical STOCK MARKET makes it all okay.
The naturalistic fallacy makes me sick. Just because something IS some way doesn't mean it SHOULD BE that way.
You know, at first I had a knee-jerk opposition to tiering. As the debate has ground on, I've found myself less and less certain. At this point, I'm ready to agree with you, considering the FCC has already prosecuted a company for abusing tiering. Let ISPs sell tiered service, just go after the ones who abuse it.
Admitting to following the teachings of Ayn Rand is akin to admitting to being a Scientologist. It does not do good things for your reputation among intelligent people.
It is just as immoral for an owning class to dictate terms to the non-owning class as it is for a government to do so. Your political and ecomomic theories just trade one kind of domination for another.
If you don't like the social system that has been enacted by the will of the majority, you are free to leave.
Bullshit. What a simple, knee-jerk, ad-hominem response. I cuold as easily say that you are evil because you advocate a system that will inevitably lead to economic feudalism. Chris' point is important: in all unregulated free markets, wealth invariably acumulates to the point where the poorest have no access to the means of supporting themselves, and must sign into unfair contracts in order to merely survive.
Let's look at the concept of rights. Outside of society, there are no rights. I repeat: individuals have no rights. They don't need them. Think about it, if you were alone on the planet, would the concept of rights even occur to you? No. It is only because we operate in a society that my right to swing my fist conflicts with your right not to be hit in the face.
All rights are a compromise, and a contract. You agree to do, or not to do something in exchange for the agreement that others will act similarly. Without the protection of others, your rights would be meaningless. There is no ultimate authority from which to derive a set of absolute rights. There is no natural law which all people will interperate the same way, arriving at the same list of rights. Therefore, rights are what we as a society mutually agree to uphold in each other. No more, no less.
What rights a society chooses to enforce are up to the members of that society. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. But you have no right to force the rest of us to enact your prefered social system. You have basically stated that you feel you have the right to kill those who don't agree with your definition of what rights are important. Good luck with that.
It's the government's job to enact the will of the people. Some of us know that the free market does not work efficiently where there are natural monopolies, externalities or imbalance of information. We know that such an unregulated market will not long remain free. Even Adam Smith said the same in Wealth of Nations.
We have chosen to enact a government that regulates the free market. We believe it is the government's place to care. If you do not want to participate, you are free to leave. Where you go, or even if you have a place to go, is not our concern.
Fortunately for the rest of us, you do not have the power to force us to enact your system. We'd be living under economic feudalism in no time.
As someone who has tried both affluent swinging and dirty socialist hippy swinging, there is no comparison. The affluent are too uptight. Plus, most suburban swingers are in their 40s or 50s, who wants to tap that? Most dirty hippy socialist swingers are hardbodies in their twenties. No fucking contest.
Roads are a public good. You benefit from them whether you use them or not. Look at anything in your home or office, and chances are that it was transported via road many, many times during it's journey from raw resource to finished product. Everyone benefits from the increase in trade. Roads help goods move faster, faster moving goods means an economy that grows faster.
Then there is the public safety factor. Everyone benefits from the fact that firetrucks can quickly reach a fire and put it out before it damages other property. Everyone benefits when police can quickly reach the scene of a crime. Everyone benefits from the fact that, with an efficient transport network, we can defend out territory with a smaller military.
By refusing to pay taxes that go towards roads, YOU are the freeloader. Roads represent an externality, a public good. The free market does not deal with externalities efficiently. Ignoring the public good, roads have utility X. People will pay Y for that utility, and the amount they are willing to pay determines the number and quality of roads available. This will be less than the optimal number and quality of roads, because the true utility of roads includes the externalities that can not be accounted for in market transactions.
That's what you got from my comment? My point was, wikipedia works well enough for most folks, if you want to experiment, do it elsewhere. If people find your experiment more useful than wikipedia, they will use it.
I find it fascinating, and disturbing, that you obviously think your own measures of value are more important than the ones being applied by the millions of people using wikipedia.
The current economic system does not account for human nature. It assumes humans are driven by pure self interest. Modern economic research shows that people are more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity. This research (google "fairness reciprocity economic research") shows that most people act fairly when they have the ability to punish unfairness or non-cooperation. The entire system is based on a falsehood and promotes selfishness by assuming it.
In addition, the system has well known modes of failure. Natural monopolies, imbalance of information, and externalities all cause the market to fail to rpovide optimal distribution of resources. The best system we have come up with in the past 4,000 years is one that includes some level of government regulation of trade. Even Adam Smith realized that, in order to remain free, the market must be regulated. Read Wealth of Nations.
All in all, the free market is a remarkeably effective system. But that system is known to fail in certain circumstances, and thus, a larger system incorporated managed oversight of the market through elected representatives has proven to be the most effective. Lassez Faire failed as badly as communism.
Plenty of controversial articles are locked against anonymous/new-account edits. What happens is two or more editors start nuking each other's sheep, one or more of them complains, a wiki official comes by and resurects the favored sheep, and then posts a lock on the gate.
Slashdot Mirror
Nevermind, you guys can finish the joke properly.
No, I don't believe we can. Sorry.
They aren't doing this because of piracy. Piacy amounts to a drop in the bucket compared to the additional revenue they can squeeze out of honest customers thanks to the fair-use stiffling effects of DRM. The whole piracy thing is to give the honest customers someone else to blame.
"It's teh evil PIRATES wots doing this to you, not us honest content providers!"
It's not. Them fucking over loyal customers, lying, acting arrogantly and still expecting us to buy their overpriced console is unfair. That's why it feels good to learn that people aren't buying.
Of course, this all hinges on whether you think the things Sony did were unfair. One person's schadenfraude is another person's callous mockery.
Leave it to the Germans to come up with a word for "Pleasure taken in witnessing the deserved suffering of others." Most of us are genetically programmed to find fairness and justice pleasurable. When someone gets away with something unjust or unfair, it hurts us a little. Conversely, when their uppance comes, we get a little thrill of pleasure. This isn't actually a bad thing.
No, not really jaded. The language I used was for effect, to be funny, but the idea feels true to me. I'm not bitter about it though. I think in order to be jaded, one needs to have one's expectations dashed. I've never bothered with expectations, they always lead to regret. Expectations are a luxury for those better off and more secure than I.
Rather than jaded, I'm a cynic of the old school. I suppose a lot, but I don't believe or disbelieve in anything.
Yes, I've felt it. So has my wife. But studies seem to show that most of that biological pressure is actually situational. The wealthier and more comfortable a couple is, the less they will want to have kids. This is why, barring immigration, some countries such as Italy have negative population growth, while third world parents are still having 6-10 kids.
He's an agent, lead is just another metal, it is dense so it makes an even better antenna! If you reall want to block the signal, the only real solution is lunch meat affixed to the head with peanut butter. Bologna and Extra-Chunky works best.
What's wrong with people? Lots of things. In relation to kids? Too many stupid fuckers don't actually want them, but society tells them having kids is the expected, normal thing to do. We all remember the one important lesson from school, right? Be normal or be an outcast. So these stupid fuckers do what is expected of them, but they never really wanted a kid. Or rather, they never really wanted the responsibility that comes with having a kid.
They never stopped to think about it because society said they don't have to, just do it, have a kid, God will love you and you get great tax breaks! So the kid pops out and the parents say, "Wait a minute, THIS isn't what we ordered! I'm sorry, we ordered the model that would love us unconditionally and justify our existence? This one just seems to cry and poop. We were promised fulfillment, where's that? I don't see any of that, but I sure see a lot of poop."
These schmucks then turn to any solution that purports to take responsibility for the kids. TV, schools, grandparents, toys, magic AI programs, anything that will shut the little fuckers up for a second or two.
And those kids go on to make up the perfectly well-adjusted bulk of humanity that we all know and love. Circle of life, ain't it grand?
Here's the Wikipedia article on the effects of ionizing radiation on animals. Seems a low dose like this MAY actually protect against further damage from exposure. So the dose you get from the scanner could possibly protect you from the dose you get in-flight.
Don't you mean, "yeah baby!"? And wouldn't a diamond condom be a little scratchy? I mean, there's hard, and then there's too hard...
Look you toffy-nosed, malodorous pervert, I got as far as "whoever heard of a Slashdot reader" and I just had to respond. Now admittedly, I have no idea what the rest of your post may or may not say, but I've never let facts, or lack thereof, stand in my way before.
Plenty of people have heard of a slashdot reader, only a moron would say otherwise.
Sheesh, you people...
Wait, you're talking about Shaft?
Then we can can dig it.
Ah, well, it's the STOCK MARKET. That makes fucking people over okay then. That's just the way it's done, eh? Nothing we can do, beyond our control, it just happens, people get fucked over, what are you going to do? The fact that it's the magical STOCK MARKET makes it all okay.
The naturalistic fallacy makes me sick. Just because something IS some way doesn't mean it SHOULD BE that way.
You know, at first I had a knee-jerk opposition to tiering. As the debate has ground on, I've found myself less and less certain. At this point, I'm ready to agree with you, considering the FCC has already prosecuted a company for abusing tiering. Let ISPs sell tiered service, just go after the ones who abuse it.
Admitting to following the teachings of Ayn Rand is akin to admitting to being a Scientologist. It does not do good things for your reputation among intelligent people.
It is just as immoral for an owning class to dictate terms to the non-owning class as it is for a government to do so. Your political and ecomomic theories just trade one kind of domination for another.
If you don't like the social system that has been enacted by the will of the majority, you are free to leave.
Bullshit. What a simple, knee-jerk, ad-hominem response. I cuold as easily say that you are evil because you advocate a system that will inevitably lead to economic feudalism. Chris' point is important: in all unregulated free markets, wealth invariably acumulates to the point where the poorest have no access to the means of supporting themselves, and must sign into unfair contracts in order to merely survive.
Let's look at the concept of rights. Outside of society, there are no rights. I repeat: individuals have no rights. They don't need them. Think about it, if you were alone on the planet, would the concept of rights even occur to you? No. It is only because we operate in a society that my right to swing my fist conflicts with your right not to be hit in the face.
All rights are a compromise, and a contract. You agree to do, or not to do something in exchange for the agreement that others will act similarly. Without the protection of others, your rights would be meaningless. There is no ultimate authority from which to derive a set of absolute rights. There is no natural law which all people will interperate the same way, arriving at the same list of rights. Therefore, rights are what we as a society mutually agree to uphold in each other. No more, no less.
What rights a society chooses to enforce are up to the members of that society. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. But you have no right to force the rest of us to enact your prefered social system. You have basically stated that you feel you have the right to kill those who don't agree with your definition of what rights are important. Good luck with that.
It's the government's job to enact the will of the people. Some of us know that the free market does not work efficiently where there are natural monopolies, externalities or imbalance of information. We know that such an unregulated market will not long remain free. Even Adam Smith said the same in Wealth of Nations.
We have chosen to enact a government that regulates the free market. We believe it is the government's place to care. If you do not want to participate, you are free to leave. Where you go, or even if you have a place to go, is not our concern.
Fortunately for the rest of us, you do not have the power to force us to enact your system. We'd be living under economic feudalism in no time.
As someone who has tried both affluent swinging and dirty socialist hippy swinging, there is no comparison. The affluent are too uptight. Plus, most suburban swingers are in their 40s or 50s, who wants to tap that? Most dirty hippy socialist swingers are hardbodies in their twenties. No fucking contest.
Roads are a public good. You benefit from them whether you use them or not. Look at anything in your home or office, and chances are that it was transported via road many, many times during it's journey from raw resource to finished product. Everyone benefits from the increase in trade. Roads help goods move faster, faster moving goods means an economy that grows faster.
Then there is the public safety factor. Everyone benefits from the fact that firetrucks can quickly reach a fire and put it out before it damages other property. Everyone benefits when police can quickly reach the scene of a crime. Everyone benefits from the fact that, with an efficient transport network, we can defend out territory with a smaller military.
By refusing to pay taxes that go towards roads, YOU are the freeloader. Roads represent an externality, a public good. The free market does not deal with externalities efficiently. Ignoring the public good, roads have utility X. People will pay Y for that utility, and the amount they are willing to pay determines the number and quality of roads available. This will be less than the optimal number and quality of roads, because the true utility of roads includes the externalities that can not be accounted for in market transactions.
Be that as it may, the majority of actual management, in terms of spam and vandalism removal, is done by everyday members of the community.
You sound bitter. Have you had a bad experience with wikipedia?
That's what you got from my comment? My point was, wikipedia works well enough for most folks, if you want to experiment, do it elsewhere. If people find your experiment more useful than wikipedia, they will use it.
I find it fascinating, and disturbing, that you obviously think your own measures of value are more important than the ones being applied by the millions of people using wikipedia.
The current economic system does not account for human nature. It assumes humans are driven by pure self interest. Modern economic research shows that people are more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity. This research (google "fairness reciprocity economic research") shows that most people act fairly when they have the ability to punish unfairness or non-cooperation. The entire system is based on a falsehood and promotes selfishness by assuming it.
In addition, the system has well known modes of failure. Natural monopolies, imbalance of information, and externalities all cause the market to fail to rpovide optimal distribution of resources. The best system we have come up with in the past 4,000 years is one that includes some level of government regulation of trade. Even Adam Smith realized that, in order to remain free, the market must be regulated. Read Wealth of Nations.
All in all, the free market is a remarkeably effective system. But that system is known to fail in certain circumstances, and thus, a larger system incorporated managed oversight of the market through elected representatives has proven to be the most effective. Lassez Faire failed as badly as communism.
Plenty of controversial articles are locked against anonymous/new-account edits. What happens is two or more editors start nuking each other's sheep, one or more of them complains, a wiki official comes by and resurects the favored sheep, and then posts a lock on the gate.