In reality, 2 reasons are cited in defense of region coding:
* fees for extras
* Censorship.
CSS cannot be a technical solution to a social problem: Its not the MPAA's job to control import/export regulations. If they only offer locally legal discs in every region they will succeed at 99.9% of the above. If some country want to prevent a more graphical version of a movie from entering their country then they will shutdown any massive importer. I really dont think these are very valid excuses for CSS.
The real reason is obvious: CSS is a tool for extracting the consumer surplus and nothing else
This is one case where immaturity has its uses, and being overly sympathetic to clueless users is damaging.
We dont need laws against DRM, we dont need huge consumer outcries about this. There is no need for having a campaign against DRM.
The appropriate responses are:
"Haha, thats what you get for using Windows!"
"Man, you should have known better, dipwad."
"What the hell is WMP? Ive never heard of it."
"Dude, dont you realize Microsoft hates you?"
Once people realize that Microsoft is not on their side, and that those clue-possesing individuals they know are not going to make it all better, then maybe theyll put forth the effort to get an user-rights-friendly OS on their next machine.
All the pieces are in place for a change on the desktop. (Palladium,WinXP,DRM,etc)
3, leads to a situation where people may get used to non-enforcement and then get burned later if, say, a prosecutor feels like raising his profile, and where people may feel free to start disregarding other laws as well.
Sortof like the speed limit, J-Walking laws, Drug laws, Prostitution ordinances, and all the other selectivly enforced things.
I guess file sharing is much more dangerous than those anyway....
Red Hat is arguing against the UCITA, not for it. The UCITA, in case for forget, put legal muscle behind unenforceables such as MS-EULA's saying you give full control of your hardware to microsoft.
The UCITA is heavily ANTI-consumer, and PRO-corporate. It will not benefit consumers, it will injure them. If you recall, RedHat doesnt put crap like this in EULA's, and you can use RedHat software *without* accepting to or agreeing with the GPL or BSD. (Only redistribution requires that)
You say that Red Hat is asking for welfare: bullshit. At worst they are asking for the playing field not to be tilted against them anymore than it already is. We consumers will bear the cost if we dont listen to them.
If you think the UCITA is good for the typical software user, then you are deluded.
I personally have never understood why so many linux users were also Apple afficionados. Ive always looked at systems from a programmers point of view, and for the longest time, microsoft has been way more programmer friendly than Apple.
I shudder what the state of the industry would be if Apple had taken over the desktop: They are even more tightfisted with patents, copyrights, look and feel, etc than even Microsoft.
Once linux reached critical mass, Its become way more programmer friendly than the alternatives, to the point were I myself have ditched other platforms completely.
Admittedly, with a BSDish foundation, thing are supposedly better for the latest Apple operating system, but with most of the code that makes osX what it is being closed, I dont see them as any better than Microsoft.
Perhaps alot of the "linux advocates" are merely Microsoft bashers, and have no particular desire for source code or self determination.
Bill Maher makes joke about 9/11 tero's, result: show canceled.
Judges rule pledge unconstitutional, result: recieve death threat while congress recites socialistesque pledge upon capitol steps. (they seemed disingenuine at best)
Some big news channel owner notes that the jews are killing more palestinians than vice-versa, result was scandal+ near removal of the channel from some places etc...
Self-Censorship is NOT avoiding things you dislike (in this context at least), what I mean is when you decline to say what you mean and when you dont stand up for what you really believe in and succumb to the groupthink around you.
Reasons for doing this are fear (will they send you death threats, are they watching me?) and prudence (if I dont go along with everyone else then it will hurt my chances for social advancement.) Even worse is when you speculatively promulgate a viewpoint that you dont really support.
Unofficial reprisals tend to be just as intimidating and effective as official ones.
Being able to talk about these phenomena without being ostracized is the first step towards fixing them.
Tell you what: why don't you find a message board in China and you can post a similar screed about China. How long do you think you will have to live? A day? A few years in a "reeducation" prison?
Posting a message in china saying that chinese do not have a large degree of personal freedom isnt a big deal. (If you go on to say thats bad, then it would be)
I love listening to people post anti-American screeds on a server located in America, claiming that America is the land of censorship.
The type of extreme reaction provoked from you demonstrates very well the self-censorship im talking about:
I promise that I'll send flowers to your next of kin.
The chinese openly admit to censorship, restrictions on individual rights, etc.
Here in the US, we are every bit as much a police state as china is, however we claim to be the freest place on earth. (richest sure, but the freedom is an illusion)
Here we curtail civil liberties in "defense of freedom". Here we have a working massive fingerprint database, and a credit database that says if you are a good person or not, which furthermore you cannot argue against.
Our government has huge monitoring systems which silently listen to communications all over the world combing for information.
We have a War department that is called "The Dept. of Defense" which has been waging nearly perpetual war for 50 years across the globe.
We have huge witchhunts for the enemy of the day "communists" "child molesters" "terrorists".
The scariest thing is that it all arises without rigid central control: we censor ourselves to further our careers.
The doublethink in the USA is getting pretty scary.
The companies know full well that the machines are multimedia capable: music/porn/jokes/trailers etc enhance productivity; people work better when they have a little fun. So long as its not officially endorsed, and lip service is given to cracking down from time to time, then everybody is happy.
Because if you dont some yahoo newbie programmer will insist upon using [insert language learned at college here (java)] despite the fact that its less portable, poorly integratable, and terribly slow (for the specific requirement, say a device driver).
Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to write C++, and even C code, that does not contain memory leaks or buffer overflows, just a matter of programming practice and discipline, and not a matter of some compiler/or interpreter holding your hand.
the govt also has rules on what degrees/qualifications/years of experience are required to be eligible for those positions.
You see, I have no degrees/formal education beyond high school, (The curricula offered at colleges for CS was so remedial, that I essentially boycotted the whole "education" industry) So I was not eligible for any better position than I was at.
Private industry, assuming you can find a results oriented place, is much more flexible. They are willing to pay what they think it takes to keep you on board, moderated by how much youre worth to them.
Which is why he should turn down the counteroffer: to send a message that "the rate they must pay me to retain my services" is "what I'm worth". They lowballed him (in more than one sense of the word), so let them suffer.
How is it possible for someone to be lowballed? They offer you money for work and you accept. If you ask for a raise and they refuse, then leaving makes sense. But if they agree, whats the problem!?!
If the price of wheat goes up, do you start growing rice to spite the market for low-balling you? If a customer offers to pay the higher price for your now more expensive grain, do you refuse to spite them?
No!
In my experience, offers and counter offers are the only way that large pay increases ever happen. If you refuse to extend a current job where you are happy, to take a new position where you may not be happy for less money, then you are dumb.
Face it: his boss just admitted that he or she has been paying him less than he's worth to the company. Is that the kind of culture where he should want to work?
Would you prefer to work at a company who spewed money at anyone for no reason? If they paid 100% tips at restraunts; A company that insisted upon paying double rent, and buying office supplies they dont use?
Be serious: the company that pays you only the rate that they must to retain youre services is a company that plans to survive. (Assuming a free market). Thats a good company to be at.
If you are in any skill-oriented business, and you are competent, this doesnt apply imo.
Ive had experience with offers and counter offers, and when accepting a counter offer the original employer has always been happy to retain you.
If you go out of your way to strongarm the company, well they might just not make a counter offer: so be ready for that. Never come to them without something solid: a printed offer letter is perfect.
And you have to be amicable, something like: "Boss, company X is trying to made me this offer, here look. Im happy here, but I am considering it..." or something to that effect.
Most of the reasons listed for avoiding price negotiations are employer FUD from those who dont like to see people getting paid what their worth, and want to treat employees as interchangeable cogs in a machine.
The only way to earn what you produce is to let employers decide how much youre worth to them. If you only consider offers in a vacuum, then you are cheating yourself.
Ive accepted a counter offer before: My current employer at the time matched what a startup had offered me, and I accepted: no need to switch jobs or anything.
They asked me if I was unhappy, I said no, not really, it was just that I was surprised that I was offered so much money, and I would much rather stay where I was (especially with the 25% raise).
I say counter-offers are great. When I broke the news, well they bumped the number up again another 30%, making it over a 50% raise since before all the haggling began. My current employer, being a govt contractor, couldn't go that high (the govt has limits on how much you can pay employees) so I took the counter-counter offer in the end.
It turns out the whole thing was very enlighting on how low the ceiling was for me at my old position, even though I liked the job/people/etc, you have to go where the money is.
Sorry, it annoys me every time someone says they're going to replace the A-10 with some fragile supersonic fighter. Close air support requires serious armor and armament, which no fighter aircraft is ever going to have
Ground battles are for the police: real wars are fought with aircraft and missiles.
Seriuosly, fighting on the ground is passe. The army has been irrelevant since their failure in the island hopping campaign of WW2. (credit the marines for most of the irrelevant ground fighting anyway)
Even then, an air/naval blockade and nukes was more than enough to eliminate japan. The army's main role was as a peacekeeper. This has become moreso ever since.
Eventually, assuming decent fiber to the curb, You will get your "TELEPHONE", "TELEVISION", and "INTERNET" all through the same pipe- perhaps via ipv6 over mpls or something like that.
Now the flat rate broadband may diminish in the near future, its certainly going to be here in the long haul. (bits become so cheap that streaming video 24/7 like you do tv will be practical, hence to make it appeal to consumers someone will provide a flat-unlimited* offer, which people will like...)
Its alot harder to move Jedi/Sith around with the force than it is mundane objects.
And saying that size doesnt matter is relative: the amount of effort yoda had to put into stopping the attack is commesurate with the amount of energy that dooku put into it, perhaps compounded with the possible death of the jedi beneath it- he was being careful: and perhaps precient:
He may have wanted to let tyrannous get away, knowing that the master was his true quarry, and that dooku was not the master...
Slashdot Mirror
In reality, 2 reasons are cited in defense of region coding:
* fees for extras
* Censorship.
CSS cannot be a technical solution to a social problem: Its not the MPAA's job to control import/export regulations. If they only offer locally legal discs in every region they will succeed at 99.9% of the above. If some country want to prevent a more graphical version of a movie from entering their country then they will shutdown any massive importer. I really dont think these are very valid excuses for CSS.
The real reason is obvious: CSS is a tool for extracting the consumer surplus and nothing else
This is one case where immaturity has its uses, and being overly sympathetic to clueless users is damaging.
We dont need laws against DRM, we dont need huge consumer outcries about this. There is no need for having a campaign against DRM.
The appropriate responses are:
Once people realize that Microsoft is not on their side, and that those clue-possesing individuals they know are not going to make it all better, then maybe theyll put forth the effort to get an user-rights-friendly OS on their next machine.
All the pieces are in place for a change on the desktop. (Palladium,WinXP,DRM,etc)
3, leads to a situation where people may get used to non-enforcement and then get burned later if, say, a prosecutor feels like raising his profile, and where people may feel free to start disregarding other laws as well.
Sortof like the speed limit, J-Walking laws, Drug laws, Prostitution ordinances, and all the other selectivly enforced things.
I guess file sharing is much more dangerous than those anyway....
Red Hat is arguing against the UCITA, not for it. The UCITA, in case for forget, put legal muscle behind unenforceables such as MS-EULA's saying you give full control of your hardware to microsoft.
The UCITA is heavily ANTI-consumer, and PRO-corporate. It will not benefit consumers, it will injure them. If you recall, RedHat doesnt put crap like this in EULA's, and you can use RedHat software *without* accepting to or agreeing with the GPL or BSD. (Only redistribution requires that)
You say that Red Hat is asking for welfare: bullshit. At worst they are asking for the playing field not to be tilted against them anymore than it already is. We consumers will bear the cost if we dont listen to them.
If you think the UCITA is good for the typical software user, then you are deluded.
Why use mysql instead of Postgres ? Speed....
Ah, I see, you have the unusual requirement that your database must be slow...
Its much more convenient to simply put a pasword on the keyring than to rely upon the stability of floppy as a long-term storage medium.
No uptime is currently available for www.riaa.com.
Sounds like netcraft is right on, afaict.
I personally have never understood why so many linux users were also Apple afficionados. Ive always looked at systems from a programmers point of view, and for the longest time, microsoft has been way more programmer friendly than Apple.
I shudder what the state of the industry would be if Apple had taken over the desktop: They are even more tightfisted with patents, copyrights, look and feel, etc than even Microsoft.
Once linux reached critical mass, Its become way more programmer friendly than the alternatives, to the point were I myself have ditched other platforms completely.
Admittedly, with a BSDish foundation, thing are supposedly better for the latest Apple operating system, but with most of the code that makes osX what it is being closed, I dont see them as any better than Microsoft.
Perhaps alot of the "linux advocates" are merely Microsoft bashers, and have no particular desire for source code or self determination.
Bill Maher makes joke about 9/11 tero's, result: show canceled.
Judges rule pledge unconstitutional, result: recieve death threat while congress recites socialistesque pledge upon capitol steps. (they seemed disingenuine at best)
Some big news channel owner notes that the jews are killing more palestinians than vice-versa, result was scandal+ near removal of the channel from some places etc...
things like that, pretty common really.
Self-Censorship is NOT avoiding things you dislike (in this context at least), what I mean is when you decline to say what you mean and when you dont stand up for what you really believe in and succumb to the groupthink around you.
Reasons for doing this are fear (will they send you death threats, are they watching me?) and prudence (if I dont go along with everyone else then it will hurt my chances for social advancement.) Even worse is when you speculatively promulgate a viewpoint that you dont really support.
Unofficial reprisals tend to be just as intimidating and effective as official ones.
Being able to talk about these phenomena without being ostracized is the first step towards fixing them.
Tell you what: why don't you find a message board in China and you can post a similar screed about China. How long do you think you will have to live? A day? A few years in a "reeducation" prison?
Posting a message in china saying that chinese do not have a large degree of personal freedom isnt a big deal. (If you go on to say thats bad, then it would be)
I love listening to people post anti-American screeds on a server located in America, claiming that America is the land of censorship.
The type of extreme reaction provoked from you demonstrates very well the self-censorship im talking about:
I promise that I'll send flowers to your next of kin.
Veiled threat, or subconscious slip?
The chinese openly admit to censorship, restrictions on individual rights, etc.
Here in the US, we are every bit as much a police state as china is, however we claim to be the freest place on earth. (richest sure, but the freedom is an illusion)
Here we curtail civil liberties in "defense of freedom". Here we have a working massive fingerprint database, and a credit database that says if you are a good person or not, which furthermore you cannot argue against.
Our government has huge monitoring systems which silently listen to communications all over the world combing for information.
We have a War department that is called "The Dept. of Defense" which has been waging nearly perpetual war for 50 years across the globe.
We have huge witchhunts for the enemy of the day "communists" "child molesters" "terrorists".
The scariest thing is that it all arises without rigid central control: we censor ourselves to further our careers.
The doublethink in the USA is getting pretty scary.
The companies know full well that the machines are multimedia capable: music/porn/jokes/trailers etc enhance productivity; people work better when they have a little fun. So long as its not officially endorsed, and lip service is given to cracking down from time to time, then everybody is happy.
So whats the big deal?
Because if you dont some yahoo newbie programmer will insist upon using [insert language learned at college here (java)] despite the fact that its less portable, poorly integratable, and terribly slow (for the specific requirement, say a device driver).
Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to write C++, and even C code, that does not contain memory leaks or buffer overflows, just a matter of programming practice and discipline, and not a matter of some compiler/or interpreter holding your hand.
IsMyJobHotorNot.com
The site seems to be slashdotted already. It's so bad the hostname is'nt even resolving.
"breakable"
or maybe that doesn't quite say it. Hmmm, what am I trying to get at.
"trivially breakable"
In this case, "broken" is what your looking for.
the govt also has rules on what degrees/qualifications/years of experience are required to be eligible for those positions.
You see, I have no degrees/formal education beyond high school, (The curricula offered at colleges for CS was so remedial, that I essentially boycotted the whole "education" industry) So I was not eligible for any better position than I was at.
Private industry, assuming you can find a results oriented place, is much more flexible. They are willing to pay what they think it takes to keep you on board, moderated by how much youre worth to them.
Which is why he should turn down the counteroffer: to send a message that "the rate they must pay me to retain my services" is "what I'm worth". They lowballed him (in more than one sense of the word), so let them suffer.
How is it possible for someone to be lowballed? They offer you money for work and you accept. If you ask for a raise and they refuse, then leaving makes sense. But if they agree, whats the problem!?!
If the price of wheat goes up, do you start growing rice to spite the market for low-balling you? If a customer offers to pay the higher price for your now more expensive grain, do you refuse to spite them?
No!
In my experience, offers and counter offers are the only way that large pay increases ever happen. If you refuse to extend a current job where you are happy, to take a new position where you may not be happy for less money, then you are dumb.
Face it: his boss just admitted that he or she has been paying him less than he's worth to the company. Is that the kind of culture where he should want to work?
Would you prefer to work at a company who spewed money at anyone for no reason? If they paid 100% tips at restraunts; A company that insisted upon paying double rent, and buying office supplies they dont use?
Be serious: the company that pays you only the rate that they must to retain youre services is a company that plans to survive. (Assuming a free market). Thats a good company to be at.
You have todo what makes you happy, shiny things does not improve your life.
Of course happiness is the first concern; being that my job is also my hobby- this was not an issue. I would have been happy in either place.
Now having money cannot make you happy, an acute lack of it can certainly make you sad.
If you are in any skill-oriented business, and you are competent, this doesnt apply imo.
Ive had experience with offers and counter offers, and when accepting a counter offer the original employer has always been happy to retain you.
If you go out of your way to strongarm the company, well they might just not make a counter offer: so be ready for that. Never come to them without something solid: a printed offer letter is perfect.
And you have to be amicable, something like: "Boss, company X is trying to made me this offer, here look. Im happy here, but I am considering it..."
or something to that effect.
Most of the reasons listed for avoiding price negotiations are employer FUD from those who dont like to see people getting paid what their worth, and want to treat employees as interchangeable cogs in a machine.
The only way to earn what you produce is to let employers decide how much youre worth to them. If you only consider offers in a vacuum, then you are cheating yourself.
Ive accepted a counter offer before: My current employer at the time matched what a startup had offered me, and I accepted: no need to switch jobs or anything.
They asked me if I was unhappy, I said no, not really, it was just that I was surprised that I was offered so much money, and I would much rather stay where I was (especially with the 25% raise).
I say counter-offers are great.
When I broke the news, well they bumped the number up again another 30%, making it over a 50% raise since before all the haggling began. My current employer, being a govt contractor, couldn't go that high (the govt has limits on how much you can pay employees) so I took the counter-counter offer in the end.
It turns out the whole thing was very enlighting on how low the ceiling was for me at my old position, even though I liked the job/people/etc, you have to go where the money is.
Sorry, it annoys me every time someone says they're going to replace the A-10 with some fragile supersonic fighter. Close air support requires serious armor and armament, which no fighter aircraft is ever going to have
Ground battles are for the police: real wars are fought with aircraft and missiles.
Seriuosly, fighting on the ground is passe. The army has been irrelevant since their failure in the island hopping campaign of WW2. (credit the marines for most of the irrelevant ground fighting anyway)
Even then, an air/naval blockade and nukes was more than enough to eliminate japan. The army's main role was as a peacekeeper. This has become moreso ever since.
You forget unification:
Eventually, assuming decent fiber to the curb, You will get your "TELEPHONE", "TELEVISION", and "INTERNET" all through the same pipe- perhaps via ipv6 over mpls or something like that.
Now the flat rate broadband may diminish in the near future, its certainly going to be here in the long haul. (bits become so cheap that streaming video 24/7 like you do tv will be practical, hence to make it appeal to consumers someone will provide a flat-unlimited* offer, which people will like...)
Its alot harder to move Jedi/Sith around with the force than it is mundane objects.
And saying that size doesnt matter is relative: the amount of effort yoda had to put into stopping the attack is commesurate with the amount of energy that dooku put into it, perhaps compounded with the possible death of the jedi beneath it- he was being careful: and perhaps precient:
He may have wanted to let tyrannous get away, knowing that the master was his true quarry, and that dooku was not the master...