>See "identity theft" (but you stil have your identity, right ?)
Identity theft is used for people use take your identity to create profit and directly harm your reputation. It is identity theft for someone I don't know to apply for a credit card under my name, run up the bills and never pay them.
It isn't identity theft if a parent has their child fill out a credit card application to get a card under the parents name that the kid will be using.
In both instances, the type of fraud is the same (use of an identity that isn't yours) but the consequences are completely different. Theft clearly implies a guaranteed and direct loss due to the action. No such guanrantee can be made about music downloaded from P2P. In fact, in a country like mine, a PROFIT *can* be guanranteed, as there is a piracy levy on media here paid to artists.
>"theft of services", etc
Again, the same as above. If you mange to get free long distance service illegally, for example, you are utilizing a service that was never provided to you -- a service that is directly costing the phone service money each time you abuse it.
Along the same lines, satellite piracy is not theft of service (no matter how much satellite companies pretend it is), as satellite signals are provided to you free of charge will the full knowledge you will have complete access to them despite not paying for them. It would become theft of service if the signals being pirated were two way, however.
>you understand perfectly well what is meant when someone accuses a software pirate of theft
No, I don't.
If someone accuses me of theft, the first question I ask is "Ok, so you don't have the item anymore? Where is it now?". If they do have it, and know where it is, then I ask them to prove when they lost it. If they can't do that, I don't talk to them anymore -- they lack command of English, and that simply makes it stressful for me to interact with them.
>The agenda that these slashdot posters are pursuing is to create a distinction between themselves and common criminals (even though they are in fact not very different at all).
No, the agenda is to correctly use the language.
If someone wants to accuse me of piracy, they are right. I pirate music from usenet all the time now. This is ok, I have no problems with people accusing me of things I do. I would be foolish otherwise.
But when people accuse me of doing things I haven't, I have a problem with it. And so does everyone I know. If that seems strange to you, so be it.
>This is why they don't want to be referred to in language that one usually uses to describe common criminals.
They want to be referred to with the correct words in the language being used. I won't call a meat eater a murderer because an animal is killed for such activity. It isn't the correct word.
In the same vein, I expect to be called a music pirate because I pirate music from usenet. However, don't expect to be called a theif when I definately don't steal.
All I want is what's fair.
And I definately don't think it's fair to call an entire nation Theives because their laws allow, nay, require music piracy in the economic sense; just as it would be equally unfair to suggest all Americans are Homicidal Maniacs because they punish people by killing them.
>The legal definitions are different, but morally they are much the same.
So, you'd have no problem with me calling a murderer a theif instead, because all he did was steal someone's life?
Theft IS theft, when it is theft. You don't call someone a robber unless they steal your stuff. You call them home invaders, you call them lockpickers, you call them by what they are, not what they aren't. English must remain a precise and accurate language if we are to communicate thoughts correctly to each other.
>Think about it this way -- if one or two folks go into a store and shoplift, its a problem. BUT if they get caught, they get a light sentence. Now, what if hundreds went into stores and shoplifted as if it were institutional values?
They call it shoplifting when you physically remove an item without permission.
But when you walk into my shop, and then build one beside it that is identical in every way but the title, they say it's legal and that I have to tough it out.
If I were the RIAA, I'd be asking right now, what makes it legal to steal my ideas. But I'm not.
>Theft is theft.
It is. That's why when I download albums from Kazaa, I make sure I don't delete the uploader's copy. That way it isn't theft, in any sense whatsoever. (Legal, English, and common usage). In fact, in Canada, the right to download music freely is protected by law, that's how much it isn't theft.
For reference, "stealing" appears once in the US Copyright act, used to explain the act of removing a CD/phonograph/tape/whatever from your posession and use and making it my posession. Theft doesn't appear at all.
Also, the dictionary defines theft as:
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery
The other definitions say the same thing, but are less clear unless you look up the used words, such as "larceny".
>so I decide to re-name my band "Frank Zappa Would Agree: Kill All the Mud-People"
That is misrepresentation and libel. The line is crossed when you take someone's non-existant opinion and change it to suit your own.
You could, however, say "Kill All The Mud People, performed to the music of Frank Zappa" because that would be what you're doing (playing a cover of a Frank Zappa tune), I assume. Or I damn well *HOPE* that it's still legal to state true facts.
Well, you could in the US, that is. A lot of other countries have (stupid) "hate laws" to ensure such hatred is bred underground, where it can damage society much more since you can't defend against what you can't see.
Good to hear. Sorry I doubted it, but there's not a mention of MP3 support on that page.
>As for the "ugh" to quicktime, with respect for your opinion of course, the Sorensen Codec is really a wonderful thing, 2nd only to divx in quality (my opinion, others will argue wm9), with a huge upside of blazing fast encoding speeds compared to anything else out there.
Actually, I'm not complaining because of the codec. It's just the Apple QuickTime player sucks horridly, IMHO. From the non-windows interface on Windows to the 'Q' craplet that sits in my system tray without asking, it's just not a good design. And then there's the wacky movie trailers I do recall trying to play that seem to have all sorts of ugly DRM and extra advertising built in that were unremoveable.
The format, as a basic concept, seems to be great. After finding an, ahem, not-totally-legit alternative player, the video is very nice.
But the authorized player leaves much to be desired when it comes to usability. If the spec were a tiny bit more open, we'd probably see good players out there, but, alas, it isn't.
>Also quite curious what it is you prefer to quicktime, if it's divx i would have to agree, anything else i would like to know the reasons.
Well, my preference is to MPEG-2, even though it does eat up a lot of space, it's standardized enough that I can use almost any player. To me, size of the video is less of an issue compared to quality and usability. Quicktime has quality down pat, but, as I mentioned, I don't like the player.
>1- real bandwidth costs are actually much higher than the price that DSL home users are given.
True. That's why I gave business costs, rather than residential costs. That's what I pay for my business (actually, I don't, because I have unlimited at a higher cost, but the next step "down" would be a 90 GB account @ $99 CDN -- yes, that means they expect an unlimited user to transfer at least 90 GB).
>2- I was not talking about amount of traffic, but peak load / sustained load passing through the pipe.
I'm not sure where the government is buying bandwidth from, but if they're paying more than business bridged DSL costs per GB bandwidth, they're certainly spending very poorly, IMHO. It would make no sense for a business to charge less than cost per GB after a user reaches the cap, so, I have to assume that is the cost *they* pay for bandwidth (if not more). Anything is possible, though, I suppose.
>3- School computer fees are not JUST the bandwidth used, but the costs to maintain the equipment (Cisco/nortel/etc service contracts are NOT cheap).
Yes, but most school districts have the same number of people maintaining those pipes whether they transfer 10 mbits sustained or 30 mbits sustained. In fact, that would probably explain the poor decision on part #2 of schools...
>You may only be using 128kb/s for an hour a day, but if like many schools and school systems, you connect to the district's central network, which then connects the school to the internet, calculate the amount of aggregate bandwidth that 20 students from YOUR school would use; then multiply that by the number of schools in your district....
12.8 x 60 x 60 x 20 = 921.6 MB x 30 days = 27.648 GB
Cost = $10 CDN * 2.7648 = $27.648 CDN (what a surprise!;-) ) or about $20 US for 20 students.
If his school is anything like mine was, they'll charge far more than $8 a year for computer fees.;-)
>But anyway, the main point is that if I were running a business, I would not want to use a product that can't read documentst that others send to me.
That's why we bought a single copy of Office 2000 for the store (it was dirt cheap, being used, too). If the document doesn't work with that, I send it back (asking for a copy that works properly with Microsoft Office, of course). On the rest of the computers, I just install the various Microsoft Office Viewers (free).
Besides, I've actually NEVER been unable to read even the most funkily formatted XLS pricesheets (even including that ugly extrude font effect) I've been sent in Open Office. That being said, I do recall that feature managing to crash Microsoft's Excel Viewer.:^D
DirecTV (and other satellite companies) will often work with supers and landlords to get distribution in apartment buildings. It's dead easy to do, assuming the builder didn't cheap out on the building's cabling.
>Yes, PAL has a better design in the color handling in the context of analog processing, but also has an eight field color sequence that made editing a pain, and has a 25Hz offset in the math that yields a painfully awkward non-integral relationship in digital processing. The solution in digital is to ignore that, and cheat, so once it's been handled in digital form, it's been altered from the original -- not enough to cause problems, but enough to have lost the purity the Europeans love to crow about.
It's also sucky for film, too. 24 fps just doesn't go into 25 fps. That's why movies re-recorded some time ago in PAL run 4% faster than they should (I'm sure digital processing has fixed it for the latest releases).
You quote the very section of copyright law that would allow you to make three personal copies of an article you had compensated the copyright holder for. Just in-case you don't realize this, that quote is not very supportive of your notion that re-printing a copyrighted article in a public forum is ok to do.
There's your problem! You are equating using english properly with supporting copyright infringement. Well, I shouldn't have to go any further with this (but will, just to be sure); I think it's pretty obvious, even to you, now, where your error is.
Just because I don't think it's the crime of stealing doesn't cause it to necessarialy follow that I think it's right or wrong. In the same way I don't think murder is "stealing" a life, I still believe a murderer is in the wrong. And, if we were to accept your supposition, backing up a game cartridge to use in an emulator would be stealing (it *is* against copyright law), but not morally wrong.
I hope that helps clear this debate up for you.
I expect to be compensated for my efforts. You expect to consume the efforts of others as though they were your servants.
Again, I must suggest you don't put words into the mouths of others. I invite you to re-read what I have said in the previous comment, and, if you still feel the way you do, I ask that you explain what led you to come to that conclusion.
I also suggest you may wish to read the followingdebatingfallacies; the crux of your argument rests on them, and it's not good (IMHO, of course).
>Twisting meaning >and context to justify breaking the spirit of a law while supposedly >not breaking the letter of the law makes you look stupid and foolish.
The law says "copyright infringement". NOT A SINGLE WORD OF COPYRIGHT LAW INCLUDES "THEFT" or "STEALING". Don't believe me? Here it is. Use the search button and enjoy. The only instance that comes close is this single following one, and, guess what? It's used just like it is in the dictionary::
(c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if --...
By putting words into the mouths of lawmakers, you're pretending you're the supreme court. And if you're not, you make yourself look stupid, foolish, and probably leave yourself open to libel suits.
It's like saying I called you a "moron", despite the fact I haven't said that at all (read closely). You can't ASS-U-ME things. It's wrong, pathetic, and doesn't stand up in the court, and it doesn't stand up to my "truth test".
Stop acting like a spin-artist and read the damn law before you sponge off of the BSA's rhetoric.
The facts: The law isn't on your side on this; nor is the dictionary. Even English teachers aren't on your side. WHO IS?
>Wrongo -- The cost of electricity makes the $30 LInksys cheaper than a Linux/BSD firewall running on a desktop computer. Unless you have some special needs, get the little firewall box.
Yes and no.
Assuming the Linksys uses 1 Amp @ 12 Volts (depends on the model), it uses 12 watts. An old crap computer uses 50 watts in sleep mode (if you have it set up right, the only spinning items will be the fans). At 38 watts, the cost difference per year is:
Lowest (AFAIK... this is what I paid in Ontario, Canada until the liberals screwed it up):
4.3 cents per kWh * 38 * 24 * 365 / 100000 = $14.31 yearly ($CDN), or $10.79 ($US)
If you were to simply turn off the hard drive in the computer (not necessary for a router), you could shave about another 12 watts from that. Underclock it, maybe save another 5 watts.
Basically, in four years (taxes, remember) you can save enough to buy the linksys. And, if you're unlucky enough to live somewhere with disposal fees for old computers, count on this number hovering around 10 years.
Insert your own numbers for your local area. I hear if you are unlucky enough to live in California, you could pay over 15 cents per kWh, which would mean the Linksys could pay off in as little as 1 - 2 years.
>The target audience would be people smart enough to buy a computer that lasts longer than a year, and only gets faster over time.
Wow. Explain to me how a computer gets faster over time without modification, rather than staying the same speed. This is an entirely new concept to me, and if Apple truly has mastered the concept of infinitely increasing speed on the same CPU, I must applaud them, and will instantly "convert" or "switch" or "think differently" or whatever today's Apple buzzword bingo is.
Or you could just be talking utter bullshit, in which case don't waste my time with a reply.
>That can cover both people that have the money, and people that understanding the concept of "saving". Which most people don't. What a shame.
Yes. Because saving is buying a 40 GB iPod rather than a 100 stack of CD-Rs and a CD-MP3 player.
That all being said, the Apple platform, as currently sold and marketed, simply can't get a large marketshare. Their target audience (People with enough money that "good enough" isn't, and the monied disenfranchised) simply isn't big enough to get them out of the spot they're in.
Finding a way to list anyone who has ever been accused of stealing a chocolate bar as a child(*)?
(*) - Mentioned since CASST believes all satellite pirates begin by stealing chocolate bars as children. THey then grow to be lonely single adults who steal cable to watch movies (not porno for some odd reason) [Can someone tell me where all the cable they steal goes? I mean, it only costs $49 a box, I can't imagine there's really much of a black market for RG-6/U -- how much does one need to sell to afford cable TV?]. They then continue on to be wealthy fathers with a good relationship with their kids that steal satellite signals. [You'd think the uplink stations would have learned to stop people hacking the satellites somehow by now, eh?]
Now, of course, the big question here is: Are you prepared for the backlash that could happen if you have ever been discovered pirating, even by a way as innocent as using a trialware for 1 extra day past "expiry"? Judge not lest ye be judged isn't just a boring phrase from an old book: They're words to live by.
A DVD+ and DVD- disc will read in virtually any drive, period. Unlike a Beta tape, which will never read in a VHS VCR.
More importantly, at the time of the format wars, a VCR cost $400, which, translated to today's dollars, probably feels like buying an $800 item right now. Also, the VCR was expected to last a decade back then (as a matter of fact, I still have a 1984 Zenith VCR - working). DVD burner for your computer is expected to last 2, maybe 3 years prior to replacement and costs $150.
The absolute worst you can be screwed is:
- Lack of media being produced in your format (You lose $150 on the drive)
- Having media left over when your drive dies that will not work in burners now being sold (You lose... hmmm... in my case $50)
The worst you could be screwed during VHS vs. Beta format wars was:
- Entire tape collection obsoleted (if you bought pre-recorded tapes at the time, minimum $100, likely many thousands of dollars if you were an enthusiast)
- Tape collection cannot be recovered into other format (assuming all Beta/VHS VCRs dropped off the face of the planet) (priceless, if you managed to tape something that will never be broadcast again, or if you had a Beta/VHS handycam)
- Lack of media being produced in your format ($400 then, $800 now for a new drive)
- Having media left over when your drive dies that will not work in burners now being sold ($50, maybe...)
We're talking a lot of difference in losses here. $200 is manageable. Thousands of dollars, and a loss of priceless work isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
>See "identity theft" (but you stil have your identity, right ?)
Identity theft is used for people use take your identity to create profit and directly harm your reputation. It is identity theft for someone I don't know to apply for a credit card under my name, run up the bills and never pay them.
It isn't identity theft if a parent has their child fill out a credit card application to get a card under the parents name that the kid will be using.
In both instances, the type of fraud is the same (use of an identity that isn't yours) but the consequences are completely different. Theft clearly implies a guaranteed and direct loss due to the action. No such guanrantee can be made about music downloaded from P2P. In fact, in a country like mine, a PROFIT *can* be guanranteed, as there is a piracy levy on media here paid to artists.
>"theft of services", etc
Again, the same as above. If you mange to get free long distance service illegally, for example, you are utilizing a service that was never provided to you -- a service that is directly costing the phone service money each time you abuse it.
Along the same lines, satellite piracy is not theft of service (no matter how much satellite companies pretend it is), as satellite signals are provided to you free of charge will the full knowledge you will have complete access to them despite not paying for them. It would become theft of service if the signals being pirated were two way, however.
>you understand perfectly well what is meant when someone accuses a software pirate of theft
No, I don't.
If someone accuses me of theft, the first question I ask is "Ok, so you don't have the item anymore? Where is it now?". If they do have it, and know where it is, then I ask them to prove when they lost it. If they can't do that, I don't talk to them anymore -- they lack command of English, and that simply makes it stressful for me to interact with them.
>The agenda that these slashdot posters are pursuing is to create a distinction between themselves and common criminals (even though they are in fact not very different at all).
No, the agenda is to correctly use the language.
If someone wants to accuse me of piracy, they are right. I pirate music from usenet all the time now. This is ok, I have no problems with people accusing me of things I do. I would be foolish otherwise.
But when people accuse me of doing things I haven't, I have a problem with it. And so does everyone I know. If that seems strange to you, so be it.
>This is why they don't want to be referred to in language that one usually uses to describe common criminals.
They want to be referred to with the correct words in the language being used. I won't call a meat eater a murderer because an animal is killed for such activity. It isn't the correct word.
In the same vein, I expect to be called a music pirate because I pirate music from usenet. However, don't expect to be called a theif when I definately don't steal.
All I want is what's fair.
And I definately don't think it's fair to call an entire nation Theives because their laws allow, nay, require music piracy in the economic sense; just as it would be equally unfair to suggest all Americans are Homicidal Maniacs because they punish people by killing them.
>The legal definitions are different, but morally they are much the same.
So, you'd have no problem with me calling a murderer a theif instead, because all he did was steal someone's life?
Theft IS theft, when it is theft. You don't call someone a robber unless they steal your stuff. You call them home invaders, you call them lockpickers, you call them by what they are, not what they aren't. English must remain a precise and accurate language if we are to communicate thoughts correctly to each other.
>Except legally, you can't libel (or slander) the dead. So, while it may be misrepresentation, it is not libel.
Wow. That sucks. I do believe that's a law in need of repair, then (tm).
>Err, last time I checked Glasgow was in Scotland, not England.
True, but you'd ever been to Cumbria, you'd understand why an American would easily get confused.
>Think about it this way -- if one or two folks go into a store and shoplift, its a problem. BUT if they get caught, they get a light sentence. Now, what if hundreds went into stores and shoplifted as if it were institutional values?
They call it shoplifting when you physically remove an item without permission.
But when you walk into my shop, and then build one beside it that is identical in every way but the title, they say it's legal and that I have to tough it out.
If I were the RIAA, I'd be asking right now, what makes it legal to steal my ideas. But I'm not.
>Theft is theft.
It is. That's why when I download albums from Kazaa, I make sure I don't delete the uploader's copy. That way it isn't theft, in any sense whatsoever. (Legal, English, and common usage). In fact, in Canada, the right to download music freely is protected by law, that's how much it isn't theft.
For reference, "stealing" appears once in the US Copyright act, used to explain the act of removing a CD/phonograph/tape/whatever from your posession and use and making it my posession. Theft doesn't appear at all.
Also, the dictionary defines theft as:
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery
The other definitions say the same thing, but are less clear unless you look up the used words, such as "larceny".
>so I decide to re-name my band "Frank Zappa Would Agree: Kill All the Mud-People"
That is misrepresentation and libel. The line is crossed when you take someone's non-existant opinion and change it to suit your own.
You could, however, say "Kill All The Mud People, performed to the music of Frank Zappa" because that would be what you're doing (playing a cover of a Frank Zappa tune), I assume. Or I damn well *HOPE* that it's still legal to state true facts.
Well, you could in the US, that is. A lot of other countries have (stupid) "hate laws" to ensure such hatred is bred underground, where it can damage society much more since you can't defend against what you can't see.
>On the contrary, Darwin does mp3's beautifully.
Good to hear. Sorry I doubted it, but there's not a mention of MP3 support on that page.
>As for the "ugh" to quicktime, with respect for your opinion of course, the Sorensen Codec is really a wonderful thing, 2nd only to divx in quality (my opinion, others will argue wm9), with a huge upside of blazing fast encoding speeds compared to anything else out there.
Actually, I'm not complaining because of the codec. It's just the Apple QuickTime player sucks horridly, IMHO. From the non-windows interface on Windows to the 'Q' craplet that sits in my system tray without asking, it's just not a good design. And then there's the wacky movie trailers I do recall trying to play that seem to have all sorts of ugly DRM and extra advertising built in that were unremoveable.
The format, as a basic concept, seems to be great. After finding an, ahem, not-totally-legit alternative player, the video is very nice.
But the authorized player leaves much to be desired when it comes to usability. If the spec were a tiny bit more open, we'd probably see good players out there, but, alas, it isn't.
>Also quite curious what it is you prefer to quicktime, if it's divx i would have to agree, anything else i would like to know the reasons.
Well, my preference is to MPEG-2, even though it does eat up a lot of space, it's standardized enough that I can use almost any player. To me, size of the video is less of an issue compared to quality and usability. Quicktime has quality down pat, but, as I mentioned, I don't like the player.
>1- real bandwidth costs are actually much higher than the price that DSL home users are given.
True. That's why I gave business costs, rather than residential costs. That's what I pay for my business (actually, I don't, because I have unlimited at a higher cost, but the next step "down" would be a 90 GB account @ $99 CDN -- yes, that means they expect an unlimited user to transfer at least 90 GB).
>2- I was not talking about amount of traffic, but peak load / sustained load passing through the pipe.
I'm not sure where the government is buying bandwidth from, but if they're paying more than business bridged DSL costs per GB bandwidth, they're certainly spending very poorly, IMHO. It would make no sense for a business to charge less than cost per GB after a user reaches the cap, so, I have to assume that is the cost *they* pay for bandwidth (if not more). Anything is possible, though, I suppose.
>3- School computer fees are not JUST the bandwidth used, but the costs to maintain the equipment (Cisco/nortel/etc service contracts are NOT cheap).
Yes, but most school districts have the same number of people maintaining those pipes whether they transfer 10 mbits sustained or 30 mbits sustained. In fact, that would probably explain the poor decision on part #2 of schools...
>You may only be using 128kb/s for an hour a day, but if like many schools and school systems, you connect to the district's central network, which then connects the school to the internet, calculate the amount of aggregate bandwidth that 20 students from YOUR school would use; then multiply that by the number of schools in your district....
;-) ) or about $20 US for 20 students.
;-)
12.8 x 60 x 60 x 20 = 921.6 MB x 30 days = 27.648 GB
Cost = $10 CDN * 2.7648 = $27.648 CDN (what a surprise!
If his school is anything like mine was, they'll charge far more than $8 a year for computer fees.
Yeah, but he said MP3s. From what I can tell, that server doesn't talk MP3. Just QuickTime (Ugh) and M4A (less ugh, but winamp would require plugins).
>But anyway, the main point is that if I were running a business, I would not want to use a product that can't read documentst that others send to me.
:^D
That's why we bought a single copy of Office 2000 for the store (it was dirt cheap, being used, too). If the document doesn't work with that, I send it back (asking for a copy that works properly with Microsoft Office, of course). On the rest of the computers, I just install the various Microsoft Office Viewers (free).
Besides, I've actually NEVER been unable to read even the most funkily formatted XLS pricesheets (even including that ugly extrude font effect) I've been sent in Open Office. That being said, I do recall that feature managing to crash Microsoft's Excel Viewer.
>Really, folks, famous quotations are no substitute for an original opinion.
Chaka...when the walls fell.
DirecTV (and other satellite companies) will often work with supers and landlords to get distribution in apartment buildings. It's dead easy to do, assuming the builder didn't cheap out on the building's cabling.
:-)
Just an idea...
>Yes, PAL has a better design in the color handling in the context of analog processing, but also has an eight field color sequence that made editing a pain, and has a 25Hz offset in the math that yields a painfully awkward non-integral relationship in digital processing. The solution in digital is to ignore that, and cheat, so once it's been handled in digital form, it's been altered from the original -- not enough to cause problems, but enough to have lost the purity the Europeans love to crow about.
It's also sucky for film, too. 24 fps just doesn't go into 25 fps. That's why movies re-recorded some time ago in PAL run 4% faster than they should (I'm sure digital processing has fixed it for the latest releases).
Lynx.
You quote the very section of copyright law that would allow you to
make three personal copies of an article you had compensated the
copyright holder for. Just in-case you don't realize this, that
quote is not very supportive of your notion that re-printing a copyrighted
article in a public forum is ok to do.
There's your problem! You are equating using english properly with supporting copyright infringement. Well, I shouldn't have to go any further with this (but will, just to be sure); I think it's pretty obvious, even to you, now, where your error is.
Just because I don't think it's the crime of stealing doesn't cause it to necessarialy follow that I think it's right or wrong. In the same way I don't think murder is "stealing" a life, I still believe a murderer is in the wrong. And, if we were to accept your supposition, backing up a game cartridge to use in an emulator would be stealing (it *is* against copyright law), but not morally wrong.
I hope that helps clear this debate up for you.
I expect to be compensated for my efforts. You expect to consume the
efforts of others as though they were your servants.
Again, I must suggest you don't put words into the mouths of others. I invite you to re-read what I have said in the previous comment, and, if you still feel the way you do, I ask that you explain what led you to come to that conclusion.
I also suggest you may wish to read the following debating fallacies; the crux of your argument rests on them, and it's not good (IMHO, of course).
>Twisting meaning
...
>and context to justify breaking the spirit of a law while supposedly
>not breaking the letter of the law makes you look stupid and foolish.
The law says "copyright infringement". NOT A SINGLE WORD OF COPYRIGHT LAW INCLUDES "THEFT" or "STEALING" . Don't believe me? Here it is. Use the search button and enjoy. The only instance that comes close is this single following one, and, guess what? It's used just like it is in the dictionary::
(c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if --
By putting words into the mouths of lawmakers, you're pretending you're the supreme court. And if you're not, you make yourself look stupid, foolish, and probably leave yourself open to libel suits.
It's like saying I called you a "moron", despite the fact I haven't said that at all (read closely). You can't ASS-U-ME things. It's wrong, pathetic, and doesn't stand up in the court, and it doesn't stand up to my "truth test".
Stop acting like a spin-artist and read the damn law before you sponge off of the BSA's rhetoric.
The facts: The law isn't on your side on this; nor is the dictionary. Even English teachers aren't on your side. WHO IS?
>Wrongo -- The cost of electricity makes the $30 LInksys cheaper than a Linux/BSD firewall running on a desktop computer. Unless you have some special needs, get the little firewall box.
Yes and no.
Assuming the Linksys uses 1 Amp @ 12 Volts (depends on the model), it uses 12 watts. An old crap computer uses 50 watts in sleep mode (if you have it set up right, the only spinning items will be the fans). At 38 watts, the cost difference per year is:
Lowest (AFAIK... this is what I paid in Ontario, Canada until the liberals screwed it up):
4.3 cents per kWh * 38 * 24 * 365 / 100000 = $14.31 yearly ($CDN), or $10.79 ($US)
If you were to simply turn off the hard drive in the computer (not necessary for a router), you could shave about another 12 watts from that. Underclock it, maybe save another 5 watts.
Basically, in four years (taxes, remember) you can save enough to buy the linksys. And, if you're unlucky enough to live somewhere with disposal fees for old computers, count on this number hovering around 10 years.
Insert your own numbers for your local area. I hear if you are unlucky enough to live in California, you could pay over 15 cents per kWh, which would mean the Linksys could pay off in as little as 1 - 2 years.
>The target audience would be people smart enough to buy a computer that lasts longer than a year, and only gets faster over time.
Wow. Explain to me how a computer gets faster over time without modification, rather than staying the same speed. This is an entirely new concept to me, and if Apple truly has mastered the concept of infinitely increasing speed on the same CPU, I must applaud them, and will instantly "convert" or "switch" or "think differently" or whatever today's Apple buzzword bingo is.
Or you could just be talking utter bullshit, in which case don't waste my time with a reply.
>That can cover both people that have the money, and people that understanding the concept of "saving". Which most people don't. What a shame.
Yes. Because saving is buying a 40 GB iPod rather than a 100 stack of CD-Rs and a CD-MP3 player.
End sarcasm.
Any more than Pepsi is going to go bust.
No matter what you're talking about, unless it's a government service, there's *always* a long-term underdog. Or so has been my experience.
Heinz? Hunts.
Frito-Lay? Humpty Dumpty.
Philishave? Remington.
etc, etc.
That all being said, the Apple platform, as currently sold and marketed, simply can't get a large marketshare. Their target audience (People with enough money that "good enough" isn't, and the monied disenfranchised) simply isn't big enough to get them out of the spot they're in.
Here.
:-)
ie: x is of y.
z is of y.
Therefore, x must be of z.
Mathematically:
3 is a factor of 12
4 is also a factor of 12.
Therefore, 3 must be a factor of 4.
Although I do think you're just trying to make a point through absurdity.
Finding a way to list anyone who has ever been accused of stealing a chocolate bar as a child(*)?
(*) - Mentioned since CASST believes all satellite pirates begin by stealing chocolate bars as children. THey then grow to be lonely single adults who steal cable to watch movies (not porno for some odd reason) [Can someone tell me where all the cable they steal goes? I mean, it only costs $49 a box, I can't imagine there's really much of a black market for RG-6/U -- how much does one need to sell to afford cable TV?]. They then continue on to be wealthy fathers with a good relationship with their kids that steal satellite signals. [You'd think the uplink stations would have learned to stop people hacking the satellites somehow by now, eh?]
Now, of course, the big question here is: Are you prepared for the backlash that could happen if you have ever been discovered pirating, even by a way as innocent as using a trialware for 1 extra day past "expiry"? Judge not lest ye be judged isn't just a boring phrase from an old book: They're words to live by.
>Care to explain why my 2 year old DVD player and 2 year old DVD-Rom only reads DVD-RW and not the + version?
:-)
You have really, really, really bad luck or are way too cheap?
You forgot GCR vs. MFM and Double Sided vs. Flippy Sided. ;-)
The difference is:
A DVD+ and DVD- disc will read in virtually any drive, period. Unlike a Beta tape, which will never read in a VHS VCR.
More importantly, at the time of the format wars, a VCR cost $400, which, translated to today's dollars, probably feels like buying an $800 item right now. Also, the VCR was expected to last a decade back then (as a matter of fact, I still have a 1984 Zenith VCR - working). DVD burner for your computer is expected to last 2, maybe 3 years prior to replacement and costs $150.
The absolute worst you can be screwed is:
- Lack of media being produced in your format (You lose $150 on the drive)
- Having media left over when your drive dies that will not work in burners now being sold (You lose... hmmm... in my case $50)
The worst you could be screwed during VHS vs. Beta format wars was:
- Entire tape collection obsoleted (if you bought pre-recorded tapes at the time, minimum $100, likely many thousands of dollars if you were an enthusiast)
- Tape collection cannot be recovered into other format (assuming all Beta/VHS VCRs dropped off the face of the planet) (priceless, if you managed to tape something that will never be broadcast again, or if you had a Beta/VHS handycam)
- Lack of media being produced in your format ($400 then, $800 now for a new drive)
- Having media left over when your drive dies that will not work in burners now being sold ($50, maybe...)
We're talking a lot of difference in losses here. $200 is manageable. Thousands of dollars, and a loss of priceless work isn't.