Playing someone else's backup is my fee to allow them to store their media on my HD. I expect others to charge me the same fee for storing backups for me.
I use stumble upon in my spare time. I've come across "porn" disguised as art (painting, CG art, photo art).
/begin sarcasm
I'd love someone to block this content for me as I see no artistic or cultural value what so ever. Who needs to see the Venus De Milo or Michelangelo's David anyway /end sarcasm
I'm sure if there was filtering in place the system would very quickly turn in to something like M.A.D.D Canada. They want it so everyone has to have a breathalyzer in their car to block it from starting if you've even had one drink with dinner. It's an organization out of control and they commonly operate under the "Think of the Children" mantra. So if they don't get their way obviously the politician doesn't care about children or the victims of drinking and driving.
You're not running McAfee are you. I run jBuilder on my work machine and Eclipse on my PS3 and laptop. My work machine almost dies every time I start jBuilder and then everything (right click context menus, drop down menus, compiling, debugging, etc...) is insanely slow the first time it's used. I don't have the same problems with my PS3 or laptop.
It's fear that their personal language of choice is in a decline. I'm a Java developer. When I hear people talking about languages like Python and Ruby I start to think about whether I'm going to have to learn a new Syntax if one of my "hip" clients comes to me and says, "Waddup yo. I wants you to write me a fly app in snake!!".
People are seduced by what's shiny and new. That being said, sometimes you have to kill a dinosaur so a manual can evolve.
My objective was to point out the sentence made more sense if you broke it up. The original post contained the 's, since I was quoting it the 's stuck. There are plenty of others more willing then me to point out the additional issue.
A sequence of movements is great until you're required to change your password every 30-60 days. At which point by the time I get the sequence down so I don't need to remember the password it's changed and I have to learn a new one.
That method works well with some things, like phone numbers. I can't remember my wife's cell number so I have an excuse not to give it out to people, but I can still dial it when I have to call her.
So what's harder to crack, a Secure password you've described above written on a sticky note stuck to a monitor or under a keyboard or a slightly less secure password most people can remember?
We have similar password requirements where I work only you can't reuse a password with in the last 14 passwords and it's changed every 3 months. I manage several databases, have 10 different application accounts, 3 HR accounts (for requesting time off, training and such), 3 e-mail accounts and at least four web forum accounts. All with different user names and password requirements.
unfortunately I've had to resort to writing everything down. I keep them locked up, but all it would take is for me to pull them out to log in to a system and get distracted and forget to put them away. Many of the people in my office just write their new passwords on post it notes and stick them to their monitors. I've commented on it before and was promptly told to STFU and mind my own business.
It's gotten to the point that I'm just refusing to use accounts that have ridiculous requirements. I'm no longer using the HR Training forum because they require a 16 character, no real words, non-repeating character, mixed case, alphanumeric with special characters password that must be changed every 30 days. That's just to look at what courses are being made available to my group, there's a separate site and account I have to log on to in order to request training that may or may not be listed on the former site. I sent the group in charge of the courses site an e-mail explaining why I wouldn't be using their site and they tattled to section head, who had never used the site before. After he tried to create an account and understood why I was refusing to use it he replied to them with an e-mail starting with "I'm going to make this as politically correct as I can, but..."
What I believe it boils down to is the managers of a site need to evaluate what information is being made available on their site and what level of security is necessary. For forums like/. I would say a low security password of at least 3 characters would be sufficient. I'd consider a bank account a high security password, which should have more restrictive conditions place on it.
I may not be familiar with the whole store of Noah's arc, but I seem to remember everyone except Noah and his family being wiped off the face of the earth. So wouldn't this mean according to the bible this "incestuous fuckfest" would have taken place at least twice?
You must, surely, see the moral difference between these two scenarios.
No I don't, you've invented a moral difference based on your own morals and values. I don't share that outlook. I feel the try-and-buy model works.
but their works are none the less found in thousands of busy torrents all across the web. Why is that?
If something is played on the radio 20 times a day for free, what's the difference between that and it being on a torrent site? IMHO, there is no difference. If it's free it's free. And if free leads people to buy, which I do, that's even better.
People want it, but don't want to be bothered paying for it, and not because they can claim ignorance of the contents of the work. They just want the artist to work for them for free.
I've already debunked this. I buy much of what I do download and delete stuff I don't care for. I don't expect to get anything I want for free, but I do expect to be able to decide if I want to pay for it. If an artist doesn't want me to download their stuff and I know (Matalica) then I don't, but I don't buy anything by them at all. Too bad I use to be a big fan of theirs, until the file sharing fiasco.
You're not looking to avoid a couple of less appealing songs on a CD, you're looking for pet entertainment slaves that you can treat how you see fit, throwing them a bone if you decide they deserve it, but consuming their work in advance without honoring the offer they're making
So if I test drive a car I'm obligated to buy it?
No, when I bought my car I went to five different dealer ships and test drove at least two cars from each, when I found one I liked I found two other places it was sold and negotiated a price I was willing to pay.
Entertainers aren't slaves, but it is part of their job to entertain. If a busker on a street corner isn't preforming he's just a beggar. I'm not going to give him money just because I saw him pick his nose. If however he's playing an instrument I might throw a few dollars his way. The way you describe it makes it sound like I'm telling him to dance and shooting a gun at his feet.
If I hear something I like I'll make a reasonable effort to pay for it. Money isn't an issue it's the product and whether it's BEING made available to be purchased.
f you don't like how an artist brings something to market, that means that you don't like that artist and their view of that market.... Otherwise, you're being a spectacular hypocrite.
Ah no, if an artist makes good quality work that is only purchasable in the UK and I cannot buy it in Canada then I can't be responsible for not buying a product that's not available to me in any other way except to download it. Otherwise I would buy it. A good example of this was a movie called "Secret of Moonacre Valley"one store in, my wife downloaded it and we liked it, but couldn't buy it in Canada. It was only for sale in the UK, I couldn't even get it on E-bay at the time, but I did find it, but the store didn't ship to Canada and if they did the movie wouldn't work in any of our devices because of region codes. The issue isn't with the "artist" in this case it's with the DRM and the distribution method, both of which are more to do with licensing, copyrights and organization like the *IAA. We buy more movies now then we use to. We go see movies available in our area at the theatre and download a lot foreign films, which we make a reasonable effort to buy if possible. Meaning I can buy it and have it shipped to me and it's in a format that I can consume it in.
Is the grocery store screwing you by offering expensive steaks you elect not to buy?
I don't normally buy stakes from the grocery store before looking at them to make sure their of good quality. Good barbecuing stakes have fat evenly distributed through out them, which makes them tender. Would you go to a grocery store and pay $20 for a steak wrapped in brown paper and not look at it first? seems unlikely to me.
This is a fictional scenario.
Is a professional photographer screwing you by offering a wedding photography package that's outside your budget?
That's not how most vendors work. When my wife and I got married we went to three different photographers, we saw samples of their work and when we decided on one we negotiated a price we thought was reasonable. Then we didn't paid until after we had received and were satisfied with the product. We paid them a bonus because we were happy with their work. IF they had done a crap job I would have returned the product and gotten photos from my friends, family and other guest and made my own photo album. *begin sarcasm* Oh, but wait then I guess the photographer would have to sue me because I got pictures for free instead of paying them for a lousy product. *end sarcasm*
I doubt that would have been the case as no one is obligated to buy something you're not happy with. The last time I remember buying a CD before downloading it first was back in the 2000. It was a band called "Pennywise". I heard one song on the radio I liked. no one I k
Actually I think I get paid too much for what I do. My employer pays me well because I do a good job, and yes I know it. I also know they won't be able to find someone with my skills and knowledge. That being said I'm loyal to my employer because they hired me when I was still in university, a big gamble on their part. Also they pay for my training to keep me up to date, I get 5 weeks vacation a year and 3 weeks sick leave, which I can carry over indefinitely. I never use it all because I love my job and what I do. If I could do my job for free I would, I've volunteered to take pay cuts in the past so people I work with could keep their jobs when situations came down to funding.
I buy my movies, when I can. I have found a couple online that aren't available here in Canada and if I had bought them from Britain I wouldn't be able to watch them on any of my normal players. I download a fair amount of music, stuff that isn't played on the radio, and I buy what I like when I can at the right price with the right conditions. If I don't like something I don't keep it. So If I had bought it before hearing it, that's when I consider myself as being "screwed". Another example is when I use to buy CD's I would have to pay ~$20 for a CD with only one or two songs I actually wanted. Now if I can find a song I want online or chose a collection of songs I want I'll buy them. Sometimes I can't easily purchase stuff I want so I keep my downloaded version.
I'm tired of hearing about how bad piracy is and company's have to take XYZ stance to combat it. Making it hard for me to buy/use products.
And Frankly, from your language it sounds like you're bitter because more people have similar mind sets to me when it comes to "pirating" because of how entities are/have treated them as customers. You seem frustrated that you have no real argument against against piracy because you lack real evidence of how it affects individuals and can't seem to make others understand your POV.
1) Entities in this case means artists as well as corporations.
2) what I said was
It seems to me you're saying that ripping off someones work is worst then creating artificial scarcity in order to turn a greater profit, rip off your customers and then turn around and blame piracy when people stop buying your product.
In other words it doesn't matter if I buy a product or not. If I don't buy it I must be pirating it. If I do buy it I'm getting screwed.
There are artist out there that make money off of giving away a product.
A local band in my area allows people to download their music for free. They've created a good following doing so. In return they get paid for live performances at local pubs and various events; The annual Buskers festival is a big money maker for them.
I use to go to school with the drummer who quit Com. Sci. in our second year because he was making a killing. I joke that he made a good choice because he's a much better drummer then he was a programmer.
Now I work as a Software developer and he's still the drummer. He's making about as much as me, but didn't have to rack up a huge student loan to do it. Sure in a few years, I might be making more then him, but I guess that will depend on how much more popular his band gets.
It seems to me you're saying that ripping off someones work is worst then creating artificial scarcity in order to turn a greater profit, rip off your customers and then turn around and blame piracy when people stop buying your product.
both are equally bad in my mind and I'm pretty sure the whole piracy issue won't be laid to rest until entities come up with a way to compete in an open market in a way that isn't screwing their customers over.
A couple suggestions that I commonly read are: 1) Stop limiting what people can do with stuff they legitimately bought and 2) Stop pretending something that's worth $1 is worth $20 or $50 because it can't be bought anyway else even though it's costing the company nothing to copy (Not produce, but to copy) the commodity.
I can see how file sharing does harm some. The issue is, as I see it, the entities it does harm are greedy and have been screwing us for years. Unfortunately the little people, ("artist", "developers", etc..) are the ones getting caught in the cross hairs.
If I buy a piece of music I should be allowed to share it with my wife, so the fact that the *IAA comes out and says, "No your wife also needs to buy a copy of that to listen to it", only infuriates me and makes me see sharing as a cause.
I'm a developer, but I love what I do, I want people to use my software and am paid on salary. If I was paid a minimal amount per-copy of my software sold, I might be a little more upset when I find one of my applications on a torrent site. However, my company doesn't make money off my software, they make money of the results of it, so people sharing the application I wrote makes my company money.
Just to be clear, you don't think Apple is monitoring your data or is a marketing company?
I have an HTC phone and I've switched off all the phone location auto connection stuff. I am also quite diligent in checking my usages to make sure my phone isn't transmitting or receiving stuff I didn't authorize. I feel pretty safe.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at how things are going for Nova Scotia, Canada. I'll give you a hint. Not good.
Playing someone else's backup is my fee to allow them to store their media on my HD. I expect others to charge me the same fee for storing backups for me.
I use stumble upon in my spare time. I've come across "porn" disguised as art (painting, CG art, photo art).
/begin sarcasm
/end sarcasm
I'd love someone to block this content for me as I see no artistic or cultural value what so ever. Who needs to see the Venus De Milo or Michelangelo's David anyway
I'm sure if there was filtering in place the system would very quickly turn in to something like M.A.D.D Canada. They want it so everyone has to have a breathalyzer in their car to block it from starting if you've even had one drink with dinner. It's an organization out of control and they commonly operate under the "Think of the Children" mantra. So if they don't get their way obviously the politician doesn't care about children or the victims of drinking and driving.
You're not running McAfee are you. I run jBuilder on my work machine and Eclipse on my PS3 and laptop. My work machine almost dies every time I start jBuilder and then everything (right click context menus, drop down menus, compiling, debugging, etc...) is insanely slow the first time it's used. I don't have the same problems with my PS3 or laptop.
It's fear that their personal language of choice is in a decline. I'm a Java developer. When I hear people talking about languages like Python and Ruby I start to think about whether I'm going to have to learn a new Syntax if one of my "hip" clients comes to me and says, "Waddup yo. I wants you to write me a fly app in snake!!".
People are seduced by what's shiny and new. That being said, sometimes you have to kill a dinosaur so a manual can evolve.
My objective was to point out the sentence made more sense if you broke it up. The original post contained the 's, since I was quoting it the 's stuck. There are plenty of others more willing then me to point out the additional issue.
I get a lot of practice as a developer. Finding missing semi-colons, quotation marks and brackets in code is practically my specialty.
A sequence of movements is great until you're required to change your password every 30-60 days. At which point by the time I get the sequence down so I don't need to remember the password it's changed and I have to learn a new one.
That method works well with some things, like phone numbers. I can't remember my wife's cell number so I have an excuse not to give it out to people, but I can still dial it when I have to call her.
So what's harder to crack, a Secure password you've described above written on a sticky note stuck to a monitor or under a keyboard or a slightly less secure password most people can remember?
/. I would say a low security password of at least 3 characters would be sufficient. I'd consider a bank account a high security password, which should have more restrictive conditions place on it.
We have similar password requirements where I work only you can't reuse a password with in the last 14 passwords and it's changed every 3 months. I manage several databases, have 10 different application accounts, 3 HR accounts (for requesting time off, training and such), 3 e-mail accounts and at least four web forum accounts. All with different user names and password requirements.
unfortunately I've had to resort to writing everything down. I keep them locked up, but all it would take is for me to pull them out to log in to a system and get distracted and forget to put them away. Many of the people in my office just write their new passwords on post it notes and stick them to their monitors. I've commented on it before and was promptly told to STFU and mind my own business.
It's gotten to the point that I'm just refusing to use accounts that have ridiculous requirements. I'm no longer using the HR Training forum because they require a 16 character, no real words, non-repeating character, mixed case, alphanumeric with special characters password that must be changed every 30 days. That's just to look at what courses are being made available to my group, there's a separate site and account I have to log on to in order to request training that may or may not be listed on the former site. I sent the group in charge of the courses site an e-mail explaining why I wouldn't be using their site and they tattled to section head, who had never used the site before. After he tried to create an account and understood why I was refusing to use it he replied to them with an e-mail starting with "I'm going to make this as politically correct as I can, but..."
What I believe it boils down to is the managers of a site need to evaluate what information is being made available on their site and what level of security is necessary. For forums like
Punctuation would have been useful
hard passwords just lead to post it's. Even more so if you need to change it all the time and can't reuse old ones or even parts of old ones.
I may not be familiar with the whole store of Noah's arc, but I seem to remember everyone except Noah and his family being wiped off the face of the earth. So wouldn't this mean according to the bible this "incestuous fuckfest" would have taken place at least twice?
I didn't intend to post this AC.
Well said. If I had mod points you'd get them
You must, surely, see the moral difference between these two scenarios.
No I don't, you've invented a moral difference based on your own morals and values. I don't share that outlook. I feel the try-and-buy model works.
but their works are none the less found in thousands of busy torrents all across the web. Why is that?
If something is played on the radio 20 times a day for free, what's the difference between that and it being on a torrent site? IMHO, there is no difference. If it's free it's free. And if free leads people to buy, which I do, that's even better.
People want it, but don't want to be bothered paying for it, and not because they can claim ignorance of the contents of the work. They just want the artist to work for them for free.
I've already debunked this. I buy much of what I do download and delete stuff I don't care for. I don't expect to get anything I want for free, but I do expect to be able to decide if I want to pay for it. If an artist doesn't want me to download their stuff and I know (Matalica) then I don't, but I don't buy anything by them at all. Too bad I use to be a big fan of theirs, until the file sharing fiasco.
You're not looking to avoid a couple of less appealing songs on a CD, you're looking for pet entertainment slaves that you can treat how you see fit, throwing them a bone if you decide they deserve it, but consuming their work in advance without honoring the offer they're making
So if I test drive a car I'm obligated to buy it? No, when I bought my car I went to five different dealer ships and test drove at least two cars from each, when I found one I liked I found two other places it was sold and negotiated a price I was willing to pay.
Entertainers aren't slaves, but it is part of their job to entertain. If a busker on a street corner isn't preforming he's just a beggar. I'm not going to give him money just because I saw him pick his nose. If however he's playing an instrument I might throw a few dollars his way. The way you describe it makes it sound like I'm telling him to dance and shooting a gun at his feet.
If I hear something I like I'll make a reasonable effort to pay for it. Money isn't an issue it's the product and whether it's BEING made available to be purchased.
f you don't like how an artist brings something to market, that means that you don't like that artist and their view of that market. ... Otherwise, you're being a spectacular hypocrite.
Ah no, if an artist makes good quality work that is only purchasable in the UK and I cannot buy it in Canada then I can't be responsible for not buying a product that's not available to me in any other way except to download it. Otherwise I would buy it. A good example of this was a movie called "Secret of Moonacre Valley"one store in, my wife downloaded it and we liked it, but couldn't buy it in Canada. It was only for sale in the UK, I couldn't even get it on E-bay at the time, but I did find it, but the store didn't ship to Canada and if they did the movie wouldn't work in any of our devices because of region codes. The issue isn't with the "artist" in this case it's with the DRM and the distribution method, both of which are more to do with licensing, copyrights and organization like the *IAA. We buy more movies now then we use to. We go see movies available in our area at the theatre and download a lot foreign films, which we make a reasonable effort to buy if possible. Meaning I can buy it and have it shipped to me and it's in a format that I can consume it in.
Is the grocery store screwing you by offering expensive steaks you elect not to buy?
I don't normally buy stakes from the grocery store before looking at them to make sure their of good quality. Good barbecuing stakes have fat evenly distributed through out them, which makes them tender. Would you go to a grocery store and pay $20 for a steak wrapped in brown paper and not look at it first? seems unlikely to me.
This is a fictional scenario.
Is a professional photographer screwing you by offering a wedding photography package that's outside your budget?
That's not how most vendors work. When my wife and I got married we went to three different photographers, we saw samples of their work and when we decided on one we negotiated a price we thought was reasonable. Then we didn't paid until after we had received and were satisfied with the product. We paid them a bonus because we were happy with their work. IF they had done a crap job I would have returned the product and gotten photos from my friends, family and other guest and made my own photo album. *begin sarcasm* Oh, but wait then I guess the photographer would have to sue me because I got pictures for free instead of paying them for a lousy product. *end sarcasm*
I doubt that would have been the case as no one is obligated to buy something you're not happy with. The last time I remember buying a CD before downloading it first was back in the 2000. It was a band called "Pennywise". I heard one song on the radio I liked. no one I k
What can I say, you're 100% right. I'm glad you can make up fictional unrelated scenarios to prove yourself. You've made me see the error of my ways.
We use acronyms heavily where I work. Caps lock makes typing paragraphs of them easier.
Go back and read my last post because you obviously didn't. I'm done arguing with you believe what you want it still doesn't make you right.
I like it.
Some of your stuff I think would make great background music for a video game. Keep up the good work.
Actually I think I get paid too much for what I do. My employer pays me well because I do a good job, and yes I know it. I also know they won't be able to find someone with my skills and knowledge. That being said I'm loyal to my employer because they hired me when I was still in university, a big gamble on their part. Also they pay for my training to keep me up to date, I get 5 weeks vacation a year and 3 weeks sick leave, which I can carry over indefinitely. I never use it all because I love my job and what I do. If I could do my job for free I would, I've volunteered to take pay cuts in the past so people I work with could keep their jobs when situations came down to funding.
I buy my movies, when I can. I have found a couple online that aren't available here in Canada and if I had bought them from Britain I wouldn't be able to watch them on any of my normal players. I download a fair amount of music, stuff that isn't played on the radio, and I buy what I like when I can at the right price with the right conditions. If I don't like something I don't keep it. So If I had bought it before hearing it, that's when I consider myself as being "screwed". Another example is when I use to buy CD's I would have to pay ~$20 for a CD with only one or two songs I actually wanted. Now if I can find a song I want online or chose a collection of songs I want I'll buy them. Sometimes I can't easily purchase stuff I want so I keep my downloaded version.
I'm tired of hearing about how bad piracy is and company's have to take XYZ stance to combat it. Making it hard for me to buy/use products.
And Frankly, from your language it sounds like you're bitter because more people have similar mind sets to me when it comes to "pirating" because of how entities are/have treated them as customers. You seem frustrated that you have no real argument against against piracy because you lack real evidence of how it affects individuals and can't seem to make others understand your POV.
2) what I said was
It seems to me you're saying that ripping off someones work is worst then creating artificial scarcity in order to turn a greater profit, rip off your customers and then turn around and blame piracy when people stop buying your product.
In other words it doesn't matter if I buy a product or not. If I don't buy it I must be pirating it. If I do buy it I'm getting screwed.
There are artist out there that make money off of giving away a product.
A local band in my area allows people to download their music for free. They've created a good following doing so. In return they get paid for live performances at local pubs and various events; The annual Buskers festival is a big money maker for them.
I use to go to school with the drummer who quit Com. Sci. in our second year because he was making a killing. I joke that he made a good choice because he's a much better drummer then he was a programmer.
Now I work as a Software developer and he's still the drummer. He's making about as much as me, but didn't have to rack up a huge student loan to do it. Sure in a few years, I might be making more then him, but I guess that will depend on how much more popular his band gets.
It seems to me you're saying that ripping off someones work is worst then creating artificial scarcity in order to turn a greater profit, rip off your customers and then turn around and blame piracy when people stop buying your product.
both are equally bad in my mind and I'm pretty sure the whole piracy issue won't be laid to rest until entities come up with a way to compete in an open market in a way that isn't screwing their customers over.
A couple suggestions that I commonly read are: 1) Stop limiting what people can do with stuff they legitimately bought and 2) Stop pretending something that's worth $1 is worth $20 or $50 because it can't be bought anyway else even though it's costing the company nothing to copy (Not produce, but to copy) the commodity.
I can see how file sharing does harm some. The issue is, as I see it, the entities it does harm are greedy and have been screwing us for years. Unfortunately the little people, ("artist", "developers", etc..) are the ones getting caught in the cross hairs.
If I buy a piece of music I should be allowed to share it with my wife, so the fact that the *IAA comes out and says, "No your wife also needs to buy a copy of that to listen to it", only infuriates me and makes me see sharing as a cause.
I'm a developer, but I love what I do, I want people to use my software and am paid on salary. If I was paid a minimal amount per-copy of my software sold, I might be a little more upset when I find one of my applications on a torrent site. However, my company doesn't make money off my software, they make money of the results of it, so people sharing the application I wrote makes my company money.
Also, you are an idiot.
I hardly ever read the subject lines. they're normally an inaccurate assessment of the actual post, or reiterated within the post.
I guess that's what I get for paraphrasing.
Just to be clear, you don't think Apple is monitoring your data or is a marketing company?
I have an HTC phone and I've switched off all the phone location auto connection stuff. I am also quite diligent in checking my usages to make sure my phone isn't transmitting or receiving stuff I didn't authorize. I feel pretty safe.