Yeah, but what do you do when someone who is patently, provably wrong gets modded up to score 5?
Refute their stupidity, and hope that enough intelligent people who see your comment have the mod point to get your response seen.
Besides, it's not like a post getting "+5 Insightful" magically makes it an insightful statement, right?
My feelings towards the modding up of obvious dreck is the same as my feelings towards hate speech - let 'em say whatever they want, it's a lot easier to pick out (and subsequently lambaste and ostracize) the idiots and bigots when they're that blatant about it.
It is against the moderation rules to mod somebody down even if they REALLY ARE wrong.
Bullshit. The negative moderation options exist for a reason. Use them where appropriate. When someone makes an empirical claim that clearly and absurdly wrong, especially one which remediable with a couple minutes of research, this is a troll by definition.
I thought a troll, by definition, did that sort of shit with the specific intent of either pissing someone off or derailing discussion?
IMO, "ignorant, lying asshole" is probably a more accurate descriptor in this instance.
I don't see a downside to GPS tracking your kids. We use GPS on our smart phones to find directions to places in our direct neighborhood.
Right! Because, as we all know, GPS will always be available, electronic devices never malfunction (especially in damp, dirty environments such as forests and amusement parks!), and batteries never lose their charge, so why would anyone these days waste time teaching their kids how to find their way using such archaic methods such as knowing which way is North and how the sun rises in the East and sets in the West?
It's ubiquitous. The whole "Children need to find out how to get unlost by themselves" is complete luddite garbage.
YEA, FUCKING LUDDITES! How dare they think that future generations will ever, ever be unable to access geolocation technology! Computers and machines will always be there to do our thinking for us!! GOOO TECHNOLOGICALLY-ASSISTED LAZINESS!!!!
Children are entering a future where this kind of technology is intrinsically linked to their development.
So, because of that, they shouldn't have to learn anything on their own?
Do you not realize how silly that sounds?
Keeping them inside of a tech-free bubble
Strawman - no one is suggesting that.
just because the parents never grew up with the same technology around them ("And they turned out fine!")
Better than 'fine,' actually - I can find my way out of a wet paper sack without being forced to rely on some device that may or may not be available and functioning. Judging from your statements here, I find it doubtful you'd be able to do the same.
I don't suppose you've ever considered the notion that complete reliance on technology is a self-inflicted handicap?
...is just as bad as brainwashing them into religion at an early age...
So, here you say, essentially, that people who want their kids to learn as opposed to having a machine do all the kids' thinking for them, are exactly the same as crazy-ass fundamentalists?
Man, and some folks think I've got a twisted word view... You take the cake.
Your child is still a person. Even if they are 3 or 14... they are still a person. They aren't possessions or an animal of a different species.
For that reason any tech like this makes me nervous. When you say "this is how a control my dog" I see a bit of red.
Right, my child is more important to me than my dog. So if I'm worried about not knowing where my dog is, I'm much more worried about not knowing where my child is.
Unless you're leaving your kid chained up in the backyard with a bowl of water and some chew toys 8 hours a day, I don't see how this is a valid comparison.
If the copyright owner refuses to sell copies, the effective value is $0, because it's not for sale.
But wouldn't that lead to an argument that noncommercial distribution of an orphaned or otherwise out-of-print work has zero "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (17 USC 107)?
Considering that, in certain segments of our society, people get into gun fights over attire pigmentation, I'd have to say yea, that would at least lead to an argument, if not an all out copyright war.
FWIW, a lot of that 'orphaned or otherwise out of print work' falls under the definition of public domain, which is how things are supposed to work (I know, I know, "supposed to" != "is," don't remind me!)
Unluckily the modern publisher does really think that just because you paid for it and it is digital doesn't mean that ownership changed and they're well on their way to getting it into law. See the discussion up the page on the VAT tax status of physical book vs electronic. Electronic is taxed as a service.
Yea, I find it particularly mind boggling how media in one format is protected*, but the same media in another is treated like a completely different animal.
If Amazon knows Joe the Consumer will pay $12.99 for an ebook, they'll charge $12.99 for it; if no one buys ebooks from Amazon for $12.99, and OtherRetailer.com starts selling their ebooks for $9.99, Amazon will either drop their prices or lose out completely.
That depends on to what extent the ebooks that OtherRetailer.com sells can substitute for the ebooks that Amazon sells. For example, if Fifty Shades of Grey by E. L. James is exclusive to Amazon, and all you can find elsewhere is Thirty-Five Shades of Grey by J. D. Lyte, people are more likely to pay more for the real thing. It's called "monopolistic competition".
That's not monopolistic - you can still go buy a "real" hard copy from any of a dozen book sellers.
So let's run with your market-based analysis. What is the market value of copies of a work that the copyright owner refuses to sell, such as the film Song of the South or the TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea or the English translation of the video game Mother for NES (called "Earthbound Zero" in the pirate scene)?
If the copyright owner refuses to sell copies, the effective value is $0, because it's not for sale.
Running a government like a business is a double edged sword. Businesses aren't guided by what's good for their customers, they are guided by what those customers will pay for. You could say goodbye to money hungry efforts that benefit us all such as funding scientific research. The military would have to start wars so they could be productive, that sort of thing.
Not to mention, these days corporations are beholden to their stockholders more than anyone else. Which, of course, brings us to the frightening question of, "who are the stockholders in our government?"
Why frightening? Because, guaranteed, the answer isn't "Joe Public."
Market forces only work where there is a market. Where there is a monopoly source they charge monopoly prices which is whatever they want to. There is no other retailer that can sell the book for $9.99 because the monopoly holding publisher won't let them.
You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Having complete control over a certain piece of content you own the right to is not monopolistic; having complete control over a certain type of content does. Take tablets, for example - Apple is the exclusive seller of iPads, but they by no means have a monopoly on the tablet market. Similarly, J.K. Rowling's publisher may have exclusive right to the Harry Potter series, but they do not hold a monopoly over books.
Granted, the way they implement it in ebooks is quite ridiculous, but if publishers were not able to control the distribution of the content they own the rights to, there would be no publishers and thus, no books (well, OK, there'd be books, but they'd all be self-edited, self-published, self-bound, minimally circulated, a general pain-in-the-ass to acquire, and the vast majority wouldn't be worth reading).
I was recently looking for a book. I could get new paper copies for from $9.99 to $12.99 (it's a weird coincidence but the prices exactly corresponded to what you stated) and used copies (another part of market competition that doesn't exist with DRMed digital goods) for around $5.00. The ebook was $12.99 everywhere. Given the marginal cost do you really think every ebook retailer was keeping that price because they wanted to?
Doesn't matter - they know you'll pay it; supply and demand. As I said before, if people stopped buying $12.99 ebooks, they wouldn't sell, retailers would stop making money, and prices would have to drop. Again, it;s all a matter of supply and demand (mostly demand).
Same goes with DRM - if consumers refused to purchase DRM'd content, no content would have DRM. But people do, which the companies that engage in such anti-consumer practices see and use as ammunition for their next lobby field trip to D.C. "See? Folks will still pay for DRM'd content, even at a premium, so that means everyone who doesn't is a filthy pirate!"
Or something like that.
Similarly, if Joe the Consumer realized he can have a tangible, irrevocable version of the ebook (we just call them "books" around these parts) for even less than what the online retailers are charging, he'd be a complete moron (IMO) to waste money renting* ebooks from online retailers.
This is largely true with one big exception. People will pay for convenience. This is how you defeat "piracy". Provide value in the form of convenience. It's a pain in the ass and there is a certain amount of risk with using "pirated" goods. Charge a reasonable price and provide added value in the form of convenience and people will be more than willing to pay for it.
Well, personally, I find a digital copy that I do not technically own, which can be taken away on the arbitrary whims of a faceless corporation, is not nearly as convenient as something solid I can hold in my hand, that can't be taken from me without either a refund or a fight.
Please take notice, this is a legal declaration.
You or a computer operating on your behalf's actions has chosen to accept this users data displayed here,
in so doing you explicitly agree that all terms, conditions and and limitations imposed by yourselves are hereby declared void for all of this users communications, furthermore you agree this policy is binding and final resolute, any further changes to this users policy will be available to you at the users discretion in writing only (administration fees will apply, allow 180 days for processing).
Please note this does not affect your statuary rights as applicable by law.
Figure out a way to stick that in every HTTP header your browser sends, and we'll be in business!
They even have extensions/addons for various browsers, to expedite my (and presumably, your) laziness.
To be fair to we consumers, ToS' are so absurdly convoluted and lengthy that no one but a lawyer who specializes in that sort of thing will A) have the wherewithall to actually read it, and B) the knowledge of legalese to understand what's written.
Anecdote: My brother updated his iTunes this weekend, part of which entailed agreeing to a new ToS - I shit you not, it was over 50 pages of legal mumbo jumbo written in a font so tiny I almost had to break out the on-screen magnifier just to read it.
We shouldn't have to hire lawyers just so we can install software without getting fucked.
Removing the word "other" implies every university in Europe was involved.
Forgot to address this one: No again.
"MIT, Caltech, and universities in Europe" does not imply all universities in Europe; it makes a distinction between MIT, Caltech, and European universities.
"MIT, Caltech, and all the universities in Europe" less implies it, and more just says it.
But there is a connection, MIT, Caltech, Harvard and the universities in Europe are all universities.
Removing the word "other" implies every university in Europe was involved.
No, including the word other implies that all the schools are in Europe.
"Sam and the other boys..." implies that Sam is a boy.
"Chevy, Ford, and other manufacturers in Japan" implies that Chevy and Ford are Japanese.
...cost reasons, religious objections, and because autopsies reveal medical mistakes, making doctors and hospitals uncomfortable.
Say what? Does anyone else see that last reason list as completely asinine with regards to not doing an autopsy? Ok, maybe the religious one is a silly objection, but there's no need to go against the religious beliefs of the deceased/close family members, at least as long as foul play isn't a concern. But, because it might reveal the f*ck-ups of the quack that took your tonsils out? Yeah, I'm not getting the point of that one...
Well, welcome to the 21st century, Encino Man! Funniest thing - while you were encased in frozen carbonite, society took, er, a bit of a left turn, see, so now we collectively pretend that it's far more important to protect the reputation of rich quacks, than to enact social justice.
Whaddayamean, 'that's batshit crazy?' Just what era do you hail from, bub?
Slashdot Mirror
We no put secret backdoor code in yo phone! We no pee-pee in your Coke!
So... Anybody know anything about any launch coooooooooodes?
Yeah, but what do you do when someone who is patently, provably wrong gets modded up to score 5?
Refute their stupidity, and hope that enough intelligent people who see your comment have the mod point to get your response seen.
Besides, it's not like a post getting "+5 Insightful" magically makes it an insightful statement, right?
My feelings towards the modding up of obvious dreck is the same as my feelings towards hate speech - let 'em say whatever they want, it's a lot easier to pick out (and subsequently lambaste and ostracize) the idiots and bigots when they're that blatant about it.
It is against the moderation rules to mod somebody down even if they REALLY ARE wrong.
Bullshit. The negative moderation options exist for a reason. Use them where appropriate. When someone makes an empirical claim that clearly and absurdly wrong, especially one which remediable with a couple minutes of research, this is a troll by definition.
I thought a troll, by definition, did that sort of shit with the specific intent of either pissing someone off or derailing discussion?
IMO, "ignorant, lying asshole" is probably a more accurate descriptor in this instance.
I don't see a downside to GPS tracking your kids. We use GPS on our smart phones to find directions to places in our direct neighborhood.
Right! Because, as we all know, GPS will always be available, electronic devices never malfunction (especially in damp, dirty environments such as forests and amusement parks!), and batteries never lose their charge, so why would anyone these days waste time teaching their kids how to find their way using such archaic methods such as knowing which way is North and how the sun rises in the East and sets in the West?
It's ubiquitous. The whole "Children need to find out how to get unlost by themselves" is complete luddite garbage.
YEA, FUCKING LUDDITES! How dare they think that future generations will ever, ever be unable to access geolocation technology! Computers and machines will always be there to do our thinking for us!! GOOO TECHNOLOGICALLY-ASSISTED LAZINESS!!!!
Children are entering a future where this kind of technology is intrinsically linked to their development.
So, because of that, they shouldn't have to learn anything on their own?
Do you not realize how silly that sounds?
Keeping them inside of a tech-free bubble
Strawman - no one is suggesting that.
just because the parents never grew up with the same technology around them ("And they turned out fine!")
Better than 'fine,' actually - I can find my way out of a wet paper sack without being forced to rely on some device that may or may not be available and functioning. Judging from your statements here, I find it doubtful you'd be able to do the same.
I don't suppose you've ever considered the notion that complete reliance on technology is a self-inflicted handicap?
...is just as bad as brainwashing them into religion at an early age...
So, here you say, essentially, that people who want their kids to learn as opposed to having a machine do all the kids' thinking for them, are exactly the same as crazy-ass fundamentalists?
Man, and some folks think I've got a twisted word view... You take the cake.
after watching the red-necks breed where i live, i also think they should also be put on leashes
2. Why did you watch?
So that's where goatse comes from!
If your three year old can outrun you, you're already in big trouble.
You haven't spent time around many toddlers, I take it?
With 3 year olds, it's not how fast they run, but their magical ability to disa-fucking-ppear the second you take your eyes off them.
Seriously. Anyone who has spent time around toddlers can attest to this.
Your child is still a person. Even if they are 3 or 14... they are still a person. They aren't possessions or an animal of a different species.
For that reason any tech like this makes me nervous. When you say "this is how a control my dog" I see a bit of red.
Right, my child is more important to me than my dog. So if I'm worried about not knowing where my dog is, I'm much more worried about not knowing where my child is.
Unless you're leaving your kid chained up in the backyard with a bowl of water and some chew toys 8 hours a day, I don't see how this is a valid comparison.
I can see your point, but I don't think this is a slippery slope issue.
Then
You're
Not
Paying
Enough
Attention
Here Here! You should write a child-rearing book.
Seriously.
Dr. Spock ain't got shit on ShanghaiBill.
If the copyright owner refuses to sell copies, the effective value is $0, because it's not for sale.
But wouldn't that lead to an argument that noncommercial distribution of an orphaned or otherwise out-of-print work has zero "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (17 USC 107)?
Considering that, in certain segments of our society, people get into gun fights over attire pigmentation, I'd have to say yea, that would at least lead to an argument, if not an all out copyright war.
FWIW, a lot of that 'orphaned or otherwise out of print work' falls under the definition of public domain, which is how things are supposed to work (I know, I know, "supposed to" != "is," don't remind me!)
Yes. They are all playing Angry Birds.
Or reading manga.
That's what I use mine for during meetings, anyway.
Straw and hay are not the same thing, smart ass.
No shit, Sherlock.
I was partly being sarcastic.
I wondered about that...
Unluckily the modern publisher does really think that just because you paid for it and it is digital doesn't mean that ownership changed and they're well on their way to getting it into law. See the discussion up the page on the VAT tax status of physical book vs electronic. Electronic is taxed as a service.
Yea, I find it particularly mind boggling how media in one format is protected*, but the same media in another is treated like a completely different animal.
* They're working on "fixing" that, too
If Amazon knows Joe the Consumer will pay $12.99 for an ebook, they'll charge $12.99 for it; if no one buys ebooks from Amazon for $12.99, and OtherRetailer.com starts selling their ebooks for $9.99, Amazon will either drop their prices or lose out completely.
That depends on to what extent the ebooks that OtherRetailer.com sells can substitute for the ebooks that Amazon sells. For example, if Fifty Shades of Grey by E. L. James is exclusive to Amazon, and all you can find elsewhere is Thirty-Five Shades of Grey by J. D. Lyte, people are more likely to pay more for the real thing. It's called "monopolistic competition".
That's not monopolistic - you can still go buy a "real" hard copy from any of a dozen book sellers.
So let's run with your market-based analysis. What is the market value of copies of a work that the copyright owner refuses to sell, such as the film Song of the South or the TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea or the English translation of the video game Mother for NES (called "Earthbound Zero" in the pirate scene)?
If the copyright owner refuses to sell copies, the effective value is $0, because it's not for sale.
Am I the only one that thought Evilynne was smoking hot? Gota love bad girls.
I always had a thing for Cheetara myself...
Kinda makes me wonder if furries are just people who never outgrew the crushing-on-a-cartoon-character phase.
Running a government like a business is a double edged sword. Businesses aren't guided by what's good for their customers, they are guided by what those customers will pay for. You could say goodbye to money hungry efforts that benefit us all such as funding scientific research. The military would have to start wars so they could be productive, that sort of thing.
Not to mention, these days corporations are beholden to their stockholders more than anyone else. Which, of course, brings us to the frightening question of, "who are the stockholders in our government?"
Why frightening? Because, guaranteed, the answer isn't "Joe Public."
Market forces only work where there is a market. Where there is a monopoly source they charge monopoly prices which is whatever they want to. There is no other retailer that can sell the book for $9.99 because the monopoly holding publisher won't let them.
You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Having complete control over a certain piece of content you own the right to is not monopolistic; having complete control over a certain type of content does. Take tablets, for example - Apple is the exclusive seller of iPads, but they by no means have a monopoly on the tablet market. Similarly, J.K. Rowling's publisher may have exclusive right to the Harry Potter series, but they do not hold a monopoly over books.
Granted, the way they implement it in ebooks is quite ridiculous, but if publishers were not able to control the distribution of the content they own the rights to, there would be no publishers and thus, no books (well, OK, there'd be books, but they'd all be self-edited, self-published, self-bound, minimally circulated, a general pain-in-the-ass to acquire, and the vast majority wouldn't be worth reading).
I was recently looking for a book. I could get new paper copies for from $9.99 to $12.99 (it's a weird coincidence but the prices exactly corresponded to what you stated) and used copies (another part of market competition that doesn't exist with DRMed digital goods) for around $5.00. The ebook was $12.99 everywhere. Given the marginal cost do you really think every ebook retailer was keeping that price because they wanted to?
Doesn't matter - they know you'll pay it; supply and demand. As I said before, if people stopped buying $12.99 ebooks, they wouldn't sell, retailers would stop making money, and prices would have to drop. Again, it;s all a matter of supply and demand (mostly demand).
Same goes with DRM - if consumers refused to purchase DRM'd content, no content would have DRM. But people do, which the companies that engage in such anti-consumer practices see and use as ammunition for their next lobby field trip to D.C. "See? Folks will still pay for DRM'd content, even at a premium, so that means everyone who doesn't is a filthy pirate!"
Or something like that.
Similarly, if Joe the Consumer realized he can have a tangible, irrevocable version of the ebook (we just call them "books" around these parts) for even less than what the online retailers are charging, he'd be a complete moron (IMO) to waste money renting* ebooks from online retailers.
This is largely true with one big exception. People will pay for convenience. This is how you defeat "piracy". Provide value in the form of convenience. It's a pain in the ass and there is a certain amount of risk with using "pirated" goods. Charge a reasonable price and provide added value in the form of convenience and people will be more than willing to pay for it.
Well, personally, I find a digital copy that I do not technically own, which can be taken away on the arbitrary whims of a faceless corporation, is not nearly as convenient as something solid I can hold in my hand, that can't be taken from me without either a refund or a fight.
Please take notice, this is a legal declaration. You or a computer operating on your behalf's actions has chosen to accept this users data displayed here, in so doing you explicitly agree that all terms, conditions and and limitations imposed by yourselves are hereby declared void for all of this users communications, furthermore you agree this policy is binding and final resolute, any further changes to this users policy will be available to you at the users discretion in writing only (administration fees will apply, allow 180 days for processing). Please note this does not affect your statuary rights as applicable by law.
Figure out a way to stick that in every HTTP header your browser sends, and we'll be in business!
They even have extensions/addons for various browsers, to expedite my (and presumably, your) laziness.
To be fair to we consumers, ToS' are so absurdly convoluted and lengthy that no one but a lawyer who specializes in that sort of thing will A) have the wherewithall to actually read it, and B) the knowledge of legalese to understand what's written.
Anecdote: My brother updated his iTunes this weekend, part of which entailed agreeing to a new ToS - I shit you not, it was over 50 pages of legal mumbo jumbo written in a font so tiny I almost had to break out the on-screen magnifier just to read it.
We shouldn't have to hire lawyers just so we can install software without getting fucked.
Removing the word "other" implies every university in Europe was involved.
Forgot to address this one: No again.
"MIT, Caltech, and universities in Europe" does not imply all universities in Europe; it makes a distinction between MIT, Caltech, and European universities.
"MIT, Caltech, and all the universities in Europe" less implies it, and more just says it.
But there is a connection, MIT, Caltech, Harvard and the universities in Europe are all universities. Removing the word "other" implies every university in Europe was involved.
No, including the word other implies that all the schools are in Europe.
"Sam and the other boys..." implies that Sam is a boy.
"Chevy, Ford, and other manufacturers in Japan" implies that Chevy and Ford are Japanese.
Same deal here.
From TFA:
Which one? there's, like, 4 of them...
...cost reasons, religious objections, and because autopsies reveal medical mistakes, making doctors and hospitals uncomfortable.
Say what? Does anyone else see that last reason list as completely asinine with regards to not doing an autopsy? Ok, maybe the religious one is a silly objection, but there's no need to go against the religious beliefs of the deceased/close family members, at least as long as foul play isn't a concern. But, because it might reveal the f*ck-ups of the quack that took your tonsils out? Yeah, I'm not getting the point of that one...
Well, welcome to the 21st century, Encino Man! Funniest thing - while you were encased in frozen carbonite, society took, er, a bit of a left turn, see, so now we collectively pretend that it's far more important to protect the reputation of rich quacks, than to enact social justice.
Whaddayamean, 'that's batshit crazy?' Just what era do you hail from, bub?
IAnd your bank account probably won't get big enough to require many decimals."
Do they ever respond, "Why would I ever need more than 2?"
MIT always gives the impression that they are the first to accomplish anything.
So... MIT == Apple now?
Calm down, fanbois, you know it's true.