If I were to say that, then yes. You should assume I'm full of shit.
At least that's the default position I take when reading user-posted comment on the internet... People are full of shit until they demonstrate otherwise.
While digital distribution has the conceptual potential to be the winner, pay-per-play will kill it. Until the industry ditches pay-per-play for downloaded media, or reduces the price-per-play to significantly (1/10th) less than the cost of a video rental, it will be relegated to the same niche status as pay-per-view cable TV. Even the "all-you-can-eat" models that have a subscription fee associated with them have a serious uphill battle.
Right, because nobody has ever posted negative comments on the internet about a device that competes with the one they bought. Oh, wait. That's probably half the stuff that's out there. The other half is the same small group of people posting the same horror story over and over even though (in most cases) both of the competing devices work just fine for the vast, vast majority of users.
I think the likelihood of of this guy actually having $2500 worth of next generation playback equipment is about 1/1000th of the chance that he's just full of shit. Maybe he's not lying, but odds are...
Of course, there will be people who jump on a bandwagon, but that doesn't mean the people driving the wagon don't know what they're doing.
I'm not sure what your point is. Isn't that the definition of a "trend"? Perhaps you just felt the need to agree with me as an excuse for jumping on said bandwagon?
The volume isn't what makes me think it's trendy. It's the pair of facts that it has become common for people to interject their grievances into a discussion even when they have no bearing on the main point, and to a lesser extent the high quantity of second-hand opinions that dominate most of the discussions.
Exactly -- which is why Antigua has a valid point.
I agree. In fact, with the exception of their IP stances, I generally agree with WTO findings, even when they find against the US.
The maxim that your network is only as secure as the weakest link does not imply that any steps you take to secure portions that are *not* the weakest are security through obscurity. When you say that trying to hide an insecure signal will not make your network any more secure, you are 100% correct; but that still doesn't make this security through obscurity.
ROT13 is not an apt analogy. If you know that a document is encoded with ROT13 (i.e. if the security method is revealed) the security is broken, since anybody can reverse ROT13. If you know that a signal is blocked from your access, that knowledge in itself does not mean the security is broken. You still need to take active (and potentially impossible) steps to break the security. See the difference?
You're absolutely right. Nintendo has never had to do anything like this before...
Oh, wait... Yes they have. Over and over again, and the last time was less than a year ago. Or perhaps you forgot about the Nintendo DS lite which sold just as quickly? Or the DS the christmas before, or the GBA SP? Last christmas (2005), Nintendo averaged over two million handhelds per month for four months over the Christmas season.
Check your division on that 1.5 million number (5.5 divided by 4.5 is 1.2), and remember that they had months to stockpile before release if they wanted to. The fact of the matter (and I say this as a happy Wii owner) is that Nintendo did not plan for success with the Wii. There is *no* excuse for shortages in April, five months after the launch. Even Microsoft got their act together by then.
Thanks for missing the point. It is clear he would have articulated his point as such if he happened to bother thinking the entire thing through. That quote essentialy says "games should either be shooters, racers, platformers, or sports, and nothing else!" except he had to trick you into reading it. If he had come right out and said "You should only like the games I like" in the same way thousands of others have had the argument in the past you wouldn't even have bothered to read it.
That only makes my point even stronger. You don't 'play' a good game so much as 'experience' it. It doesn't matter if you're pushing buttons the whole time?
I think it's absurd that I got moderated 'Troll' for my comment. I don't think I said was any more rediculous than the story itself.
That quote is such an enormous piece of crap that I can smell it from here. Hell, I don't even know where to start. We "see" video games with our hands? Well that will teach all those people who make games that you play with your feet, or that you interact with through audio, or video. Get them out of the market! Watching when we should be playing? God forbid! How dare they make us experience something we have no control over. Until video games are a direct projection on the screen of exactly what's going on in our mind, I guess he won't be happy. Of course, once we get to that point, who needs developers... Or artistic direction. We certainly can't let a game convey any static concepts to us though!
Fuck this guys eyes and hands. The point of games are to keep your brain entertained. And if he can't be entertained by a cut-scene, he should play something else, or go back to jerking off.
I rather think you don't understand what 'average' means.
Quite the other way around. If everybody but one guy is equally above average, and one guy is slightly below...
So.. what you are suggesting is that practically everyone can be above average, those who are below are the exception, and as per your earlier post, they'll just be a bit below average...
No, people who are below average through no fault of their own are the exception ('exception' doesn't imply quantity).
The bigger the group above average, the smaller the group below average. Now, there are 2 possibilities, the average will change (causing less people above average again) or those who are below average are so deep below it that the average will change very little.
I fear that this part of the discussion is lost on you.
Which in no way changes that there will be a substantial group of people below average, and you will have to ensure they have a place in society. Note that I am not saying that they should have the same chances or such, but I am saying that discarding them is a very bad idea since even when you remove all 'lack of efford' cases, those people WILL exist.
When there is an exception to a rule, it is often easier to handle the exception than to change the rule.
(a) You actually said it was impossible for them to have that information. My subscription is expired, otherwise I'd go through my comment history and find the reference. It is possible, and even quite easy for them to have enough information to give rock solid proof after further discovery. That doesn't mean they're doing everything in their power, but in many cases they're doing enough (in my opinion) to warrant said discovery. (If they get to that stage and find insufficient proof they should be liable for all of the defendant's costs of course.) (b) That's total bullshit. Most of these people probably *did*, and we only ever hear about the outrageous cases. Hell, it's highly likely that the seven year old girl in the news the other day actually traded songs online. That doesn't mean she should be subjected to a lawsuit or deposition, but she probably did it. It's so easy to do, and so common, that it's very difficult to give anybody the benefit of the doubt. (c-ii) What, exactly, is the legal definition of copyright misuse?
I actually agree with you on the points you labeled (c) and (c-i).
Don't get me wrong, I think the legal practices of the RIAA are despicable. Intimidation and extortion are horrible tactics. However, this isn't a black and white issue, and just because the RIAA companies are in the wrong doesn't mean the defendants aren't in the wrong as well. A lawyer should understand that better than anybody.
What needs to happen is that the laws need to change. Getting people who actually violated copyright law off the hook in court doesn't actually solve anything. Defending the wrongly accused is noble, but defending people who are clearly guilty shows enormous disrespect for the system.
If these people were paid a fair wage, they're all going to go out and get new jobs somewhere else and Circuit City isn't going to be able to hire good people for less money.
I wasn't saying it was a good response. It's just the only response I ever got when I was in sales.
In theory you are right that you can have the majority of people being above average, given that there are enough people also who are way below average.
Way below average? Even "slightly" would work...
Now, there was something about the advancement of society depending on how well it cares for the less fortunate people in it.
You can't lump everybody who is "below average" in skill or ability into the "less fortunate" category. That doesn't account for those who are below average for lack of effort. Both exist. The ratio is something which is hard (and unpopular) to collect hard data on, but I'd bet the "no effort" group dwarfs the "victim of misfortune" group.
work hard, become the best in your field, and get fired so they can offer you a new job 10 weeks later at a lower salary
There is a huge logical gap between "We're not getting rid of these people for performance reasons" and "These people are the best in their field". I don't think you can read any of this and come away even with the idea that these people were any better than the other, lower paid employees in their same stores. If they think they can employ the *exact same people* for less money in 10 weeks, then clearly these salespeople were paid beyond what the market can bear.
Why do we need to make up negative stuff about this when we could simply point to the fact that the salary savings look pathetic in comparison to what they continue to pay their executives?
And if you are actually guilty you should probably take your lumps. If you don't agree with the laws you should try to change them
According to him, none of these people are guilty. None of them.
Sorry, but I don't care what their methods are. Given the prevalence of copying which is against current copyright laws, they're bound to sue the right guy once in a while at the very least.
I can't speak for Mr. Beckerman personally, but I can see clear as day that he is posting here to keep us informed, helping us.
He's posting to keep you informed, sure. But he's failing. He gives *terrible* advice. He feels so passionately about the issues that he can't tell the difference anymore between people who are actually guilty and people who have had frivolous lawsuits filed against them. He has zero understanding of the technology, and thus makes arguments that are completely incorrect about evidence. Go read some of his posts. There are plenty of people doing good regarding these lawsuits, but it takes more than passion and a desire to "do what's right" to be successful. Go read some of his posts from the past before you defend him. I've had conversations with this guy that would boggle your mind if you have any understanding of P2P technology at all.
Go screw yourself for questioning someone's motives for helping. At least he is helping, which is more than we can say for you...
I'm only questioning because he's *not really helping*. If you're actually gulity and you listen to this guy you will probably end up bankrupt. What am I doing? Well if even one person questions his poor advice and gets a second opinion before screwing themselves over legally I'll be satisfied.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a troll. I think we just disagree on which group is the minority.
If I were to say that, then yes. You should assume I'm full of shit.
At least that's the default position I take when reading user-posted comment on the internet... People are full of shit until they demonstrate otherwise.
While digital distribution has the conceptual potential to be the winner, pay-per-play will kill it. Until the industry ditches pay-per-play for downloaded media, or reduces the price-per-play to significantly (1/10th) less than the cost of a video rental, it will be relegated to the same niche status as pay-per-view cable TV. Even the "all-you-can-eat" models that have a subscription fee associated with them have a serious uphill battle.
Right, because nobody has ever posted negative comments on the internet about a device that competes with the one they bought. Oh, wait. That's probably half the stuff that's out there. The other half is the same small group of people posting the same horror story over and over even though (in most cases) both of the competing devices work just fine for the vast, vast majority of users.
I think the likelihood of of this guy actually having $2500 worth of next generation playback equipment is about 1/1000th of the chance that he's just full of shit. Maybe he's not lying, but odds are...
I'm not sure what your point is. Isn't that the definition of a "trend"? Perhaps you just felt the need to agree with me as an excuse for jumping on said bandwagon?
The volume isn't what makes me think it's trendy. It's the pair of facts that it has become common for people to interject their grievances into a discussion even when they have no bearing on the main point, and to a lesser extent the high quantity of second-hand opinions that dominate most of the discussions.
I agree. In fact, with the exception of their IP stances, I generally agree with WTO findings, even when they find against the US.
You'd think some up-start low-ed manufacturer would step in and make a killing in the 7" $400 laptop market then...
What school-kids have a textbook open all day?
I agree with your view of the issue, but I think you're wrong about your average slashdotter.
Your average slashdotter will line up behind anybody with an unpopular cause. They're just sheep who like to bitch a lot and feel repressed.
There's no logic involved here. The average slashdot user is anti-WTO unless they find *against* the US. Then suddenly everybody loves the WTO.
It's not a question of morality. It's just trendy to hate the US right now.
The maxim that your network is only as secure as the weakest link does not imply that any steps you take to secure portions that are *not* the weakest are security through obscurity. When you say that trying to hide an insecure signal will not make your network any more secure, you are 100% correct; but that still doesn't make this security through obscurity.
ROT13 is not an apt analogy. If you know that a document is encoded with ROT13 (i.e. if the security method is revealed) the security is broken, since anybody can reverse ROT13. If you know that a signal is blocked from your access, that knowledge in itself does not mean the security is broken. You still need to take active (and potentially impossible) steps to break the security. See the difference?
You're absolutely right. Nintendo has never had to do anything like this before...
Oh, wait... Yes they have. Over and over again, and the last time was less than a year ago. Or perhaps you forgot about the Nintendo DS lite which sold just as quickly? Or the DS the christmas before, or the GBA SP? Last christmas (2005), Nintendo averaged over two million handhelds per month for four months over the Christmas season.
Check your division on that 1.5 million number (5.5 divided by 4.5 is 1.2), and remember that they had months to stockpile before release if they wanted to. The fact of the matter (and I say this as a happy Wii owner) is that Nintendo did not plan for success with the Wii. There is *no* excuse for shortages in April, five months after the launch. Even Microsoft got their act together by then.
Thanks for missing the point. It is clear he would have articulated his point as such if he happened to bother thinking the entire thing through. That quote essentialy says "games should either be shooters, racers, platformers, or sports, and nothing else!" except he had to trick you into reading it. If he had come right out and said "You should only like the games I like" in the same way thousands of others have had the argument in the past you wouldn't even have bothered to read it.
That only makes my point even stronger. You don't 'play' a good game so much as 'experience' it. It doesn't matter if you're pushing buttons the whole time?
I think it's absurd that I got moderated 'Troll' for my comment. I don't think I said was any more rediculous than the story itself.
That quote is such an enormous piece of crap that I can smell it from here. Hell, I don't even know where to start. We "see" video games with our hands? Well that will teach all those people who make games that you play with your feet, or that you interact with through audio, or video. Get them out of the market! Watching when we should be playing? God forbid! How dare they make us experience something we have no control over. Until video games are a direct projection on the screen of exactly what's going on in our mind, I guess he won't be happy. Of course, once we get to that point, who needs developers... Or artistic direction. We certainly can't let a game convey any static concepts to us though!
Fuck this guys eyes and hands. The point of games are to keep your brain entertained. And if he can't be entertained by a cut-scene, he should play something else, or go back to jerking off.
Quite the other way around. If everybody but one guy is equally above average, and one guy is slightly below...
No, people who are below average through no fault of their own are the exception ('exception' doesn't imply quantity).
Hopefully that makes more sense.
I fear that this part of the discussion is lost on you.
When there is an exception to a rule, it is often easier to handle the exception than to change the rule.
(a) You actually said it was impossible for them to have that information. My subscription is expired, otherwise I'd go through my comment history and find the reference. It is possible, and even quite easy for them to have enough information to give rock solid proof after further discovery. That doesn't mean they're doing everything in their power, but in many cases they're doing enough (in my opinion) to warrant said discovery. (If they get to that stage and find insufficient proof they should be liable for all of the defendant's costs of course.)
(b) That's total bullshit. Most of these people probably *did*, and we only ever hear about the outrageous cases. Hell, it's highly likely that the seven year old girl in the news the other day actually traded songs online. That doesn't mean she should be subjected to a lawsuit or deposition, but she probably did it. It's so easy to do, and so common, that it's very difficult to give anybody the benefit of the doubt.
(c-ii) What, exactly, is the legal definition of copyright misuse?
I actually agree with you on the points you labeled (c) and (c-i).
Don't get me wrong, I think the legal practices of the RIAA are despicable. Intimidation and extortion are horrible tactics. However, this isn't a black and white issue, and just because the RIAA companies are in the wrong doesn't mean the defendants aren't in the wrong as well. A lawyer should understand that better than anybody.
What needs to happen is that the laws need to change. Getting people who actually violated copyright law off the hook in court doesn't actually solve anything. Defending the wrongly accused is noble, but defending people who are clearly guilty shows enormous disrespect for the system.
Very funny. Nobody is forcing Circuit City to pay them, regardless of what the market will bear.
Yeah, but only one of all those models has an arrogant prick in their television commercials.
That's as it should be.
If these people were paid a fair wage, they're all going to go out and get new jobs somewhere else and Circuit City isn't going to be able to hire good people for less money.
I wasn't saying it was a good response. It's just the only response I ever got when I was in sales.
Have you ever worked in sales? Generally the response to a comment like that is "If you want more money, sell more high commission items."
Way below average? Even "slightly" would work...
You can't lump everybody who is "below average" in skill or ability into the "less fortunate" category. That doesn't account for those who are below average for lack of effort. Both exist. The ratio is something which is hard (and unpopular) to collect hard data on, but I'd bet the "no effort" group dwarfs the "victim of misfortune" group.
There is a huge logical gap between "We're not getting rid of these people for performance reasons" and "These people are the best in their field". I don't think you can read any of this and come away even with the idea that these people were any better than the other, lower paid employees in their same stores. If they think they can employ the *exact same people* for less money in 10 weeks, then clearly these salespeople were paid beyond what the market can bear.
Why do we need to make up negative stuff about this when we could simply point to the fact that the salary savings look pathetic in comparison to what they continue to pay their executives?
According to him, none of these people are guilty. None of them.
Sorry, but I don't care what their methods are. Given the prevalence of copying which is against current copyright laws, they're bound to sue the right guy once in a while at the very least.
He's posting to keep you informed, sure. But he's failing. He gives *terrible* advice. He feels so passionately about the issues that he can't tell the difference anymore between people who are actually guilty and people who have had frivolous lawsuits filed against them. He has zero understanding of the technology, and thus makes arguments that are completely incorrect about evidence. Go read some of his posts. There are plenty of people doing good regarding these lawsuits, but it takes more than passion and a desire to "do what's right" to be successful. Go read some of his posts from the past before you defend him. I've had conversations with this guy that would boggle your mind if you have any understanding of P2P technology at all.
I'm only questioning because he's *not really helping*. If you're actually gulity and you listen to this guy you will probably end up bankrupt. What am I doing? Well if even one person questions his poor advice and gets a second opinion before screwing themselves over legally I'll be satisfied.