Just reading a few technical spec pages at Apple's PowerMac site will set you off in a fit of laughter.
"The fewer the steps, the shorter -- and more efficient -- the pipeline. Thanks to its efficient 7-stage design (versus 20 stages for the Pentium 4 processor) the G4 processor can accomplish a task with 13 fewer steps than the PC. You do the math."
When I read "you do the math", I completely cracked. Apple marketing doesn't seem to know that pipelining makes sure that each stage of the pipeline is busy. They pretend that each instruction has to wait until the previous one has "left the processor" (has been retired).
Wait a minute -- Apple advertising LIE??
NO WAY
But Steve told me that Macs are TWICE AS FAST!
Hopefully, we'll finally see some sanity come to the Mac fans who still think G4s are so much faster than P4 at the same clock rate. Yes, they are faster, but only by about 20% on the average when you look at a large cross-section of benchmarks.
Maybe even that Slashdot guy who used to have in his sig that Macs are 4 times faster than PCs at the same clock rate will get a clue (but I doubt it).
In this movie Moore takes in everything into account. He looks into every nook an cranny hoping to find an answer. He doesn't ignore anything like you assume.
OK, here's a good example of what I'm talking about. From someone who saw the movie:
I thought Moore's film was very good, it made me think and laugh quite a bit and I did enjoy it. However, I have a few beefs with it. The first is how Moore manipulates the numbers. Fine, we here in Canada have fewer gun murders than the US (11 000 to 165 in the film), however, Moore fails to mention that the US has a population of 250 000 000 and that Canada has a population of 30 000 000. Thus, it is more important to look at the ratio of murders than the actual total number, because it is ludicrous to compare two countries' murder numbers, especially when one country has 220 000 000 more people than the other! This is a however a great propaganda movie for the left and you gotta love it when actors look like idiots, eh Hestin?? 7 out of 10.
So explain to me how someone can be intellectually honest as you claim, yet quote raw murder numbers without accounting for dramatic differences in population? Answer: emotional manipulation. It has a bigger emotional impact to compare 11,000 to 165.
And his tactic of making anyone he doesn't like look like an idiot through clever cutting and leading questions is typical moore.
What's wrong with puting a real face to the statistics?
Nothing, as long as it's not used for dishonest manipulation. It's no better than when Meryl Streep got up in front of Congress screeching "won't someone think of the children" to complain about Alar -- when there was absolutely no safety risk at all. Or silicone breast implants -- which are completely safe, but emotional manipulation of juries caused the bankruptcy of a major company.
That's what offends me so much about Michael Moore. He uses emotional manipulation to try and cloud the issues. Sure, maybe he doesn't come out and say "I want you to think this", but what's the difference when he stacks the deck so obviously?
He probably offends me more than he really warrants, since he has so little actual relevence, but I absolutely DETEST emotional manipulation. It's not the way to get to the heart of important issues.
yet you say Moore's evil without even seeing what this man actually does for a living.
Like I said, I haven't seen his films all the way through, but I've seen enough exerpts and seen enough interviews to know what he's about. Or to put it another way, you don't have to have read Mein Kampf to know Hitler was a bad guy.
I've never seen any of his movies, yet I hate the man. I've seen enough interviews and excerpts to know that he is the very definition of sophistry. He uses simplistic and shallow reasoning to demonize people for his own personal gain.
He reminds me of Noam Chomsky, in a way. The both take facts out of context and shine them in the worst light possible while completely ignoring any facts that don't fit their twisted world view. The difference between Chomsky and Moore is that Chomsky is extremely intelligent but literally insane, and Moore is stupid but crafty and devious. Moore knows exactly what he's doing by using only emotional manipulation for his movie subjects, but is too intellectually limited to do complete, in-depth analysis of his documentary subjects.
Regardless of whether you agree with his politics or not, that guy is the devil.
They have built an empire selling sweat shop wares at prices that no one else can compete with. This has sounded the death knell for the mom and pop operations of the world.
Am I supposed to be unhappy at paying lower prices from an efficient company? Am I supposed to be angry because Wal-Mart doesn't charge me more?
Do you get angry when Apple is "forced" to lower prices because of the prices of commodity PC hardware?
The answer is that we've been building bridges for thousands of years, and while we can make incremental improvements to bridges, the fact is that every bridge is like some other bridge that's been built.... But in software... we're rolling out -- if not the first -- at most the seventh or eighth version.
I hear this theory every now and then, and it's just dead wrong. The fundamental problem is that a program is thousands of times more complex than a bridge. Imagine constructing a bridge out of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of custom-fabricated tiny parts that have to fit together exactly right or the whole thing collapses. That's the correct analogy.
When you also combine that with the fact that you can look at the totality of a bridge and get a "sense" of whether it's done right or not, at best you can only look at a few hundred lines of code at a time.
First of all, I think you need to ask yourself exactly what it is you want to teach them. If this is about "alternative operating systems", then are you going to teach them ABOUT operating systems? Most people don't even understand where the application stops and the operating system beings. So is it going to be:
A class on how to use Linux and run various user applications?
A class on setting up and administering various Linux server apps?
A class ABOUT operating systems, how they work, and the differences in technical philosophy among them?
A class about programming?
A class about Unix and its history?
It sounds like you haven't really pinned down what this class is about, other than you want Linux/BSD involved. I think it would serve you well to set back from the details of the course, and ask yourself exactly what concepts you want the kids to walk away with.
That said, given its a computer camp, etc, I would take the opportunity to teach about operating systems and what they do. Don't bother having both Linux and BSD, they are effectively the same thing (Unix). Have a Windows box, a Macintosh and Linux, and talk about the technical philosophies of each. Note that the Macintosh, while technically a Unix, does overlay a lot of technology, which creates a lot of interesting opportunity for discussion about where the operating system stops and the applications begin.
They would if Iraq could spend money wherever they wanted without US interference.
remember, you cancled the Army, not the Navy
Actually, I cancelled the whole military. Any large army armed with relatively modern weapons would wipe out a bunch of loose militias. By "carrier", I really meant "troop carriers", which wouldn't be difficult for Iraq to buy. Heck, just buy a bunch of cruise ships. After all, the Queen Mary was used as a troop carrier during WW/II.:)
we could just aim a few large meteors at Bagdad,
To be honest, I think space-based slingshots are overrated. Sure, they're powerful, but they're also not very well targeted. The name of the game in future wars will be more surgical precision, not less. When we start getting smarter computers that can analyze suspicious troop/equipment movements as well as being able to identify and track specific people, combined with being able to shoot a missile within yards of where we want it, we will have the power to lop off the heads of the enemy while minimizing bombing of infrastructure and innocents.
That's the irony of all the loathing of the US military around the world. The US military actually cares whether they kill non-combatants, and an inordinate amount of our technology is devoted to minimizing collateral damage.
All this video-game warfare is undoing the lesson of Vietnam that war sucks, good intentioned or bad.
Well, I don't think anyone thinks that war doesn't suck. Personally, I think the lesson of Vietnam is that if you're going to fight a war, then fight it to win with overwhelming force in the shortest amount of time possible. The problem with the Vietnam war is that we didn't let the military fight it with full power. Too many politicians micromanaged the war to try and get the vietnamese to "just admit your going to lose anyway and surrender". Stupid things like trying to intimidate them by buzzing the presidential palaces with fighter jets.
North Devon experienced 250 times the normal August rainfall in 1952. [...] She recalls: "Mum identified her by this huge wart on her back because she hadn't got no head, or arms, or legs when they found her".
I hate to be skeptical, but... the article seems to imply that this rain making experiment caused all this water to suddenly fall out of the sky. But what makes my "bullshit" meter go off is whether there is that much water in the air in the first place. I mean, 250 times the normal rainfall? I could see if you had some natural storm system come in that just happened to have a ton of moisture, but just to create out of "thin air" (so to speak) that much water out of normal conditions just doesn't sound plausible.
Particularly since if it were that easy, we would never have droughts.
Oh, how about Iraq? And don't count out Russia -- there are still a lot of expansionist communists over there.
And why? Sheesh, how about one of the most desirable, natural-resource rich lands in the world? Not to mention a huge amount of territory.
I mean, I realize that we're living in the 21st century, but don't think that human nature has changed. Saddam Hussein already started to take over the middle east once in 1991. He wants as much land and power as possible.
As for the "how", Iraq without the US could sell as much oil as they want. They have/had a HUGE army and could conscript a bigger one. All they need to do is buy/build a large number of carriers and fighter jets. Without a military, we would be conquered in a matter of weeks. Yes, the whole damn country in a matter of weeks. You think a few militias would be able to stop a huge organized army, armed with fighter jets?
Or like saying that harsher penalties for crimes or more police don't reduce the number of crimes.Hay wait a second that is what most criminologists are saying.
Yes, that's what a lot of idiots say. But they are trivially proven wrong.
If you reduce the number of policeman to 1 in Los Angeles, you will have more crime. Therefore, more police reduces crime.
If you make the penalty for parking in a red zone death, you will have a dramatic drop in red zone violations. Therefore, penalties matter.
But disbanding the army is a canard. Almost no one recommends that.
The point is to illustrate that the military is a vital part of keeping the peace. Too many people just assume that the point of the military is to arbitrarily kill people and break things. There really are bad people in the world.
The issue is how much, of $350 billion+ [satirewire.com] (the link is joking, but the figure is about right) is appropriate, or could be diverted to other projects.
I don't know, and few people really do. All I know is that I would rather err on the side of having too much military than not enough military.
There are many options, I don't think it can be said we have the best ones.
I agree that there are certainly a lot of options, and no one has a crystal ball to know the best ones. But there are those who think that the military option is never the right option, and I vehemently disagree with those people. Sometimes ass needs to be kicked in the short term in order to save a lot of lives in the long term. Imagine if Hitler had been beat down in the 1930s rather than the 1940s.
Alright, today the US military is disbanded. Boom, gone. How long do think it would take for the US to invaded?
Then, how long do you think it would take Europe to fall part into another world war?
The problem with having the western world at peace for so (relatively) long is that we have two generations who have absolutely no clue WHY the western world has remained at (relative) peace.
I also personally enjoy Larry Niven's Known Space stuff. Hard science fiction is great. As a reader, you exercise your mind and get entertained.
I really like Larry Niven's books for their imagination, but let's face it: he sucks as a writer. His characters are cardboard cutouts with baubles hung on them to help distinguish them.
One thing I've often said is that I'd love to see more plagurisim(sp) of ideas in science fiction. Take Ringworld: You could find DOZENS of stories about a ringworld, why it was made, the politics of making it, etc. Unfortunately, no one wants to be accused of "stealing" ideas.
Re:Michael's just an idiot
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 2
I'm seeing a lot of questions like "Why would anyone want a tablet when you can just buy a laptop"?
The answer is simple: Because laptops SUCK for working in your lap.
Laptops are the most misnamed device ever. They are portable PCs. Useful, but difficult to use in any position other than in front of you -- like a PC.
It sounds like this guy is talking about end-user applications that would be used by "normal people".
How many open source success stories are there, where the open-source solution is so clearly superior that it's used by everyone? Uh, zero.
Well, how about open source application that are good enough to compete with proprietary software? Uh, one. Mozilla, perhaps.
How many are "up-and-comers" that just need good word-of-mouth to take over from a proprietary solution? Uh, zero. (IE is already free-money)
The only one that I can think of MAYBE for the latter category is Gimp, and the user interface on that thing is so horrible as to be useless for anyone but a true geek (at least, the last time I used it which was admittedly a while ago).
Bottom line, I don't think proprietary software has much to worry about at this point.
Who is going to get AOL just for TW content? Anyone?
At the risk of sounding obvious, the answer to "who" is anyone who is interested in TW content. If you have someone who likes People magazine, then they might sign up for that.
That's like asking, "who is going to pay for a magazine subscription". Anyone who likes that magazine.
Do you really want a bunch of huge cabinets with a washing machine for a disk drive (which is like 200 megabytes) that all needs 220 volt current? And even if you did manage to get it running, it would have the speed of your pocket PC? Sure, it would be kind of cool to open up the cabinets and poke around, but when the novelty wore off you would realize why someone was giving it away and what a pain in the butt it is to get rid of.
If you believe that borrowing books from the library is okay but listening to music on the Internet is wrong, where do you draw the line?
Because physical books can't be easily, infinitely duplicated on a mass scale.
You'll note that mass duplication of books IS illegal. Turn the question around: if photocopying books onto physical paper and giving them away on mass distribution basis is illegal, then why should mass distribution of music be legal?
I didn't go see it. Was that theft? Meets your definition.
No, it does not, because you didn't go see the movie for free from an unlicensed source. Whereas, stealing music means YOU HAVE THE MUSIC.
How about if i was going to buy a book, and a friend stopped me on the way to the bookstore to tell me that they already owned the book and could borrow it from them? Again meets your definition.
No, it does not, because that is specifically fair use. It is not anonymous, mass distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait a minute -- Apple advertising LIE??
NO WAY
But Steve told me that Macs are TWICE AS FAST!
Hopefully, we'll finally see some sanity come to the Mac fans who still think G4s are so much faster than P4 at the same clock rate. Yes, they are faster, but only by about 20% on the average when you look at a large cross-section of benchmarks.
Maybe even that Slashdot guy who used to have in his sig that Macs are 4 times faster than PCs at the same clock rate will get a clue (but I doubt it).
In this movie Moore takes in everything into account. He looks into every nook an cranny hoping to find an answer. He doesn't ignore anything like you assume.
OK, here's a good example of what I'm talking about. From someone who saw the movie:
So explain to me how someone can be intellectually honest as you claim, yet quote raw murder numbers without accounting for dramatic differences in population? Answer: emotional manipulation. It has a bigger emotional impact to compare 11,000 to 165.
And his tactic of making anyone he doesn't like look like an idiot through clever cutting and leading questions is typical moore.
What's wrong with puting a real face to the statistics?
Nothing, as long as it's not used for dishonest manipulation. It's no better than when Meryl Streep got up in front of Congress screeching "won't someone think of the children" to complain about Alar -- when there was absolutely no safety risk at all. Or silicone breast implants -- which are completely safe, but emotional manipulation of juries caused the bankruptcy of a major company.
That's what offends me so much about Michael Moore. He uses emotional manipulation to try and cloud the issues. Sure, maybe he doesn't come out and say "I want you to think this", but what's the difference when he stacks the deck so obviously?
He probably offends me more than he really warrants, since he has so little actual relevence, but I absolutely DETEST emotional manipulation. It's not the way to get to the heart of important issues.
yet you say Moore's evil without even seeing what this man actually does for a living.
Like I said, I haven't seen his films all the way through, but I've seen enough exerpts and seen enough interviews to know what he's about. Or to put it another way, you don't have to have read Mein Kampf to know Hitler was a bad guy.
I've never seen any of his movies, yet I hate the man. I've seen enough interviews and excerpts to know that he is the very definition of sophistry. He uses simplistic and shallow reasoning to demonize people for his own personal gain.
He reminds me of Noam Chomsky, in a way. The both take facts out of context and shine them in the worst light possible while completely ignoring any facts that don't fit their twisted world view. The difference between Chomsky and Moore is that Chomsky is extremely intelligent but literally insane, and Moore is stupid but crafty and devious. Moore knows exactly what he's doing by using only emotional manipulation for his movie subjects, but is too intellectually limited to do complete, in-depth analysis of his documentary subjects.
Regardless of whether you agree with his politics or not, that guy is the devil.
They have built an empire selling sweat shop wares at prices that no one else can compete with. This has sounded the death knell for the mom and pop operations of the world.
Am I supposed to be unhappy at paying lower prices from an efficient company? Am I supposed to be angry because Wal-Mart doesn't charge me more?
Do you get angry when Apple is "forced" to lower prices because of the prices of commodity PC hardware?
The answer is that we've been building bridges for thousands of years, and while we can make incremental improvements to bridges, the fact is that every bridge is like some other bridge that's been built.... But in software ... we're rolling out -- if not the first -- at most the seventh or eighth version.
I hear this theory every now and then, and it's just dead wrong. The fundamental problem is that a program is thousands of times more complex than a bridge. Imagine constructing a bridge out of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of custom-fabricated tiny parts that have to fit together exactly right or the whole thing collapses. That's the correct analogy.
When you also combine that with the fact that you can look at the totality of a bridge and get a "sense" of whether it's done right or not, at best you can only look at a few hundred lines of code at a time.
First of all, I think you need to ask yourself exactly what it is you want to teach them. If this is about "alternative operating systems", then are you going to teach them ABOUT operating systems? Most people don't even understand where the application stops and the operating system beings. So is it going to be:
A class on how to use Linux and run various user applications?
A class on setting up and administering various Linux server apps?
A class ABOUT operating systems, how they work, and the differences in technical philosophy among them?
A class about programming?
A class about Unix and its history?
It sounds like you haven't really pinned down what this class is about, other than you want Linux/BSD involved. I think it would serve you well to set back from the details of the course, and ask yourself exactly what concepts you want the kids to walk away with.
That said, given its a computer camp, etc, I would take the opportunity to teach about operating systems and what they do. Don't bother having both Linux and BSD, they are effectively the same thing (Unix). Have a Windows box, a Macintosh and Linux, and talk about the technical philosophies of each. Note that the Macintosh, while technically a Unix, does overlay a lot of technology, which creates a lot of interesting opportunity for discussion about where the operating system stops and the applications begin.
Sorry, those birds barely fly.
They would if Iraq could spend money wherever they wanted without US interference.
remember, you cancled the Army, not the Navy
Actually, I cancelled the whole military. Any large army armed with relatively modern weapons would wipe out a bunch of loose militias. By "carrier", I really meant "troop carriers", which wouldn't be difficult for Iraq to buy. Heck, just buy a bunch of cruise ships. After all, the Queen Mary was used as a troop carrier during WW/II. :)
we could just aim a few large meteors at Bagdad,
To be honest, I think space-based slingshots are overrated. Sure, they're powerful, but they're also not very well targeted. The name of the game in future wars will be more surgical precision, not less. When we start getting smarter computers that can analyze suspicious troop/equipment movements as well as being able to identify and track specific people, combined with being able to shoot a missile within yards of where we want it, we will have the power to lop off the heads of the enemy while minimizing bombing of infrastructure and innocents.
That's the irony of all the loathing of the US military around the world. The US military actually cares whether they kill non-combatants, and an inordinate amount of our technology is devoted to minimizing collateral damage.
All this video-game warfare is undoing the lesson of Vietnam that war sucks, good intentioned or bad.
Well, I don't think anyone thinks that war doesn't suck. Personally, I think the lesson of Vietnam is that if you're going to fight a war, then fight it to win with overwhelming force in the shortest amount of time possible. The problem with the Vietnam war is that we didn't let the military fight it with full power. Too many politicians micromanaged the war to try and get the vietnamese to "just admit your going to lose anyway and surrender". Stupid things like trying to intimidate them by buzzing the presidential palaces with fighter jets.
North Devon experienced 250 times the normal August rainfall in 1952. [...] She recalls: "Mum identified her by this huge wart on her back because she hadn't got no head, or arms, or legs when they found her".
I hate to be skeptical, but... the article seems to imply that this rain making experiment caused all this water to suddenly fall out of the sky. But what makes my "bullshit" meter go off is whether there is that much water in the air in the first place. I mean, 250 times the normal rainfall? I could see if you had some natural storm system come in that just happened to have a ton of moisture, but just to create out of "thin air" (so to speak) that much water out of normal conditions just doesn't sound plausible.
Particularly since if it were that easy, we would never have droughts.
Something isn't adding up here.
Who would do it, and why?
Oh, how about Iraq? And don't count out Russia -- there are still a lot of expansionist communists over there.
And why? Sheesh, how about one of the most desirable, natural-resource rich lands in the world? Not to mention a huge amount of territory.
I mean, I realize that we're living in the 21st century, but don't think that human nature has changed. Saddam Hussein already started to take over the middle east once in 1991. He wants as much land and power as possible.
As for the "how", Iraq without the US could sell as much oil as they want. They have/had a HUGE army and could conscript a bigger one. All they need to do is buy/build a large number of carriers and fighter jets. Without a military, we would be conquered in a matter of weeks. Yes, the whole damn country in a matter of weeks. You think a few militias would be able to stop a huge organized army, armed with fighter jets?
Or like saying that harsher penalties for crimes or more police don't reduce the number of crimes.Hay wait a second that is what most criminologists are saying.
Yes, that's what a lot of idiots say. But they are trivially proven wrong.
If you reduce the number of policeman to 1 in Los Angeles, you will have more crime. Therefore, more police reduces crime.
If you make the penalty for parking in a red zone death, you will have a dramatic drop in red zone violations. Therefore, penalties matter.
That's like saying that if there were no criminals, then the police would be unneeded. True, but irrelevent to the world we currently live in.
But disbanding the army is a canard. Almost no one recommends that.
The point is to illustrate that the military is a vital part of keeping the peace. Too many people just assume that the point of the military is to arbitrarily kill people and break things. There really are bad people in the world.
The issue is how much, of $350 billion+ [satirewire.com] (the link is joking, but the figure is about right) is appropriate, or could be diverted to other projects.
I don't know, and few people really do. All I know is that I would rather err on the side of having too much military than not enough military.
There are many options, I don't think it can be said we have the best ones.
I agree that there are certainly a lot of options, and no one has a crystal ball to know the best ones. But there are those who think that the military option is never the right option, and I vehemently disagree with those people. Sometimes ass needs to be kicked in the short term in order to save a lot of lives in the long term. Imagine if Hitler had been beat down in the 1930s rather than the 1940s.
OK, make the argument.
Alright, today the US military is disbanded. Boom, gone. How long do think it would take for the US to invaded?
Then, how long do you think it would take Europe to fall part into another world war?
The problem with having the western world at peace for so (relatively) long is that we have two generations who have absolutely no clue WHY the western world has remained at (relative) peace.
I'd rather pour money into this *dead end* project then sponsor arms race.
Yeah, god forbid we spend money on preserving freedom, liberty and yes, capitalism, which gives us the ability to do space exploration.
I can easily make the argument that the money spent on defense is orders of magnitude more valuable than money spent ANYWHERE else.
I also personally enjoy Larry Niven's Known Space stuff. Hard science fiction is great. As a reader, you exercise your mind and get entertained.
I really like Larry Niven's books for their imagination, but let's face it: he sucks as a writer. His characters are cardboard cutouts with baubles hung on them to help distinguish them.
One thing I've often said is that I'd love to see more plagurisim(sp) of ideas in science fiction. Take Ringworld: You could find DOZENS of stories about a ringworld, why it was made, the politics of making it, etc. Unfortunately, no one wants to be accused of "stealing" ideas.
It ain't flamebait if it's the truth.
I'm seeing a lot of questions like "Why would anyone want a tablet when you can just buy a laptop"?
The answer is simple: Because laptops SUCK for working in your lap.
Laptops are the most misnamed device ever. They are portable PCs. Useful, but difficult to use in any position other than in front of you -- like a PC.
It sounds like this guy is talking about end-user applications that would be used by "normal people".
How many open source success stories are there, where the open-source solution is so clearly superior that it's used by everyone? Uh, zero.
Well, how about open source application that are good enough to compete with proprietary software? Uh, one. Mozilla, perhaps.
How many are "up-and-comers" that just need good word-of-mouth to take over from a proprietary solution? Uh, zero. (IE is already free-money)
The only one that I can think of MAYBE for the latter category is Gimp, and the user interface on that thing is so horrible as to be useless for anyone but a true geek (at least, the last time I used it which was admittedly a while ago).
Bottom line, I don't think proprietary software has much to worry about at this point.
AOL doesn't require you to use them as your ISP. It's only $14.95 a month for the content sans ISP.
Who is going to get AOL just for TW content? Anyone?
At the risk of sounding obvious, the answer to "who" is anyone who is interested in TW content. If you have someone who likes People magazine, then they might sign up for that.
That's like asking, "who is going to pay for a magazine subscription". Anyone who likes that magazine.
Sheesh, be careful what you wish for...
Do you really want a bunch of huge cabinets with a washing machine for a disk drive (which is like 200 megabytes) that all needs 220 volt current? And even if you did manage to get it running, it would have the speed of your pocket PC? Sure, it would be kind of cool to open up the cabinets and poke around, but when the novelty wore off you would realize why someone was giving it away and what a pain in the butt it is to get rid of.
GCC's big advantage is portability, not quality of optimization. I wouldn't go so far as to say that GCC sucks, but it's mediocre at best.
If you believe that borrowing books from the library is okay but listening to music on the Internet is wrong, where do you draw the line?
Because physical books can't be easily, infinitely duplicated on a mass scale.
You'll note that mass duplication of books IS illegal. Turn the question around: if photocopying books onto physical paper and giving them away on mass distribution basis is illegal, then why should mass distribution of music be legal?
I didn't go see it. Was that theft? Meets your definition.
No, it does not, because you didn't go see the movie for free from an unlicensed source. Whereas, stealing music means YOU HAVE THE MUSIC.
How about if i was going to buy a book, and a friend stopped me on the way to the bookstore to tell me that they already owned the book and could borrow it from them? Again meets your definition.
No, it does not, because that is specifically fair use. It is not anonymous, mass distribution.