I was going to reply with pretty much the same thing, but you about covered it.
I switched to Ubuntu about 3 years ago, and haven't used windows on my desktop system since.
If I were to install Windows XP on my system now, I would spend hours trying to track down the right drivers for my system. If I were to install Windows Vista on my system now, It would be unstable and slow, and I would have to track down drivers for my hardware. I tried to install Windows 7 on my system to try it out. I never did get the sound to work, and the wireless networking barely worked through a cludged generic driver.
If I install Ubuntu, everything works, and its done in like 20-30 mins, a complete usable system. Even my printer works.
I've never used it. I saw it used once. My wife hates it, and actually switched *back* to a pirated version of office from a legit version of 2007 just to be rid of it.
I don't want fancy pretty graphics or Aeroglass.
Fortunately, I'm a Linux user, and so I wont have to worry about that.
Want to send Mozilla a message? Switch. Choose a browser like Opera that values functionality over form.
The power users are the ones that pushed Firefox into the main stream to begin with. Whats going to happen if Mozilla suddenly loses their support?
Many places in Canada also do this. I read the story and wondered what the big deal was.
I believe even Bell Canada now charges for paper statements, and they have an opt-in system for paper bills, instead of opt-out. Now Bell didn't introduce this system all at once either. They did it quietly and grandfathered it in. Any new customers or existing customers who made changes to their accounts were told that they would be charged if they wanted paper. Existing customers that did nothing could continue receiving the paper statements free of charge.
I agree. I personally don't care how pretty the browser is, and don't really like the Windows 7/Vista graphics interface.
What will it look like in Linux? Thats what I want to know.
I don't like the overly simplified interface, I think it makes it seem like they think their users are idiots. I don't use google chrome for much the same reason.
Morally justifying it in your own mind shows that there is some kind of Psychosis at work, on some level.
KNOWING that the act is evil, but doing it anyways because you *want* to, because you think that the world is better off that way. Thats what I would define as true evil. Knowingly and intentionally committing an act that the general population believes to be morally wrong, without regard to all others involved, and without regard to the consequences of the action.
The figures in history that are painted as true evil, and not just simple psychopaths, have full knowledge that what they are doing is wrong. They know full well that there are consequences to the action. They do it anyways, without regard to themselves or anybody else.
Disintegrating a populated orphanage with high explosives for fun is not evil, its psychotic.
Disintegrating a populated orphanage with high explosives because you truly and firmly believe that the world is better off without those orphans, and then convincing the world to see it from your point of view, and getting away with it.
The problem is, we're failing society as professionals in the IT field -- part of our work (which most likely isn't earning you money) is teaching our friends, family, and interested parties about these problems and how to protect themselves from it because nobody else can or will. That's what has allowed this kind of crap to permeate into the mainstream... It wouldn't be tolerated if people knew better.
I disagree with this. I've spent a long time in the industry, and am pretty much the only "tech enabled" person in amongst many friends and family. Many of them use the computer recreationally, and without a care as to what harms may become of them. To the layman, the computer is just a tool, and to most of them, there is no perceived risk to themselves. Thus, when I try to inform them of the risks they take, or try to teach them safer browsing habits, good housekeeping, etc. It is often met with indifference, and sometimes hostility. People don't like to be told they are wrong, especially when most people use the computer in the way they think is correct, and in most cases, the only way they know how.
Many people are intimidated by computers, and to have somebody who is deeply involved in computers try to teach them best-practices, is sometimes insulting.
So yeah, we may feel we have a responsibility to protect those that know less than us, but in reality, instilling that knowledge is not always easy, practical, or even sometimes possible.
So no, I don't agree, I don't think we've failed. I think we're doing the best job we know how to do, in the face of at times massive and gross ignorance. Resistance does not mean I've given up. But I have learned over time which people are worth taking the time to teach, and which people are not worth the effort.
There is no link, because the OP is totally incorrect.
The CRTC just finished net neutrality hearings with pretty much every major ISP involved. Their decision I believe is still pending, but no law, statement, or otherwise has ever been made that deems Broadband an essential service.
If it were an essential service, there would be much more strict regulation in place, ISP's would not be allowed to throttle service, and We would be *MUCH* happier with broadband in Canada.
Unfortunately, Canada is slipping when it comes to broadband penetration, cell phone service, and pretty much every other aspect of the modern world.
We have a similar system for punishing corrupt high ranking gov't officials here in Canada too...
Except instead of executing them, We scour at them menacingly, give them a cushy gov't pension and send them home to write their memoirs and have them published.
I'm not a heavy internet user. My local ISP offers 2 service levels, capped, and uncapped, at 2 different price points. I opted for the capped service.
If I was offered a usage based billing option that was *reasonable* (say... $1/G/mth, which would be significantly more than the $29.95/200G/mth I have now) I would definitely buy into that.
On months where my internet usage was heavy, I would pay more, and on months where it was light I would pay less.
Bell subscribes people for 18Mbit dsl service... and then screams and hollers when people *use* that bandwidth? I believe thats the biggest problem in the canadian market right now.
Not to mention the fact that *my* dsl ISP is throttled by Bell's traffic shaping, as Bell traffic shapes all traffic (including wholesalers).
indeed, my first thought after reading that part of TFA was: "This *might* make sense... if you ignore every other browser on the planet".
This article conveniently ignores all the other players in the industry right now. To think that this is a 2 player game in todays climate is, to put it lightly, short-sighted.
He references Apple briefly, but only in the iPod/iPhone markets, and forgets OSX and Safari. He references Chrome and IE, but leaves out one of the most prominant players in the browser market, Firefox. He mentions Chrome OS and Windows, but leaves out Linux. These are real players, all with the capacity to succeed in the market. Microsoft knows this, Google knows this, thats why they continue to strive towards more diverse markets, towards better products.
Competition in the marketplace can only be good for the consumer, even if it does mean the death of one company or the other.
This type of taxation seems like a tax grab, and as another poster mentioned, would be a nightmare to keep track of in accounting software, because instead of just doing the sales tax for all sales in the state the company is headquartered in, they would then need to know what state's tax rules to apply, which, as you've demonstrated, could be difficult to figure out, and near impossible to automate.
The original intent of statutory damages was 2 fold:
1. To ensure that the infringer does not do it again, and to send a message to other potential infringers, that this behaviour will not be tolerated.
2. To punish commercial infringers for any infringements they may have done that could not be accounted for through actual losses.
It's obvious from the plain evidence in this case that she is not a commercial infringer, and never intended to re-sell the 24 songs, which leaves the other option: To send a message.
I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that $80,000 is insane damages for a single song. So then, in a range of $750 to $150,000, what *IS* fair?
The evidence seems to say that she is guilty, and thus should be held accountable. Actual damages would not send the message that the industry wants to send, but at the same time, ridiculously high damages seems to have the same effect.
Is $750 acceptible? For a total damage award of $18,000? The question is not "Could she reasonably pay the damages?", because the law doesn't care if you can pay it. The question is "How much would make a reasonable deterrent for future infringers?".
Unfortunately, these days, I believe the problem is already out of control, and no amount of damages, reasonable or not, would serve to deter future infringement. Indeed, the same person, after resolving all these issues, being left penniless and bankrupt, is likely to learn from these mistakes and use an encrypted client in the future, and simply download all their music in the future.
Punishing an avid music collector (it's reported that she actually *owns* 200+ cd's) over 24 downloaded songs seems to me to betray all of your future customers.
I don't honestly think theres any way the recording industry can drive this mess for a positive outcome for them. They'll never get the money from *any* damage award, and they're reputation is irreversibly and forever scarred by this lawsuit campaign.
This really doesn't seem to be about religion to me.
Religious fervor seems perfectly reasonable and rational to the religious.
Indeed.
Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with.
Perhaps there are others that don't enjoy this "thrill" and find it offputting or at best a trade off that they must currently make in order to be a parent. Just because you seem to enjoy the "gamble" as you put it, is not a good reason for pushing that belief on others.
So why be a parent at all then? If your not willing to accept the full package, if you only want to be a parent on your own terms, why bother? If you want a child that has certain features, that is free from genetic defects, that takes away the risk of child birth, that is completely under your control? Why not adopt?
In reality, I'm not pushing my opinion on anybody. I disagree with the process. I personally believe that it pollutes the very meaning of being a parent to be able to choose your childs physical traits.
If it were only genetic testing, if it were only to ensure that you had a healthy child free from birth defects, then maybe it would be okay in my mind, maybe I could find a way to ethically justify it in my mind.
But to go through this process so that you can have a child of the right gender? The right eye and hair color? It makes the process of having a child at all meaningless. A designer child, like a designer purse or pair of shoes. It's somehow cheapened.
I'll recycle a comment I made to another response earlier...
You don't have children do you?
Parenting is all about emotions. The discovery that your wife (or you, in the case of women) is pregnant, the wonder and amazement that comes with meeting your child for the first time, the entire process through empregnation, birth, and ultimately raising the child is an entirely emotional experience. So to say that emotions don't matter in a case like this is hogwash.
When it comes to arguments about children, it will always be wrought with emotion. Sure, everyone has opinions. I'm as open-minded as the next person, and have listened to my fair share.
At the same time, to screen potential children for any reason (genetic diseases, physical traits, etc...) based solely on the reasoning that it could make the parents life easier?
*THAT* my friend is the biggest cop out ever. Parenting is hard. There are no manuals, no pre-written instructions. Every child is different, some are harder to raise than others (I learned this the hard way). Nothing that you can screen for will ever change that.
Are there scientific facts and reasons not to allow a choice like this? Probably not. But my original response was geared towards somebody who seemed to think this was about a religious choice.
Its not a religious choice, even though some people make it one. Its an emotional choice.
Part of what makes us human is the fact that we are all different. If we start introducing choice in what traits we contain, then how long before we can choose everything? How long before we become a race that is all about genetic fads (think gataca)? How far can we take it before we lose our humanity? Do you really want to know?
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to reply with pretty much the same thing, but you about covered it.
I switched to Ubuntu about 3 years ago, and haven't used windows on my desktop system since.
If I were to install Windows XP on my system now, I would spend hours trying to track down the right drivers for my system.
If I were to install Windows Vista on my system now, It would be unstable and slow, and I would have to track down drivers for my hardware.
I tried to install Windows 7 on my system to try it out. I never did get the sound to work, and the wireless networking barely worked through a cludged generic driver.
If I install Ubuntu, everything works, and its done in like 20-30 mins, a complete usable system. Even my printer works.
I don't want the Office Ribbon.
I've never used it. I saw it used once. My wife hates it, and actually switched *back* to a pirated version of office from a legit version of 2007 just to be rid of it.
I don't want fancy pretty graphics or Aeroglass.
Fortunately, I'm a Linux user, and so I wont have to worry about that.
Want to send Mozilla a message? Switch. Choose a browser like Opera that values functionality over form.
The power users are the ones that pushed Firefox into the main stream to begin with. Whats going to happen if Mozilla suddenly loses their support?
Many places in Canada also do this. I read the story and wondered what the big deal was.
I believe even Bell Canada now charges for paper statements, and they have an opt-in system for paper bills, instead of opt-out. Now Bell didn't introduce this system all at once either. They did it quietly and grandfathered it in. Any new customers or existing customers who made changes to their accounts were told that they would be charged if they wanted paper. Existing customers that did nothing could continue receiving the paper statements free of charge.
I thought that was a great way to introduce it.
How is this a troll?
I agree. I personally don't care how pretty the browser is, and don't really like the Windows 7/Vista graphics interface.
What will it look like in Linux? Thats what I want to know.
I don't like the overly simplified interface, I think it makes it seem like they think their users are idiots. I don't use google chrome for much the same reason.
I don't believe that.
Morally justifying it in your own mind shows that there is some kind of Psychosis at work, on some level.
KNOWING that the act is evil, but doing it anyways because you *want* to, because you think that the world is better off that way. Thats what I would define as true evil. Knowingly and intentionally committing an act that the general population believes to be morally wrong, without regard to all others involved, and without regard to the consequences of the action.
The figures in history that are painted as true evil, and not just simple psychopaths, have full knowledge that what they are doing is wrong. They know full well that there are consequences to the action. They do it anyways, without regard to themselves or anybody else.
Disintegrating a populated orphanage with high explosives for fun is not evil, its psychotic.
Disintegrating a populated orphanage with high explosives because you truly and firmly believe that the world is better off without those orphans, and then convincing the world to see it from your point of view, and getting away with it.
*THAT* is pure evil.
The problem is, we're failing society as professionals in the IT field -- part of our work (which most likely isn't earning you money) is teaching our friends, family, and interested parties about these problems and how to protect themselves from it because nobody else can or will. That's what has allowed this kind of crap to permeate into the mainstream... It wouldn't be tolerated if people knew better.
I disagree with this. I've spent a long time in the industry, and am pretty much the only "tech enabled" person in amongst many friends and family. Many of them use the computer recreationally, and without a care as to what harms may become of them. To the layman, the computer is just a tool, and to most of them, there is no perceived risk to themselves. Thus, when I try to inform them of the risks they take, or try to teach them safer browsing habits, good housekeeping, etc. It is often met with indifference, and sometimes hostility. People don't like to be told they are wrong, especially when most people use the computer in the way they think is correct, and in most cases, the only way they know how.
Many people are intimidated by computers, and to have somebody who is deeply involved in computers try to teach them best-practices, is sometimes insulting.
So yeah, we may feel we have a responsibility to protect those that know less than us, but in reality, instilling that knowledge is not always easy, practical, or even sometimes possible.
So no, I don't agree, I don't think we've failed. I think we're doing the best job we know how to do, in the face of at times massive and gross ignorance. Resistance does not mean I've given up. But I have learned over time which people are worth taking the time to teach, and which people are not worth the effort.
There is no link, because the OP is totally incorrect.
The CRTC just finished net neutrality hearings with pretty much every major ISP involved. Their decision I believe is still pending, but no law, statement, or otherwise has ever been made that deems Broadband an essential service.
If it were an essential service, there would be much more strict regulation in place, ISP's would not be allowed to throttle service, and We would be *MUCH* happier with broadband in Canada.
Unfortunately, Canada is slipping when it comes to broadband penetration, cell phone service, and pretty much every other aspect of the modern world.
If you're going to poke fun at Canadian culture, at least spell it right, Eh?
Indeed, there is a presumption of innocence.
But the presumption of innocence is simply a matter of law. It refers to who carries the onus of proof.
In a matter of criminal law, the onus of proof is on the state, thus the *presumption* of innocence.
This does not mean that you committed no crime until proven otherwise. Many people commit crimes and are not proven guilty.
As a matter of ethics, those people are *NOT* innocent of the crime.
As a matter of law, they are *NOT GUILTY*.
Don't get the 2 confused.
The murderers were acquitted [go.com], but Florida did shut down its boot camps.
Small nitpick but they aren't 'murderers' when they were found innocent by a jury of their peers.
Small nitpick, but aquittal != innocent.
Aquittal simply means there was not enough evidence to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Indeed.
We have a similar system for punishing corrupt high ranking gov't officials here in Canada too...
Except instead of executing them, We scour at them menacingly, give them a cushy gov't pension and send them home to write their memoirs and have them published.
Oh, and we make them say sorry.
I'm not a heavy internet user. My local ISP offers 2 service levels, capped, and uncapped, at 2 different price points. I opted for the capped service.
If I was offered a usage based billing option that was *reasonable* (say... $1/G/mth, which would be significantly more than the $29.95/200G/mth I have now) I would definitely buy into that.
On months where my internet usage was heavy, I would pay more, and on months where it was light I would pay less.
Thing is, if you look at my ISP:
29.95/200G/mth/5Mbit/800kbit
39.95/Unlimited/mth/5Mbit/800kbit
and then look at Bell:
19.95/2G/mth/1Mbit/800kbit
29.95/25G/mth/6Mbit/1Mbit
39.95/50G/mth/12Mbit/1Mbit
49.95/75G/mth/18Mbit/1Mbit
theres a bit of a disconnect here...
Bell subscribes people for 18Mbit dsl service... and then screams and hollers when people *use* that bandwidth? I believe thats the biggest problem in the canadian market right now.
Not to mention the fact that *my* dsl ISP is throttled by Bell's traffic shaping, as Bell traffic shapes all traffic (including wholesalers).
Is that fair?
indeed, my first thought after reading that part of TFA was: "This *might* make sense... if you ignore every other browser on the planet".
This article conveniently ignores all the other players in the industry right now. To think that this is a 2 player game in todays climate is, to put it lightly, short-sighted.
He references Apple briefly, but only in the iPod/iPhone markets, and forgets OSX and Safari. He references Chrome and IE, but leaves out one of the most prominant players in the browser market, Firefox. He mentions Chrome OS and Windows, but leaves out Linux. These are real players, all with the capacity to succeed in the market. Microsoft knows this, Google knows this, thats why they continue to strive towards more diverse markets, towards better products.
Competition in the marketplace can only be good for the consumer, even if it does mean the death of one company or the other.
You sir, deserve modding.
I believe you hit the nail right on the head.
This type of taxation seems like a tax grab, and as another poster mentioned, would be a nightmare to keep track of in accounting software, because instead of just doing the sales tax for all sales in the state the company is headquartered in, they would then need to know what state's tax rules to apply, which, as you've demonstrated, could be difficult to figure out, and near impossible to automate.
Kudos to Amazon for taking a stand.
[citation needed... again]
[citation needed]
You must be new here. :)
Hydro electric? Or solar?
Indeed, but its that way for a reason.
The original intent of statutory damages was 2 fold:
1. To ensure that the infringer does not do it again, and to send a message to other potential infringers, that this behaviour will not be tolerated.
2. To punish commercial infringers for any infringements they may have done that could not be accounted for through actual losses.
It's obvious from the plain evidence in this case that she is not a commercial infringer, and never intended to re-sell the 24 songs, which leaves the other option: To send a message.
I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that $80,000 is insane damages for a single song. So then, in a range of $750 to $150,000, what *IS* fair?
The evidence seems to say that she is guilty, and thus should be held accountable. Actual damages would not send the message that the industry wants to send, but at the same time, ridiculously high damages seems to have the same effect.
Is $750 acceptible? For a total damage award of $18,000? The question is not "Could she reasonably pay the damages?", because the law doesn't care if you can pay it. The question is "How much would make a reasonable deterrent for future infringers?".
Unfortunately, these days, I believe the problem is already out of control, and no amount of damages, reasonable or not, would serve to deter future infringement. Indeed, the same person, after resolving all these issues, being left penniless and bankrupt, is likely to learn from these mistakes and use an encrypted client in the future, and simply download all their music in the future.
Punishing an avid music collector (it's reported that she actually *owns* 200+ cd's) over 24 downloaded songs seems to me to betray all of your future customers.
I don't honestly think theres any way the recording industry can drive this mess for a positive outcome for them. They'll never get the money from *any* damage award, and they're reputation is irreversibly and forever scarred by this lawsuit campaign.
First they ignore you...
Then they ridicule you...
Then they fight you...
Then you win.
Enjoy
This really doesn't seem to be about religion to me.
Religious fervor seems perfectly reasonable and rational to the religious.
Indeed.
Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with.
Perhaps there are others that don't enjoy this "thrill" and find it offputting or at best a trade off that they must currently make in order to be a parent. Just because you seem to enjoy the "gamble" as you put it, is not a good reason for pushing that belief on others.
So why be a parent at all then? If your not willing to accept the full package, if you only want to be a parent on your own terms, why bother? If you want a child that has certain features, that is free from genetic defects, that takes away the risk of child birth, that is completely under your control? Why not adopt?
In reality, I'm not pushing my opinion on anybody. I disagree with the process. I personally believe that it pollutes the very meaning of being a parent to be able to choose your childs physical traits.
If it were only genetic testing, if it were only to ensure that you had a healthy child free from birth defects, then maybe it would be okay in my mind, maybe I could find a way to ethically justify it in my mind.
But to go through this process so that you can have a child of the right gender? The right eye and hair color? It makes the process of having a child at all meaningless. A designer child, like a designer purse or pair of shoes. It's somehow cheapened.
Your kidding right?
Please tell me your actually kidding, and your really a Linux shop making a really funny joke!
I'll recycle a comment I made to another response earlier...
You don't have children do you?
Parenting is all about emotions. The discovery that your wife (or you, in the case of women) is pregnant, the wonder and amazement that comes with meeting your child for the first time, the entire process through empregnation, birth, and ultimately raising the child is an entirely emotional experience. So to say that emotions don't matter in a case like this is hogwash.
When it comes to arguments about children, it will always be wrought with emotion. Sure, everyone has opinions. I'm as open-minded as the next person, and have listened to my fair share.
At the same time, to screen potential children for any reason (genetic diseases, physical traits, etc...) based solely on the reasoning that it could make the parents life easier?
*THAT* my friend is the biggest cop out ever. Parenting is hard. There are no manuals, no pre-written instructions. Every child is different, some are harder to raise than others (I learned this the hard way). Nothing that you can screen for will ever change that.
Are there scientific facts and reasons not to allow a choice like this? Probably not. But my original response was geared towards somebody who seemed to think this was about a religious choice.
Its not a religious choice, even though some people make it one. Its an emotional choice.
Part of what makes us human is the fact that we are all different. If we start introducing choice in what traits we contain, then how long before we can choose everything? How long before we become a race that is all about genetic fads (think gataca)? How far can we take it before we lose our humanity? Do you really want to know?
Indeed. But I'm caucasian. So yeah, it almost never happens.