The fact that a CITY GOVERNMENT was able to enter the market FROM THE GROUND UP, cover all entry costs associated with starting the business, and then still offer a monthly fee that beats the pants off of the best private company in the area? That REALLY tells you how lazy the cable companies have gotten.
Really? In order to build the infrastructure, enter the market,and cover all entry costs, did the city government get bank loans or did they use tax revenue or did the issue tax free municipal bonds? Did they have to go through zoning and permitting, or was that taken care of in house at no cost? Did they have to hire crews and buy equipment to install the infrastructure or did they use existing government resources?
In short, how much did the "CITY GOVERNMENT" subsidize the creation of this corporation, thereby reducing or removing the debt associated with creating such a company and said debts attendant payments which would have to be passed on to the customer?
In this case, the corporations are having to compete against the government. Specifically, they are competing against a city run company that can use tax and fee revenue to subsidize operating costs, and thus keep the customer's bill artificially low.
What you are missing is that Greenlight is a government owned and operated service. By passing legislation that states "government can not compete with free market business", Greenlight would either be put out of business or be required to be come a separate entity.
Well, the city-owned and operated cable service called Greenlight
In other words, this is a government owned company. It may not be "nationalized", but it is "city-ized". They are going to the state government because they will have to compete with a "nationalized" service that is subsidized by the city government.
Greenlight is not a "free market" service because it is owned and operated by the city.
Who really owns a commercial open software application: the corporate holders of the trademarked name of the project, or the community?
The copyright is pretty much irrelevant up to the point that the corporate holders change the copyright and licensing. But, if Oracle now owns the trademark "MySQL", then Monty Program Ab may not be able to use the name MySQL.
You're being unnecessarily adversarial, and I wonder what your agenda is.
I am asking questions that request details of your experiences. That you find such questions "adversarial" shows that you demand unquestioned acceptance of unsupported facts.
It seems important to you to dismiss the idea of low-consumption off-grid living.
I question whether such living was low-consumption and I question if it was in fact low-impact.
I'd be curious if you can back up your implied claim that a small, well-insulated propane fridge generates a lot more carbon than the huge, inefficient electrical monster most city-dwellers own.
I made no such claim. I asked what the actual impact of the propane devices were. And, I would be interested to know how the two stack up.
In any case, I'm not advocating living like this in the 2000s.
If you do not advocate living now as you did in the 1970s or 1980s or whenever it was when you grew up, why bother mentioning it? And, why find the summary funny as you would not now advocate or live in the condition you have put forward?
the growing bushlot made the property a net carbon *sink*.
Prove that statement.
You seem to have a problem with people questioning your statements and asking for proof of your claims. That is the sign of one who has no proof, only assumptions.
That was not an ad hominem attack. That was the truth. You have no morals or ethics. You are nothing but a cowardly, selfish thief and you have admitted as much.
When it comes to non-material items that I will not exploit for my own monetary gain the answer is yes:
By not paying for said item and still making use of said item, you are gaining monetarily. Your argument is refuted and you have admitted you are a thief, that you have no ethics or morals, and that you are a selfish idiot all in one statement.
hey're not bound by the US Constitution since they're not the Federal Government
That is a false statement. The freedoms and protections of the Constitution of the United States apply to all subordinate governments, as detailed in the Constitution itself.
Oh, so, it is your contention that illegal copying does not cause loss of revenue because you would not have paid for it and thus it is acceptable for you to take it without payment. Under that argument, raping ugly, fat, old women should not be a crime because the rapist would not have paid for it, so it should not be illegal to take it.
2) Many times artists end up with new revenue streams because copying allowed someone to find out about them who quite likely would never have discovered them otherwise.
This has been proven false using TPB's own data.
Your entire argument comes down to "It is OK for me to violate someone else's rights and make and keep illegal copies because I would not have paid for the works because I do not think they are worth the asking price."
In other words "I wanted it, but didn't want to pay for it, so I took it."
Well, dipshit, your opinion is that they did not make their case. The court disagreed. Your opinion is worth nothing, because you seem to think that your opinion is law, when it obviously is not.
Now, maybe you should shut your fucking mouth, shitbrains.
How much green house gas did you add to the environment with the propane stove and fridge? What was the ecological impact of the 1500kg lead-acid battery, especially when it was manufactured and when it needed to be replaced? How much illumination did those lights provide? How big was the building? What was the climate in which this set up was used? Were there extended periods of extreme heat or extreme cold? Was there high or low humidity?
Um, no, that is not what he is saying. He doesn't say anything like that at all. In fact, he says " it was not filesharing that got the best of us". So, maybe you should shut your trap and try reading so you can actual make an intelligent comment on what is being said.
What he is saying is that one of the justifications given by P2P illegal copiers is patently false, and then uses TPB's own data to show that it is false.
People do not use P2P illegal copying to find new artists, nor do new artists benefit from P2P illegal copying.
Please describe in detail said household including all appliances and the energy source used by said appliances, and the number and wattage of the electric lights.
18,000 connections were made from legitimately purchased copies; over 100,000 were made from pirated copies.
18,000 legitimate copies @ US$40.00 each = US$720,000.00 118,000 copies @ $US40.00 each if they had all be legal copies = US$4,720,000.00 Only 15% of copies are legal copies.
Direct revenue lost due to illegal copies: $4,000,000 plus revenue lost due to bad reviews and bad player experience caused by the illegal copies.
There goes the argument that illegal copies are harmless and don't cost anyone anything.
When you rent a move and invite your friends over to watch, there is a single copy of the work at the beginning of the event and at the end of the event. And, that copy is returned to the location you rented from.
When you "share" movie over the internet with a "friend", there is a single copy of the work at the beginning of the event, but there are two copies at the end of the event: the one you have and the one your friend has. You have created and given away a copy of a work to which you do not hold the copyright.
Trying to equate watching a movie with a friend with giving that friend an unauthorized copy is disingenuous. It is a false analogy and ignores the fact that a copy is created in one instance and not the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you are a Microsoft hating troll
Really? In order to build the infrastructure, enter the market,and cover all entry costs, did the city government get bank loans or did they use tax revenue or did the issue tax free municipal bonds? Did they have to go through zoning and permitting, or was that taken care of in house at no cost? Did they have to hire crews and buy equipment to install the infrastructure or did they use existing government resources?
In short, how much did the "CITY GOVERNMENT" subsidize the creation of this corporation, thereby reducing or removing the debt associated with creating such a company and said debts attendant payments which would have to be passed on to the customer?
In this case, the corporations are having to compete against the government. Specifically, they are competing against a city run company that can use tax and fee revenue to subsidize operating costs, and thus keep the customer's bill artificially low.
Um, no. If Greenlight uses city funds to subsidize it's operations and keep customer costs down, then TW would have trouble competing.
And, no, assuming that all government run operations are inefficient is to make false assumptions.
What you are missing is that Greenlight is a government owned and operated service. By passing legislation that states "government can not compete with free market business", Greenlight would either be put out of business or be required to be come a separate entity.
FTS:
In other words, this is a government owned company. It may not be "nationalized", but it is "city-ized". They are going to the state government because they will have to compete with a "nationalized" service that is subsidized by the city government.
Greenlight is not a "free market" service because it is owned and operated by the city.
Who really owns a commercial open software application: the corporate holders of the trademarked name of the project, or the community?
The copyright is pretty much irrelevant up to the point that the corporate holders change the copyright and licensing. But, if Oracle now owns the trademark "MySQL", then Monty Program Ab may not be able to use the name MySQL.
I am asking questions that request details of your experiences. That you find such questions "adversarial" shows that you demand unquestioned acceptance of unsupported facts.
I question whether such living was low-consumption and I question if it was in fact low-impact.
I made no such claim. I asked what the actual impact of the propane devices were. And, I would be interested to know how the two stack up.
If you do not advocate living now as you did in the 1970s or 1980s or whenever it was when you grew up, why bother mentioning it? And, why find the summary funny as you would not now advocate or live in the condition you have put forward?
Prove that statement.
You seem to have a problem with people questioning your statements and asking for proof of your claims. That is the sign of one who has no proof, only assumptions.
That was not an ad hominem attack. That was the truth. You have no morals or ethics. You are nothing but a cowardly, selfish thief and you have admitted as much.
Space does not have a taste. Sagittarius B2, however, tastes like raspberries.
I am sure that will work real well on the target platform for this version of Windows 7: the netbook.
By not paying for said item and still making use of said item, you are gaining monetarily. Your argument is refuted and you have admitted you are a thief, that you have no ethics or morals, and that you are a selfish idiot all in one statement.
hey're not bound by the US Constitution since they're not the Federal Government
That is a false statement. The freedoms and protections of the Constitution of the United States apply to all subordinate governments, as detailed in the Constitution itself.
Oh, so, it is your contention that illegal copying does not cause loss of revenue because you would not have paid for it and thus it is acceptable for you to take it without payment. Under that argument, raping ugly, fat, old women should not be a crime because the rapist would not have paid for it, so it should not be illegal to take it.
This has been proven false using TPB's own data.
Your entire argument comes down to "It is OK for me to violate someone else's rights and make and keep illegal copies because I would not have paid for the works because I do not think they are worth the asking price."
In other words "I wanted it, but didn't want to pay for it, so I took it."
Well, dipshit, your opinion is that they did not make their case. The court disagreed. Your opinion is worth nothing, because you seem to think that your opinion is law, when it obviously is not.
Now, maybe you should shut your fucking mouth, shitbrains.
No, for the same reason you do not have a right to keep and bear nuclear devices or chemical and/or biological weapons.
How much green house gas did you add to the environment with the propane stove and fridge?
What was the ecological impact of the 1500kg lead-acid battery, especially when it was manufactured and when it needed to be replaced?
How much illumination did those lights provide?
How big was the building?
What was the climate in which this set up was used? Were there extended periods of extreme heat or extreme cold? Was there high or low humidity?
He is showing how one of the primary claims about P2P is false. Perhaps you should stick to the argument instead of throwing out a red herring.
Um, no, that is not what he is saying. He doesn't say anything like that at all. In fact, he says " it was not filesharing that got the best of us". So, maybe you should shut your trap and try reading so you can actual make an intelligent comment on what is being said.
What he is saying is that one of the justifications given by P2P illegal copiers is patently false, and then uses TPB's own data to show that it is false.
People do not use P2P illegal copying to find new artists, nor do new artists benefit from P2P illegal copying.
You say the test is stupid. Yet, envirowackos will tell you that this technology, along with PV, will free the world from fossil fuels.
And, if you want proof, go back and look at previous /. articles on the subject.
Please describe in detail said household including all appliances and the energy source used by said appliances, and the number and wattage of the electric lights.
18,000 legitimate copies @ US$40.00 each = US$720,000.00
118,000 copies @ $US40.00 each if they had all be legal copies = US$4,720,000.00
Only 15% of copies are legal copies.
Direct revenue lost due to illegal copies: $4,000,000 plus revenue lost due to bad reviews and bad player experience caused by the illegal copies.
There goes the argument that illegal copies are harmless and don't cost anyone anything.
When you rent a move and invite your friends over to watch, there is a single copy of the work at the beginning of the event and at the end of the event. And, that copy is returned to the location you rented from.
When you "share" movie over the internet with a "friend", there is a single copy of the work at the beginning of the event, but there are two copies at the end of the event: the one you have and the one your friend has. You have created and given away a copy of a work to which you do not hold the copyright.
Trying to equate watching a movie with a friend with giving that friend an unauthorized copy is disingenuous. It is a false analogy and ignores the fact that a copy is created in one instance and not the other.
No, it isn't. Please look up irony.
PEBKAC