Others seem to have focused on the '(financial) cost to society' part of your post, so I guess I'll leave that.
But..
And frankly, I see it as a release. Given the option of life without parole and death, I will take death over an 8'x6' room.
..seems a little naive. Have you ever been in prison (jail != prison)? Although not a vacation, you should see some documentaries about prisons and the people in them in most of the western world. You may get access to computers, you almost certainly have access to a library, most prisons have gyms. There's plenty to keep you busy and better yourself.
Most importantly, though.. if you decide that you really, really can't continue living within that system (i.e. without 'total' freedom to go and do as you please) you can still easily opt for death. It may not be as painless as a lethal injection, you may even have to do something you really wouldn't want to - but the option is always, always there. Whatever method you'd choose, just make sure you succeed, because if you fail, you most likely would wish you were in that 8'x6' room.
users should just shrug and go use something more complicated and requires far more configuration and hassle. Now that's revolutionary.
Really? Step 1. Log into gmail. Step 2. Click on other user. Step 3. Click video chat button.
Step 1. Log into facebook. Step 2. Click on other user. Step 3. Click video chat button.
Step 1. Log into Yahoo. Step 2. Click on other user. Step 3. Click video chat button.
Step 1. Log into MSN. Step 2. Click on other user. Step 3. Click video chat button.
If you happen to use Android, add their IM (if the IM app itself doesn't do it for you). Now you can just go to your Contacts app and hit them up on Yahoo, AIM, whatever.
And no, I'm not saying 'users should just'. They should certainly do whatever the hell they want, and if AT&T blocks them unjustly from doing so - based on net neutrality principles - then bringing action against AT&T is one of those things they should certainly do if they want to.
But the groups bringing forth the action using an argument that rings of 'think of the children' when they name these groups - when these groups have alternatives available to them - is just sad. Perhaps they should have named Bob the security guy, too - since he can't use FaceTime to check out the halls that he covers with iPhones when using AT&T.
Here I thought all this time that FaceTime is just another video chat technology, similar to ones that have been included with practically every webcam since the mid 90's, and similar to that which is available in practically every IM app (AIM, MSN, Yahoo!, etc.) and even facebook and Google Mail - except that it was only available for iOS devices and so if you wanted to video chat with a friend using FaceTime, they would have to go out and buy a compatible iDevice to make that happen, making it vastly less useful than the aforementioned.
But apparently I had it wrong;
AT&T's actions are incredibly harmful to all of its customers, including the deaf, immigrant families and others with relatives overseas, who depend on mobile video apps to communicate with friends and family.
I had no idea that these groups are unable to use the aforementioned alternatives. I didn't realize they are all forced to use iDevices on AT&T, and then forced to use FaceTime at that.
Seriously, though.. I'm all for filing the net neutrality complaint, but if these groups are so hard-hit, perhaps they should vote with their dollars and 1. not use AT&T where possible, 2. use an alternative video chat tech, perhaps preferably not on an iDevice in the first place unless Apple feels like opening FaceTime up to other platforms like they suggested they would.
I simply save them to archive (MAFF addon for FireFox) - piecewise, or by opening a bunch in tabs and saving those tabs to an archive (can extract if needed).
But if you already have an extensive list of bookmarks, I'd imagine you should be able to easily turn the bookmarks into an html page, and then let e.g. HTTrack loose on it.
While I agree that keeping bookmarks working is a Good Thing - what on Earth are you doing relying on an online service for preservation of data that is important to you?
Now would be a good time - regardless of the intention that URLs and the data they present will probably remain the same - for you to use something that downloads your bookmarks.
Read on, as I examine not only why he's right, but how piracy could be further curbed already."
Emphasis mine.
I read on, and then I re-read it a few times. Perhaps I missed it - but where is it examined how piracy could be further curbed already?
It's not extremely well-hidden in this part, is it?
It's also key to understand that a single person can belong to one or more of these demographics, or invent their own reasons for whether they will pirate or not. Maybe someone pirates a game, then later decides he want to play it online or that he likes it and want to support it. Suddenly a pirate is now a paying customer.
Because then I'd have to take away from it that piracy could be further curbed by just letting it happen in the hopes that the user will later make that decision to pay up.
It's not this bit either, right?
Lode Runner came with 150 levels, but my pirated copy crashed after level 33. Eventually I bought my own copy so that I could see the rest of the game.
Because if it were - without further context - I'd almost say that's DRM doing a pretty good job there. Maybe it was a bug that was also in the official game and for some reason a patch was never pirated, rather than a flaw in the crack. The 'read on' text doesn't mention.
Perhaps it's this 2-sentence piece in the last paragraph?
Services like iTMS and Steam are able to corral the people who just want easy access. Humble Indie Bundles and GOG.com work for people who want DRM-free games.
Well, certainly more such services would be good. Except.. not. Zune store thing didn't work out too well. Gamers aren't fond of installing Origin when they point to Steam. If anything, more such services means that it's more likely that some content is only available at X, and other content only available at Y, and now you need subscriptions to two services.
Besides, that very paragraph then follows up those two sentences with:
But even these only address small pieces of the larger pie.
So if those were supposed to be the examinations as to "how piracy could be further curbed already", then you just shot them down. Good job?
I don't get it.. I see a lot of complaining that the industry just doesn't get it, that they need to use the internet to their advantage, that they need to take a realistic outlook as to the various reasons for people pirating. But then when it's even stated that there will be suggestions as to how it can be curbed further... we're left hanging.
I have to say, though, this bit made me chuckle:
The average price for a computer game was around $25 to $35 for a new release [...] it took a long time to save up for a game. So, I and most other kids did the only logical alternative: we pirated software. [...] What I should note here, before all of us kids look like greedy little thieves, is that when I did eventually save up my money, I would still inevitably spend it on the software that I wasn't able to get via pirating.
Nobody here would suggest you looked like greedy little thieves - thievery implies theft, and copyright infringement isn't theft. But when you go and try to make your past self look better by suggesting that when you did have money you would purchase software, only to point out that if you had been able to pirate it, you would have done so, and kept the money? I'd say you were greedy little somethings alright:)
Which is completely idiocy. The husband is negligent because he let his wife use the connection that was in his name? Are they kidding?
Why would they be kidding?
I think somebody else said that 'wife' may not be the correct translation, but let's run with that. When you marry, you generally tend to take on joint responsibility on shared resources. But let's also run with the idea that, in fact, you don't take on joint responsibility. Don't you think that, in such a case, it would be wise to ask your wife not to download songs, given that - as the legal entity the bill is sent to - you'd be liable for it? And if she then does it anyway, and you get that first warning, wouldn't it be prudent to have a chat with her on why she shouldn't be doing that? If she then continues anyway, perhaps dropping the subscription and having her re-open it in her name would be good?
Obviously you can still ask her to pay the fine anyway.
I don't see any need for each individual having their own connection - I do see a need for understanding that any legal matters pertaining to the shared resource falls on one person (in this case), and respect that said person wouldn't find it particularly enjoyable if they have legal action brought against them due to another person abusing that resource.
While KickStarter's ToS requires that the KickStarter be set up by a U.S. resident paid through a U.S. bank account, the project can actually be led by - and funds transferred to - anybody from anywhere. The clause itself is fallout from their working with Amazon to handle payments.
Supposed to, yes. It should fall under contract law. Things do get a little more complicated with KickStarter and similar CrowdFunding platforms, though.
Let's say the project is for Group X to perform at Broadway. What is the final product you would get back from that? Let's say they then offer stickers at a $5 pledge level. But you pledge $100 instead. Is that $95 then not a donation with nothing in return?
Even when pledge level/reward are all on the up-and-up.. what if the project doesn't deliver? By KickStarter ToS, they must either deliver on the promised perks, or refund backers. Problem is - they may not refund. If they don't, KickStarter says you're on your own (despite the ~5% they take). The problem with being on your own is that a e.g. $25 pledge isn't particularly worth going into legal (contract law) proceedings over.
That's all setting aside that many actually do view KickStarter as a donation platform and perks delivered as being optional.
Well then I guess if you're a loner you should say 'no' to the testing regardless of how much you'd like to help;)
But yes - they would do that. They have done something similar in another case, to much public outcry; There was an accident between two kids on a scooter (moped) and another person. That other person died. While they know both kids were on the scooter, they cannot conclusively find which of the two was the driver. Therefore, neither was charged for the fatal accident. http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1012/Nederland/article/detail/3262686/2012/05/29/Verdachten-dodelijk-scooterdrama-vrijgesproken.dhtml ( They were, however, tried for and found guilty of several other rather unpleasant things. )
There was plenty of calls for both to be tried for (and likely be convicted of causing) the fatal accident seeing as neither of them is confessing and just blaming the other - all the way up to politicians doing their little song and dance. But, at least for now, 'justice' is being served.
There's plenty of examples where things do go wrong - 2 guys having spent years in jail after admitting to a murder even though they didn't commit it (they admitted under duress, from psychological pressure exerted on them by the cops). DNA wasn't even a factor in that case, though. The eventual arrest of who they now believe was the perp, on the other hand, was based on DNA evidence - as was his conviction. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puttense_moordzaak
Did you just not read the posts leading up to the line you quoted?
1-in-7,000 chance - according to whoever posted that - between two random people.
Which is applicable if... 1. they were only looking at random people (they weren't - they're targeting a specific group in the first DNA investigation. This one is actually more likely to lead to matches because they're looking for family members.) 2. the fact that there's a match were the sole piece of information in the investigation and were deemed enough evidence for a guilty conviction.
Of course it's good for the police to know the statistics specifically so that they can avoid falling into the trap of convicting my example octogenarian blind paraplegic of the rape and murder of a young woman and then getting away from the scene on a bike. But by observing those limitations, the broad statement ends up not applying to the real life situations. Of course if there's a real life situation in which it does apply, the people running the investigation are wholly incompetent and would be likely to arrest a woman who died in the 70's anyway.
And what if you're a 1-in-7000 guy, and happen to not have alibi and don't have many friends around the place cause you're seen as a bit weird?
Then they'll take a closer look at you and while you may be a bit weird and not have an alibi also don't seem to have any ties to the case whatsoever, and be let go.
The real danger lies in your name becoming public because the entire town is going to distrust you or even decide that you are the perp and take matters in their own hands.
Besides, going through the process is going to make 8080 men feel varying degrees of uncomfort at being seen as a potential rapist and killer.
Most men don't feel very uncomfortable at all, if you'd actually read about the case you'd know that. Those that do are free to refuse. afaik there's no "if you don't, we'll get a court order which is public record and everybody will know you said 'no'" shenanigans in NL. Those who do partake and are actually cleared by the DNA evidence (in this case, whose families may or may not be cleared) are probably going to feel rather more comfortable, in fact.
I'm no fan of these wide DNA witch hunts myself, but the whole 1-in-7000 chance thing is a statistic not to be applied directly to real life situations. It makes as much sense as politicians saying that if the average person spent 5 minutes less in traffic then they would have a day and a bit extra spare time at the end of the year. It just doesn't work out that way.
The Marianne Vaatstra case will probably never be solved. There was a lot of evidence pointing towards a center of asylum seekers nearby. The most likely suspects fled the country within a few days.
And later evidence pointed to it likely being a local (second bike), possibly somebody she knew (likely perp's lighter in her bag), and most likely western European (from DNA); not quite the Iraqi/Afghani asylum seeker profile.
At this point it could be her neighbor, somebody from Amsterdam, or even an American with Western European heritage. No use pointing fingers anywhere.
I do agree that this likely will never be solved, though. This and dozens of other cases that don't get nearly this much (media) attention.
Take two random people, and there is about a 1-in-7000 chance that their DNA profiles will match
True, but keep in mind that this may as well translate to: "Take an octogenarian paraplegic-at-birth blind man in care home and a 30-year old guy who has no alibi and is known to be a womanizer who likes getting rough, and there is about a 1-in-7000 chance that their DNA profiles will match
I doubt it would be that clear-cut, but investigations don't generally go "your DNA matches, we don't care you claim where you were at the time, or who can place you there, or what condition you are in - you are found guilty regardless and are hereby sentenced to life in prison" as much as I enjoy that doom scenario often proposed:)
P.S. They're not even looking for the perp, but for family members of the perp. I guess if the perp is actually in the sampling group that'd be rather convenient, though.
as opposed to.. what? Surreptitiously acquiring the DNA sample from people?
It would be like going on Twitter and saying "Hey Mr./Mrs. (Name of criminal), the police are going to #raid your house tomorrow."
But they're not even trying to find the criminal's DNA in this case - they already tried that, and didn't find a match. They're trying to find family members now. I guess if everybody in the family knows that family member X did something, and then every member in the family asked declines to offer the DNA, they'd still be stuck with a problem. Even though it might make the family slightly more suspicious, they may very well all share the thought that the police has no business taking their DNA and maybe, potentially, solving the murder is not worth the intrusion, rather than trying to protect a family member.
Second, you only THOUGHT you had the right to privacy.
They're only being asked to volunteer and no data is made available of who has volunteered and who hasn't - and those that haven't aren't automatically asked over to the police station for a 'friendly chat'. The people still have every right to say 'no' to the DNA swabbing. Wake me when they force people to comply, or start floating around the DNA registration at birth/entry into the country thing.
Why not just go directly to the API of that datasource instead like you do now?
Saves you having to poll the data yourself. One less permission if you're just going to show temperature, humidity, etc. like most of the weather apps.
And why maintain a source for a weather API when there are already so many weather APIs provided by the datasource maintainer out there?
I don't know. Why maintain a source for getting the current time as an API call in Android when you can tell app developers that they're on their own. After all, they can use the GPS to get the time. Or the cell network signal. Or a time server online. Or keep their app running all the time and use a timer, ask the user to set the time once and then just figure out the time based on number of ticks elapsed + the time initially set and a LUT for daylight savings for a given locale. Or maybe the cellphone supports WWVB and you can tap into that.
Would you do the same for all external data sources or just weather?
That depends on the data in question. I'm certainly not suggesting that Android polls the umpteenmillion of blogs out there and caches their results just so that2 apps that happen to poll 5 of those sites can get them from Android instead of going straight to those 5 sites.
On the other hand, Google already saw fit to make a location API so that any app that wants to know the user's location can simply poll that and either get a cached result or have the system grab that using whatever services the user has enabled (cell towers / wifi / GPS) instead of every single app having their own settings for what to use for determining a location and then having multiple apps polling for essentially the same information multiple times.
No, you might as well leave it the way it is because it works just fine and works the same as all other external data sources.
Except that it doesn't work just fine as soon as that data source becomes unavailable, changes format, etc.
I get it, though - you're vehemently opposed to suggesting that Google add an API. Not sure what your reasoning is other than "there's already third party data sources". I don't see the harm you're seeing in adding one, I guess.
So what happens to being able to choose your source?
Those currently offering would, hopefully, continue to offer it. Those currently not offering it would, hopefully, consider offering it. But if for any reason whatsoever the chosen data source disappears, there would still be the built-in API to fall back to. ( Of course if you're going to give the user a choice between 5 data sources anyway, any of the other 4 could be a fallback. )
Caching that data would only have any benefit if you had a bunch of different weather apps showing the same data, which is pointless.
While pointless, this does happen. There will be people who have a clock+weather widget on their main screen. On another screen a news widget that, when tapped, opens a new app which also has a weather tab. Then their alarm clock app? Also has a weather display. And their lock screen, in case they're not using e.g. WidgetLocker? Yup, yet another.
Whether there is any sanity in having that many apps with weather info in the first place may be a point of contention - but it's there, might as well try to cater to it. ( And while you can get weather data for random locations, the most typical use is certainly for your current location. Not that there's any reason a built-in API couldn't accept location information in the data requests. )
And that's assuming you live in the USA. I can't watch movies onine legally anywhere.
From your posting history I conclude that it's likely you live in The Netherlands. While the services you mention are not (yet - Netflix should be coming) available in NL, there are other online movie rental options in The Netherlands. Their offerings are more expensive and their catalog not very impressive, though (not that I think Netflix's catalog is impressive). There's also usually a video-on-demand option from your TV provider.. those usually have more recent offerings, but of course you're stuck to the TV or a device connected through that provider's internet subscription (Ziggo, e.g. - although I'm not sure they're even offering that yet.. just getting live TV working seems to be a chore for them.)
Sorry, I should have made it more clear in my post that I meant that Google should offer the API as a part of Android (similar to the location API).
I know there's plenty of other weather APIs available, and most of the better weather apps do let you choose. But given the popularity of weather apps (full apps, widgets, notification services, etc.) I think it would make sense for an API to be available within Android itself. This can then poll and cache results so that apps X, Y and Z can all grab the exact same information without actually submitting 3 separate queries (which sometimes results in app X saying it's cloudy while app Y says it's clear skies depending on when the online service last updated their data).
I think there is a bit of a philosophical question here, though. Assume it didn't work on Linux and there were no DVDs available. Then are the movie studios (or Amazon) making it difficult for you to rent/buy the digital copies, or did you make it difficult on yourself by choosing to use Linux? Is Mozilla making it difficult for me to watch WebGL content by claiming it doesn't work on my machine, or am I making it difficult on myself by using FireFox? (hint: Chrome serves it up just fine)
Would I rather that Amazon - and also the studios - embraced Linux completely and supported it through-and-through? Of course.
most people like to RENT. NOT buy. Studios make that difficult. Yes, it is difficult.
If the movie simply isn't available for rent online, then I don't think it's a matter of it being difficult. It simply doesn't apply. That doesn't change that I think it's lame that the content isn't available for rent online, but it's also not 'difficult'. Once it does become available, though - what will be the next thing that makes it 'difficult'?
The reason I ask is because the part you quoted was in reply to...
they try their damnedest to make it difficult to view a movie
. There's no mention there of online rental.
If we're going to keep narrowing the matter at hand so that there's always something that'll be perceived to be 'difficult', this subthread is going to get very long indeed:)
Again, don't get me wrong - if I had any say in this (more than I do now, anyway), 24-hour global rentals would become available the same day as the physical media release. Working on it for my limited corner of the world, but it'll take a long time for that to happen here.. never mind the U.S. market or global.
On the other hand - that's the Humble Bundle. They have but to put up a banner saying "SOON" with a countdown on their site and half the IT blogs, IT news websites, gaming websites and, yes, Slashdot scatters around writing article after article about it.
How well have indie games in general been doing outside of the Humble Bundle?
I do see F2P being used more and more - especially in mobile device gaming (can't even reasonably get past the 4th level unless farming levels 1-3 for points OR, you know, spend $1.99 to get a whole bunch of points (which will be insufficient come level 8) immediately), but I don't think that approach works with OP's software (check his website).
Well my post was in reply to the whole "or purchase" part from the guy I replied to - not the point Pogue was trying to make (I made another post for that part).
But just to address something..
"? Seems pretty stupid of the movie companies to complain about piracy as they try their damnedest to make it difficult to view a movie. Yet they're surprised when it's copied...
I guess the bar for 'difficult' has been lowered rather tremendously. Most of those movies you can actually buy from Amazon in digital form. Couldn't be much less difficult. Even just buying the DVD and waiting a few days for it to arrive - or, heck, pick it up from a redbox for $1.. or buy it at a BestBuy..on your way home and have it in your hands right then and there doesn't particularly seem like it's 'difficult' to me. Some of those options may not be 'convenient' - but then Netflix's $8/month (if that's still what it is) is rather 'inconvenient' compared to TPB's $0/month.
That makes sense when you're talking about 'at that time'. I.e. in 2011, Fast Five came out, and people started downloading crappy cam jobs, screeners, eventually some R5 DVD rip, etc. as soon as they were made available.
Pogue, however, makes the observation that even now, more than half-way through 2012, none (well, only one as of this writing) of those movies from 2011 he likely referred to are available for online rental - be that Amazon Prime, BlockBuster, etc.
And he has a point there - given that people still cannot rent (usually a 24 or 48 hour period) these titles online, while the purchase version is almost as expensive as just buying the Blu-Ray, it's not surprising that people who want to watch those movies now are going to go looking for torrents of them.
I'd be interested to see what figures the beancounters use to come to the conclusion that keeping these titles out of online rental for now is a net positive over not doing so.
Of the 10 most pirated movies of 2011, guess how many of them are available to rent online, as I write this in midsummer 2012? Zero.
Note that while you added on "or purchase", the article never states this.
Which is a good thing, too, or Pogue would probably have been called out. I don't know who 'the authority' on the 10 most pirated movies of 2011 would be, but I suspect torrentfreak would be a good source: http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-movies-of-2011-111223/
Amazon has all those titles available on DVD, Blu-Ray, some combo packs with 'ultraviolet digital copy' (yuck), instant purchase through Amazon's instant video and - yes - even one rental (127 Hours).
Slashdot Mirror
Others seem to have focused on the '(financial) cost to society' part of your post, so I guess I'll leave that.
But..
Most importantly, though.. if you decide that you really, really can't continue living within that system (i.e. without 'total' freedom to go and do as you please) you can still easily opt for death. It may not be as painless as a lethal injection, you may even have to do something you really wouldn't want to - but the option is always, always there.
Whatever method you'd choose, just make sure you succeed, because if you fail, you most likely would wish you were in that 8'x6' room.
Really?
Step 1. Log into gmail.
Step 2. Click on other user.
Step 3. Click video chat button.
Step 1. Log into facebook.
Step 2. Click on other user.
Step 3. Click video chat button.
Step 1. Log into Yahoo.
Step 2. Click on other user.
Step 3. Click video chat button.
Step 1. Log into MSN.
Step 2. Click on other user.
Step 3. Click video chat button.
If you happen to use Android, add their IM (if the IM app itself doesn't do it for you). Now you can just go to your Contacts app and hit them up on Yahoo, AIM, whatever.
And no, I'm not saying 'users should just'. They should certainly do whatever the hell they want, and if AT&T blocks them unjustly from doing so - based on net neutrality principles - then bringing action against AT&T is one of those things they should certainly do if they want to.
But the groups bringing forth the action using an argument that rings of 'think of the children' when they name these groups - when these groups have alternatives available to them - is just sad. Perhaps they should have named Bob the security guy, too - since he can't use FaceTime to check out the halls that he covers with iPhones when using AT&T.
I guess FaceTime isrevolutionary after all.
Here I thought all this time that FaceTime is just another video chat technology, similar to ones that have been included with practically every webcam since the mid 90's, and similar to that which is available in practically every IM app (AIM, MSN, Yahoo!, etc.) and even facebook and Google Mail - except that it was only available for iOS devices and so if you wanted to video chat with a friend using FaceTime, they would have to go out and buy a compatible iDevice to make that happen, making it vastly less useful than the aforementioned.
But apparently I had it wrong;
I had no idea that these groups are unable to use the aforementioned alternatives. I didn't realize they are all forced to use iDevices on AT&T, and then forced to use FaceTime at that.
Seriously, though.. I'm all for filing the net neutrality complaint, but if these groups are so hard-hit, perhaps they should vote with their dollars and 1. not use AT&T where possible, 2. use an alternative video chat tech, perhaps preferably not on an iDevice in the first place unless Apple feels like opening FaceTime up to other platforms like they suggested they would.
I simply save them to archive (MAFF addon for FireFox) - piecewise, or by opening a bunch in tabs and saving those tabs to an archive (can extract if needed).
But if you already have an extensive list of bookmarks, I'd imagine you should be able to easily turn the bookmarks into an html page, and then let e.g. HTTrack loose on it.
While I agree that keeping bookmarks working is a Good Thing - what on Earth are you doing relying on an online service for preservation of data that is important to you?
Now would be a good time - regardless of the intention that URLs and the data they present will probably remain the same - for you to use something that downloads your bookmarks.
Emphasis mine.
I read on, and then I re-read it a few times. Perhaps I missed it - but where is it examined how piracy could be further curbed already?
It's not extremely well-hidden in this part, is it?
Because then I'd have to take away from it that piracy could be further curbed by just letting it happen in the hopes that the user will later make that decision to pay up.
It's not this bit either, right?
Because if it were - without further context - I'd almost say that's DRM doing a pretty good job there. Maybe it was a bug that was also in the official game and for some reason a patch was never pirated, rather than a flaw in the crack. The 'read on' text doesn't mention.
Perhaps it's this 2-sentence piece in the last paragraph?
Well, certainly more such services would be good. Except.. not. Zune store thing didn't work out too well. Gamers aren't fond of installing Origin when they point to Steam. If anything, more such services means that it's more likely that some content is only available at X, and other content only available at Y, and now you need subscriptions to two services.
Besides, that very paragraph then follows up those two sentences with:
So if those were supposed to be the examinations as to "how piracy could be further curbed already", then you just shot them down. Good job?
I don't get it.. I see a lot of complaining that the industry just doesn't get it, that they need to use the internet to their advantage, that they need to take a realistic outlook as to the various reasons for people pirating. But then when it's even stated that there will be suggestions as to how it can be curbed further... we're left hanging.
I have to say, though, this bit made me chuckle:
Nobody here would suggest you looked like greedy little thieves - thievery implies theft, and copyright infringement isn't theft. :)
But when you go and try to make your past self look better by suggesting that when you did have money you would purchase software, only to point out that if you had been able to pirate it, you would have done so, and kept the money? I'd say you were greedy little somethings alright
Why would they be kidding?
I think somebody else said that 'wife' may not be the correct translation, but let's run with that. When you marry, you generally tend to take on joint responsibility on shared resources. But let's also run with the idea that, in fact, you don't take on joint responsibility.
Don't you think that, in such a case, it would be wise to ask your wife not to download songs, given that - as the legal entity the bill is sent to - you'd be liable for it?
And if she then does it anyway, and you get that first warning, wouldn't it be prudent to have a chat with her on why she shouldn't be doing that?
If she then continues anyway, perhaps dropping the subscription and having her re-open it in her name would be good?
Obviously you can still ask her to pay the fine anyway.
I don't see any need for each individual having their own connection - I do see a need for understanding that any legal matters pertaining to the shared resource falls on one person (in this case), and respect that said person wouldn't find it particularly enjoyable if they have legal action brought against them due to another person abusing that resource.
While KickStarter's ToS requires that the KickStarter be set up by a U.S. resident paid through a U.S. bank account, the project can actually be led by - and funds transferred to - anybody from anywhere. The clause itself is fallout from their working with Amazon to handle payments.
You'll see projects from Finland, Germany, Israel, etc.
http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/ - hit up the 'cities' search.
In this case, the project creators seem to be from Finland and thus likely subject to Finnish law.
Supposed to, yes. It should fall under contract law. Things do get a little more complicated with KickStarter and similar CrowdFunding platforms, though.
Let's say the project is for Group X to perform at Broadway. What is the final product you would get back from that?
Let's say they then offer stickers at a $5 pledge level. But you pledge $100 instead. Is that $95 then not a donation with nothing in return?
Even when pledge level/reward are all on the up-and-up.. what if the project doesn't deliver?
By KickStarter ToS, they must either deliver on the promised perks, or refund backers. Problem is - they may not refund. If they don't, KickStarter says you're on your own (despite the ~5% they take). The problem with being on your own is that a e.g. $25 pledge isn't particularly worth going into legal (contract law) proceedings over.
That's all setting aside that many actually do view KickStarter as a donation platform and perks delivered as being optional.
Some good reading, straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarter
Well then I guess if you're a loner you should say 'no' to the testing regardless of how much you'd like to help ;)
But yes - they would do that. They have done something similar in another case, to much public outcry;
There was an accident between two kids on a scooter (moped) and another person. That other person died. While they know both kids were on the scooter, they cannot conclusively find which of the two was the driver. Therefore, neither was charged for the fatal accident.
http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1012/Nederland/article/detail/3262686/2012/05/29/Verdachten-dodelijk-scooterdrama-vrijgesproken.dhtml
( They were, however, tried for and found guilty of several other rather unpleasant things. )
There was plenty of calls for both to be tried for (and likely be convicted of causing) the fatal accident seeing as neither of them is confessing and just blaming the other - all the way up to politicians doing their little song and dance. But, at least for now, 'justice' is being served.
There's plenty of examples where things do go wrong - 2 guys having spent years in jail after admitting to a murder even though they didn't commit it (they admitted under duress, from psychological pressure exerted on them by the cops). DNA wasn't even a factor in that case, though. The eventual arrest of who they now believe was the perp, on the other hand, was based on DNA evidence - as was his conviction.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puttense_moordzaak
Did you just not read the posts leading up to the line you quoted?
1-in-7,000 chance - according to whoever posted that - between two random people.
Which is applicable if...
1. they were only looking at random people (they weren't - they're targeting a specific group in the first DNA investigation. This one is actually more likely to lead to matches because they're looking for family members.)
2. the fact that there's a match were the sole piece of information in the investigation and were deemed enough evidence for a guilty conviction.
Of course it's good for the police to know the statistics specifically so that they can avoid falling into the trap of convicting my example octogenarian blind paraplegic of the rape and murder of a young woman and then getting away from the scene on a bike. But by observing those limitations, the broad statement ends up not applying to the real life situations.
Of course if there's a real life situation in which it does apply, the people running the investigation are wholly incompetent and would be likely to arrest a woman who died in the 70's anyway.
Then they'll take a closer look at you and while you may be a bit weird and not have an alibi also don't seem to have any ties to the case whatsoever, and be let go.
The real danger lies in your name becoming public because the entire town is going to distrust you or even decide that you are the perp and take matters in their own hands.
Most men don't feel very uncomfortable at all, if you'd actually read about the case you'd know that. Those that do are free to refuse. afaik there's no "if you don't, we'll get a court order which is public record and everybody will know you said 'no'" shenanigans in NL. Those who do partake and are actually cleared by the DNA evidence (in this case, whose families may or may not be cleared) are probably going to feel rather more comfortable, in fact.
I'm no fan of these wide DNA witch hunts myself, but the whole 1-in-7000 chance thing is a statistic not to be applied directly to real life situations. It makes as much sense as politicians saying that if the average person spent 5 minutes less in traffic then they would have a day and a bit extra spare time at the end of the year. It just doesn't work out that way.
And later evidence pointed to it likely being a local (second bike), possibly somebody she knew (likely perp's lighter in her bag), and most likely western European (from DNA); not quite the Iraqi/Afghani asylum seeker profile.
At this point it could be her neighbor, somebody from Amsterdam, or even an American with Western European heritage. No use pointing fingers anywhere.
I do agree that this likely will never be solved, though. This and dozens of other cases that don't get nearly this much (media) attention.
True, but keep in mind that this may as well translate to:
"Take an octogenarian paraplegic-at-birth blind man in care home and a 30-year old guy who has no alibi and is known to be a womanizer who likes getting rough, and there is about a 1-in-7000 chance that their DNA profiles will match
I doubt it would be that clear-cut, but investigations don't generally go "your DNA matches, we don't care you claim where you were at the time, or who can place you there, or what condition you are in - you are found guilty regardless and are hereby sentenced to life in prison" as much as I enjoy that doom scenario often proposed :)
P.S. They're not even looking for the perp, but for family members of the perp. I guess if the perp is actually in the sampling group that'd be rather convenient, though.
as opposed to.. what? Surreptitiously acquiring the DNA sample from people?
But they're not even trying to find the criminal's DNA in this case - they already tried that, and didn't find a match. They're trying to find family members now.
I guess if everybody in the family knows that family member X did something, and then every member in the family asked declines to offer the DNA, they'd still be stuck with a problem. Even though it might make the family slightly more suspicious, they may very well all share the thought that the police has no business taking their DNA and maybe, potentially, solving the murder is not worth the intrusion, rather than trying to protect a family member.
They're only being asked to volunteer and no data is made available of who has volunteered and who hasn't - and those that haven't aren't automatically asked over to the police station for a 'friendly chat'. The people still have every right to say 'no' to the DNA swabbing.
Wake me when they force people to comply, or start floating around the DNA registration at birth/entry into the country thing.
Whatever Google would decide.
Saves you having to poll the data yourself. One less permission if you're just going to show temperature, humidity, etc. like most of the weather apps.
I don't know. Why maintain a source for getting the current time as an API call in Android when you can tell app developers that they're on their own. After all, they can use the GPS to get the time. Or the cell network signal. Or a time server online. Or keep their app running all the time and use a timer, ask the user to set the time once and then just figure out the time based on number of ticks elapsed + the time initially set and a LUT for daylight savings for a given locale. Or maybe the cellphone supports WWVB and you can tap into that.
That depends on the data in question. I'm certainly not suggesting that Android polls the umpteenmillion of blogs out there and caches their results just so that2 apps that happen to poll 5 of those sites can get them from Android instead of going straight to those 5 sites.
On the other hand, Google already saw fit to make a location API so that any app that wants to know the user's location can simply poll that and either get a cached result or have the system grab that using whatever services the user has enabled (cell towers / wifi / GPS) instead of every single app having their own settings for what to use for determining a location and then having multiple apps polling for essentially the same information multiple times.
Except that it doesn't work just fine as soon as that data source becomes unavailable, changes format, etc.
I get it, though - you're vehemently opposed to suggesting that Google add an API. Not sure what your reasoning is other than "there's already third party data sources". I don't see the harm you're seeing in adding one, I guess.
Nice for some because, well, quality production lines so hopefully less of a problem with supply.
Horrible for others because, well, ZOMG BOYCOTT SONY.
Those currently offering would, hopefully, continue to offer it.
Those currently not offering it would, hopefully, consider offering it.
But if for any reason whatsoever the chosen data source disappears, there would still be the built-in API to fall back to.
( Of course if you're going to give the user a choice between 5 data sources anyway, any of the other 4 could be a fallback. )
While pointless, this does happen. There will be people who have a clock+weather widget on their main screen. On another screen a news widget that, when tapped, opens a new app which also has a weather tab. Then their alarm clock app? Also has a weather display. And their lock screen, in case they're not using e.g. WidgetLocker? Yup, yet another.
Whether there is any sanity in having that many apps with weather info in the first place may be a point of contention - but it's there, might as well try to cater to it.
( And while you can get weather data for random locations, the most typical use is certainly for your current location. Not that there's any reason a built-in API couldn't accept location information in the data requests. )
From your posting history I conclude that it's likely you live in The Netherlands. While the services you mention are not (yet - Netflix should be coming) available in NL, there are other online movie rental options in The Netherlands. Their offerings are more expensive and their catalog not very impressive, though (not that I think Netflix's catalog is impressive).
There's also usually a video-on-demand option from your TV provider.. those usually have more recent offerings, but of course you're stuck to the TV or a device connected through that provider's internet subscription (Ziggo, e.g. - although I'm not sure they're even offering that yet.. just getting live TV working seems to be a chore for them.)
Sorry, I should have made it more clear in my post that I meant that Google should offer the API as a part of Android (similar to the location API).
I know there's plenty of other weather APIs available, and most of the better weather apps do let you choose. But given the popularity of weather apps (full apps, widgets, notification services, etc.) I think it would make sense for an API to be available within Android itself. This can then poll and cache results so that apps X, Y and Z can all grab the exact same information without actually submitting 3 separate queries (which sometimes results in app X saying it's cloudy while app Y says it's clear skies depending on when the online service last updated their data).
If you are referring to the DVD - yes. Your choice of deCSS'ing or actually licensed played, afaik.
Amazon Prime? That depends. There was recently a change that caused things not to play back, but apparently you have to install HAL. My Linux usage is rather limited, though, so I'll point you to the thread:
http://www.amazon.com/forum/amazon%20video%20on%20demand?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx3EQAX98ED5WQ3&cdPage=1&cdSort=newest&cdThread=TxFTGOK5LRL3JM
I think there is a bit of a philosophical question here, though. Assume it didn't work on Linux and there were no DVDs available. Then are the movie studios (or Amazon) making it difficult for you to rent/buy the digital copies, or did you make it difficult on yourself by choosing to use Linux?
Is Mozilla making it difficult for me to watch WebGL content by claiming it doesn't work on my machine, or am I making it difficult on myself by using FireFox? (hint: Chrome serves it up just fine)
Would I rather that Amazon - and also the studios - embraced Linux completely and supported it through-and-through? Of course.
If the movie simply isn't available for rent online, then I don't think it's a matter of it being difficult. It simply doesn't apply. That doesn't change that I think it's lame that the content isn't available for rent online, but it's also not 'difficult'.
Once it does become available, though - what will be the next thing that makes it 'difficult'?
The reason I ask is because the part you quoted was in reply to...
.
There's no mention there of online rental.
If we're going to keep narrowing the matter at hand so that there's always something that'll be perceived to be 'difficult', this subthread is going to get very long indeed :)
Again, don't get me wrong - if I had any say in this (more than I do now, anyway), 24-hour global rentals would become available the same day as the physical media release. Working on it for my limited corner of the world, but it'll take a long time for that to happen here.. never mind the U.S. market or global.
On the other hand - that's the Humble Bundle. They have but to put up a banner saying "SOON" with a countdown on their site and half the IT blogs, IT news websites, gaming websites and, yes, Slashdot scatters around writing article after article about it.
How well have indie games in general been doing outside of the Humble Bundle?
I do see F2P being used more and more - especially in mobile device gaming (can't even reasonably get past the 4th level unless farming levels 1-3 for points OR, you know, spend $1.99 to get a whole bunch of points (which will be insufficient come level 8) immediately), but I don't think that approach works with OP's software (check his website).
Well my post was in reply to the whole "or purchase" part from the guy I replied to - not the point Pogue was trying to make (I made another post for that part).
But just to address something..
I guess the bar for 'difficult' has been lowered rather tremendously. Most of those movies you can actually buy from Amazon in digital form. Couldn't be much less difficult. Even just buying the DVD and waiting a few days for it to arrive - or, heck, pick it up from a redbox for $1.. or buy it at a BestBuy ..on your way home and have it in your hands right then and there doesn't particularly seem like it's 'difficult' to me. Some of those options may not be 'convenient' - but then Netflix's $8/month (if that's still what it is) is rather 'inconvenient' compared to TPB's $0/month.
That makes sense when you're talking about 'at that time'. I.e. in 2011, Fast Five came out, and people started downloading crappy cam jobs, screeners, eventually some R5 DVD rip, etc. as soon as they were made available.
Pogue, however, makes the observation that even now, more than half-way through 2012, none (well, only one as of this writing) of those movies from 2011 he likely referred to are available for online rental - be that Amazon Prime, BlockBuster, etc.
And he has a point there - given that people still cannot rent (usually a 24 or 48 hour period) these titles online, while the purchase version is almost as expensive as just buying the Blu-Ray, it's not surprising that people who want to watch those movies now are going to go looking for torrents of them.
I'd be interested to see what figures the beancounters use to come to the conclusion that keeping these titles out of online rental for now is a net positive over not doing so.
I think you mean this article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-hollywood-encouraging-onine-piracy
Pogue (don't get people started on him), said:
Note that while you added on "or purchase", the article never states this.
Which is a good thing, too, or Pogue would probably have been called out.
I don't know who 'the authority' on the 10 most pirated movies of 2011 would be, but I suspect torrentfreak would be a good source:
http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-movies-of-2011-111223/
Amazon has all those titles available on DVD, Blu-Ray, some combo packs with 'ultraviolet digital copy' (yuck), instant purchase through Amazon's instant video and - yes - even one rental (127 Hours).
So "or purchase" is simply false.