I am not addressing this. I am addressing the claim that they have suffered damages. Which the onus is on them to prove. I merely laid out an error in common reasoning about how they calculate damages.
You haven't accounted for the pirates who then turn into customers, either.
Or pirates that tell their friends about how great of a program it is, and those friends purchase the program legitimately.
---
No, let's operate off of the assumption that piracy never occurred. Who is to say your program will have as many paying customers? Don't think you can simply say, "HEY LOOK X PAID, BUT Y DIDNT, THEREFORE WE LOST PROFITS!" Which is mathematically wrong. It should be represented as:
x = customers who are customers regardless of piracy n = customers who are customers because of piracy p = pirates that who are not customers, but would otherwise be customers r = pirates who are not customers, but would not otherwise be customers
If you're going to claim damages, please provide proof that x > p, not that x + n > p.
I am the "digital native" people are looking for. At 20, I did practically grow up with the internet. It was there, always, ever since I was born. Of course it never really hit mainstream until the turn of the century, at least for me. Dial-up just never could get me plugged in (can't tie up the phone line too long). I remember only getting online when my parents would leave and work on stuff offline that I would submit to online communities. But that's not really being immersed.
But now, I am plugged-in. I spend an outrageous amount of time on the internet, and fully admit to an internet addiction. My first instinct when I don't know something is to use Google. I have a wealth of resources at my fingertips almost all of the time and there is a feeling of detachment from reality I get when I get on. I lose a feeling of embodiment and feel more like an entity, free to roam wherever he chooses.
But, whether or not this creates competence about computers is another thing entirely. Other people my age know where the power button is, they probably know what a graphics card is, and probably a few internet memes. That's the extent of it in my experience. I still get young people on internet forums who also can't seem to latch onto the idea they can use Google to answer their questions.
I don't think he's interested in stopping the piracy by forcing hardline anti-piracy methods. For one, it is made clear that non-customers are using the product, and if they are, it's like free advertising. I could imagine a full-fledged professional version requiring a dongle, though.
There are a number of business models that avoid piracy, like student edition software, low monthly subscription, or using a stripped down "free" versions.
Surely they have to provide evidence that their entire server was wiped, yes? I don't think getting out of a subpoena would be so easy.
And then there's the issue where Heartland is prosecuting, meaning it's the burden of proof is on them. If they can't provide evidence beyond, "lolo take our word for it," then I really don't think they're going to get anywhere. I don't see how they could weasel their way out of the subpoena AND win any legal disputes at the same time.
As it turns out, we do know what burden of proof is. We know that you have it. And I am prepared and willing to watch yourself just try to violate the axiom of non-contradiction. Either they're your documents or they're not.
See there is this thing called the first amendment...
No, that's indecent exposure (and arguably public exposure) which is enforceable and not protected under the first amendment.
But never-mind that. It's for the children right? -- Oh yes, where is the line? Is studying anatomy on a library computer require censorship? How about blood or vulgar terms? Those should be censored too. We should just make the whole internet PG. Or else we'll have people whipping out their junk in the middle of a library and fornicating!
I am, unfortunately, stuck in a bottom rung job. I get paid minimum wage. I don't get any paid time off. Or sick days. We are expected not to get sick. If we are sick one day, we have to call six hours prior to our shift and find a replacement. If we can't, then we are "encouraged" to come in. The hours are absolutely terrible, and you never know what your next week will be like, whether you'll be on first or second shift. I get one thirty minute break per day. I am not permitted any more time. I am "encouraged" not to take breaks. I've been called the past three of my last six days off to see if I could come in and work.
My employer expects maximum effort. They claim I should put 120% into my job, "like I'm being paid".
Needless to say, this is what, I think, represents the attitude of most employers. They think people are machines to be abused for their purpose. It's not long before I leave my current employment. I hope their business fails. They deserve it.
There has been a consensus on GW since the early 1990s.
The primary reason scientists don't engage the public in debate is because it's actually too far below their level. The debate almost always turns into an explanation of basic science that these "AGW skeptics" simply don't understand. These skeptics should not be engaged professionally, they should be put back in remedial high school science courses.
Everyone is so dead set on this being an act of war, and that the US, unequivocally, was spying on Iran. It's likely that this was the case, but it isn't necessarily the case. There isn't once piece of evidence I have seen that deductively proves that the US was spying on Iran. It could have been a malfunction, or any number of things. Quit jumping to conclusions.
I feel as though the US's response was a rather well-reasoned, "hey could we have it back?" It's not like we're jumping in there and raping their women and sheep like you seem to be claiming. Iran asks like a spoiled brat, protected only by international laws and the US's willingness to follow them. After everything Iran has done I'd be amazed if the only thing we're doing is spying on them with drones.
Being that a committee of scientists and health experts found that the claim was false, instead blindly thinking they were wrong and my common sense was right, I looked deeper into the article and tried to find exactly why these people thought there was an issue with the claim.
The problem with the claim, it turns out, is that dehydration is a symptom, not a disease. In a lot of cases it's caused by simply too little of a water intake, but not all. There are several diseases and conditions that cause dehydration and drinking more water will not help in the slightest. The claim is identical to claiming that taking ibuprofen regularly can help reduce the risk of a headache (which is clearly not the case).
Perhaps when a committee of scientific experts make a formal statement about something that you disagree with, perhaps you should consider the following. Is it more likely that you are right or a group of educated individuals that study the field? I find it incredibly arrogant and egregiously wrong to think that it is more likely that you are correct. Next time question your "common sense" when it is challenged by experts, especially when it is something you don't know much about.
In the words of the immortal George Carlin, “Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away, they’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.”
Ask the WWII era Japanese-Americans about your precious rights. The government has shown a complete and total disregard for them consistently throughout the entire US history. Only fifty or so years ago children got granted the right of finally being able to wear armbands *gasp* as a freedom of speech.
I was seriously interested in joining the marines, until I read this. Is this what I will be defending?
And here I thought we locked people away to remove them from society and as a form of rehabilitation. Any prison that is based on retribution is primitive and inhumane.
They should only be forced to work if it is apart of their sentence. They will be punished according to what their sentence and law states: no more, no less.
Because that's slavery. Just because they're in prison does not justify it. They should be given the option to work, but not forced. And they should be fairly compensated for their work (read: minimum wage).
They have already been removed from mainstream society. And I won't let irrational fear and prejudice allow humanity to exploit persons. Regardless of whatever civil rights have been stripped away from them, they are still entitled to whatever fundamental rights all persons are granted: convicted felons or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not addressing this. I am addressing the claim that they have suffered damages. Which the onus is on them to prove. I merely laid out an error in common reasoning about how they calculate damages.
You haven't accounted for the pirates who then turn into customers, either.
Or pirates that tell their friends about how great of a program it is, and those friends purchase the program legitimately.
---
No, let's operate off of the assumption that piracy never occurred. Who is to say your program will have as many paying customers? Don't think you can simply say, "HEY LOOK X PAID, BUT Y DIDNT, THEREFORE WE LOST PROFITS!" Which is mathematically wrong. It should be represented as:
x = customers who are customers regardless of piracy
n = customers who are customers because of piracy
p = pirates that who are not customers, but would otherwise be customers
r = pirates who are not customers, but would not otherwise be customers
If you're going to claim damages, please provide proof that x > p, not that x + n > p.
I am the "digital native" people are looking for. At 20, I did practically grow up with the internet. It was there, always, ever since I was born. Of course it never really hit mainstream until the turn of the century, at least for me. Dial-up just never could get me plugged in (can't tie up the phone line too long). I remember only getting online when my parents would leave and work on stuff offline that I would submit to online communities. But that's not really being immersed.
But now, I am plugged-in. I spend an outrageous amount of time on the internet, and fully admit to an internet addiction. My first instinct when I don't know something is to use Google. I have a wealth of resources at my fingertips almost all of the time and there is a feeling of detachment from reality I get when I get on. I lose a feeling of embodiment and feel more like an entity, free to roam wherever he chooses.
But, whether or not this creates competence about computers is another thing entirely. Other people my age know where the power button is, they probably know what a graphics card is, and probably a few internet memes. That's the extent of it in my experience. I still get young people on internet forums who also can't seem to latch onto the idea they can use Google to answer their questions.
I don't think he's interested in stopping the piracy by forcing hardline anti-piracy methods. For one, it is made clear that non-customers are using the product, and if they are, it's like free advertising. I could imagine a full-fledged professional version requiring a dongle, though.
There are a number of business models that avoid piracy, like student edition software, low monthly subscription, or using a stripped down "free" versions.
Surely they have to provide evidence that their entire server was wiped, yes? I don't think getting out of a subpoena would be so easy.
And then there's the issue where Heartland is prosecuting, meaning it's the burden of proof is on them. If they can't provide evidence beyond, "lolo take our word for it," then I really don't think they're going to get anywhere. I don't see how they could weasel their way out of the subpoena AND win any legal disputes at the same time.
Come at me bro.
As it turns out, we do know what burden of proof is. We know that you have it. And I am prepared and willing to watch yourself just try to violate the axiom of non-contradiction. Either they're your documents or they're not.
See there is this thing called the first amendment...
No, that's indecent exposure (and arguably public exposure) which is enforceable and not protected under the first amendment.
But never-mind that. It's for the children right? -- Oh yes, where is the line? Is studying anatomy on a library computer require censorship? How about blood or vulgar terms? Those should be censored too. We should just make the whole internet PG. Or else we'll have people whipping out their junk in the middle of a library and fornicating!
See, I can do argument ad absurdum too.
Rovio Mobile indicted for taking part in the Mega Upload conspiracy.
The article doesn't bring up any useful insights and delivers its message with the writing skills of a drunken philosopher.
No, really.
The author has a complete misunderstanding of science. I don't even know why it's on /.
We should also all install mandatory software that makes sure we don't infringe copyrights.
For the children, of course.
More like Neil Awesome.
Make that your pass phrase.
But you're using logic to establish that.
I hope you see the error in this.
I am, unfortunately, stuck in a bottom rung job. I get paid minimum wage. I don't get any paid time off. Or sick days. We are expected not to get sick. If we are sick one day, we have to call six hours prior to our shift and find a replacement. If we can't, then we are "encouraged" to come in. The hours are absolutely terrible, and you never know what your next week will be like, whether you'll be on first or second shift. I get one thirty minute break per day. I am not permitted any more time. I am "encouraged" not to take breaks. I've been called the past three of my last six days off to see if I could come in and work.
My employer expects maximum effort. They claim I should put 120% into my job, "like I'm being paid".
Needless to say, this is what, I think, represents the attitude of most employers. They think people are machines to be abused for their purpose. It's not long before I leave my current employment. I hope their business fails. They deserve it.
There has been a consensus on GW since the early 1990s.
The primary reason scientists don't engage the public in debate is because it's actually too far below their level. The debate almost always turns into an explanation of basic science that these "AGW skeptics" simply don't understand. These skeptics should not be engaged professionally, they should be put back in remedial high school science courses.
No, we're banning the equivalent of holding a loaded gun pointed at people.
Driving is a privilege, not a right, in this country.
He violated a restraining order. The only sad state of affairs is how little you managed to read of the article.
Everyone is so dead set on this being an act of war, and that the US, unequivocally, was spying on Iran. It's likely that this was the case, but it isn't necessarily the case. There isn't once piece of evidence I have seen that deductively proves that the US was spying on Iran. It could have been a malfunction, or any number of things. Quit jumping to conclusions.
I feel as though the US's response was a rather well-reasoned, "hey could we have it back?" It's not like we're jumping in there and raping their women and sheep like you seem to be claiming. Iran asks like a spoiled brat, protected only by international laws and the US's willingness to follow them. After everything Iran has done I'd be amazed if the only thing we're doing is spying on them with drones.
Odd considering you can't comment in a story that you've modded in.
More like integrated waste of money.
Being that a committee of scientists and health experts found that the claim was false, instead blindly thinking they were wrong and my common sense was right, I looked deeper into the article and tried to find exactly why these people thought there was an issue with the claim.
The problem with the claim, it turns out, is that dehydration is a symptom, not a disease. In a lot of cases it's caused by simply too little of a water intake, but not all. There are several diseases and conditions that cause dehydration and drinking more water will not help in the slightest. The claim is identical to claiming that taking ibuprofen regularly can help reduce the risk of a headache (which is clearly not the case).
Perhaps when a committee of scientific experts make a formal statement about something that you disagree with, perhaps you should consider the following. Is it more likely that you are right or a group of educated individuals that study the field? I find it incredibly arrogant and egregiously wrong to think that it is more likely that you are correct. Next time question your "common sense" when it is challenged by experts, especially when it is something you don't know much about.
Just get rid of your partner. Duh.
In the words of the immortal George Carlin, “Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away, they’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.”
Ask the WWII era Japanese-Americans about your precious rights. The government has shown a complete and total disregard for them consistently throughout the entire US history. Only fifty or so years ago children got granted the right of finally being able to wear armbands *gasp* as a freedom of speech.
I was seriously interested in joining the marines, until I read this. Is this what I will be defending?
And here I thought we locked people away to remove them from society and as a form of rehabilitation. Any prison that is based on retribution is primitive and inhumane.
They should only be forced to work if it is apart of their sentence. They will be punished according to what their sentence and law states: no more, no less.
Because that's slavery. Just because they're in prison does not justify it. They should be given the option to work, but not forced. And they should be fairly compensated for their work (read: minimum wage).
They have already been removed from mainstream society. And I won't let irrational fear and prejudice allow humanity to exploit persons. Regardless of whatever civil rights have been stripped away from them, they are still entitled to whatever fundamental rights all persons are granted: convicted felons or not.