Of course a publisher has the right not to sell his software. I just don't see that he is harmed if the people he chose not to sell it to pirate a copy. He hasn't lost anything. He still has his copy. He can't claim a lost sale since if the pirate hadn't pirated then there still wouldn't have been a sale.
Why does he have the right to disadvantage everyone else?
I used to think that as well. Then I used software by just about any other software developer, and was surprised at just how much better Microsoft's stuff was.
Liberia and Burma use their own systems (although apparently heading towards metric), and Britain still uses imperial for roads, and for informal measurement of personal height and weight (and fahrenheit for temperatures in newspapers but not in TV weather reports). This pedantic nitpick was brought to you by Nitpicking Pedants Inc.
The US does seem to do a lot in a quirky way. Avoidance of the 24 hour clock, an aversion to decimals (e.g. petrol prices ending in 9/10 of a cent rather than.9 of a cent), a middle-endian date format, and paper money for relatively low denominations.
Piracy is potential money that you may or may not have made had the purchaser been forced into the choice of paying for it or not playing it. In much the same way, had I decided to invest in the right shares, I would be exceedingly wealthy. They didn't buy your game, I didn't buy the shares.
If all those pirates were eliminated, piracy would go down to zero. As a result, sales would increase by uhm... zero.
"Ah", you say, "but that's not the point. The point is that if those pirates had purchased the game then sales would increase, and they clearly want a copy", to which I say "exactly". Rathe than prevent piracy, publishers need to find a way to convert these pirates into paying customers. Making piracy harder is a possible way but it clearly has limited success. Forget about taking extreme measures to stop piracy. Focus on real profits and not hypothetical losses.
The sort you find in convenience stores can be purchased without too much difficulty. They're just automated machines that put a charge on your card and dispense money, so they're not that different from a till and card reader.
I imagine the heavy duty ones that banks use are a little more tricky to get hold of.
"Information wants to be free" should not be taken literally. It's a figure of speech.
What it means is that in society, people will naturally spread information. If they have something they consider interesting they will want to share. The net result is that information will travel across the society unhindered.
Now, many people want information to be locked up. It's possible to do this, but as soon as there's the slightest opportunity, the information will be leaked. It escapes.
Naturally information doesn't have desires. It's information. However, it behaves in a manner similar to how it would if it could have a desire to be free. Hence the expression. Similarly, one could say that lead weights wants to fall to the ground. Obviously they don't but their nature will make them do so.
I'm sure anything European would be available with manual transmission if you're buying new. It is, after all, part of the standard spec in most of Europe. Sorry to disappoint.
It's cool if you're a geek. I like it. Watching TV is not mainstream cool though, and a vast collection of anything is typially considered a bit nerdy.
I said "know", not "think". If you literally know that the prosecutor has literally zero evidence.
But what do you think happened in the plea bargaining stage to that 24.4% who are found not guilty? And they're not the only ones who are acquitted. If 90% of people take a plea bargain, then only 36% of the remainder are convicted. Based on your rates, 12% of those who refuse plea bargains go to trial and are acquitted and the remaining 52% don't get to trial. Stats are fun aren't they.
So, does this mean you should refuse to cop a plea even if you're guilty? Of course not. It's not a crapshoot. It's about how much evidence there is and skill of the lawyers. Still, whether you're guilty or not does tend to have an effect on the amount of evidence.
Okay - I'm aware that people can be pretty oblivious, and I wouldn't be complaining about people not getting the joke if they weren't. But this seems like the sort of woman who would be constantly nattering to her co-workers. She would complain about the designer. One of her colleagues would point out that he's clearly useless and she should just do it herself.
But really what you need is established code standards, designed to substantially reduce the possibility of errors based on known faults, and an absolute rule that they not be violated, code reviews, and an independent third party auditing both the standards and the code produced to ensure it's compliant with these standards.
That's the straw man argument right there. This situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the the relative value of a wallet or a life.
I'm not suggesting anyone is arguing that. Likewise, nobody argues that you only have the right to kill in self defence once you're actually being killed. We all agree that the minimum level at which you are justified in taking someone's life is somewhere between those two extremes.
Somehow idiots like you seem to think not only that the person being threatened should be able to think and act perfectly rationally but that they should be able to somehow read the mind of the person threatening them and know exactly what and how they are thinking.
No. Not at all. I said it's a judgement call. If you think your life is in danger then you are justified in using lethal force. You're the only one that can make that judgement. If someone is threatening you then your greatest chance of survival is to go along with what they tell you to do. In general the people who hand over wallets don't get shot. Most people are aware of this. That's how you know.
If you genuinely think that they are going to shoot you, even if your thought processes turn out to be muddled and confused by the situation then you are justified in using lethal force. If you merely use this as a rationalisation in order to hold onto your possessions then you're not justified. You're the only person who can tell what you genuinely feel.
Right now, nobody is threatening your life, so it's possible to consider the ideal behaviour in hypothetical situations in a more rational manner.
But you see, there's the difference in viewpoint. I consider the life of others to have equal value, whereas you apear to consider the life of others to have the value they place on their own life.
Which is fine... Just pointing out that simply beieving that the mugger's life has some value doesn't diminish that of the victim; just the victim's property.
Like I said, it's a judgement call. If I genuinely couldn't determine his intentions then I'd have to shoot. If I could I wouldn't use what he "might" do as a faux justification to kill someone to protect replacable property. The test I think would be whether I'd be willing to go to prison for second degree murder if I was wrong.
The mugger volunteered to die when he chose to mug. No means no. Don't mug, end of story.
Rather a black and white way of looking at tings though. I mean if someone threw themself in front of my car, I'd be pretty distraught about that as well, and do whatever it took to prevent injury even though it was entirely their intention to do so. Likewise, justbecaue a mugger has chosen a reckless course, doesn't mean I wish to help him in his self destruction.
Also, if I am not mistaken, I believe the plural of elite is elitists, not elites.
You are mistaken. Which is a shame because otherwise this was a very good rant. "elite" refers to a group rather than an individual. i.e. The elite is the social group at the top of a heirarchy. The individual members don't really have a specific term as far as I know.
Elitism is advocacy of favouritsm towards the elite, and an elitist is the one who practices elitism.
The selfish elites are moe likely to buy an iPad than not. This does not translate into people who buy iPads being substantially more likely to be selfish elites, unless the population of selfish elites in the population is quite large.
It's not about the the victim being "worthless". Geez, talk about a strawman.
It's a belief that life is precious. Yes, a mugger's life is more important than your wallet. No, it's not more important than your life. Whether your life or wallet is in danger is a matter of making a judgement call.
Even if you do defend yourself against an attacker, it's still something of a tragedy that you were forced to kill another human being. If it were the case that this was actually a person who has no harmful intent, and simply a cop being a little too twitchy, I'd consider it an even greater tragedy.
It's more the case that if the motorcyclist had attempted to exercise his rights. The cop would probably have shot first - if he had his gun drawn already.
Most of the time you don't actually have to "pay" US taxes. Just fill in a tax return. In a lot of countries, you only pay if your local tax bill is lower than it would be in the US.
It did miss that 90% of the cases were plea bargains (I think this stat is for all cases and not just federal ones so take with a pinch of salt).
But once you get into that, yu're not playing averages any more. Anyone who is guoilty and knows they'll be cnvicted of something will take the plea bargain. Anyone who knows there is no evidence will tell the prosecutor where to stick his case, and the case will be dropped. So the remaining 10% is disproportionately very innocent of very guilty.
In the past it's suffered from poor support in Windows. (The drivers are great but Microsoft did nothing). But openGL - especially the Embedded Systems variants - is used on Android and iphone. OpenGL is also useful for multiplatform development. This is typically used for niche applications but there are a lot of niches.
But regardless - the way plea bargaining works in the US is a travesty of justice. The whole system is weighted to encourage it as well. It requires much less work and no aditional staff costs (e.g. researches) for a DA to negotiate a plea bargain.
Seek time may be an issue, but I doubt that will affect physical size that much. Controller electronics would be tiny for a device like this. It's not even as complicated as an MMU.
A lot of home systems currently come with 500GB, so with current technology we can see 5 doublings of size, which by Moores law is about 8 years. And I'm only looking at a lower limit for how much storage we might be able to provide in a standard package. The actual chip part is very small so I expect we'll be able to squeeze a lot more than that into a container.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't follow.
Of course a publisher has the right not to sell his software. I just don't see that he is harmed if the people he chose not to sell it to pirate a copy. He hasn't lost anything. He still has his copy. He can't claim a lost sale since if the pirate hadn't pirated then there still wouldn't have been a sale.
Why does he have the right to disadvantage everyone else?
I used to think that as well. Then I used software by just about any other software developer, and was surprised at just how much better Microsoft's stuff was.
Liberia and Burma use their own systems (although apparently heading towards metric), and Britain still uses imperial for roads, and for informal measurement of personal height and weight (and fahrenheit for temperatures in newspapers but not in TV weather reports). This pedantic nitpick was brought to you by Nitpicking Pedants Inc.
.9 of a cent), a middle-endian date format, and paper money for relatively low denominations.
The US does seem to do a lot in a quirky way. Avoidance of the 24 hour clock, an aversion to decimals (e.g. petrol prices ending in 9/10 of a cent rather than
Piracy is potential money that you may or may not have made had the purchaser been forced into the choice of paying for it or not playing it. In much the same way, had I decided to invest in the right shares, I would be exceedingly wealthy. They didn't buy your game, I didn't buy the shares.
If all those pirates were eliminated, piracy would go down to zero. As a result, sales would increase by uhm... zero.
"Ah", you say, "but that's not the point. The point is that if those pirates had purchased the game then sales would increase, and they clearly want a copy", to which I say "exactly". Rathe than prevent piracy, publishers need to find a way to convert these pirates into paying customers. Making piracy harder is a possible way but it clearly has limited success. Forget about taking extreme measures to stop piracy. Focus on real profits and not hypothetical losses.
The sort you find in convenience stores can be purchased without too much difficulty. They're just automated machines that put a charge on your card and dispense money, so they're not that different from a till and card reader.
I imagine the heavy duty ones that banks use are a little more tricky to get hold of.
Well, that's not being cowardly. It's more being sensible. They're clearly not going to win and they know it, so why fight a losing battle.
"Information wants to be free" should not be taken literally. It's a figure of speech.
What it means is that in society, people will naturally spread information. If they have something they consider interesting they will want to share. The net result is that information will travel across the society unhindered.
Now, many people want information to be locked up. It's possible to do this, but as soon as there's the slightest opportunity, the information will be leaked. It escapes.
Naturally information doesn't have desires. It's information. However, it behaves in a manner similar to how it would if it could have a desire to be free. Hence the expression. Similarly, one could say that lead weights wants to fall to the ground. Obviously they don't but their nature will make them do so.
I'm sure anything European would be available with manual transmission if you're buying new. It is, after all, part of the standard spec in most of Europe. Sorry to disappoint.
It's cool if you're a geek. I like it. Watching TV is not mainstream cool though, and a vast collection of anything is typially considered a bit nerdy.
It has weight, but the XBox isn't cool. The Wii is. XBox does well because it has some cool games and some good-but-not-cool features.
I said "know", not "think". If you literally know that the prosecutor has literally zero evidence.
But what do you think happened in the plea bargaining stage to that 24.4% who are found not guilty? And they're not the only ones who are acquitted. If 90% of people take a plea bargain, then only 36% of the remainder are convicted. Based on your rates, 12% of those who refuse plea bargains go to trial and are acquitted and the remaining 52% don't get to trial. Stats are fun aren't they.
So, does this mean you should refuse to cop a plea even if you're guilty? Of course not. It's not a crapshoot. It's about how much evidence there is and skill of the lawyers. Still, whether you're guilty or not does tend to have an effect on the amount of evidence.
Okay - I'm aware that people can be pretty oblivious, and I wouldn't be complaining about people not getting the joke if they weren't. But this seems like the sort of woman who would be constantly nattering to her co-workers. She would complain about the designer. One of her colleagues would point out that he's clearly useless and she should just do it herself.
But really what you need is established code standards, designed to substantially reduce the possibility of errors based on known faults, and an absolute rule that they not be violated, code reviews, and an independent third party auditing both the standards and the code produced to ensure it's compliant with these standards.
That's the straw man argument right there. This situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the the relative value of a wallet or a life.
I'm not suggesting anyone is arguing that. Likewise, nobody argues that you only have the right to kill in self defence once you're actually being killed. We all agree that the minimum level at which you are justified in taking someone's life is somewhere between those two extremes.
Somehow idiots like you seem to think not only that the person being threatened should be able to think and act perfectly rationally but that they should be able to somehow read the mind of the person threatening them and know exactly what and how they are thinking.
No. Not at all. I said it's a judgement call. If you think your life is in danger then you are justified in using lethal force. You're the only one that can make that judgement. If someone is threatening you then your greatest chance of survival is to go along with what they tell you to do. In general the people who hand over wallets don't get shot. Most people are aware of this. That's how you know.
If you genuinely think that they are going to shoot you, even if your thought processes turn out to be muddled and confused by the situation then you are justified in using lethal force. If you merely use this as a rationalisation in order to hold onto your possessions then you're not justified. You're the only person who can tell what you genuinely feel.
Right now, nobody is threatening your life, so it's possible to consider the ideal behaviour in hypothetical situations in a more rational manner.
But you see, there's the difference in viewpoint. I consider the life of others to have equal value, whereas you apear to consider the life of others to have the value they place on their own life.
Which is fine... Just pointing out that simply beieving that the mugger's life has some value doesn't diminish that of the victim; just the victim's property.
Like I said, it's a judgement call. If I genuinely couldn't determine his intentions then I'd have to shoot. If I could I wouldn't use what he "might" do as a faux justification to kill someone to protect replacable property. The test I think would be whether I'd be willing to go to prison for second degree murder if I was wrong.
The mugger volunteered to die when he chose to mug. No means no. Don't mug, end of story.
Rather a black and white way of looking at tings though. I mean if someone threw themself in front of my car, I'd be pretty distraught about that as well, and do whatever it took to prevent injury even though it was entirely their intention to do so. Likewise, justbecaue a mugger has chosen a reckless course, doesn't mean I wish to help him in his self destruction.
Also, if I am not mistaken, I believe the plural of elite is elitists, not elites.
You are mistaken. Which is a shame because otherwise this was a very good rant. "elite" refers to a group rather than an individual. i.e. The elite is the social group at the top of a heirarchy. The individual members don't really have a specific term as far as I know.
Elitism is advocacy of favouritsm towards the elite, and an elitist is the one who practices elitism.
The selfish elites are moe likely to buy an iPad than not. This does not translate into people who buy iPads being substantially more likely to be selfish elites, unless the population of selfish elites in the population is quite large.
It's not about the the victim being "worthless". Geez, talk about a strawman.
It's a belief that life is precious. Yes, a mugger's life is more important than your wallet. No, it's not more important than your life. Whether your life or wallet is in danger is a matter of making a judgement call.
Even if you do defend yourself against an attacker, it's still something of a tragedy that you were forced to kill another human being. If it were the case that this was actually a person who has no harmful intent, and simply a cop being a little too twitchy, I'd consider it an even greater tragedy.
It's more the case that if the motorcyclist had attempted to exercise his rights. The cop would probably have shot first - if he had his gun drawn already.
Most of the time you don't actually have to "pay" US taxes. Just fill in a tax return. In a lot of countries, you only pay if your local tax bill is lower than it would be in the US.
It did miss that 90% of the cases were plea bargains (I think this stat is for all cases and not just federal ones so take with a pinch of salt).
But once you get into that, yu're not playing averages any more. Anyone who is guoilty and knows they'll be cnvicted of something will take the plea bargain. Anyone who knows there is no evidence will tell the prosecutor where to stick his case, and the case will be dropped. So the remaining 10% is disproportionately very innocent of very guilty.
Yes.
In the past it's suffered from poor support in Windows. (The drivers are great but Microsoft did nothing). But openGL - especially the Embedded Systems variants - is used on Android and iphone. OpenGL is also useful for multiplatform development. This is typically used for niche applications but there are a lot of niches.
Out of interest, were you guilty of any crime?
But regardless - the way plea bargaining works in the US is a travesty of justice. The whole system is weighted to encourage it as well. It requires much less work and no aditional staff costs (e.g. researches) for a DA to negotiate a plea bargain.
Seek time may be an issue, but I doubt that will affect physical size that much. Controller electronics would be tiny for a device like this. It's not even as complicated as an MMU.
A lot of home systems currently come with 500GB, so with current technology we can see 5 doublings of size, which by Moores law is about 8 years. And I'm only looking at a lower limit for how much storage we might be able to provide in a standard package. The actual chip part is very small so I expect we'll be able to squeeze a lot more than that into a container.