I remember trying to convince my friends of the complete lack of need for using stats in a game, and how it would be better if they were a lot more obscure. But people just didn't seem to understand. For some reason, I couldn't get across to them that just because something is represented numerically internally, it doesn't have to be explicitely known.
An all female crew would probably make more sense. Women are (generally) smaller and require proportially less resources. I've been told that psychologically they're better equipped for long endurance in confined spaces as well.
You have to realise that game companies don't have a lot of money to spend on legal defence, and they're playing it very safe. They very probably could have used the designs and names, and found that the owners had no real interest in defending their rights, since they make a lot more money selling planes than licencing to games companies, but they can't be sure of that.
Okay. But assume you're talking to people who have no concept that there might even be a perceived problem with making personal copies. You'd be surprised about how little consideration anyone gives this.
As far as they're concerned, piracy, if they give it any thought at all, is bootleg operations opreating on street corners. They haven't heard of DRM. They've heard of iTunes, and they know you can buy music for your mp3 player. Tell them it only works with the iPod. They're not surprised. They're used to a certain level of incompatibility. They know that playstation games don't work on the X-Box. Obviously there's something magical about how mp3s work so apple ones will only work on the apple player, and if you want to play them on a creative player, you get the creative ones.
There are probably contradictions in the above paragraph. I haven't checked. But my point is, many people think and know a lot less about this sort of thing than you might expect.
Yes and no. I think this depends on the notice they send out. If they claim that they have detected the user uploading software, then they are lying. If they're a little more vague than that (e.g. we believe that user with IP address #.#.#.# has been sharing xxx on bittorrent) then they can do whatever they want but it doesn;t stop them from being slimy weasels that should be widely and publicly criticised fro their behaviour.
I realise it is just an analogy, and sorry if I'm a little paranoid, but I'd rather avoid equating BayTSP with a police force, or copyright infringement with a criminal, rather than a civil offence.
The median number of songs would give a better picture of the typical iPod. In this case, the median number of songs is most certainly less than 22, so Jobs point is even stronger.
well, if there are more than twice as many iPod users as iTunes users (and I think there are), then I'd guess about zero. But I've realised the number of songs per iPod is probably the wrong argument. Nobody is suggesting that iPod in general users are locked into the iPOod, or that they're locked into iTunes. What they are suggesting is that iTunes users are locked to the iPod.
So, what proportion of iTunes users have an iPod? What is the average number of songs per iTunes user. Should we be counting people who have only a couple of songs as iTunes users? Only a minority of iPod users are affected. Maybe a moinority of iTunes users are also affected. But is it enough to be concerned over?
A vast number of those iPod owners have bought zero songs from iTunes. They rely on CD rips, or in some cases, non-protected downloads. Then there are a few who might have bought one or two, but found the restrictions too great, and given up. So, how many people have bought more than 100 songs? Because every single one of them has an effective additional cost of $100 on any other mp3 player. So, how many? A million? 5 million? Most of these people will want to upgrade to the newest iPod at some time. I'm sure those 5 million extra sales aren't going to hurt.
Don't get me wrong. Your point is a good one, and in principle, there's nothing wrong with the analogy. I just find that non-technical people - especially those from a non-science background - can get very confused and muddled with the hypotheticals, and generally haven't put any thought into what these files are, apart from a button you press to get music.
Taking the position of someone without a clue, my response is "Yeah, but they can't control those passages. I just copy them out. So why does it matter what they want? And how does that explain why my computer isn't working properly when I try to convert my iTunes music to mp3?"
I gather the implication is that the record industry is cutting their own profits purely out of the goodness of their hearts, to do you, the consumer, a favour.
I'm too lazy to do the math, but it's a huge difference.
Well, I'm not. Suborbital is 1MJ/kg. Orbital is (roughly) twice that + kinetic energy at 8000m/s (32MJ/kg) which totals 34MJ/kg. Roughly (there are probably many other factors to consider).
An 1983, a CD was an exclusive item, sold only to audiophiles.
Those who didn't have the large disposable income for music that the enthusiasts had, had the option of buying the same music on LP or cassette for $9. CDs started to match cassette sales in 1990. Since substantially before that time, the price has been pretty uch in line with CPI.
Well, there are other suppliers for libc, other maintainers for gcc. The other utils are mature enough that nobody cares if you use an out of date version, and the older version is still licenced under GPL2. And there are alternatives for most of these.
I still think they should face charges of perjury.
This is the required statement in the DMCA: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
Perjury is a serious matter. This should be taken as a somlemn outh. Not a piece of whimsical text. If you are going to make a claim, under penalty of perjury, then you'd better make damn sure that the information is accurate. The statement should be taken to read that they are willing to accept being charged with perjury. Inaccuracy should be taken as prima facea evidence that they intended to deceive. Even if they have a defence, we should at least be told what that defence is! If I took the stand in a trial, and presented wild speculation about what happened as the truth, I'd expect the same thing to happen, and I expect much higher standards from legal professionals.
So this means that the media companies can falsely claim copyright to *any* material and the publisher is provided an email by youtube. However, in order to counter, you (the publisher) have to send a snailmail to them and wait how long before something is done about it? Are you even guarenteed a response?
Yes! We've seen this before. It's how the DMCA works. And it rather naively seems to assume that nobody would mistakenly or maliciously claim that they own the copyright to something they don't. Other legal systems have specifically rejected this type of clause because of the problems the DMCA causes for legitimate content.
Actually - They don't always care about bugs. If they bugs are well known, well documented, and can be worked around, a lot of the time they'll tolerate some pretty severe ones.
The Shuttle on the other hand uses 8086 era tech, systems that are so obsolete that the fellow who designed them is not just retired, he is dead, and other such inovations.
If it does the job it was intended for, why upgrade? Why redesign an entire subsytem to do exactly the same job?
True. Although the difference is that people other than the US government want things to be shipped, and broadcast on TV. Any company set up to do this will have the government as a sole customer. It's probably not going to be any cheaper than if NASA ran their own rockets.
It's not too much of a problem. It means the same customers survive longer for soemthing else to go wrong with them. And if you're the company that doesn't have the symptom management, then it's win win.
As I said, "And there is no way for them to know". If it's completely unreasonable that they should know, then they have no malicious intent. Clearly, he had no idea that he was doing anything illegal.
Just because it's always been done that way doesn't mean its right. Otherwise, we'd also apply Cito necatus insignis ad deformitatem puer esto. (An obviously deformed child must be put to death).
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree.
I remember trying to convince my friends of the complete lack of need for using stats in a game, and how it would be better if they were a lot more obscure. But people just didn't seem to understand. For some reason, I couldn't get across to them that just because something is represented numerically internally, it doesn't have to be explicitely known.
An all female crew would probably make more sense. Women are (generally) smaller and require proportially less resources. I've been told that psychologically they're better equipped for long endurance in confined spaces as well.
You have to realise that game companies don't have a lot of money to spend on legal defence, and they're playing it very safe. They very probably could have used the designs and names, and found that the owners had no real interest in defending their rights, since they make a lot more money selling planes than licencing to games companies, but they can't be sure of that.
Okay. But assume you're talking to people who have no concept that there might even be a perceived problem with making personal copies. You'd be surprised about how little consideration anyone gives this.
As far as they're concerned, piracy, if they give it any thought at all, is bootleg operations opreating on street corners. They haven't heard of DRM. They've heard of iTunes, and they know you can buy music for your mp3 player. Tell them it only works with the iPod. They're not surprised. They're used to a certain level of incompatibility. They know that playstation games don't work on the X-Box. Obviously there's something magical about how mp3s work so apple ones will only work on the apple player, and if you want to play them on a creative player, you get the creative ones.
There are probably contradictions in the above paragraph. I haven't checked. But my point is, many people think and know a lot less about this sort of thing than you might expect.
Yes and no. I think this depends on the notice they send out. If they claim that they have detected the user uploading software, then they are lying. If they're a little more vague than that (e.g. we believe that user with IP address #.#.#.# has been sharing xxx on bittorrent) then they can do whatever they want but it doesn;t stop them from being slimy weasels that should be widely and publicly criticised fro their behaviour.
And the police analogy.
I realise it is just an analogy, and sorry if I'm a little paranoid, but I'd rather avoid equating BayTSP with a police force, or copyright infringement with a criminal, rather than a civil offence.
The median number of songs would give a better picture of the typical iPod. In this case, the median number of songs is most certainly less than 22, so Jobs point is even stronger.
well, if there are more than twice as many iPod users as iTunes users (and I think there are), then I'd guess about zero. But I've realised the number of songs per iPod is probably the wrong argument. Nobody is suggesting that iPod in general users are locked into the iPOod, or that they're locked into iTunes. What they are suggesting is that iTunes users are locked to the iPod.
So, what proportion of iTunes users have an iPod? What is the average number of songs per iTunes user. Should we be counting people who have only a couple of songs as iTunes users? Only a minority of iPod users are affected. Maybe a moinority of iTunes users are also affected. But is it enough to be concerned over?
The numbers are misleading, but in another way.
A vast number of those iPod owners have bought zero songs from iTunes. They rely on CD rips, or in some cases, non-protected downloads. Then there are a few who might have bought one or two, but found the restrictions too great, and given up. So, how many people have bought more than 100 songs? Because every single one of them has an effective additional cost of $100 on any other mp3 player. So, how many? A million? 5 million? Most of these people will want to upgrade to the newest iPod at some time. I'm sure those 5 million extra sales aren't going to hurt.
Don't get me wrong. Your point is a good one, and in principle, there's nothing wrong with the analogy. I just find that non-technical people - especially those from a non-science background - can get very confused and muddled with the hypotheticals, and generally haven't put any thought into what these files are, apart from a button you press to get music.
So would you suggest that the people keeping iTunes in business are the ones that buy 22 songs?
That explains the problem. Explain what DRM is.
Taking the position of someone without a clue, my response is "Yeah, but they can't control those passages. I just copy them out. So why does it matter what they want? And how does that explain why my computer isn't working properly when I try to convert my iTunes music to mp3?"
He knows what average means. His point is that using an average is misleading, because of the extremes.
I gather the implication is that the record industry is cutting their own profits purely out of the goodness of their hearts, to do you, the consumer, a favour.
And that's cutting me own throat!
Don't be silly. Disney wrote the law!
Actually, youtube have no obligation to remove it either. The only problem is, if they don't, they could be held liable for damages.
I'm too lazy to do the math, but it's a huge difference.
Well, I'm not. Suborbital is 1MJ/kg. Orbital is (roughly) twice that + kinetic energy at 8000m/s (32MJ/kg) which totals 34MJ/kg. Roughly (there are probably many other factors to consider).
An 1983, a CD was an exclusive item, sold only to audiophiles.
Those who didn't have the large disposable income for music that the enthusiasts had, had the option of buying the same music on LP or cassette for $9. CDs started to match cassette sales in 1990. Since substantially before that time, the price has been pretty uch in line with CPI.
Well, there are other suppliers for libc, other maintainers for gcc. The other utils are mature enough that nobody cares if you use an out of date version, and the older version is still licenced under GPL2. And there are alternatives for most of these.
I still think they should face charges of perjury.
This is the required statement in the DMCA: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
Perjury is a serious matter. This should be taken as a somlemn outh. Not a piece of whimsical text. If you are going to make a claim, under penalty of perjury, then you'd better make damn sure that the information is accurate. The statement should be taken to read that they are willing to accept being charged with perjury. Inaccuracy should be taken as prima facea evidence that they intended to deceive. Even if they have a defence, we should at least be told what that defence is! If I took the stand in a trial, and presented wild speculation about what happened as the truth, I'd expect the same thing to happen, and I expect much higher standards from legal professionals.
So this means that the media companies can falsely claim copyright to *any* material and the publisher is provided an email by youtube. However, in order to counter, you (the publisher) have to send a snailmail to them and wait how long before something is done about it? Are you even guarenteed a response?
Yes! We've seen this before. It's how the DMCA works. And it rather naively seems to assume that nobody would mistakenly or maliciously claim that they own the copyright to something they don't. Other legal systems have specifically rejected this type of clause because of the problems the DMCA causes for legitimate content.
Actually - They don't always care about bugs. If they bugs are well known, well documented, and can be worked around, a lot of the time they'll tolerate some pretty severe ones.
Is that total energy, or do we have to add the cost of getting all that fuel part of the way there too?
The Shuttle on the other hand uses 8086 era tech, systems that are so obsolete that the fellow who designed them is not just retired, he is dead, and other such inovations.
If it does the job it was intended for, why upgrade? Why redesign an entire subsytem to do exactly the same job?
True. Although the difference is that people other than the US government want things to be shipped, and broadcast on TV. Any company set up to do this will have the government as a sole customer. It's probably not going to be any cheaper than if NASA ran their own rockets.
It's not too much of a problem. It means the same customers survive longer for soemthing else to go wrong with them. And if you're the company that doesn't have the symptom management, then it's win win.
As I said, "And there is no way for them to know". If it's completely unreasonable that they should know, then they have no malicious intent. Clearly, he had no idea that he was doing anything illegal.
Just because it's always been done that way doesn't mean its right. Otherwise, we'd also apply Cito necatus insignis ad deformitatem puer esto. (An obviously deformed child must be put to death).