Have you even read the article?! It just has a high piracy rate. No stopping, no failing, no bankrupting, at all. Not even using DRM in the future.
... people who pirate our game aren’t people who would have purchased it had they not been able to get it without paying.
in our case, we might have even converted more than 1 in a 1000 pirates into legit purchases. either way, ricochet shipped with DRM, world of goo shipped without it, and there seems to be no difference in the outcomes.
[We should should keep waging war because international politics is like prison. Here's how prison is. Scary, huh? So you see we should keep waging war.]
International politics isn't like prison at all.
Even if it were, the correct reaction would be to change that.
Prison shouldn't be like that, either.
Assignment: Get all nations to sign a paper saying they a) won't use violence in conflict resolution and will b) immediately stop talking and trading with every nation that does, or which doesn't abide by this signed statement. Prison similarity rectified, next.
Alternatively, substitute "declare war on" for "stop talking and trading with". I prefer the first solution, but this one might be more practicable.
Someone will have to decide these books are worth publishing. The rights probably still belong to the original publisher. They don't want to publish because they don't burden themselves with 400 issue runs. They don't want to sell because the profit is nil. Their legal dept alone would incur costs a gross multitude of what they'd be able to get. Also, the book might be profitable again in the distant future due to a freak chance.
You're just being ridiculous. I know firsthand I've tried to acquire legally books by authors I dearly love, but have not been able to, so there is demand, but it was not satisfied. Even if I'm the only one, culture was lost here.
No can do. Any decline in sales will be blamed on piracy, and a sales tax on computers, storage media or connectivity will be introduced (cf. Canada, Germany et al). They're in deep enough to basically finance themselves through corruption even if they didn't produce anything.
Domain Name:BISPHENOL-A.ORG
Registrant Name:American Chemistry Council
% whois bisphenol-a.org
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), formerly known as the Manufacturing Chemists' Association and then as the Chemical Manufacturers' Association, is an industry trade association for American chemical companies in charge of improving the public image of the chemical industry.
Bisphenol A is an endocrine disruptor, which can mimic the body's own hormones and may lead to negative health effects. Early development appears to be the period of greatest sensitivity to its effects. Regulatory bodies have determined safety levels for humans, but those safety levels are currently being questioned or under review as a result of new scientific studies.
In 2009 the The Endocrine Society released a scientific statement expressing concern over current human exposure to BPA.
you capture so much of a webpage you are usually peering at through a slit you are constantly scrolling through with lots of unused screen real estate on either side
Your eyes are aligned horizontally. Your vertical FOV angle is limited. With your 9:16 setup you have to actually move your eyes up and down. With a 16:9 setup you can keep looking at the same "slit" (hurr hurr) while you scroll the content past it.
Seems to me the only advantage your setup has is that you can get a better overview of a long page. But you couldn't read any of it because, to take it all in, you'd have to move too far away to read any.
A lot of changes happen for a reason. It takes about an hour to get used to this one. If you don't want to, it's trivial to revert to the previous setup.
there is also the envelope icon that takes up space on the top bar that you can't remove without also removing volume and bluetooth etc.
This is wrong. That's "indicator-applet". If you remove it from the panel, nothing else goes missing.
windows is more customizable than this.
Right. You call a system which offers several layers of customization (from top to bottom: GUI menus -> configuration files -> interpreted scripts -> recompilable source) less customizable than monolithic windows. Your world seems to be a strange but simple one.
gnome needs to die.
Ah, so you're just trolling?
kde is going in a much better direction
"There is only one right direction. That is to wherever I am. What other users might prefer is irrelevant.
they did not bother to give a single reason for this fucking change.
shuttleworth and co have shown tremendous disregard for the community
"This is a difference between Ubuntu and several other community
distributions. It may feel less democratic, but it's more meritocratic,
and most importantly it means (a) we should have the best people making
any given decision, and (b) it's worth investing your time to become the
best person to make certain decisions, because you should have that
competence recognised and rewarded with the freedom to make hard
decisions and not get second-guessed all the time.
"It's fair comment that this was a big change, and landed without
warning. There aren't any good reasons for that, but it's also true that
no amount of warning would produce consensus about a decision like this."
Why don't you, before replying, double-check your understanding of the thread next time. To recap:
1 [anti-Apple, pro-GPL]: Apple will pull the app from the store LONG before they allow actual open software to slip through their stranglehold on content.
2 [redundantly anti-Apple, pro-GPL]: Very true. FSF should know better to say "Hey, you can't do that... so why don't you start opening up your distribution practices rather than pull the app in question". They just fingered that app and it will be out in the cold before you can say "Oops!".
3 [anti-Apple, pro-GPL]: haha, joke's on them. They've already sold the app and are now bound by the terms of the GPL. They're kind of screwed; their only option now is to buy an exemption to the GPL or follow the GPL.
4 [anti-GPL]: This sort of “gotcha” crap is the reason I vastly prefer using BSD licensed software.
5 [neutral tone, presumably pro-GPL]: This sorta gotcha is why GPL developers prefer the GPL.
6 [provocatively anti-GPL, pro-Apple]: Because they are selfish pricks who don't care if an innocent redistributer is caught in the legal cross-fire? Because all that's important is teh c0des!!, amiright? I hope it goes to court and a judge finds the GPL non-enforceable.
People who say the GPL infects nothing has only to look at this example. Turns out corporate paranoia was completely justified.
7 [redundantly anti-GPL]: The most insightful quote on/. that I have read in a while.
8 [pro-GPL, anti-Apple]: Nope, it's the most ridiculous post we've seen on/. in a while (i.e. using "innocent redistributer" and Apple in the same sentence).
9 [defending Apple, comparing it to Youtube, Amazon, eBay, and Sourceforge]: And you're committing intellectual dishonesty by refusing to set aside prejudices for objective perception. Apple in this instance is no different from any other user-submitted content service, from Youtube, to Amazon, to eBay, to Sourceforge.
Oh wait, I forgot... I am on Slashdot. Apple is a corporation, and capitalism is evil. Let's kill everyone in office and implement communism.
You [ironic, lost]: Because Youtube and eBay review everything users post before making it available to viewers or buyers....
if Best Buy sold you [X], you can sue Best Buy for distribution? When Best Buy doesn't [make it], or even know what's in [it]?
As a matter of fact, yes, that's how I think it should be. They're distributing it. There's a somewhat blurry line between this and "Well, you could say we sold you that strychnine food supplement but we didn't make it, and made damn sure never to ask what's in it."
I pity the guy who sells help with documentation sold with a virtual product running on sold hardware that is built from sold compartments that are made out of sold microchips that comprise sold integrated circuits that are made out of sold natural resources and were designed using documentation to a virtual product running on hardware that is built from...
so it's a completely different pool of money[,] asstard.
You're confused about that making any difference at all in a cost-benefit to society way.
To paraphrase you: "You're so stupid. The money doesn't get wasted in this place but in the other one. This is totally ok, you know, because this is a symptom of the way the system is set up, so it must be ok. That said, I'm now going to drag something completely unrelated into the discussion because I'm less interested in finding out what's right than in attacking people who don't share my unquestionable presuppositions."
The difference here probably is that your parent implied it's bad to spend money, i.e. human time and labor investment, on something that doesn't create added value, while you think it's just "frictional" costs in a system that can't be any other way.
Information has become a form of garbage, not only incapable of answering the most fundamental human questions but barely useful in providing coherent direction to the solution of even mundane problems. (Postman, Technopoly, 1992. p. 69)
"Information overload" is a term popularized by Alvin Toffler that refers to the difficulty a person can have understanding an issue and making decisions that can be caused by the presence of too much information. The term itself is mentioned in a 1964 book by Bertram Gross, The Managing of Organizations. (Information overload)
These people value skill and care about giving credit for it. They do not care about stealing a product while expressly leaving the credit where it's due. Their value system is contiguous and non-contradictory, hence not hypocritical.
Well, I would probably just file a charge of trespassing, breaking and entering, vandalism or whatever it's called.
Same as in this case, when it should be possible to file a charge of fraud. Or a complaint over truth-in-advertising laws. The self-regulating nature of free markets depends on accurate information propagation. The muddier information gets the greater the power disequilibrium, and the less consumer demands are met.
I still agree that fiction makes a big difference for harm and legality. It doesn't make difference in naming something after what it self-professedly tries to depict.
Snuff is explicitly defined as film that shows actual death or murder, child porn just means porn with children, so applying "snuff film" to horror movies is by definition wrong while calling porn with children "child porn" isn't. I can't believe we're even arguing about this.
You can call horror movies "murder movies" as they do depict (fictional) murder. Or you can call them "horror movies", even though the horror depicted is purely fictional.
While I mostly agree with your sentiment, the answer to your question seems obvious. It is called child porn because it's pornography involving children, using drawings as medium. Ignoring the difficulty in defining pornography, paintings can be pornographic.
Your question should be, "Why is child porn considered harmful when no one was actually harmed in producing it?"
There are people who claim that it indeed is, as in inciting or popularizing a fetish that would be harmful if acted out, but going by that rationale we'd have to illegalize a whole slew of fiction (written sexual fantasy like A.S.S.T.R, series like Dexter, video games like Hitman and GTA etc.) that is completely legal, and IMO justly so.
Slashdot Mirror
http://online.wsj.com/media/iad_D_20100709194420.jpg
Have you even read the article?! It just has a high piracy rate. No stopping, no failing, no bankrupting, at all. Not even using DRM in the future.
Assignment: Get all nations to sign a paper saying they a) won't use violence in conflict resolution and will b) immediately stop talking and trading with every nation that does, or which doesn't abide by this signed statement. Prison similarity rectified, next.
Alternatively, substitute "declare war on" for "stop talking and trading with". I prefer the first solution, but this one might be more practicable.
Someone will have to decide these books are worth publishing. The rights probably still belong to the original publisher. They don't want to publish because they don't burden themselves with 400 issue runs. They don't want to sell because the profit is nil. Their legal dept alone would incur costs a gross multitude of what they'd be able to get. Also, the book might be profitable again in the distant future due to a freak chance.
You're just being ridiculous. I know firsthand I've tried to acquire legally books by authors I dearly love, but have not been able to, so there is demand, but it was not satisfied. Even if I'm the only one, culture was lost here.
No can do. Any decline in sales will be blamed on piracy, and a sales tax on computers, storage media or connectivity will be introduced (cf. Canada, Germany et al). They're in deep enough to basically finance themselves through corruption even if they didn't produce anything.
Calling it utopian is calling improvement impossible. Calling improvement impossible makes improvement more unlikely.
I was envious. ;)
You're cute.
you capture so much of a webpage you are usually peering at through a slit you are constantly scrolling through with lots of unused screen real estate on either side
Your eyes are aligned horizontally. Your vertical FOV angle is limited. With your 9:16 setup you have to actually move your eyes up and down. With a 16:9 setup you can keep looking at the same "slit" (hurr hurr) while you scroll the content past it.
Seems to me the only advantage your setup has is that you can get a better overview of a long page. But you couldn't read any of it because, to take it all in, you'd have to move too far away to read any.
A lot of changes happen for a reason. It takes about an hour to get used to this one. If you don't want to, it's trivial to revert to the previous setup.
there is also the envelope icon that takes up space on the top bar that you can't remove without also removing volume and bluetooth etc.
This is wrong. That's "indicator-applet". If you remove it from the panel, nothing else goes missing.
windows is more customizable than this.
Right. You call a system which offers several layers of customization (from top to bottom: GUI menus -> configuration files -> interpreted scripts -> recompilable source) less customizable than monolithic windows. Your world seems to be a strange but simple one.
gnome needs to die.
Ah, so you're just trolling?
kde is going in a much better direction
"There is only one right direction. That is to wherever I am. What other users might prefer is irrelevant.
they did not bother to give a single reason for this fucking change.
Mark Shuttleworth comments on the bug report and writes a blog.
shuttleworth and co have shown tremendous disregard for the community
the notification system is utter crap. for example [...] wtf! [...] it should give you [...]
"Bugs in my OS? Unheard of!"
i have stopped using ubuntu because of irrational, stupid
This part of the sentence is true.
Why don't you, before replying, double-check your understanding of the thread next time. To recap:
if Best Buy sold you [X], you can sue Best Buy for distribution? When Best Buy doesn't [make it], or even know what's in [it]?
As a matter of fact, yes, that's how I think it should be. They're distributing it. There's a somewhat blurry line between this and "Well, you could say we sold you that strychnine food supplement but we didn't make it, and made damn sure never to ask what's in it."
True. It's more a look & feel simulation than a true emulator.
Try this one.
I pity the guy who sells help with documentation sold with a virtual product running on sold hardware that is built from sold compartments that are made out of sold microchips that comprise sold integrated circuits that are made out of sold natural resources and were designed using documentation to a virtual product running on hardware that is built from...
Wait, is that slimy at all?
so it's a completely different pool of money[,] asstard.
You're confused about that making any difference at all in a cost-benefit to society way.
To paraphrase you: "You're so stupid. The money doesn't get wasted in this place but in the other one. This is totally ok, you know, because this is a symptom of the way the system is set up, so it must be ok. That said, I'm now going to drag something completely unrelated into the discussion because I'm less interested in finding out what's right than in attacking people who don't share my unquestionable presuppositions."
The difference here probably is that your parent implied it's bad to spend money, i.e. human time and labor investment, on something that doesn't create added value, while you think it's just "frictional" costs in a system that can't be any other way.
These people value skill and care about giving credit for it. They do not care about stealing a product while expressly leaving the credit where it's due. Their value system is contiguous and non-contradictory, hence not hypocritical.
And, of all places, he chose Australia. I'm an idealist myself but if that passes for idealism nowadays, I think we might as well succumb.
I heard it coming and braced myself against it, for I had something to shout in its general direction.
Well, I would probably just file a charge of trespassing, breaking and entering, vandalism or whatever it's called.
Same as in this case, when it should be possible to file a charge of fraud. Or a complaint over truth-in-advertising laws. The self-regulating nature of free markets depends on accurate information propagation. The muddier information gets the greater the power disequilibrium, and the less consumer demands are met.
Yeah, I know, "good luck with that".
Also, "Couldn't find package dystopian-copyright-protection"
Hidden file system entries. You need to be in group "mafiaa" to access those.
That's "sudo apt-get install dystopian-copyright-protection" dumbass.
Not if you're Sony. Sony always runs as root.
I still agree that fiction makes a big difference for harm and legality. It doesn't make difference in naming something after what it self-professedly tries to depict.
Snuff is explicitly defined as film that shows actual death or murder, child porn just means porn with children, so applying "snuff film" to horror movies is by definition wrong while calling porn with children "child porn" isn't. I can't believe we're even arguing about this.
You can call horror movies "murder movies" as they do depict (fictional) murder. Or you can call them "horror movies", even though the horror depicted is purely fictional.
You're missing my point or being nitpicky. I agree with you completely.
Still, as you said yourself, it's porn in which children are depicted, and as such it can be called child porn.
While I mostly agree with your sentiment, the answer to your question seems obvious. It is called child porn because it's pornography involving children, using drawings as medium. Ignoring the difficulty in defining pornography, paintings can be pornographic.
Your question should be, "Why is child porn considered harmful when no one was actually harmed in producing it?"
There are people who claim that it indeed is, as in inciting or popularizing a fetish that would be harmful if acted out, but going by that rationale we'd have to illegalize a whole slew of fiction (written sexual fantasy like A.S.S.T.R, series like Dexter, video games like Hitman and GTA etc.) that is completely legal, and IMO justly so.