Sorry to reply to my own post. Just wanted to add that I'm in Evanston, Illinois (first suburb north of Chicago). So not a *HUGE* city, but also not tiny. -Trillian
Just got back from the local EB Games (at 10:20AM CST). They had 31 available for pre-order, I was number 19, and I got there around 9:30AM.
Preordered the following: -The Wii (1 control, Wii Sports) -An extra controller set (WiiMote and Nunchuck) -Zelda -ExciteTruck -Red Steel
There was only 1 or 2 more people in line than they had systems, and they said they *might* be getting more. It looks like Nintendo is getting out enough to satisfy as many people as possible, which I think is fantastic.
I'll suffer with OS X (which I also despise as a desktop OS),
I completely understand and respect not using Windows XP (or Vista, or whatever) due to MS policies. I'm curious, however, why you seem to dislike Linux and OSX so strongly. I'm honestly not trying to advocate MS, Linux, or OSX, just curious about your thoughts.
I'd love to hear anything you're willing to share.
I do take a little issue with being accused of ranting, but be that as it may...
What do you disagree with? I'd honestly like to know. Yes, it's an uninformed opinion, but I don't think the logic was flawed or the facts that inaccurate. I specifically didn't use numbers but spoke in generalisations for just that reason. I realize books don't magically come from fairy dust, but they still have fewer inherent costs than movies or music. Where is that thought process flawed?
Ignoring for the moment the actual sentence structure, I'll assume you meant, "Yes, but books aren't free to produce either - how to you want to pay people to create things?"
What I meant is that while movies and music require physical equipment to produce - microphones, instruments, video equipment, etc - books require a single person and - if you really want to go bare-bones - a pen and paper. Even a nice computer is going to be cheaper than a recording studio rental for any significant period of time. So, while movies and music can reasonably say "Sure, distributing digitally means *distrobution* costs go down, production costs are still expensive! We'd love to sell you cheap movies and music online, but we can't afford to!" Now, they may still be lying (about wanting to) but they can make that argument and not be complete liars. Once you lose the cost of distrobution for books, on the other hand, you've cut out the vaaaast majority of your built-in costs. Obviously, you'll still want editors and (presumably) type-setters and layout designers and such, and you should probably pay the author at some point, but the assumption with books was that you were paying a good chunk toward the physical 'stuff' the book is made out of. With that cost gone, it would seem books should be dirt-cheap, but clearly they're not...
All I'm saying is that it looks like, once again, media distroution companies are trying to wring every last cent out, rather than selling at a point that is both profitable and reasonable.
-Trillian
PS - In all fairness, it may be the book publishers, not Sony, who is requiring the consumer to get screwed. They may have deals about minimum book prices or some such BS. I'd tempted to blame Sony, but the main point is that *someone* along the line - Sony, book publisher, etc - is being a greedy bastard and it makes me sad because the tech seems so cool.
See, I love the idea. I even might be willing to pay $350(!!!) for the damn thing. But the eBooks are still too damn expensive! Looking at Sony Connect shows, for example, "Marley and Me," "I Feel Bad About My Neck," and "Ricochet" as a 'bundle' for $42.03 as opposed to the list price of $53.89. *WHAT*?! With music I still think iTunes et al are often overcharging, but at least music has an inherent production cost, even if digital distrobution becomes cheaper. Don't lie to me and say books have the same production cost when distributed digitally and I should save a 'whopping' 11 bucks and change. Books distributed digitally become (almost) pure profit in a way music or movies can't, simply due to the nature of having to produce the damn things.
Even the 'better' deals (Angels and Demons for $5.59) still seem absured.
Jeeze, Sony. It's so like you! Create a really cool product, technologically, then have shit media for sale. And I want so hard to like e-readers...
Some tidbits: Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon (both XBox 360) share first place, and of the 20 (21 counting both first placers) 7 are for XBox 360, 1 PC, 4 NDS, 2 PS2, 1 Wii, 5 PS3 (I keep recounting and still get 20 - clearly I keep missing an entry).
-Trillian
Okay, maybe I'm dumb, but how do I play?! I can't figure it out! I'm gonna try booting into Windows to see if it's a wird Linux flash issue, but I can't figure out what the hell I'm supposed to do! -Trillian
Exactly. And it irritates me to no end when someone says that people who don't vote don't get to complain about the government (not saying anyone in this thread hs done that; I'm just saying...). So, non-voters are somehow in the wrong because they didn't vote for either the "build-more-parkland-with-the-blood-of-babies" candidate or the "burn-all-plant-life-to-protect-our-babies" candidate? (I exaggerate my example to illustrate my point)
Well, I'll say it if no one else is: If you don't vote, you don't get to complain about the government. See, as other people have said, you don't have to vote for a Democrat or a Repulican. You're right, there's damn small chance that your guy will win if you don't, but the option is there either as a write-in or (sometimes) actually as someone on the ballot. Hell, submit a blank ballot to screw with statistics. If enough people did it you'd potentially see a winning candidate with a negligable fraction of the vote because so many people submitted blank ballots. Not going to change things, neccesarily, but makes a statement. Or vote for yourself. Vote for a fake candidate. Any of those options give you the legitimate gripe that you *tried* to change things but your guy didn't win. Otherwise you have nothing.
So yes, if you don't vote you have no right to complain. -Trillian
So what? I realize you didn't say this in your post, but the implicit message I get (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that because these books aren't "meaningful" it's somehow less important that they're banned.
Ignoring the fact that 'meaningful' is subjective for the moment, so what? They're culture and banning culture at any governmental level is never okay.
It wasn't clear to me how the list was ranked. Anyone have more info?
Offtopic, I think it's disgusting how expensive short-term Internet access is. If Panera can give it away for free, don't lie through your teeth and tell me it costs $10 for 24/hr access at O'Hare, one of the busiest airports in the world. (Obviously, the answer is "I want lots of money" but that doesn't make me like it...)
I still think your original point is right. I do agree with what MankyD said: If you don't want someone to know about your relationship status, don't put it online. *HOWEVER*, there is still a difference, both subjectively and objectively, between "not privite" and "announced." For example, there is a difference between posting to a blog or LiveJournal (or, up until now, facebook) and emailing or messaging everyone in your address book (or all your Facebook friends, or whatever). For the former, any damn person can still see what you said/did/posted. For the latter, every person gets a specific notification. Yes, there are similarities, and YES, if you don't want anyone knowing about whatever you should not post it. But in one situation you had to actively seek the knowledge, in the other it was presented whether you would have cared or not. Even if you (plural, in general, not you, BusDriver) don't have a problem with the changes I don't see how you simply can't understand why someone else might.
As someone posted elsewhere in the thread, formerly Facebook did X and Y (doesn't matter what X and Y specifically are). Now, without asking, Facebook does X, Y, and Z. It's irrelevant if Y and Z are similar, or if Z just made Y more public. People weren't expecting Z and are allowed to dislike Z. I don't see how someone could argue otherwise.
I'm interested in building a MythTV box and was wondering what, if any, DVR-type stuff have you done with the machines built from that guide. Thanks! -Trillian
These are issues other people have responded to elsewhere in this thread, but I wanted to address some of your points specifically.
"Unlimited service means that you can access any website you wish. We do not limit what websites you can visit."
Well, if that's how you've contractually defined "unlimited" then yes.
"I disagree with that definition as well, but, that's what it says in the TOS. I have only thrown that in ONE person's face in 3 years of ISP service -- and it was a college twit who had already canceled his service. It also says that if your connection is causing a "network issue", we have the right (and, in truth, the duty) to correct the issue."
Okay. It sounds like you've contractually defined "unlimited" as (something along the lines of) "you will always have Internet access, but we're not guaranteeing speeds, ever, period end-of-story." And if the TOS says that, then you're not doing anything *illegal* by throttling user speeds. However, if you advertisements in any way resemble "Unlimited Internet Access!" you're being unethical by playing off a common understand of what 'unlimited' means in reference to net access and may (obligatory IANAL) be advertising falsley, depending on how the adverts are worded.
You then talk about your most common bandwidth hogs. Again, if they are actually breaking their TOS (and I have no doubt they are) you have every legal right to limit their connection. But, again, if you're advertising "Unlimited Internet Access" and don't - in plain English and large letters - explain exactly what that means, I'd say it's unethical to protest when the customers try to use their Internet access without limits.
"As customers and responsible netizens, you are required to do hold yourself up to a certain standard. That means no sending George Bush death threats nor offers to buy him remedial reading books, no trolling slashdot, no getting infected with trojans, etc. This, of course, also includes not causing the locally owned and operated ISP to implode because you want to steal the latest Eminem album and are setting up 1000 connections at 0.01k a second to do it."
Hm. I don't recall reading most of those issues in the TOS. The first (death threats) is a legal issue outside of what medium it's sent over (phone, email, snail mail) the second and third are well within the limits set out by being a "customer" and "netizen" and the last is stupid and obnoxious but I don't know if I'd consder anyone with a trojan failing to hold themselves to the "standard" of a "netizen." but then you get back to talking about andwidth. Look, I sympathize. I really do. I honestly want locally owned and operated business to succeed around me, and feel for you guys elsewhere. But if you didn't clearly (in plain English) explain why "unlimited" really meant "with limits" then you get to share part (not all) of the blame for the upset user.
"As a responsible ISP, we are required to keep everyone running as smoothly as possible. That includes, unfortunately, throttling some customers who are unwilling or unable to throttle themselves."
Smoothly as possible for who? It sounds like for yourself as a business. That's fine - I don't think that's a bad thing, in and of itself. But if a customer has falsely believes they have "unlimited" Internet access when it's actually "limited," I can understand why they'd be upset at your throttling.
"We advertise the connection that we do our throttles on as a 128k+ connection -- it's rated at 128k, we'll come out and fix it if it drops below that, but the service will go as fast as it can to the tower and back."
But if the customer uses too much you'll throttle it? Unless you're advertising that your connection is "128k, always connected, no bandwidth guarantees if you use to much, you hog" people may reasonably believe "Unlimited 128k Connection" to mean always on *and* always 128k speed. I don't think that's unreasonable!
"It's a lot more grey than simply the evil evil ISP keeping the noble linu
I'd love to see where your 36% is coming from. I am a college student, but both my parents work in education so I have *some* knowledge of how things work outside my own school. In my experience, both from my school and everything I've heard about where my parents work as well as where my friends are going to school, college bookstores are violently for-profit. For example, my school's bookstore is no longer run by the school itself, but by Barnes and Nobel (someone else in this thread said B&N's college stores pay for their megastores - I don't know enough to comment and would like to see proof, but I could imagine that math working out...)
And I can speak directly both to meaningless changes in editions and to the shoddy quality of books. As mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I've had professors hand out sheets explaining how Version 6 of a textbook is different from Version 7 (the answer being that some essays were moved around but, other than that, no changes were made). Likewise, having been in high school far too recently, textbooks always had tougher binding, at the expense of not looking quite as pretty as the books we 'get' to buy in college.
In addition, your argument that the stores' main complaint is students returning books doesn't ring true to me. The store buys enough books for most of the class to buy them and, with used books, tries to have enough on hand to not run out. Having the extra stock at the end of the buying cycle (as you say, about two weeks into class) cannot possibly be that much less obnoxious than getting returns. Having worked at bookstores (admitedly, not a college store) returns are EASY and, even if I had to go through however many hundreds of returns the college stores undoubtedly get, that cannot possibly be a big dent in their profits.
I'm gonna echo a sentiment I've seen elsewhere on this page: textbooks and the texbook industry is, more often than not, a scam. Now, I have no direct evidence of this, but everything in my experience - the 'updates' which only move things around, the bullshit shrink-wraping to include unneeded things to returns are impossible, the return policies of the school stores themselves, the quality of the actual textbooks - leads me to that conclusion. In addition, everything I've read about textbooks furthers this conclusion.
"Why the hell should I pay more for something because of your unfounded paranoia?"
Well, um, why would it cost more to label the food with what's in it? Or, in this case, say "Hybrid Animal" or whatnot? If that does, in fact, drive down sales and in turn drive up costs, tough shit. That's how the free market works - people do or do not buy a product and the product, in turn, is or is not successfull. The GP didn't even say it was a fear of eating hybridized or genetically modified food. It may be a moral or religious issue or it may be that the GP doesn't like the idea of tinkering with genetics because of issues with crossbreeding and because we've eaten unmodified food for thousands of years (if not more) and we're not quite sure what, if anything, GM-ed food does to us.
So I have to ask you - why the hell shouldn't I be told what I'm eating? -Trillian
"...no matter if I have 2 consoles or 3 it doesn't make the percentage increase above 100% because it is (# of console A/ # of all consoles)*100% that gives you the percentage..."
Yes, if you're looking at total numbr of consoles sold but I'd assumed the GP was talking about how many people own the consoles. In that case, it makes perfect sense to have numbers over 100%, because it's not comparative. For example, there are 100 people who own *any* next-gen console. 50 have a 360 AND a Wii, 30 have only a Wii, and 20 have only a PS3 (I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass). In that case, the Wii is in 80% of homes with a 'next gen' console, the 360 in 50% of homes, and the PS3 in 20% of homes. More than 100%, but it's okay because they're allowed to be.
The way you seem to be looking at it is total consoles sold. In my example that would be Wii with (80/150)=53%, 360 with (50/150)=33%, and PS3 with (20/150)=13%. In that case, the numbers all add up.
Now, you're right in that the linked article seemed to be talking about total console ownership rather than consoles in homes, but they're both valid ways of looking at console ownership.
Slightly OT, but that site doesn't load at all for me. It seems to be written entirely in flash and, being on Linux, Flash 8 (I believe) isn't available. So....rather than degrade gracefully and have certain parts of the site inaccessable, the whole damn page is one giant link to Adobe. Poo. -Trillian
I completely respect that, outside the argument on morality, you simply don't want to do anything that may get you sued.
But the first thing you said, "Blah blah blah. Stealing v Infringement. It's a pedantic semantic argument that has been lost by your side."
Gotta disagree again....being pedantic for a moment (if I may) calling the argument pedantic implies trivial distinctions and narrow differences which aren't really that important. But in this case the differences are important both morally and legally. While we may agree to disagree on the morality of copyright infringment, I think we both agree that it is a moral issue, among other things. Likewise, the fact you're worried about getting sued means the definition is extremly important and the current vagueness surrounding it needs to be cleared up.
As I said, I'm not trying to play a semantics game. Copyright infringment and theft have different names because, well, they're two different things. Stealing a car and stealing a pack of gum are wildly different in many ways but - at a basic level - are both stealing. Stealing a car and downloading the latest episode of BSG without permission from the copyright holder are different at a very basic level and so have two different names - the former is theft while the latter is copyright infringment.
The fact that the issue is being taken up in court and that (according to some study which may or may not be bullshit) more people commit copyright infringment in the United States than voted in the 2004 presidential election means that the issue is far from decided and it's silly to say "my side" has lost.
-Trillian
PS Kudos on using 'blah blah blah' to dismiss my argument! That really addresses the issue in a way that saying "I disagree but don't really care to argue, I think your side has lost so I won't bother" really can't cover.
"Stealing the music by taking it from p2p networks doesn't appeal to me."
Not to beat a dead horse, but it's copyright infringment, not theft. From glancing at your user info page you've clearly been on Slashdot long enough to know the arguments, but for the sake of completeness:
Theft or stealing requires directly depriving the owner of something. That is, the thief now has use of the item (or money, or land, or whatnot) while the original owner does not. Copyright infringment is often argued to be theft because the infringer deprives the copyright holder of potential revenue. That is, had the song/movie/software/etc not been available through free, infringing channels the infringer would have been forced to purchase it and provide the copyright holder monetary compensation (i.e. buy the cd/dvd/etc). However, copyright infringment does not *directly* deprive the copyright holder of the song/movie/software/etc or cause them to have less money than they started with, as the copyright holder (as well has whomever is distributing the copy) still have their own copies and no money is stolen. Thus, it's not theft.
Please note, I'm not arguing morality at this point (see below for that argument). There are very strong arguments that copyright infringment, while not theft, is immoral and it is certainly illegal (at least in the United States). But it's not theft.
Now for the argument on morallity...
Not surprisingly, I think the distinction is so important because I don't place copyright infringment on the same moral level as theft. In the United States, at least, copyright is defined in the Constituion to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." I think the current copyright system is no longer for a 'limited' time in any sane fashion and, as such, have absolutely no moral qualms about infringing on old (subjectivly defined) copyrights. Thus I would say most - if not all - of the music you're talking about, the rock classics, should be fair game both constitutionally as well as morally in relation to the social contract copyright entails.
More recent copyrights are, for me, a stickier issue and one I'm still mulling over. Currently, I do infringe on recent copyrights but make an effort to purchase whatever I feel is worth the money. For example, while I download Battlestar Galactica I also make sure to buy the DVD sets when they come out. Likewise with Futurama. Arrested Development may have to be my next purchase, purely from having downloaded episodes and enjoying them enough to think they deserve my money. Now, again, their are reasonable arguments against my position and you're welcome to try and convince me I'm wrong. I've thought about it a lot, so I don't think you will convince me, but I'll try to listen with an open mind.
Please note I'm also not trying to make a semantics game to avoid calling myself a thief. I've stolen things before (including media I could have obtained through copyright infringment) and, in those cases, I was a thief. Plane and simple. However, when it comes to copyright infringment, I honestly beleive that, morally, I'm not stealing and that, in a more sane world, I wouldn't be doing anything illegal either.
It (Pac Man Vs) also just may have only been released with a later version of Pac Man World 2. *Shrug* I don't remember when Pac Man World 2 came out, so it's possible the bundled version was a rerelease. -Trillian
I think I've played Pac Man World 2 maybe once or twice since buying the game, but have played Pac Man Vs tons of times with friends. The way the game works is slightly confusing at first, as you have to trade controllers when a ghost eats pac man, but is TONS of fun. -Trillian
I'm gonna have to chime in and say that connectivity is AMAZING - when you have all the pieces. I haven't had a chance to try Four Swords or Crystal Chronicals, but Pac Man Vs., which has three players on gamecube controllers controlling ghosts on the TV screen and the 4th controlling Pac Man on the GBA, is maybe the best party game ever. It's simple, as almost everyone has played pacman, it's pretty fast-paced, it doesn't allow teams (as whenever someone eats pacman you all trade controllers, so the three players as ghosts constantly rotates)...if you already have the connectivity stuff (which, if you can play 4 Swords or Crystal Chronicals, you do) BUY THIS GAME. It was $20 used when I bought it over 2 years ago and has probably come down. It's just so much fun. -Trillian
"Your view is simply that there is NO solution, so don't bother trying. Meanwhile I waste my time ($), money ($) and resources ($) having to deal with Spam. So, what is your brilliant suggestion? Wait until the system breaks?"
I don't think most people are saying there is *no* sollution, just that all proposed sollutions "fail" the (silly, sarcastic, and trite) 'your sollution fails because...' form and (more importantly) people are unwilling to put up with anything which can't pass the form. That is, the issues in the form pretty much cover any objections someone might come up with. For example, your sollution (which has been proposed before) requires A) trusted token vendors and B) complete email overhaul. I, for one, can't imagine a good sollution for the former (although I admit one might exist!) and simply won't put up with the latter.
If you want to create an alternate email system, no one is stopping you. Feel free to market it and, maybe, enough people will agree with you that it will take off. This isn't intended as sarcasm - many people are fed up with spam and it's possible you *could* convince enough people that an alternate emailing system is worth their while and that the initial investment (in time/money) is worth the end saving in less spam.
The way I see it the objection isn't so much "don't bother trying" as "I'm unconvinced your system will work and, while *you* are welcome to use it, I'm not going to."
You said "You must be a spammer, because anything that breaks the status quo, you are against for one of the reasons listed in your stupid checkbox. My favorite is "Sorry Dude, But I don't think it will work". My response is "sorry dude, but you are an idiot and I don't care what idiots think"." I think that's just unfair. The reasons listed in the checkbox ARE reasons - even if their expressed in a trite and obnoxious way, they are a response to your argument. You've said that you have an objection to the way the parent responded - you seem to think the checkboxes are stupid and not a valid way of arguing. That's fine, and I'd even tend to agree with you. But to dismiss them out of hand, and claim anyone who says "I don't think it will work" is "an idiot" is unfairly labeling people as well. I object to your system and, quite frankly, "Sorry dude, but I don't think it will work." Yes, because it breaks the "status quo," but to put it another way, "It breaks the email system which I successfully use to communicate with dozens (and occasionaly hundreds or thousands) of people in a non-spamming way using legitimate listservs with users who want to hear what I have to say."
Again, I don't think you're idea is *stupid*, but you haven't convinced me that I should use it. -Trillian
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to reply to my own post. Just wanted to add that I'm in Evanston, Illinois (first suburb north of Chicago). So not a *HUGE* city, but also not tiny.
-Trillian
Just got back from the local EB Games (at 10:20AM CST). They had 31 available for pre-order, I was number 19, and I got there around 9:30AM.
Preordered the following:
-The Wii (1 control, Wii Sports)
-An extra controller set (WiiMote and Nunchuck)
-Zelda
-ExciteTruck
-Red Steel
There was only 1 or 2 more people in line than they had systems, and they said they *might* be getting more. It looks like Nintendo is getting out enough to satisfy as many people as possible, which I think is fantastic.
I'm psyched!
-Trillian
I completely understand and respect not using Windows XP (or Vista, or whatever) due to MS policies. I'm curious, however, why you seem to dislike Linux and OSX so strongly. I'm honestly not trying to advocate MS, Linux, or OSX, just curious about your thoughts.
I'd love to hear anything you're willing to share.
Trillian
I do take a little issue with being accused of ranting, but be that as it may...
What do you disagree with? I'd honestly like to know. Yes, it's an uninformed opinion, but I don't think the logic was flawed or the facts that inaccurate. I specifically didn't use numbers but spoke in generalisations for just that reason. I realize books don't magically come from fairy dust, but they still have fewer inherent costs than movies or music. Where is that thought process flawed?
-Trillian
Ignoring for the moment the actual sentence structure, I'll assume you meant, "Yes, but books aren't free to produce either - how to you want to pay people to create things?"
What I meant is that while movies and music require physical equipment to produce - microphones, instruments, video equipment, etc - books require a single person and - if you really want to go bare-bones - a pen and paper. Even a nice computer is going to be cheaper than a recording studio rental for any significant period of time. So, while movies and music can reasonably say "Sure, distributing digitally means *distrobution* costs go down, production costs are still expensive! We'd love to sell you cheap movies and music online, but we can't afford to!" Now, they may still be lying (about wanting to) but they can make that argument and not be complete liars. Once you lose the cost of distrobution for books, on the other hand, you've cut out the vaaaast majority of your built-in costs. Obviously, you'll still want editors and (presumably) type-setters and layout designers and such, and you should probably pay the author at some point, but the assumption with books was that you were paying a good chunk toward the physical 'stuff' the book is made out of. With that cost gone, it would seem books should be dirt-cheap, but clearly they're not...
All I'm saying is that it looks like, once again, media distroution companies are trying to wring every last cent out, rather than selling at a point that is both profitable and reasonable.
-Trillian
PS - In all fairness, it may be the book publishers, not Sony, who is requiring the consumer to get screwed. They may have deals about minimum book prices or some such BS. I'd tempted to blame Sony, but the main point is that *someone* along the line - Sony, book publisher, etc - is being a greedy bastard and it makes me sad because the tech seems so cool.
Where can you do that?
-Trillian
See, I love the idea. I even might be willing to pay $350(!!!) for the damn thing. But the eBooks are still too damn expensive! Looking at Sony Connect shows, for example, "Marley and Me," "I Feel Bad About My Neck," and "Ricochet" as a 'bundle' for $42.03 as opposed to the list price of $53.89. *WHAT*?! With music I still think iTunes et al are often overcharging, but at least music has an inherent production cost, even if digital distrobution becomes cheaper. Don't lie to me and say books have the same production cost when distributed digitally and I should save a 'whopping' 11 bucks and change. Books distributed digitally become (almost) pure profit in a way music or movies can't, simply due to the nature of having to produce the damn things.
Even the 'better' deals (Angels and Demons for $5.59) still seem absured.
Jeeze, Sony. It's so like you! Create a really cool product, technologically, then have shit media for sale. And I want so hard to like e-readers...
-Trillian
Some tidbits: Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon (both XBox 360) share first place, and of the 20 (21 counting both first placers) 7 are for XBox 360, 1 PC, 4 NDS, 2 PS2, 1 Wii, 5 PS3 (I keep recounting and still get 20 - clearly I keep missing an entry). -Trillian
Okay, maybe I'm dumb, but how do I play?! I can't figure it out! I'm gonna try booting into Windows to see if it's a wird Linux flash issue, but I can't figure out what the hell I'm supposed to do!
-Trillian
Well, I'll say it if no one else is: If you don't vote, you don't get to complain about the government. See, as other people have said, you don't have to vote for a Democrat or a Repulican. You're right, there's damn small chance that your guy will win if you don't, but the option is there either as a write-in or (sometimes) actually as someone on the ballot. Hell, submit a blank ballot to screw with statistics. If enough people did it you'd potentially see a winning candidate with a negligable fraction of the vote because so many people submitted blank ballots. Not going to change things, neccesarily, but makes a statement. Or vote for yourself. Vote for a fake candidate. Any of those options give you the legitimate gripe that you *tried* to change things but your guy didn't win. Otherwise you have nothing.
So yes, if you don't vote you have no right to complain.
-Trillian
So what? I realize you didn't say this in your post, but the implicit message I get (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that because these books aren't "meaningful" it's somehow less important that they're banned.
Ignoring the fact that 'meaningful' is subjective for the moment, so what? They're culture and banning culture at any governmental level is never okay.
-Trillian
It wasn't clear to me how the list was ranked. Anyone have more info?
Offtopic, I think it's disgusting how expensive short-term Internet access is. If Panera can give it away for free, don't lie through your teeth and tell me it costs $10 for 24/hr access at O'Hare, one of the busiest airports in the world. (Obviously, the answer is "I want lots of money" but that doesn't make me like it...)
That said, it is a good list.
-Trillian
I still think your original point is right. I do agree with what MankyD said: If you don't want someone to know about your relationship status, don't put it online. *HOWEVER*, there is still a difference, both subjectively and objectively, between "not privite" and "announced." For example, there is a difference between posting to a blog or LiveJournal (or, up until now, facebook) and emailing or messaging everyone in your address book (or all your Facebook friends, or whatever). For the former, any damn person can still see what you said/did/posted. For the latter, every person gets a specific notification. Yes, there are similarities, and YES, if you don't want anyone knowing about whatever you should not post it. But in one situation you had to actively seek the knowledge, in the other it was presented whether you would have cared or not. Even if you (plural, in general, not you, BusDriver) don't have a problem with the changes I don't see how you simply can't understand why someone else might.
As someone posted elsewhere in the thread, formerly Facebook did X and Y (doesn't matter what X and Y specifically are). Now, without asking, Facebook does X, Y, and Z. It's irrelevant if Y and Z are similar, or if Z just made Y more public. People weren't expecting Z and are allowed to dislike Z. I don't see how someone could argue otherwise.
-Trillian
I'm interested in building a MythTV box and was wondering what, if any, DVR-type stuff have you done with the machines built from that guide.
Thanks!
-Trillian
These are issues other people have responded to elsewhere in this thread, but I wanted to address some of your points specifically.
"Unlimited service means that you can access any website you wish. We do not limit what websites you can visit."
Well, if that's how you've contractually defined "unlimited" then yes.
"I disagree with that definition as well, but, that's what it says in the TOS. I have only thrown that in ONE person's face in 3 years of ISP service -- and it was a college twit who had already canceled his service. It also says that if your connection is causing a "network issue", we have the right (and, in truth, the duty) to correct the issue."
Okay. It sounds like you've contractually defined "unlimited" as (something along the lines of) "you will always have Internet access, but we're not guaranteeing speeds, ever, period end-of-story." And if the TOS says that, then you're not doing anything *illegal* by throttling user speeds. However, if you advertisements in any way resemble "Unlimited Internet Access!" you're being unethical by playing off a common understand of what 'unlimited' means in reference to net access and may (obligatory IANAL) be advertising falsley, depending on how the adverts are worded.
You then talk about your most common bandwidth hogs. Again, if they are actually breaking their TOS (and I have no doubt they are) you have every legal right to limit their connection. But, again, if you're advertising "Unlimited Internet Access" and don't - in plain English and large letters - explain exactly what that means, I'd say it's unethical to protest when the customers try to use their Internet access without limits.
"As customers and responsible netizens, you are required to do hold yourself up to a certain standard. That means no sending George Bush death threats nor offers to buy him remedial reading books, no trolling slashdot, no getting infected with trojans, etc. This, of course, also includes not causing the locally owned and operated ISP to implode because you want to steal the latest Eminem album and are setting up 1000 connections at 0.01k a second to do it."
Hm. I don't recall reading most of those issues in the TOS. The first (death threats) is a legal issue outside of what medium it's sent over (phone, email, snail mail) the second and third are well within the limits set out by being a "customer" and "netizen" and the last is stupid and obnoxious but I don't know if I'd consder anyone with a trojan failing to hold themselves to the "standard" of a "netizen." but then you get back to talking about andwidth. Look, I sympathize. I really do. I honestly want locally owned and operated business to succeed around me, and feel for you guys elsewhere. But if you didn't clearly (in plain English) explain why "unlimited" really meant "with limits" then you get to share part (not all) of the blame for the upset user.
"As a responsible ISP, we are required to keep everyone running as smoothly as possible. That includes, unfortunately, throttling some customers who are unwilling or unable to throttle themselves."
Smoothly as possible for who? It sounds like for yourself as a business. That's fine - I don't think that's a bad thing, in and of itself. But if a customer has falsely believes they have "unlimited" Internet access when it's actually "limited," I can understand why they'd be upset at your throttling.
"We advertise the connection that we do our throttles on as a 128k+ connection -- it's rated at 128k, we'll come out and fix it if it drops below that, but the service will go as fast as it can to the tower and back."
But if the customer uses too much you'll throttle it? Unless you're advertising that your connection is "128k, always connected, no bandwidth guarantees if you use to much, you hog" people may reasonably believe "Unlimited 128k Connection" to mean always on *and* always 128k speed. I don't think that's unreasonable!
"It's a lot more grey than simply the evil evil ISP keeping the noble linu
I'd love to see where your 36% is coming from. I am a college student, but both my parents work in education so I have *some* knowledge of how things work outside my own school. In my experience, both from my school and everything I've heard about where my parents work as well as where my friends are going to school, college bookstores are violently for-profit. For example, my school's bookstore is no longer run by the school itself, but by Barnes and Nobel (someone else in this thread said B&N's college stores pay for their megastores - I don't know enough to comment and would like to see proof, but I could imagine that math working out...)
K .html?ex=1156910400&en=9c634fe677e1fe19&ei=5070n ews/main585832.shtml3 0D15FB35550C758DDDA00894DD404482
And I can speak directly both to meaningless changes in editions and to the shoddy quality of books. As mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I've had professors hand out sheets explaining how Version 6 of a textbook is different from Version 7 (the answer being that some essays were moved around but, other than that, no changes were made). Likewise, having been in high school far too recently, textbooks always had tougher binding, at the expense of not looking quite as pretty as the books we 'get' to buy in college.
In addition, your argument that the stores' main complaint is students returning books doesn't ring true to me. The store buys enough books for most of the class to buy them and, with used books, tries to have enough on hand to not run out. Having the extra stock at the end of the buying cycle (as you say, about two weeks into class) cannot possibly be that much less obnoxious than getting returns. Having worked at bookstores (admitedly, not a college store) returns are EASY and, even if I had to go through however many hundreds of returns the college stores undoubtedly get, that cannot possibly be a big dent in their profits.
I'm gonna echo a sentiment I've seen elsewhere on this page: textbooks and the texbook industry is, more often than not, a scam. Now, I have no direct evidence of this, but everything in my experience - the 'updates' which only move things around, the bullshit shrink-wraping to include unneeded things to returns are impossible, the return policies of the school stores themselves, the quality of the actual textbooks - leads me to that conclusion. In addition, everything I've read about textbooks furthers this conclusion.
I just reread your post. In all fairness, you never said that the textbook industry *isn't* a big moneymaking scam. But the tone of your post, specifically that college stores are non-profit (ha!) led to this post. Sorry if it was a bit rambling...
-Trillian
PS - Links:
Students Find $100 Texbooks Cost $50 Overseas (needs reg but bugmenot works) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/education/21BOO
Textbook Publisher Kickback Scam?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/26/evening
Just What The Professor Ordered (needs reg, talks about 5 publishers control 80% of the market)
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F
"Why the hell should I pay more for something because of your unfounded paranoia?"
Well, um, why would it cost more to label the food with what's in it? Or, in this case, say "Hybrid Animal" or whatnot? If that does, in fact, drive down sales and in turn drive up costs, tough shit. That's how the free market works - people do or do not buy a product and the product, in turn, is or is not successfull. The GP didn't even say it was a fear of eating hybridized or genetically modified food. It may be a moral or religious issue or it may be that the GP doesn't like the idea of tinkering with genetics because of issues with crossbreeding and because we've eaten unmodified food for thousands of years (if not more) and we're not quite sure what, if anything, GM-ed food does to us.
So I have to ask you - why the hell shouldn't I be told what I'm eating?
-Trillian
"...no matter if I have 2 consoles or 3 it doesn't make the percentage increase above 100% because it is (# of console A/ # of all consoles)*100% that gives you the percentage..."
Yes, if you're looking at total numbr of consoles sold but I'd assumed the GP was talking about how many people own the consoles. In that case, it makes perfect sense to have numbers over 100%, because it's not comparative. For example, there are 100 people who own *any* next-gen console. 50 have a 360 AND a Wii, 30 have only a Wii, and 20 have only a PS3 (I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass). In that case, the Wii is in 80% of homes with a 'next gen' console, the 360 in 50% of homes, and the PS3 in 20% of homes. More than 100%, but it's okay because they're allowed to be.
The way you seem to be looking at it is total consoles sold. In my example that would be Wii with (80/150)=53%, 360 with (50/150)=33%, and PS3 with (20/150)=13%. In that case, the numbers all add up.
Now, you're right in that the linked article seemed to be talking about total console ownership rather than consoles in homes, but they're both valid ways of looking at console ownership.
-Trillian
Slightly OT, but that site doesn't load at all for me. It seems to be written entirely in flash and, being on Linux, Flash 8 (I believe) isn't available. So....rather than degrade gracefully and have certain parts of the site inaccessable, the whole damn page is one giant link to Adobe. Poo.
-Trillian
I completely respect that, outside the argument on morality, you simply don't want to do anything that may get you sued.
But the first thing you said, "Blah blah blah. Stealing v Infringement. It's a pedantic semantic argument that has been lost by your side."
Gotta disagree again....being pedantic for a moment (if I may) calling the argument pedantic implies trivial distinctions and narrow differences which aren't really that important. But in this case the differences are important both morally and legally. While we may agree to disagree on the morality of copyright infringment, I think we both agree that it is a moral issue, among other things. Likewise, the fact you're worried about getting sued means the definition is extremly important and the current vagueness surrounding it needs to be cleared up.
As I said, I'm not trying to play a semantics game. Copyright infringment and theft have different names because, well, they're two different things. Stealing a car and stealing a pack of gum are wildly different in many ways but - at a basic level - are both stealing. Stealing a car and downloading the latest episode of BSG without permission from the copyright holder are different at a very basic level and so have two different names - the former is theft while the latter is copyright infringment.
The fact that the issue is being taken up in court and that (according to some study which may or may not be bullshit) more people commit copyright infringment in the United States than voted in the 2004 presidential election means that the issue is far from decided and it's silly to say "my side" has lost.
-Trillian
PS Kudos on using 'blah blah blah' to dismiss my argument! That really addresses the issue in a way that saying "I disagree but don't really care to argue, I think your side has lost so I won't bother" really can't cover.
"Stealing the music by taking it from p2p networks doesn't appeal to me."
Not to beat a dead horse, but it's copyright infringment, not theft. From glancing at your user info page you've clearly been on Slashdot long enough to know the arguments, but for the sake of completeness:
Theft or stealing requires directly depriving the owner of something. That is, the thief now has use of the item (or money, or land, or whatnot) while the original owner does not. Copyright infringment is often argued to be theft because the infringer deprives the copyright holder of potential revenue. That is, had the song/movie/software/etc not been available through free, infringing channels the infringer would have been forced to purchase it and provide the copyright holder monetary compensation (i.e. buy the cd/dvd/etc). However, copyright infringment does not *directly* deprive the copyright holder of the song/movie/software/etc or cause them to have less money than they started with, as the copyright holder (as well has whomever is distributing the copy) still have their own copies and no money is stolen. Thus, it's not theft.
Please note, I'm not arguing morality at this point (see below for that argument). There are very strong arguments that copyright infringment, while not theft, is immoral and it is certainly illegal (at least in the United States). But it's not theft.
Now for the argument on morallity...
Not surprisingly, I think the distinction is so important because I don't place copyright infringment on the same moral level as theft. In the United States, at least, copyright is defined in the Constituion to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." I think the current copyright system is no longer for a 'limited' time in any sane fashion and, as such, have absolutely no moral qualms about infringing on old (subjectivly defined) copyrights. Thus I would say most - if not all - of the music you're talking about, the rock classics, should be fair game both constitutionally as well as morally in relation to the social contract copyright entails.
More recent copyrights are, for me, a stickier issue and one I'm still mulling over. Currently, I do infringe on recent copyrights but make an effort to purchase whatever I feel is worth the money. For example, while I download Battlestar Galactica I also make sure to buy the DVD sets when they come out. Likewise with Futurama. Arrested Development may have to be my next purchase, purely from having downloaded episodes and enjoying them enough to think they deserve my money. Now, again, their are reasonable arguments against my position and you're welcome to try and convince me I'm wrong. I've thought about it a lot, so I don't think you will convince me, but I'll try to listen with an open mind.
Please note I'm also not trying to make a semantics game to avoid calling myself a thief. I've stolen things before (including media I could have obtained through copyright infringment) and, in those cases, I was a thief. Plane and simple. However, when it comes to copyright infringment, I honestly beleive that, morally, I'm not stealing and that, in a more sane world, I wouldn't be doing anything illegal either.
Just my two cents.
-Trillian
It (Pac Man Vs) also just may have only been released with a later version of Pac Man World 2. *Shrug* I don't remember when Pac Man World 2 came out, so it's possible the bundled version was a rerelease.
-Trillian
I got it as a pack-in with Pac Man World 2 (a poorly done 3D platformer). EBGames has it for $10, which I'd say is well worth it: http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product_id=9163 63
I think I've played Pac Man World 2 maybe once or twice since buying the game, but have played Pac Man Vs tons of times with friends. The way the game works is slightly confusing at first, as you have to trade controllers when a ghost eats pac man, but is TONS of fun.
-Trillian
I'm gonna have to chime in and say that connectivity is AMAZING - when you have all the pieces. I haven't had a chance to try Four Swords or Crystal Chronicals, but Pac Man Vs., which has three players on gamecube controllers controlling ghosts on the TV screen and the 4th controlling Pac Man on the GBA, is maybe the best party game ever. It's simple, as almost everyone has played pacman, it's pretty fast-paced, it doesn't allow teams (as whenever someone eats pacman you all trade controllers, so the three players as ghosts constantly rotates)...if you already have the connectivity stuff (which, if you can play 4 Swords or Crystal Chronicals, you do) BUY THIS GAME. It was $20 used when I bought it over 2 years ago and has probably come down. It's just so much fun.
-Trillian
"Your view is simply that there is NO solution, so don't bother trying. Meanwhile I waste my time ($), money ($) and resources ($) having to deal with Spam. So, what is your brilliant suggestion? Wait until the system breaks?"
I don't think most people are saying there is *no* sollution, just that all proposed sollutions "fail" the (silly, sarcastic, and trite) 'your sollution fails because...' form and (more importantly) people are unwilling to put up with anything which can't pass the form. That is, the issues in the form pretty much cover any objections someone might come up with. For example, your sollution (which has been proposed before) requires A) trusted token vendors and B) complete email overhaul. I, for one, can't imagine a good sollution for the former (although I admit one might exist!) and simply won't put up with the latter.
If you want to create an alternate email system, no one is stopping you. Feel free to market it and, maybe, enough people will agree with you that it will take off. This isn't intended as sarcasm - many people are fed up with spam and it's possible you *could* convince enough people that an alternate emailing system is worth their while and that the initial investment (in time/money) is worth the end saving in less spam.
The way I see it the objection isn't so much "don't bother trying" as "I'm unconvinced your system will work and, while *you* are welcome to use it, I'm not going to."
You said "You must be a spammer, because anything that breaks the status quo, you are against for one of the reasons listed in your stupid checkbox. My favorite is "Sorry Dude, But I don't think it will work". My response is "sorry dude, but you are an idiot and I don't care what idiots think"." I think that's just unfair. The reasons listed in the checkbox ARE reasons - even if their expressed in a trite and obnoxious way, they are a response to your argument. You've said that you have an objection to the way the parent responded - you seem to think the checkboxes are stupid and not a valid way of arguing. That's fine, and I'd even tend to agree with you. But to dismiss them out of hand, and claim anyone who says "I don't think it will work" is "an idiot" is unfairly labeling people as well. I object to your system and, quite frankly, "Sorry dude, but I don't think it will work." Yes, because it breaks the "status quo," but to put it another way, "It breaks the email system which I successfully use to communicate with dozens (and occasionaly hundreds or thousands) of people in a non-spamming way using legitimate listservs with users who want to hear what I have to say."
Again, I don't think you're idea is *stupid*, but you haven't convinced me that I should use it.
-Trillian