The point is: some things are inevitable. Digital information has the property to be transferred instantly across the world at (close to) no cost, to anyone. That's a fact, and that fact is not about to change anytime soon. So their fight against piracy is about making THEIR digital bits hard to get. It's 1000 times easier for me to pirate a movie than it is to buy it. In other words, THEY ARE INDUCING THE PIRACY THEY CLAIM TO BE FIGHTING.
Because one thing is certain: people will exchange information freely.
For the record, I stopped pirating music when Amazon sold un-DRMed MP3s you could download in a few clicks. This was actually a better experience than piracy because you have a kind-of-guarantee on the quality and that you're downloading the thing you think you're downloading. They can do it with movies too, and I'm sure piracy will decrease - which is a moot point since noone can measure piracy since a portion of it is encrypted.
And they're both unavoidable. When the car got out 100 years ago, the horse carriage industry tried to fight it. Yet, some things are unavoidable. Do anyone regret those times?
You can't forbid people to share information with other people (well, you can but that'll look worse than soviet russia). Why are they trying so hard?
Oh I'm looking at it objectively. In all objectivity, the only prediction one can make is that piracy is here to stay and NOTHING will ever deter it. It's the nature of data to flow freely.
So instead of fighting the (IMO) inevitable they should embrace it and make the best of it. But no, they'll spend down to their last penny to lobby against wet water and then go bankrupt (remember, they lobbied down to their last penny)
Note that I don't advocate piracy. I'm just stating what I think is unavoidable.
OMG, those pirates will steal from us and are the reason the whole movie industry is going bankrupt.
Bankrupt my ass, if those suckers are able to make $1000000+ on one weekend with a bullshit movie, I don't want them complaining anymore about the death of their business.
I am from Europe, not the US, and let me tell you: Nobody here thought Saddam had any kind of WMD except maybe some old scattered rusty missiles they wouldn't dare to use for fear of having them blow up to their faces.
Everyone over here thought Bush had to have some more information or some big balls. It was the later.
It won't work and you bloody well know it. Just one person in the world will crack the movie - possibly with a professional camera taping the screen if that's what it takes but more likely by taping the digital output just before the DACs in some screen or projector - and share it on bit torrent for the rest of us. The whole thing is pointless - that's for digitized analog media.
As for software, you mean to say we would need to be registered to get a "developer processor" but that won't happen because of the chicken and egg problem. They can't force the DRMized processor on anyone because zero software runs on it. They can't coerce the developers to register because it is just plain silly and pointless. A bit like IPv6 if you will but in a worse form because everyone will understand that the target situation will be far worse than the actual one while with IPv6 everyone agrees that we should get there. And look at what speed IPv6 has been going is going ! It's been there for over 17 years with everyone agreeing that we should do it for the same period.
You mean that all developers in the world would need to be authorized? That's a heck of a lot of people.
Also, what do you make of regular AVIs/MKVs/MPGs? No "authorized" player would ever be able to play them again? Impossible.
Hence, all it would take is one developer in the world to rip one movie and share it to the world on some sort of encrypted network. All this already exists, no need for anything else.
Please, stop this nonsense car analogies. Piracy is about exchanging bits, in other words, information. If you want to control that (information exchange btw people), you instantly become the most totalitarian regime that ever saw the light of day on earth in all known history. And it won't work.
The bottom line is: Nobody will ever stop piracy because it is allowed by the most basic of our privacy expectations, and every step going in the direction of stopping piracy will have exactly one effect: reduce liberty. It will have no impact on privacy. Ever. Never.
This is why it is preposterous to even try. Especially when there are other means to combat privacy that have been proven to work - competing with a good service and decent prices.
But true, the advent of piracy did remove one option from these guys: raping their customers.
Well, if in 50 years GW has resumes, I would have been wrong. If in 50 years it does not, I would have been right. Unless your graph predicts the future, it has no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong.
You graph proves one thing: The fact that the temperatures have been stable for 14 years doesn't prove GW has stopped. But it doesn't prove it hasn't either. It just basically says nothing about the future, unless you extrapolate it, in which case you make up "a" future. Yours.
Wow. Same comment all over again. So you can extrapolate this curve and deduce the temperature in 1000 years will be 354F ? If so, you're as stupid as your graph. If not it just mean one thing: the graph represent the past, and nobody know what the future is holding.
Species will go extinct. Other species will adapt.
Yeah, things change. Whheew. By the way, do we have any certainty over this? Polar bears are supposed to be extinct since quite a few years now. Still see them around.
The human way of life will change.
Huh? How? Who says?
Rise in sea levels will affect population centers.
According to previsions 20 years ago, sea should have risen by 1m right now. It didn't happen. Fuck them and their stupid extrapolations predicting doom. They are just as clueless as you and I. Maybe it's time to acknowledge it by now.
There will be economic and political battles.
Errrrrrr, is that any different than during the last 2000 years?
The biggest thing you seem to be forgetting is that we - as humans, even countries - cannot do anything that would put even a mild dent in the level of CO2 produced. WTF? Is it just for fun? Even if all of Europe stopped producing CO2 TOMORROW, it wouldn't change a thing. Asia (China, India) would pollute as much as we do/did in no time. And they don't give a flying fuck about all that. So exactly, what is the point?
And moreover, what is bad in this? Is CO2 killing the planet? Did you watch my video?
My bullshit? What bullshit? You didn't blow anything, sorry to disappoint you. The global warming seems to be in a pause, and after having had models debunked by the hundreds, scientists are not too keen on making previsions. Only politically involved "green" dumbasses claim things now. The rest know we haven't got a clue.
Your article starts with "A month after hitting its highest U.S. search market " (emphasis mine). I was answering originally to a blank statement that "Meanwhile, MSN's 3-4% of search turned into Bing's approx 28% of all searches" ith no mention of the US altogether. And trust me, Google makes more money outside the US than in the US, even though the US is hteir biggest country?
You act as if the stop of the GW was something we could deduce things from, where I argue we can't. Nobody has the first clue as to whether it will resume or not. All models pre-2000 have been proven false time and again. The point is: nobody knows.
The only thing we're finding out today is that higher levels of CO2 aren't necessarily as bad as we thought. In fact, they may be good for the planet.
Ok, and now you're going to tell me that scientists completely understand climate and the ecosystem of earth. A warmer planet at some point means more evaporation, more clouds, and bang, a colder planet. There are countless mechanisms at play here and nobody has a clue to 10% of them, so let's drop the Matrix thingy, nobody gets it.
Besides, a warmer planet and higher CO2 levels aren't necessarily bad for either the planet or its inhabitants. See here for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE
A few hundred of thousands of visitors per day over ~10 websites, but only in Europe. Note that I did not debunk his argument but asked for references. A bit more open than "Good luck living in a "frog in the well" bubble.". Guess who's in a bubble?
Apparently, nobody noticed that global warming stopped about 13 years ago... Something looks awry in this story, but then again, this is slashdot, so it is expected.
Meanwhile, MSN's 3-4% of search turned into Bing's approx 28% of all searches
You're going to have to provide a very convincing reference for that. The logs from all the websites I manage still show Google doing 15 times the rest of the competition. Not only Bing.
Your catastrophic scenario is all well and good, but we're not running out of petroleum anytime soon. Not by a very wide margin. First of all, we haven't tapped 10% of the world's reserves of petroleum so far as it turns out. Second, the reserves remaining are more expensive to extract than the ones we've tapped in so far. That makes if a bit expensive for the biggest consumers of said petroleum: cars, house heating, transportation in general. Those will migrate slowly over cheaper sources of energy when it'll make economic sense, leaving the rest of the petroleum for all the other derivatives, which don't consume all that many in the first place.
You seem to think we're going to hit a wall at some point, but no, petroleum is getting more and more expensive and as it goes up, economy and societies will adapt, nothing more, nothing less.
We use less land to farm than in the sixties, while producing more than the double food. Why do you keep watching away from this? Anybody predicting that in the 60s would have been laughed at. What makes you think this increase is going to stop? The other areas are more productive as well.
How do you determine that "Apple has less usability, less polish, and a worse user interface than their major competitor" (I mean, other that it being your own tiny opinion along with your group of Apple haters) ? Do you have any kind of reference for this assertion?
Did you forget to take into account the fact that humans have become more and more efficient at producting those goods and services by several orders of magnitude in the last century ?
If so, you can try to do it all over again, and then you'll realize the outcome is not so much the one you concluded with here.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is: some things are inevitable. Digital information has the property to be transferred instantly across the world at (close to) no cost, to anyone. That's a fact, and that fact is not about to change anytime soon. So their fight against piracy is about making THEIR digital bits hard to get. It's 1000 times easier for me to pirate a movie than it is to buy it. In other words, THEY ARE INDUCING THE PIRACY THEY CLAIM TO BE FIGHTING.
Because one thing is certain: people will exchange information freely.
For the record, I stopped pirating music when Amazon sold un-DRMed MP3s you could download in a few clicks. This was actually a better experience than piracy because you have a kind-of-guarantee on the quality and that you're downloading the thing you think you're downloading. They can do it with movies too, and I'm sure piracy will decrease - which is a moot point since noone can measure piracy since a portion of it is encrypted.
And they're both unavoidable. When the car got out 100 years ago, the horse carriage industry tried to fight it. Yet, some things are unavoidable. Do anyone regret those times?
You can't forbid people to share information with other people (well, you can but that'll look worse than soviet russia). Why are they trying so hard?
Oh I'm looking at it objectively. In all objectivity, the only prediction one can make is that piracy is here to stay and NOTHING will ever deter it. It's the nature of data to flow freely.
So instead of fighting the (IMO) inevitable they should embrace it and make the best of it. But no, they'll spend down to their last penny to lobby against wet water and then go bankrupt (remember, they lobbied down to their last penny)
Note that I don't advocate piracy. I'm just stating what I think is unavoidable.
Ok, in order: Yes, No, No.
OMG, those pirates will steal from us and are the reason the whole movie industry is going bankrupt.
Bankrupt my ass, if those suckers are able to make $1000000+ on one weekend with a bullshit movie, I don't want them complaining anymore about the death of their business.
I am from Europe, not the US, and let me tell you: Nobody here thought Saddam had any kind of WMD except maybe some old scattered rusty missiles they wouldn't dare to use for fear of having them blow up to their faces.
Everyone over here thought Bush had to have some more information or some big balls. It was the later.
It won't work and you bloody well know it. Just one person in the world will crack the movie - possibly with a professional camera taping the screen if that's what it takes but more likely by taping the digital output just before the DACs in some screen or projector - and share it on bit torrent for the rest of us. The whole thing is pointless - that's for digitized analog media.
As for software, you mean to say we would need to be registered to get a "developer processor" but that won't happen because of the chicken and egg problem. They can't force the DRMized processor on anyone because zero software runs on it. They can't coerce the developers to register because it is just plain silly and pointless. A bit like IPv6 if you will but in a worse form because everyone will understand that the target situation will be far worse than the actual one while with IPv6 everyone agrees that we should get there. And look at what speed IPv6 has been going is going ! It's been there for over 17 years with everyone agreeing that we should do it for the same period.
You mean that all developers in the world would need to be authorized? That's a heck of a lot of people.
Also, what do you make of regular AVIs/MKVs/MPGs? No "authorized" player would ever be able to play them again? Impossible.
Hence, all it would take is one developer in the world to rip one movie and share it to the world on some sort of encrypted network. All this already exists, no need for anything else.
Please, stop this nonsense car analogies. Piracy is about exchanging bits, in other words, information. If you want to control that (information exchange btw people), you instantly become the most totalitarian regime that ever saw the light of day on earth in all known history. And it won't work.
The bottom line is: Nobody will ever stop piracy because it is allowed by the most basic of our privacy expectations, and every step going in the direction of stopping piracy will have exactly one effect: reduce liberty. It will have no impact on privacy. Ever. Never.
This is why it is preposterous to even try. Especially when there are other means to combat privacy that have been proven to work - competing with a good service and decent prices.
But true, the advent of piracy did remove one option from these guys: raping their customers.
Trouble reading much?
Well, if in 50 years GW has resumes, I would have been wrong. If in 50 years it does not, I would have been right. Unless your graph predicts the future, it has no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong.
You graph proves one thing: The fact that the temperatures have been stable for 14 years doesn't prove GW has stopped. But it doesn't prove it hasn't either. It just basically says nothing about the future, unless you extrapolate it, in which case you make up "a" future. Yours.
Wow. Same comment all over again. So you can extrapolate this curve and deduce the temperature in 1000 years will be 354F ? If so, you're as stupid as your graph. If not it just mean one thing: the graph represent the past, and nobody know what the future is holding.
What does this mean for the world?
This is a very interesting question, no doubt.
Species will go extinct. Other species will adapt.
Yeah, things change. Whheew. By the way, do we have any certainty over this? Polar bears are supposed to be extinct since quite a few years now. Still see them around.
The human way of life will change.
Huh? How? Who says?
Rise in sea levels will affect population centers.
According to previsions 20 years ago, sea should have risen by 1m right now. It didn't happen. Fuck them and their stupid extrapolations predicting doom. They are just as clueless as you and I. Maybe it's time to acknowledge it by now.
There will be economic and political battles.
Errrrrrr, is that any different than during the last 2000 years?
The biggest thing you seem to be forgetting is that we - as humans, even countries - cannot do anything that would put even a mild dent in the level of CO2 produced. WTF? Is it just for fun? Even if all of Europe stopped producing CO2 TOMORROW, it wouldn't change a thing. Asia (China, India) would pollute as much as we do/did in no time. And they don't give a flying fuck about all that. So exactly, what is the point?
And moreover, what is bad in this? Is CO2 killing the planet? Did you watch my video?
My bullshit? What bullshit? You didn't blow anything, sorry to disappoint you. The global warming seems to be in a pause, and after having had models debunked by the hundreds, scientists are not too keen on making previsions. Only politically involved "green" dumbasses claim things now. The rest know we haven't got a clue.
Your article starts with "A month after hitting its highest U.S. search market " (emphasis mine). I was answering originally to a blank statement that "Meanwhile, MSN's 3-4% of search turned into Bing's approx 28% of all searches" ith no mention of the US altogether. And trust me, Google makes more money outside the US than in the US, even though the US is hteir biggest country?
You act as if the stop of the GW was something we could deduce things from, where I argue we can't. Nobody has the first clue as to whether it will resume or not. All models pre-2000 have been proven false time and again. The point is: nobody knows.
The only thing we're finding out today is that higher levels of CO2 aren't necessarily as bad as we thought. In fact, they may be good for the planet.
Yeah, a Youtube battle! I have one too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE
Your turn.
Ok, and now you're going to tell me that scientists completely understand climate and the ecosystem of earth. A warmer planet at some point means more evaporation, more clouds, and bang, a colder planet. There are countless mechanisms at play here and nobody has a clue to 10% of them, so let's drop the Matrix thingy, nobody gets it.
Besides, a warmer planet and higher CO2 levels aren't necessarily bad for either the planet or its inhabitants. See here for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE
A few hundred of thousands of visitors per day over ~10 websites, but only in Europe. Note that I did not debunk his argument but asked for references. A bit more open than "Good luck living in a "frog in the well" bubble.". Guess who's in a bubble?
Apparently, nobody noticed that global warming stopped about 13 years ago... Something looks awry in this story, but then again, this is slashdot, so it is expected.
Meanwhile, MSN's 3-4% of search turned into Bing's approx 28% of all searches
You're going to have to provide a very convincing reference for that. The logs from all the websites I manage still show Google doing 15 times the rest of the competition. Not only Bing.
Your catastrophic scenario is all well and good, but we're not running out of petroleum anytime soon. Not by a very wide margin. First of all, we haven't tapped 10% of the world's reserves of petroleum so far as it turns out. Second, the reserves remaining are more expensive to extract than the ones we've tapped in so far. That makes if a bit expensive for the biggest consumers of said petroleum: cars, house heating, transportation in general. Those will migrate slowly over cheaper sources of energy when it'll make economic sense, leaving the rest of the petroleum for all the other derivatives, which don't consume all that many in the first place.
You seem to think we're going to hit a wall at some point, but no, petroleum is getting more and more expensive and as it goes up, economy and societies will adapt, nothing more, nothing less.
We use less land to farm than in the sixties, while producing more than the double food. Why do you keep watching away from this? Anybody predicting that in the 60s would have been laughed at. What makes you think this increase is going to stop? The other areas are more productive as well.
How do you determine that "Apple has less usability, less polish, and a worse user interface than their major competitor" (I mean, other that it being your own tiny opinion along with your group of Apple haters) ? Do you have any kind of reference for this assertion?
Did you forget to take into account the fact that humans have become more and more efficient at producting those goods and services by several orders of magnitude in the last century ?
If so, you can try to do it all over again, and then you'll realize the outcome is not so much the one you concluded with here.