""The whole thing is support by relatively unobtrusive contextual ads."
Kinda demonstrates the case against p2p file transfers..."
Kinda demonstrates the case against relatively unobtrusive contextual adds.
Oh? Say whatever you want but real infringement of rights have some form of consequence in the real world. And creating duplicates of something that was initially free of cost, except in a purely (outdated) legal sense, does not. The only thing that the torrenters have done to radiohead on this album is screwed with their stats. And it looks like they have the stats anyway; so what does it matter? The whole point of laws that right private wrongs like this is when the private wrongs actually have consequence. Radiohead will never know one way or another whether or not I'm just trolling and making all this up; nor will anyone else especially once I get the hirez vynil. What radiohead *will* know is their bank account will be more full, since
a) since the ISP will not charge them as much as they could have been charged
b) another box set is sold
and I'm pretty sure they, the copyright holders, have nothing wrong with *that*.
Oh and forgot the second part; my computer died during the next week or so. Now I don't think I even have the original file, so it's unclear whether I dreampt the whole thing(ie, not only does it probably not affect radiohead, but it doesn't seem to affect me either. A thousandth of a square inch on a hard drive platter had a different magnetic encoding than it would have otherwise had, that's about it- I haven't heard the album yet). So who does it affect? Other torrenters? Perhaps; but the affect of any one person in a torrent cloud is so utterly minimal, once the cloud gets beyond a certain size. I may have saved someone a minute or two of downloading time, that's about it. Where's the consequence? Prove there's some sort of a meaningful consequence here and I'll buy a solid copy of "OK Computer".
If I and 6 others download a full album off of radiohead's site, radiohead has to pay for the bandwidth. If I download it from radiohead's site(as I was about to do; I have hatched a plan with kurzweilfreak(am I confusing you with someone else?) to get their box set with vynil in the not too distant future, may as well hear what it sounds like first) --- and then upload it to 6 others, the result is pretty much exactly the same, only they save themselves some money. How is this piracy, exactly -- I'm saving radiohead money?
(IANAL) "I'd let them buy it from me at normal cost" That course of action would lead you to be a criminal, or at the very least instantly lose your legitimate title to the domain. Do *not* under any circumstances offer a price. That's how microsoft got Mike Rowe, and how other large corporations worldwide have gotten many other domains. As soon as you name a price you are a domain hijacker. This isn't just an american law; it has happened pretty much worldwide with the same consistent results, afaik.
Sounds like they are just selling tickets around the equilibrium price, while ticketmaster refuses to. Hell they even use google adwords instead of using much more annoying ads. What's not to love? And how is that 'artificial demand'? There's nothing artificial about their profit, if they can afford operations on the scale you're talking about.
Pigovian style taxes will help pay for medical care, social programs for the poor, sustainability projects; and cut down on uneconomic consumption. Your example shows exactly why pigovian taxes would work, assuming the gov't could be kept accountable(say, through mass sousveillance)
Have comcast/rogers customers used the methods you imply? Or is the only reason their customer aren't doing this because there is still some crumbs of competition left in their area(usually in form of local DSL monopolies)?
If it's making him unhappy, how are we to know, otherwise? We should eventually eliminate his job, through automation, if it's a cause of suffering. If he doesn't enjoy it, chances are the next person in his position won't either. Communication is the exact thing that differentiates us from other animals. This is an example. There's a good chance the field he is in is overcrowded with people. So his post is evidence not to go into his field of endeavor. Judging from other posts in this thread, perhaps the whole IT industry could still loose some bodies and come out just fine. Perhaps 1st year university students should go into math, rather than CS, or CS instead of Software Engineering. In general, his situation, when viewed on a broader context, is a symptom of overpopulation on the world stage. His situation is a reason why we should use birth control.
There's benefits to his talking about his problems on an open forum such as this, which you are trying to remove from us. They may not be much, admittedly, but I don't think you're giving him credit for even that much.
what do I think? The more stories like this I read, the more I see consumption of goods and services as a necessary evil, something to minimize. I used to see waitresses as essentially fetish-objects of their customers, and have an extremely hard time going to restaurants, since doing so only ensures that there will continue to be people forced into being waitresses through the market. Now I'm starting to see more, and more jobs in the same light. His position is one that may need replacement, and soon.
What do you think the probability that the courts might make a crazy judgement would be?
If you compare the foresight exchange claims T2007 and SCOLIN, you get the idea that it's more likely that IBM will beat SCO than it is that we would ever see 2007. Despite the latter probably depended on the former. It's probably more likely that "Novell would beat SCO" than "the sun will rise tomorrow" by that measurement
No idea about your other questions
Imho, Michael Crawford is actually fairly good. I mean, if you go in expecting guns & roses or tool or something, you may not be impressed, but the same mathematics(metamathmatics?) that is inherent in his music is the same stuff that makes guys like Bach and Beethoven still worth listening to after all these years. It's Not just repetition. It's pattern with depth.
In my experience some musicians just have natural talent, and you can tell because even before the formal training beats it out of them. They just sound good. Michael is one of those artists. Him and Asenath Waite(sp?) (...by SERVER, I wish I could find her now that she's had a few years to work on her music, but I digress.)
It's a shame he's done so little, but he sounds like a busy guy. I wish I could go back and do more music, too, but life kinda gets in the way
Do we trust money at all? Money is a tool--do we trust our tools? Or do we trust ourselves, and our understanding of the physical world? Do we trust money, or do we trust the members in the society that makes use of it? Even so -- how much we 'trust money' is an essential function of the operation of these same banks (although in the larger picture, how much trust 'we' put in in those bits/peices of paper pretty much conforms to the opinion of the Fed/bank of canada's opinion). As far as my point; it doesn't change--creating instances of this class of tool of which we trust is a task normally done by the bank, but in this case is done by someone, accidentally, other than a bank. If the bank can do so(to some extent) without breaching that trust, so can that person. However; if the bank *is* breaching this trust (but in acceptable limits imposed by the fed/bank of canada, say), then that person too is breaching the trust.
But still; trust it to do what, exactly? Allocate resources efficiently? For 20$ of mis-freed cash, that's an insignificant drop in the allocative efficiency of the system; much worse to the allocative efficiency of the system would be the hiring of another teller. 20$ would be what, a ten thousanth of a billionth of the allocative efficiency of a system which is horrendously inefficient, is misallocated, slightly. But I digress...
The thing with this story, that differentiates it from other (legitimate) businesses, is that this concerns banks. Banks *create* money. Both in Canada, and in the US, banks are able to lend out more than they have; effectively printing their own money. In canada they do not actually have any money at all stored in their vaults, to correspond to your bank account(in the US, afaik, they need to keep 10% of what you deposited, printing only 90% of the money you withdrawl/deposit from them). They'll have some small-cash hanging around here and there, but your bank account is purely fictional. There's two ways you can think about this
1) it's immoral for the banks to create fictional money, just as it's immoral for induviduals to create fictional money from their mistakes.
2) it's moral for the banks to 'create money', just as it's moral for induviduals to 'create money' from their mistakes
With the coming of digital cash, this situation gets even stranger; I've been working at my current job for over 6 months now; I've not seen a single cent from my efforts. I've worked quite a lot of hours, yet, the "money" involved is a change in a data entry on two(+) computer systems (work, bank), and then another change in a data entry on two other computer systems (bank, student loans). Some of what I had saved earlier eventually makes it's way to the point where it can be used via debit card(food,rent), however the point of this story is there's no actual money involved. The whole system of incentives, rewards and such is entirely simulated. None of this is real. This whole discussion is pointless! The banks create whatever fucking reality they want.
1) This *will* eventually lead to development in technology. It is now inevidable.
2) This *will* lead to "liberalization" of religious views. The catholic church has *nothing* on SERVER, and it's infinite supply of dirty pictures.
3) Maybe, just maybe, this might help stave off overpopulation. I, for one, probably wouldn't have had my vasectomy had it not been for my porn fueled clearheaded thinking (thank you autopr0n!)...
...proof? your website seems to be a linkfarm and although you seem to know what you're talking about, I don't see any evidence of this...I'm trying to take you seriously, that's all.
"GPL 3 reaches past this (some would say overreaches), and controls attempts to control the hardware designs of the user."
Where does this myth keep coming from? You've posted at least two posts on this thread saying this. The GPL3 does no such thing. Have you even read the license? You can do whatever you want with your hardware that you distribute with the GPL3. If you're going to restrict the use of your hardware to signed software, you must take addition measures, but those measures do not have anything to do with the hardware side. There's absolutely no change to the hardware involved, whatsoever.
Just bought a pair of Porn on Beta CDs myself. Unlike the RIAA, Cimmerian's RantMedia has done quite a bit for the surrounding internet community, and his band kicks ass to boot.
"A combination of
low quality hardware,
poor digitising algorithms,
and sloppy mixing
does produce audibly awful results compared with say an inexpensive 12 track mixer and a good old tape recorder."
Bach's music is not brilliant because he recorded in digital surround(if anything, he recorded on paper, and the minds and souls of his followers), it is brilliant because of the inherent structure within the music itself. Yes, the organs used to play it were (and that are used to play it) are awesome and fantastic(see Wendy Carlos), but the same music seed could be written for a smaller device, and grow to make use of a larger; a scaleable work. God alone can create the organ worthy of a Bach; all else is close approximation; human imperfection. I do not claim to write music, or that I will ever be able to write music on that level. But that is my goal. And I plan to do so with the ubiquitious hardware that I knew would be available eventually; ie crappy computers.
Some music makes sense only to the artist(guilty as charged here), others seem to take a community and act as a catalyst of thought or action for that community(study music, another of my interests, is included here, along with rap, moving political music(most of bob dylan?), and so on). These three types of musical art(brilliant, self-delusional/nihlist, social) are examples of music that is orthogonal to your 3 criteria.
Thank you for allowing me to bring clarity and focus to an otherwise busy and complicated life by posing such a delicious example of why it is I strive so hard.
I've been homeless! Who the hell are you to tell me that I shouldn't be able to vote? I was working a lot at the time(and wound up sleeping in the attic at work and in parking lots). I did pay taxes that year(although I wasn't making enough to pay income tax, since I was a tuition paying university student). Yes, there are homeless people who do not contribute. But there are people out there who are homeless who do work, who are just trying to make ends meet, and who probably contribute more (and consume less) than your average SUV driving tv watching normal.
Some places have housing markets that are behaving not exactly rational right now(mostly imho due to the ability of people to buy houses they cannot afford through mortages, inflating the market price of houses, coupled with the current architectural trend to create houses in suburbs with extremely low population density and exceptionally high transportation cost). Right now in my hometown(Regina, Canada) rental housing is being closed down wholesale(and rents rising at a proportional rate) to make way for people from Alberta to just buy up large amounts of houses, not to live in, but for speculative purposes. This means less housing for the people who could be living in houses, less supply, and higher prices. Higher prices that some just will not be able to afford, and they will be a) put into a telescoping amount of debt or b) out on their own, unless they freeze to death, which is likely.
Who is more deserving of the Vote; a homeless person who works, or a lazy video gamer who leeches off their parents? People on welfare/social assistance? The paralyzed and handicapped, but otherwise intelligent(an important question for the US, with the existance of 200,000 maimed soldiers, and their uranium-disfigured children)? What about people who don't own any property? Where do we draw the line?
Secondly, taking the vote away from homeless people turns the homeless into refugees, and the existance of refugees is a major global problem right now. You know, the kind of "real issue" that affects your community. We do not need to make more refugees, we need to help raise refugees out of their current status. The externalities that come from the mere existance of refugees(political instability, etc) weigh on all economies that are affected by them.
As for soup kitchens; it must be nice to know that you're never going to be that poor. Your job can dissapear, either due to automation or an odd business cycle swing and you will be left with Nothing. In fact it's my career goal and the career of probably many of us here to put as many people out of work as possible. This is what I will be doing for a living, assuming that I'm good enough, at some point. At that point the only thing that will keep you alive is the soup kitchens, the food banks, etc. You better pray that someone keeps them running, because when your job dissapears(and it will, it may be after you die, but it will), you will need it.
My only consolation is that you are probably a yank, and I don't live in the US, so I'm probably safe for the time being from the negative effects of this kind of thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Trusted Computing solves this how?
""The whole thing is support by relatively unobtrusive contextual ads."
Kinda demonstrates the case against p2p file transfers..."
Kinda demonstrates the case against relatively unobtrusive contextual adds.
Oh? Say whatever you want but real infringement of rights have some form of consequence in the real world. And creating duplicates of something that was initially free of cost, except in a purely (outdated) legal sense, does not. The only thing that the torrenters have done to radiohead on this album is screwed with their stats. And it looks like they have the stats anyway; so what does it matter? The whole point of laws that right private wrongs like this is when the private wrongs actually have consequence. Radiohead will never know one way or another whether or not I'm just trolling and making all this up; nor will anyone else especially once I get the hirez vynil. What radiohead *will* know is their bank account will be more full, since
a) since the ISP will not charge them as much as they could have been charged
b) another box set is sold
and I'm pretty sure they, the copyright holders, have nothing wrong with *that*.
Oh and forgot the second part; my computer died during the next week or so. Now I don't think I even have the original file, so it's unclear whether I dreampt the whole thing(ie, not only does it probably not affect radiohead, but it doesn't seem to affect me either. A thousandth of a square inch on a hard drive platter had a different magnetic encoding than it would have otherwise had, that's about it- I haven't heard the album yet). So who does it affect? Other torrenters? Perhaps; but the affect of any one person in a torrent cloud is so utterly minimal, once the cloud gets beyond a certain size. I may have saved someone a minute or two of downloading time, that's about it. Where's the consequence? Prove there's some sort of a meaningful consequence here and I'll buy a solid copy of "OK Computer".
If I and 6 others download a full album off of radiohead's site, radiohead has to pay for the bandwidth. If I download it from radiohead's site(as I was about to do; I have hatched a plan with kurzweilfreak(am I confusing you with someone else?) to get their box set with vynil in the not too distant future, may as well hear what it sounds like first) --- and then upload it to 6 others, the result is pretty much exactly the same, only they save themselves some money. How is this piracy, exactly -- I'm saving radiohead money?
(IANAL)
"I'd let them buy it from me at normal cost"
That course of action would lead you to be a criminal, or at the very least instantly lose your legitimate title to the domain. Do *not* under any circumstances offer a price. That's how microsoft got Mike Rowe, and how other large corporations worldwide have gotten many other domains. As soon as you name a price you are a domain hijacker. This isn't just an american law; it has happened pretty much worldwide with the same consistent results, afaik.
Sounds like they are just selling tickets around the equilibrium price, while ticketmaster refuses to. Hell they even use google adwords instead of using much more annoying ads. What's not to love? And how is that 'artificial demand'? There's nothing artificial about their profit, if they can afford operations on the scale you're talking about.
Pigovian style taxes will help pay for medical care, social programs for the poor, sustainability projects; and cut down on uneconomic consumption. Your example shows exactly why pigovian taxes would work, assuming the gov't could be kept accountable(say, through mass sousveillance)
"people assume open source = GPL" ...as RMS spins in his grave
Have comcast/rogers customers used the methods you imply? Or is the only reason their customer aren't doing this because there is still some crumbs of competition left in their area(usually in form of local DSL monopolies)?
how about something in a format unencumbered by non-free algorithms?
If it's making him unhappy, how are we to know, otherwise? We should eventually eliminate his job, through automation, if it's a cause of suffering. If he doesn't enjoy it, chances are the next person in his position won't either. Communication is the exact thing that differentiates us from other animals. This is an example. There's a good chance the field he is in is overcrowded with people. So his post is evidence not to go into his field of endeavor. Judging from other posts in this thread, perhaps the whole IT industry could still loose some bodies and come out just fine. Perhaps 1st year university students should go into math, rather than CS, or CS instead of Software Engineering. In general, his situation, when viewed on a broader context, is a symptom of overpopulation on the world stage. His situation is a reason why we should use birth control.
There's benefits to his talking about his problems on an open forum such as this, which you are trying to remove from us. They may not be much, admittedly, but I don't think you're giving him credit for even that much.
what do I think? The more stories like this I read, the more I see consumption of goods and services as a necessary evil, something to minimize. I used to see waitresses as essentially fetish-objects of their customers, and have an extremely hard time going to restaurants, since doing so only ensures that there will continue to be people forced into being waitresses through the market. Now I'm starting to see more, and more jobs in the same light. His position is one that may need replacement, and soon.
Professionalism does not belong in a code of ethics!
What do you think the probability that the courts might make a crazy judgement would be?
If you compare the foresight exchange claims T2007 and SCOLIN, you get the idea that it's more likely that IBM will beat SCO than it is that we would ever see 2007. Despite the latter probably depended on the former. It's probably more likely that "Novell would beat SCO" than "the sun will rise tomorrow" by that measurement
No idea about your other questions
Mutual funds. Pensions. Your parents and grandparents retirement funds. And of course, Microsoft.
You should post some contact info for that guy, I'm struck up for cash but others in my situation might not be...
Imho, Michael Crawford is actually fairly good. I mean, if you go in expecting guns & roses or tool or something, you may not be impressed, but the same mathematics(metamathmatics?) that is inherent in his music is the same stuff that makes guys like Bach and Beethoven still worth listening to after all these years. It's Not just repetition. It's pattern with depth.
In my experience some musicians just have natural talent, and you can tell because even before the formal training beats it out of them. They just sound good. Michael is one of those artists. Him and Asenath Waite(sp?) (...by SERVER, I wish I could find her now that she's had a few years to work on her music, but I digress.)
It's a shame he's done so little, but he sounds like a busy guy. I wish I could go back and do more music, too, but life kinda gets in the way
Do we trust money at all? Money is a tool--do we trust our tools? Or do we trust ourselves, and our understanding of the physical world? Do we trust money, or do we trust the members in the society that makes use of it? Even so -- how much we 'trust money' is an essential function of the operation of these same banks (although in the larger picture, how much trust 'we' put in in those bits/peices of paper pretty much conforms to the opinion of the Fed/bank of canada's opinion). As far as my point; it doesn't change--creating instances of this class of tool of which we trust is a task normally done by the bank, but in this case is done by someone, accidentally, other than a bank. If the bank can do so(to some extent) without breaching that trust, so can that person. However; if the bank *is* breaching this trust (but in acceptable limits imposed by the fed/bank of canada, say), then that person too is breaching the trust.
But still; trust it to do what, exactly? Allocate resources efficiently? For 20$ of mis-freed cash, that's an insignificant drop in the allocative efficiency of the system; much worse to the allocative efficiency of the system would be the hiring of another teller. 20$ would be what, a ten thousanth of a billionth of the allocative efficiency of a system which is horrendously inefficient, is misallocated, slightly. But I digress...
The thing with this story, that differentiates it from other (legitimate) businesses, is that this concerns banks.
Banks *create* money. Both in Canada, and in the US, banks are able to lend out more than they have; effectively printing their own money. In canada they do not actually have any money at all stored in their vaults, to correspond to your bank account(in the US, afaik, they need to keep 10% of what you deposited, printing only 90% of the money you withdrawl/deposit from them). They'll have some small-cash hanging around here and there, but your bank account is purely fictional. There's two ways you can think about this
1) it's immoral for the banks to create fictional money, just as it's immoral for induviduals to create fictional money from their mistakes.
2) it's moral for the banks to 'create money', just as it's moral for induviduals to 'create money' from their mistakes
With the coming of digital cash, this situation gets even stranger; I've been working at my current job for over 6 months now; I've not seen a single cent from my efforts. I've worked quite a lot of hours, yet, the "money" involved is a change in a data entry on two(+) computer systems (work, bank), and then another change in a data entry on two other computer systems (bank, student loans). Some of what I had saved earlier eventually makes it's way to the point where it can be used via debit card(food,rent), however the point of this story is there's no actual money involved. The whole system of incentives, rewards and such is entirely simulated. None of this is real. This whole discussion is pointless! The banks create whatever fucking reality they want.
1) This *will* eventually lead to development in technology. It is now inevidable.
2) This *will* lead to "liberalization" of religious views. The catholic church has *nothing* on SERVER, and it's infinite supply of dirty pictures.
3) Maybe, just maybe, this might help stave off overpopulation. I, for one, probably wouldn't have had my vasectomy had it not been for my porn fueled clearheaded thinking (thank you autopr0n!)...
"But I am :)"
...proof? your website seems to be a linkfarm and although you seem to know what you're talking about, I don't see any evidence of this...I'm trying to take you seriously, that's all.
"GPL 3 reaches past this (some would say overreaches), and controls attempts to control the hardware designs of the user."
Where does this myth keep coming from? You've posted at least two posts on this thread saying this. The GPL3 does no such thing. Have you even read the license? You can do whatever you want with your hardware that you distribute with the GPL3. If you're going to restrict the use of your hardware to signed software, you must take addition measures, but those measures do not have anything to do with the hardware side. There's absolutely no change to the hardware involved, whatsoever.
Just bought a pair of Porn on Beta CDs myself. Unlike the RIAA, Cimmerian's RantMedia has done quite a bit for the surrounding internet community, and his band kicks ass to boot.
I take it you're not a fan of 8 bit peoples.
"A combination of low quality hardware, poor digitising algorithms, and sloppy mixing does produce audibly awful results compared with say an inexpensive 12 track mixer and a good old tape recorder."
Bach's music is not brilliant because he recorded in digital surround(if anything, he recorded on paper, and the minds and souls of his followers), it is brilliant because of the inherent structure within the music itself. Yes, the organs used to play it were (and that are used to play it) are awesome and fantastic(see Wendy Carlos), but the same music seed could be written for a smaller device, and grow to make use of a larger; a scaleable work. God alone can create the organ worthy of a Bach; all else is close approximation; human imperfection. I do not claim to write music, or that I will ever be able to write music on that level. But that is my goal. And I plan to do so with the ubiquitious hardware that I knew would be available eventually; ie crappy computers.
Some music makes sense only to the artist(guilty as charged here), others seem to take a community and act as a catalyst of thought or action for that community(study music, another of my interests, is included here, along with rap, moving political music(most of bob dylan?), and so on). These three types of musical art(brilliant, self-delusional/nihlist, social) are examples of music that is orthogonal to your 3 criteria.
Thank you for allowing me to bring clarity and focus to an otherwise busy and complicated life by posing such a delicious example of why it is I strive so hard.
It is privacy, and the ignorance/apathy of the community, that allows all of your examples to happen. QED.
I've been homeless! Who the hell are you to tell me that I shouldn't be able to vote? I was working a lot at the time(and wound up sleeping in the attic at work and in parking lots). I did pay taxes that year(although I wasn't making enough to pay income tax, since I was a tuition paying university student). Yes, there are homeless people who do not contribute. But there are people out there who are homeless who do work, who are just trying to make ends meet, and who probably contribute more (and consume less) than your average SUV driving tv watching normal.
Some places have housing markets that are behaving not exactly rational right now(mostly imho due to the ability of people to buy houses they cannot afford through mortages, inflating the market price of houses, coupled with the current architectural trend to create houses in suburbs with extremely low population density and exceptionally high transportation cost). Right now in my hometown(Regina, Canada) rental housing is being closed down wholesale(and rents rising at a proportional rate) to make way for people from Alberta to just buy up large amounts of houses, not to live in, but for speculative purposes. This means less housing for the people who could be living in houses, less supply, and higher prices. Higher prices that some just will not be able to afford, and they will be a) put into a telescoping amount of debt or b) out on their own, unless they freeze to death, which is likely.
Who is more deserving of the Vote; a homeless person who works, or a lazy video gamer who leeches off their parents? People on welfare/social assistance? The paralyzed and handicapped, but otherwise intelligent(an important question for the US, with the existance of 200,000 maimed soldiers, and their uranium-disfigured children)? What about people who don't own any property? Where do we draw the line?
Secondly, taking the vote away from homeless people turns the homeless into refugees, and the existance of refugees is a major global problem right now. You know, the kind of "real issue" that affects your community. We do not need to make more refugees, we need to help raise refugees out of their current status. The externalities that come from the mere existance of refugees(political instability, etc) weigh on all economies that are affected by them.
As for soup kitchens; it must be nice to know that you're never going to be that poor. Your job can dissapear, either due to automation or an odd business cycle swing and you will be left with Nothing. In fact it's my career goal and the career of probably many of us here to put as many people out of work as possible. This is what I will be doing for a living, assuming that I'm good enough, at some point. At that point the only thing that will keep you alive is the soup kitchens, the food banks, etc. You better pray that someone keeps them running, because when your job dissapears(and it will, it may be after you die, but it will), you will need it.
My only consolation is that you are probably a yank, and I don't live in the US, so I'm probably safe for the time being from the negative effects of this kind of thinking.