or you could flip it an claim that some users on every continent get screwed.
if they did staggered release at launch time everyone gets a piece. just some continents have to wait. if they do simultaneous release only some people get a piece but no continents have to wait.
so the question is which makes more financial sense, screw some people on all continents, or dont screw 1 continent but do screw another.
in the end someone gets screwed. which makes it the status quo.
except that in the US we designed all of our cities to practically require people to use cars. i know that my town is a text book (literally) case for urban sprawl. you really have no choice but to have a car:(
maybe instead of taxing gas we could just tax vehicles based on efficiency! generally its better to solve the problem, rather than do things like tax gas to fix vehicle efficiency. you're working on the "lets tax cigarettes to get people to stop" principle which is very flawed.
are going to? i suspect this is already part of their music making software. i mean they have voice correction already, so i assume that the entire pop music making process is synthetic. software generates the song. some figure (aka person) makes the words. software fixes the crap singing. now just run popularity software and adjust!
ok first up lack of xbox live style service doesnt mean no connectivity. it just means there isnt a centralized "home". no one is saying that sony itself wont have an online component.
2nd playing ps2 or xbox games on your old console isnt a big deal. not many people are gonna go "man i never had a ps2, now that i have this ps3 im gonna go buy gt4". backwards compatability is so that parents can buy an xbox2 and not have to buy any games cuz their kid can play xbox1 games in the mean time.
good business decision sure, IF they manage to get a lot mor games working.
it amazes me people dont understand the market. revolution = innovation and fun ps3 = most powerful sytem xbox = has live.
your wife has an oath of faithfulness from you. "manufacturer" does not. obviously its morally improper to break promises.
however it still stands, the only possible harm is if someone pirates an app then spreads word about how it sucks. the actual pirating in no way harms the company. they dont loose any money, because not only is there no money, there isnt even the possibility of the comapny receiving money from that individual. its not monetary.
on the property front they dont lose property, because the property concept is just a shitty way of describing how the judicial system treats ideas. they classify them as property, which is insane because they arent physical. they are expressed in a form that is FREE to copy. property is not free to replicate.
so you cant take your ideas of physical property logical rules and apply them to digital property.
this doesnt even take into account the benefit for manufacturers from people who pirate their software and then get OTHERS to buy the software.
so on all fronts pirating digital information can truly be "no harm, no foul". key word is CAN.
its not a loss of revenue if the "thief" would have never purchased the IP to begin with.
the "murkiness" comes from the fact that the manufacturer may not be losing money at all.
for example. lets say person q decides that he needs a drafting program. so he decides that autocad is what he needs. then he realizes that in his mind its overpriced. so he steals it.
how are the manufactures of autocad harmed? they didnt lose any revenue because there was never any revenue coming from this person to begin with. you see copying software costs essentially 0.
but alas it is indeed still theft. whether or not that is morally justifiable tho is hard to tell, but only in the case where the person wouldnt buy the software to begin with.
it IS indeed morally wrong to pirate software when you would pay for it if you had no other choice. but the situation of refusing to pay for it ever also exists.
actually corporations where created as public trusts initially. the first corporations where made to do things like build bridges and such. furthermore they had limited terms. and orginally corporations did not have the rights of a person.
doesnt sound like "legal bodies created by and for capitalists to promote their capitalism". check out some history of corporations!
helping people doesnt have to be giving them things. weaning them IS helping them by your own admisssion.
again getting away from fattening food is HARD to do. it requires extra work, ESP when you're poor. ever notice how practically all processed food has corn syrup? thats just one example of the crap people are provided as food in the super market. cigarettes are HIGHLY addictive, i'd venture that the MAJORITY of smokers would rather NOT smoke. cigs are like crack, you get started, maybe spending 20 bucks a month on them, then you get addicted and you spend ridiculous amounts.
blame cig companies for PURPOSELY making cigs addictive. again another level of oppression. sure its a mistake to smoke in the first place, but that gives no one a right to chain you to it through addiction.
the same can be said for people that drink to much, they are basically addicted, as evidenced by the need for support programs to help them quit.
again sure people are responsible for this, they obviously started smoking or drinking or whatever, but much of the ongoingnes is because of oppression.
i'll even answer unsafe sex. wouldnt it be a good idea to teach EVERYONE how to have safe sex, for the GOOD of EVERYONE? instead we have oppressors who would contend that you shouldnt teach kids about sex.
and i never said people in poverty cant escape poverty, or at least didnt mean to. i contend that the road blocks are great. definately overcomeable, but certainly not as easy as not having to face them at all. and i contend that the roadblocks exist for the sake of other people.
as i say in my post to another response, wealth is limited (sure it may expand over time, but at any given moment it has bounds). therefore for every rich person their MUST be a poor person. capitalism in the modern day is a pyramid, those at the top stand on the shoulders of those below. some people choose to stand on the bottom, others are born there and have a LONG climb to reach the same level as others.
and for the record fed min wage is <12k per year salary for a 40 hr work week. so blame EVERYONE that makes more than 120k per year for contributing to poverty!
not to mention that as you elevate the pyramid at the bottom, the middle will elevate as well. what is good for poor people is good for everyone!
basically im saying people deserve chances to recover from their mistakes. so you made some bad choices, you got hooked on cigs and ate a bunch of convenient junk food, that doesnt mean you should be made to live in the field that you sewed, not when someone else is living lavishly:)
social programs CAN be a waste in the context of giving fish, and in practice this is largely how it works, but this serves a purpose of oppression. social programs CAN be insanely valuable by teaching people to fish, the question is why arent all programs educational in this way?
the point isnt that its not possible, its that people horde wealth, which causes others to be poor.
and there you go, you can leave mcdonalds but others have to "take what they can get"....why should what they can get NOT be the same education you where able to get? this is the point exactly, the poor person due to situation is made to work harder for less, simply because someone else is taking the difference.
and you act like wealth is limitless, it has bounds (which may expand over time but at all moments there are bounds). so for ea person who makes more than average someone MUST make less. ea millionaire is balanced out by scores of poverty people.
i mean this is WHY we have capitilism, because its SUPPOSED to efficiently alocated SCARCE resources, aka limited resources.
just go ask your friends who have done it, sk them how hard they worked to do it, and compare that to even your own level of work and pay.
you also dont realize that 40 hour week * 6 per hour (> fed min wage) *52 weeks (assuming 0 time away from work) = 12480......now tell me who deserves only 12.5k a YEAR for working full time at MCDONALDS, or some other craptastic min wage job.
lets just assume they make DOUBLE that!!! oooh 25k a year, now we are talking....SMALL dollars here.
its RIDICULOUS that you can work full time and make so little money.
the reason the problem exists is because of greed and corruption. one rich persons greed and corruption causes at least one other person to be poor. this is the flaw of all economic systems, corruption. so as long as some corrupt people exist, oppression will exist.
for example average ceo makes 426x the average corporate employee. is a ceo really worth 426 people? NO!
open your eyes and use common sense. think outside the box you have fabricated for yourself, remove the boundries of your perspective. neither of us is 100% correct, so we both must learn.
Slashdot Mirror
or you could flip it an claim that some users on every continent get screwed.
if they did staggered release at launch time everyone gets a piece. just some continents have to wait.
if they do simultaneous release only some people get a piece but no continents have to wait.
so the question is which makes more financial sense, screw some people on all continents, or dont screw 1 continent but do screw another.
in the end someone gets screwed. which makes it the status quo.
this wasnt blatantly obvious when they announced the tiered pricing?
everyone i told that to went "so they caved in to the record labels?"
yeah its an easy source of money because not many people argue that cigarettes should be cheaper.
:)
its still bullshit tho!
note- i dont smoke
yes but by taxing gas you ALSO tax people who drive more. so its not quite the same.
because it isnt illegal to run a tracker there!
except that in the US we designed all of our cities to practically require people to use cars. :(
i know that my town is a text book (literally) case for urban sprawl. you really have no choice but to have a car
maybe instead of taxing gas we could just tax vehicles based on efficiency! generally its better to solve the problem, rather than do things like tax gas to fix vehicle efficiency. you're working on the "lets tax cigarettes to get people to stop" principle which is very flawed.
Capacitance Tolerance: -20 to +40%
Endurance: Capacitance Change: ±30% of initial measured value
so potentially HALF the capacitance after 1000 hours (<42 days)?
still tho they are so small it prolly doesnt matter.
are going to? i suspect this is already part of their music making software.
i mean they have voice correction already, so i assume that the entire pop music making process is synthetic.
software generates the song. some figure (aka person) makes the words. software fixes the crap singing. now just run popularity software and adjust!
ok first up lack of xbox live style service doesnt mean no connectivity. it just means there isnt a centralized "home". no one is saying that sony itself wont have an online component.
2nd playing ps2 or xbox games on your old console isnt a big deal. not many people are gonna go "man i never had a ps2, now that i have this ps3 im gonna go buy gt4". backwards compatability is so that parents can buy an xbox2 and not have to buy any games cuz their kid can play xbox1 games in the mean time.
good business decision sure, IF they manage to get a lot mor games working.
it amazes me people dont understand the market.
revolution = innovation and fun
ps3 = most powerful sytem
xbox = has live.
so pick what you want to do and use that system.
higher level intellegence, or just randomness.
ever consider that maybe its all just a big coincidence? its equally as plausible.
thanks for the list, damn fine list it is!
or maybe it being hard to explain is based on indoctirnation. thats a clue of oppression.
well i wouldnt have to pirate from my friends, because they would jsut give it to me.
and did you ever stop to consider that maybe its moreally wrong for the manufacturer to deny people on the basis of greed to begin with?
maybe all this pirating takes place in a society that already has cheap and easy rationalization of its greed!
your wife has an oath of faithfulness from you. "manufacturer" does not.
obviously its morally improper to break promises.
however it still stands, the only possible harm is if someone pirates an app then spreads word about how it sucks. the actual pirating in no way harms the company. they dont loose any money, because not only is there no money, there isnt even the possibility of the comapny receiving money from that individual. its not monetary.
on the property front they dont lose property, because the property concept is just a shitty way of describing how the judicial system treats ideas. they classify them as property, which is insane because they arent physical. they are expressed in a form that is FREE to copy. property is not free to replicate.
so you cant take your ideas of physical property logical rules and apply them to digital property.
this doesnt even take into account the benefit for manufacturers from people who pirate their software and then get OTHERS to buy the software.
so on all fronts pirating digital information can truly be "no harm, no foul". key word is CAN.
mmmm you said 21264!!
nice post d00d
yeah thanks for blastin on your parent post by limbaugh :)
its not a loss of revenue if the "thief" would have never purchased the IP to begin with.
the "murkiness" comes from the fact that the manufacturer may not be losing money at all.
for example. lets say person q decides that he needs a drafting program. so he decides that autocad is what he needs. then he realizes that in his mind its overpriced. so he steals it.
how are the manufactures of autocad harmed? they didnt lose any revenue because there was never any revenue coming from this person to begin with. you see copying software costs essentially 0.
but alas it is indeed still theft. whether or not that is morally justifiable tho is hard to tell, but only in the case where the person wouldnt buy the software to begin with.
it IS indeed morally wrong to pirate software when you would pay for it if you had no other choice. but the situation of refusing to pay for it ever also exists.
yeah if I can get first post we have problems.
by we i mean SUN!
fp?
actually corporations where created as public trusts initially. the first corporations where made to do things like build bridges and such. furthermore they had limited terms. and orginally corporations did not have the rights of a person.
doesnt sound like "legal bodies created by and for capitalists to promote their capitalism".
check out some history of corporations!
other than that you're pretty much right tho!
actually its just cuz you dont have skills.
:|
practice makes perfect!
hahah
seriously tho, the more im around high end equipment the more im able to recognize the difference in sound quality.
its a blessing and a curse
helping people doesnt have to be giving them things. weaning them IS helping them by your own admisssion.
:)
again getting away from fattening food is HARD to do. it requires extra work, ESP when you're poor. ever notice how practically all processed food has corn syrup? thats just one example of the crap people are provided as food in the super market.
cigarettes are HIGHLY addictive, i'd venture that the MAJORITY of smokers would rather NOT smoke. cigs are like crack, you get started, maybe spending 20 bucks a month on them, then you get addicted and you spend ridiculous amounts.
blame cig companies for PURPOSELY making cigs addictive. again another level of oppression. sure its a mistake to smoke in the first place, but that gives no one a right to chain you to it through addiction.
the same can be said for people that drink to much, they are basically addicted, as evidenced by the need for support programs to help them quit.
again sure people are responsible for this, they obviously started smoking or drinking or whatever, but much of the ongoingnes is because of oppression.
i'll even answer unsafe sex. wouldnt it be a good idea to teach EVERYONE how to have safe sex, for the GOOD of EVERYONE? instead we have oppressors who would contend that you shouldnt teach kids about sex.
and i never said people in poverty cant escape poverty, or at least didnt mean to. i contend that the road blocks are great. definately overcomeable, but certainly not as easy as not having to face them at all.
and i contend that the roadblocks exist for the sake of other people.
as i say in my post to another response, wealth is limited (sure it may expand over time, but at any given moment it has bounds). therefore for every rich person their MUST be a poor person.
capitalism in the modern day is a pyramid, those at the top stand on the shoulders of those below. some people choose to stand on the bottom, others are born there and have a LONG climb to reach the same level as others.
and for the record fed min wage is <12k per year salary for a 40 hr work week. so blame EVERYONE that makes more than 120k per year for contributing to poverty!
not to mention that as you elevate the pyramid at the bottom, the middle will elevate as well. what is good for poor people is good for everyone!
basically im saying people deserve chances to recover from their mistakes. so you made some bad choices, you got hooked on cigs and ate a bunch of convenient junk food, that doesnt mean you should be made to live in the field that you sewed, not when someone else is living lavishly
social programs CAN be a waste in the context of giving fish, and in practice this is largely how it works, but this serves a purpose of oppression. social programs CAN be insanely valuable by teaching people to fish, the question is why arent all programs educational in this way?
oppression is evil.
the point isnt that its not possible, its that people horde wealth, which causes others to be poor.
and there you go, you can leave mcdonalds but others have to "take what they can get"....why should what they can get NOT be the same education you where able to get? this is the point exactly, the poor person due to situation is made to work harder for less, simply because someone else is taking the difference.
and you act like wealth is limitless, it has bounds (which may expand over time but at all moments there are bounds). so for ea person who makes more than average someone MUST make less. ea millionaire is balanced out by scores of poverty people.
i mean this is WHY we have capitilism, because its SUPPOSED to efficiently alocated SCARCE resources, aka limited resources.
just go ask your friends who have done it, sk them how hard they worked to do it, and compare that to even your own level of work and pay.
you also dont realize that 40 hour week * 6 per hour (> fed min wage) *52 weeks (assuming 0 time away from work) = 12480......now tell me who deserves only 12.5k a YEAR for working full time at MCDONALDS, or some other craptastic min wage job.
lets just assume they make DOUBLE that!!! oooh 25k a year, now we are talking....SMALL dollars here.
its RIDICULOUS that you can work full time and make so little money.
and the rest that didnt get posted :( :
the reason the problem exists is because of greed and corruption. one rich persons greed and corruption causes at least one other person to be poor. this is the flaw of all economic systems, corruption. so as long as some corrupt people exist, oppression will exist.
for example average ceo makes 426x the average corporate employee. is a ceo really worth 426 people? NO!
open your eyes and use common sense. think outside the box you have fabricated for yourself, remove the boundries of your perspective. neither of us is 100% correct, so we both must learn.