Organizations such as the RIAA and music labels regularly pollute these networks with nonsense files masquerading as real music/video files....as do the "renamers". I wonder if anyone has studied why such people rename files in this way?
You show your ignorance. Do a search for Sykes and Matza (1957). Citation indeces and psychology syllabi around the world feature the work. This isn't "men are from mars" stuff.
> definitions of right, wrong, moral and ethical are based on societal norms
My turn to go "ugh". Neutralisation is about ignoring these 'societal norms' so that they have no effect on the individual.
But until you've read more, I don't have time to prove you wrong.
Actually from my own research, it's much more likely that the participants knew that it was wrong but have developed fairly compex ways of justifying their activity. It's called "neutralization", whereby deviants 'neutralize' the social controls that normally inhibit illegal behaviour. This theory was originally put forward in 1957 by Sykes and Matza, and you can read about it here and here.
> Makes me wonder if the creators of shows like Robotech or comics/RPGs like Battletech have any kind of licensening rights on appearance.
This may sound like a troll, but I don't mean it that way:
Just because in this day and age people can sue other people for just about any reason, doesn't mean that everything needs to be turned into a legal issue.
If I was a member of this mecha's development team and I read this, I'd seriously be wondering whether inclusion on slashdot was really such a good thing after all.
Steve Harnad posted this to describe the problem. Text reproduced below.
[The following concerns refereed research report publication.]
What is wrong with the following picture?
(1) A brand-new PhD recipient proudly tells his mother he has just
published his first article. She asks him how much he was paid for
it. He makes a face and tells her "nothing," and then begins a long
complicated explanation.
(2) A fellow-researcher at that same university sees a reference to
that same article. He goes to their library to get it: It's not
subscribed to here; can't afford that journal; subscription budget
already overspent.
(3) An undergraduate, same university, sees the same article
cited on the Web; clicks on it. The publisher's website demands a
password: only paid subscribing institutions can have access.
(4) The undergraduate loses patience, gets bored, and clicks on
napster to grab an MP3 file of his favorite bootleg music CD to
console him in his sorrows.
(5) Years later, the same PhD is being considered for tenure; his
publications are good, but they're not cited enough; they have not
made enough of a research impact. Tenure denied.
(6) Same thing happens when he tries to get a research grant: his
research findings have not had enough of an impact: not enough
researchers have read and cited them.
(7) He decides to write a book instead. Publisher declines to
publish it: It wouldn't sell enough copies because not enough
universities have enough money to pay for it -- their purchasing
budgets are tied up paying for their inflating annual journal
subscription costs.
(8) He tries to put his articles up on the Web, free for all, to
increase their impact; his publisher threatens to sue him for
violation of copyright.
(9) He asks his publisher who the copyright is intended to protect.
(10) His publisher replies: You!
What is wrong with this picture? (And why is the mother of the PhD whose give-away work people cannot steal, even though he wants them to, in the same boat as the mother of the recording artist whose non-give-away work they can and do steal, even though he does not want them to?)
Your analogy would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that, in your terms, plenty of people are "stepping on nails" just fine without problems. Shouldn't this suggest that maybe, for some people, it's OK?
After all, you're not still wearing nappies, are you?
OK, this may seem like a troll, but is this really a problem? If the student is legitimately off campus, or misses a lecture for a good reason, there's surely no problem.
I lecture in business at a major university and we're noticing class attendance falling across the board. Some students claim they have to work in order to support themselves, and this work occasionally clashes with class. However, I'd argue many students simply don't show up because the final exam is too far away to be concerned about.
Maybe this might make students think a little harder before they cut class.
> I found that if you googled most of the CS lecture notes, most of them were plagiarized from some other school....
did you ever stop to think that maybe each school just uses the same text, which comes with its own set of lecture notes? for intro courses, there's really no point writing lecture notes from scratch: students don't take well to notes which deviate from the text, and most of the topics are similar because accreditation bodies require these topics to be taught.
> support for open standards such as WMA will let people select the music service of their choice.
This misunderstanding of WMA could be just marketing confusion, but I'd argue that many consumers would simply see this as A Good Thing. The more times something like "WMA" can be seen alongside or in the same sentence as "open standards", the greater the closed source foothold.
Letting me pick WMA is like letting me pick my master. I want freedom!
> Not likely, since sydney is The third most litigious city in the world.
ranking means nothing without contextual knowledge of the sampling frame. e.g. i am the third oldest person in my family. does that give you any indication of age? no.
The article makes one point that I think many posters here have missed.
The author is prepared to pay ~$250 for PhotoShop (or perhaps ~$100 for Elements) instead of paying nothing to use GIMP. To this user, payment is not a barrier to use (and, conversely, zero upfront dollar cost and access to the source code are not suitable motivators for use).
The two common counter-arguments I hear in this thread are (1) "you can't complain if it's free" and (2) "if you don't like it, why don't you fix it". These arguments can be mounted with any open source software product.
The cost of acquisition issue shuts down both of these arguments - the busy user doesn't have time to "fix it", and they won't bother complaining. They will simply go and spend the $250 it costs to acquire a program which meets their needs.
I'll probably burn some karma for this, but I can't help but feel that there are some out there who wave the privacy flag simply in order to justify, mask or excuse their own anti-social behaviour.
No, this isn't a troll - I just think that not every story that involves someone watching what someone else is doing shoudl have life-ending privacy concerns. In this case, you have to invite the company to watch you in the first place! If I invite, say, a plumber or electrician into my house, I'm going to have to accept the fact that they may see (shock! horror!) me going about my normal everyday business.
If some of these privacy advocates had their way, none of us would talk to or interact with anyone else *ever*.
Slashdot Mirror
Organizations such as the RIAA and music labels regularly pollute these networks with nonsense files masquerading as real music/video files. ...as do the "renamers". I wonder if anyone has studied why such people rename files in this way?
> Ugh! This is the danger of amateur psychology.
You show your ignorance. Do a search for Sykes and Matza (1957). Citation indeces and psychology syllabi around the world feature the work. This isn't "men are from mars" stuff.
> definitions of right, wrong, moral and ethical are based on societal norms
My turn to go "ugh". Neutralisation is about ignoring these 'societal norms' so that they have no effect on the individual.
But until you've read more, I don't have time to prove you wrong.
Actually from my own research, it's much more likely that the participants knew that it was wrong but have developed fairly compex ways of justifying their activity. It's called "neutralization", whereby deviants 'neutralize' the social controls that normally inhibit illegal behaviour. This theory was originally put forward in 1957 by Sykes and Matza, and you can read about it here and here.
That's nothing! My copy of WinXP fails to continue if any kind of CPU is detected!
> A MS or a PhD gets you an expertise in Computer Science not project management.
And what do you think a PhD thesis is? A project, complete with milestones, stakeholders, product review, risk, the whole bit.
> Makes me wonder if the creators of shows like Robotech or comics/RPGs like Battletech have any kind of licensening rights on appearance.
This may sound like a troll, but I don't mean it that way:
Just because in this day and age people can sue other people for just about any reason, doesn't mean that everything needs to be turned into a legal issue.
If I was a member of this mecha's development team and I read this, I'd seriously be wondering whether inclusion on slashdot was really such a good thing after all.
I think the OP was being sarcastic...
The Budapest Open Access Initiative has discussed possible business models in their FAQ.
There are also links on that page for other approaches.
has been discussed before.
Steve Harnad posted this to describe the problem. Text reproduced below.
[The following concerns refereed research report publication.]
What is wrong with the following picture?
(1) A brand-new PhD recipient proudly tells his mother he has just
published his first article. She asks him how much he was paid for
it. He makes a face and tells her "nothing," and then begins a long
complicated explanation.
(2) A fellow-researcher at that same university sees a reference to
that same article. He goes to their library to get it: It's not
subscribed to here; can't afford that journal; subscription budget
already overspent.
(3) An undergraduate, same university, sees the same article
cited on the Web; clicks on it. The publisher's website demands a
password: only paid subscribing institutions can have access.
(4) The undergraduate loses patience, gets bored, and clicks on
napster to grab an MP3 file of his favorite bootleg music CD to
console him in his sorrows.
(5) Years later, the same PhD is being considered for tenure; his
publications are good, but they're not cited enough; they have not
made enough of a research impact. Tenure denied.
(6) Same thing happens when he tries to get a research grant: his
research findings have not had enough of an impact: not enough
researchers have read and cited them.
(7) He decides to write a book instead. Publisher declines to
publish it: It wouldn't sell enough copies because not enough
universities have enough money to pay for it -- their purchasing
budgets are tied up paying for their inflating annual journal
subscription costs.
(8) He tries to put his articles up on the Web, free for all, to
increase their impact; his publisher threatens to sue him for
violation of copyright.
(9) He asks his publisher who the copyright is intended to protect.
(10) His publisher replies: You!
What is wrong with this picture? (And why is the mother of the PhD
whose give-away work people cannot steal, even though he wants them
to, in the same boat as the mother of the recording artist whose
non-give-away work they can and do steal, even though he does not
want them to?)
>>"Firstly, I live in Canberra" :(
:)
>And here I thought I was the only one on here!
Same here!!
> That's just hilarious. I can't say I'm surprised... I've never liked Dell. They have a lot of shady practices
How the hell can this be moderated 'insightful'?????
Baffling.
Boy, you Americans sure do have a lot of freedom!
Your analogy would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that, in your terms, plenty of people are "stepping on nails" just fine without problems. Shouldn't this suggest that maybe, for some people, it's OK?
After all, you're not still wearing nappies, are you?
OK, this may seem like a troll, but is this really a problem? If the student is legitimately off campus, or misses a lecture for a good reason, there's surely no problem.
I lecture in business at a major university and we're noticing class attendance falling across the board. Some students claim they have to work in order to support themselves, and this work occasionally clashes with class. However, I'd argue many students simply don't show up because the final exam is too far away to be concerned about.
Maybe this might make students think a little harder before they cut class.
> Case and point.
It's "Case in point".
> Do you carry any sort of self-defense means in some places, and if so What and Where?
Only an American would ask this question.
> I found that if you googled most of the CS lecture notes, most of them were plagiarized from some other school....
did you ever stop to think that maybe each school just uses the same text, which comes with its own set of lecture notes? for intro courses, there's really no point writing lecture notes from scratch: students don't take well to notes which deviate from the text, and most of the topics are similar because accreditation bodies require these topics to be taught.
> support for open standards such as WMA will let people select the music service of their choice.
This misunderstanding of WMA could be just marketing confusion, but I'd argue that many consumers would simply see this as A Good Thing. The more times something like "WMA" can be seen alongside or in the same sentence as "open standards", the greater the closed source foothold.
Letting me pick WMA is like letting me pick my master. I want freedom!
> Not likely, since sydney is The third most litigious city in the world.
ranking means nothing without contextual knowledge of the sampling frame. e.g. i am the third oldest person in my family. does that give you any indication of age? no.
I bet your education and understanding reflect this.
I find it a little nasty that one of the humor finalists is a site which makes fun of people who can't speak english.
I know this may sound like a troll, but it isn't. If the US legal system is so good, shouldn't the American Red Cross win in the end?
The article makes one point that I think many posters here have missed.
The author is prepared to pay ~$250 for PhotoShop (or perhaps ~$100 for Elements) instead of paying nothing to use GIMP. To this user, payment is not a barrier to use (and, conversely, zero upfront dollar cost and access to the source code are not suitable motivators for use).
The two common counter-arguments I hear in this thread are (1) "you can't complain if it's free" and (2) "if you don't like it, why don't you fix it". These arguments can be mounted with any open source software product.
The cost of acquisition issue shuts down both of these arguments - the busy user doesn't have time to "fix it", and they won't bother complaining. They will simply go and spend the $250 it costs to acquire a program which meets their needs.
> Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't a documentary
Note to self: check other films in my collection. Especially "Temple of Doom" which may, as it now turns out, not be about a real temple.
I'll probably burn some karma for this, but I can't help but feel that there are some out there who wave the privacy flag simply in order to justify, mask or excuse their own anti-social behaviour.
No, this isn't a troll - I just think that not every story that involves someone watching what someone else is doing shoudl have life-ending privacy concerns. In this case, you have to invite the company to watch you in the first place! If I invite, say, a plumber or electrician into my house, I'm going to have to accept the fact that they may see (shock! horror!) me going about my normal everyday business.
If some of these privacy advocates had their way, none of us would talk to or interact with anyone else *ever*.