Hey, entertainment is free if you're the one providing it. What the hell do you think the artists eat while they write and perform the music? Air? Even "free" concerts are paid for by someone, and most of the time the artist will perform only a few of the concerts for no compensation.
And the $10000 is certainly not meant to pay for the downloaded music. It's meant as a deterrent. You have to enforce it, but the threat of being sued and forced to pay $10k is enough to turn off some people from downloading music.
Is it moronic to sue people over downloading music? Maybe. IMHO, they should concentrate on distributors not the consumers.
You're comparing two different things though. iTunes download is a specific format, meant for a specific outlet (iPod Video). The torrent you're thinking of was meant for another format (HD TV). I am not saying that legal downloads "should" be lower quality. I am saying that the current offering is lower quality.
TV is offered at a certain quality, and there is a certain assurance that usually goes with that, namely that there will be some commercials going with that program. Because it is the adverts, not your measely cable subscription, that pays for this program. You, by stripping the commercials out and offering the program as a download to others are reducing the value of the advertisment which will lead in
a) Loss of quality programming because companies will be unwilling to pay as much per second of prime time advertising.
b) Higher cable subscriptions as the broadcasters try to recoup losses brought on by lower ad revenue (or more commercials in an hour of programming).
Not to sound pro-M$, but Microsoft is primarily a software shop. Sure they make keyboards, mice and now X-Box, but mostly it's software. Microsoft doesn't have to go around touting the new hyperthreaded chip or whatnot. Intel does that.
Um, a bit different situation there. The existence of products (software) for Windows actually drives Windows sales. (IE, if I want to use program X I need Windows as it is not available on any other OS. Thus, I'll buy Windows).
This is not the case with iPod. You don't NEED an iPod to use those shiny new wireless headphones. You can use them with any other player. (Due to standardized headphone plug).
Yes, but you forget that China is the People's Republic, and it is obvious that the People decided to do what is best for the people. So who would disagree? What is there to control if everyone is in perfect harmony?
If I remember correctly, shouldn't network protocols be flexible enough to find another path to the server? Let's say that you are on one network and the desired server is on another network that have their direct connection killed. Can't you go and find an alternate route through a peer that is connected to the both of you? It would be slower but shouldn't this happen?
There is really only one solution to all this RIAA crap. We should start another publishing company (call it Slashdot publishing) and don't join RIAA. Then start wooing customers (artists) away from RIAA members by offering larger cuts of the CD and downloads. We then keep competitive pricing with RIAA publishers. RIAA dies and we move on to rake in the profit and bathe in champagne.
"The Prosecutor-General's Office - part of the government - exerted undue influence, with judges often not daring to rule against state prosecutors. Those who did faced disciplinary actions; when a Kiev court ruled for opposition politician Yuliya Tymoshenko, the presiding judge was himself prosecuted. The courts were not even independent from each other, and it was commonplace for trial court judges to call the higher courts and ask how to decide a case. Courts were often underfunded, with little money or resources. It was not uncommon for cases to be heard in small, cramped courtrooms with the electricity cut off while prisoners were unable to attend because of lack of transport from jails to courtrooms."
There's a TV tax in the US. It's called cable subscription and 20-mins-of-advertising-per-hour-of-programming. You pay for what you get. Most of the studios that broadcast support themselves through advertising. In Europe (at least parts of it) the infrastructure was built with public funds, and although the government can't charge a subscription they can impose a tax. Which is almost the same thing.
Do you think that US Govt is not corrupt? Maybe not so overtly as the Italian government is but plenty of Congressmen are in the pocket of big coorporations (campaign contributions, etc). Is this system perfect? No, but it works. Most of the time it does not affect the little man that much and they don't care.
Freedom is as loosely defined as morals. It is purely subjective. The reason that you don't see the US censoring media, (although they do engage in intimidation tactics, see the case of NYT reporter going to jail for contempt for refusing to name her source) is that they are so adept at spinning the news. I don't think that they would stoop down to the level of starting a war to distract the country from a domestic scandal (see movie "Wag the dog") but sometimes I wonder.
Hardest thing about this is that I really can't put myself on one side of the fence or the other. If I say that US should retain the control of the root servers...well, I see the point of the EU and other countries. Again, a large portion of business now depends on the internet and noone wants someone else to hold all the eggs. If I say that US should follow some of its own antitrust rules I see that UN is not the ideal body to run the internet.
I believe that eventually we'll see the worldwide network splinter where you would have a wider network of root servers, perhaps one per country, where they'd keep track of the machines in their physical networks. Probably see the domains go from www.whatever.com to us.www.whatever.com and eu.www.whatever.com (perhaps the company whatever maintains mirrors in both countries).
I'm curious why the US would support the international war crimes tribunal if the US Government does not recognize the jurisdiction of the international court?
The process is not perfect but IMHO it is still good. You have to remember that although the President does appoint the justices they still have to be confirmed by the Congress and once they're on the bench they're not beholden to anyone.
Why, oh why would you need so much power to game? I build my computer 2 years ago for something like $1500 (maybe less, I can't remember now). I went to arsTechnica, looked at their Hot Rod system guide of the month and plonked a better graphics card in there.
I am still playing games on it, including BF2, Half Life 2, Doom 3 (ok, I no longer play it, but I did play it when it came out. It would have sucked more if it didn't look so pretty).
I might have to go and upgrade my graphics card soon (I got ATI Radeon 9800 non-pro) and maybe my processor (P4 2.6Ghz) in another 6 - 12 months if I want to stay current.
Sorry, I was referring to the obvious impending victory of the Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. If you think that the only threat to our freedom is the short term, immediate one, you're wrong. If Hitler won, US would eventually be fighting the war on it's own soil.
There is no empire building in this day and age. The public would not stand for it. And US is a de-facto world ruler as it is, (think how many countries do US bidding in exchange for aid. But that is their own fault for becoming dependent on US.)
While the existence of the US military is to protect our freedoms, a lot of people believe that is not what's being accomplished by the presence in Iraq (Afghanistan is another story, at least for me).
There is a whole other story there, Troll. If you think that there is a specific need for a top level official to be versed specifically in the Middle East, ignoring all the other arenas in which FBI operates, you're wrong. For the specific knowledge, you create task forces filled with specialists.
"Not thinking" is not the same as "Not questioning every order the instant it is given".
I believe that there are caveats in the Rules of Engagement or whatever the military rule book is, where the soldier is REQUIRED not to obey the order.
It is obvious that you have not been in the military. The majority of thinking goes on down on the team and squad level. Usually the officers will say, "Take that bridge/street/group of houses". The squad/team leader (NCO usually) will draw up the plan of assault etc.
You can't go into combat if you can't rely on people around you to think, evaluate and act upon situations as they present themselves.
You also can't go into combat saying "WTF. I don't want to go down that street. Why do I have to go down that street?" when there is another team 2 blocks over that needs someone to flank the MG that has it pinned.
The time to question orders is up top, at the boundary between the politicians and the top brass, not on the front line.
Erm, just using statistics. If you bunch all the Protestants and Catholics together (and other followers of Christ, I am not that versed on all Christian incarnations) you get a big majority of population. No?
I am not saying that other religions are not present, but statistically speaking if 75% (statistic pulled out of my arse) of the country is Christian, so will the 75% of the military (if you don't take into consideration ANY other factors such as income levels, education etc. )
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, entertainment is free if you're the one providing it. What the hell do you think the artists eat while they write and perform the music? Air? Even "free" concerts are paid for by someone, and most of the time the artist will perform only a few of the concerts for no compensation.
And the $10000 is certainly not meant to pay for the downloaded music. It's meant as a deterrent. You have to enforce it, but the threat of being sued and forced to pay $10k is enough to turn off some people from downloading music.
Is it moronic to sue people over downloading music? Maybe. IMHO, they should concentrate on distributors not the consumers.
You're comparing two different things though. iTunes download is a specific format, meant for a specific outlet (iPod Video). The torrent you're thinking of was meant for another format (HD TV).
I am not saying that legal downloads "should" be lower quality. I am saying that the current offering is lower quality.
TV is offered at a certain quality, and there is a certain assurance that usually goes with that, namely that there will be some commercials going with that program. Because it is the adverts, not your measely cable subscription, that pays for this program. You, by stripping the commercials out and offering the program as a download to others are reducing the value of the advertisment which will lead in
a) Loss of quality programming because companies will be unwilling to pay as much per second of prime time advertising.
b) Higher cable subscriptions as the broadcasters try to recoup losses brought on by lower ad revenue (or more commercials in an hour of programming).
Longhorn? Man, that will be out the same year Duke Nukem Forever comes out.... ;-)
Not to sound pro-M$, but Microsoft is primarily a software shop. Sure they make keyboards, mice and now X-Box, but mostly it's software. Microsoft doesn't have to go around touting the new hyperthreaded chip or whatnot. Intel does that.
Um, a bit different situation there. The existence of products (software) for Windows actually drives Windows sales. (IE, if I want to use program X I need Windows as it is not available on any other OS. Thus, I'll buy Windows).
This is not the case with iPod. You don't NEED an iPod to use those shiny new wireless headphones. You can use them with any other player. (Due to standardized headphone plug).
Erm... One thing here is that you're comparing a legal iTunes donwload, bought and paid for, with an illegal torrent.
Yes, but you forget that China is the People's Republic, and it is obvious that the People decided to do what is best for the people. So who would disagree? What is there to control if everyone is in perfect harmony?
Ok, so they didn't only shut down the link, they actively will not route anything that resolves in the other network?
In any case some business have no alternatives especially if they are in a rural area with one or two ISP's on the same backbone.
If I remember correctly, shouldn't network protocols be flexible enough to find another path to the server? Let's say that you are on one network and the desired server is on another network that have their direct connection killed. Can't you go and find an alternate route through a peer that is connected to the both of you? It would be slower but shouldn't this happen?
There is really only one solution to all this RIAA crap. We should start another publishing company (call it Slashdot publishing) and don't join RIAA. Then start wooing customers (artists) away from RIAA members by offering larger cuts of the CD and downloads. We then keep competitive pricing with RIAA publishers. RIAA dies and we move on to rake in the profit and bathe in champagne.
Maybe you'd prefer the Soviet system?
"The Prosecutor-General's Office - part of the government - exerted undue influence, with judges often not daring to rule against state prosecutors. Those who did faced disciplinary actions; when a Kiev court ruled for opposition politician Yuliya Tymoshenko, the presiding judge was himself prosecuted. The courts were not even independent from each other, and it was commonplace for trial court judges to call the higher courts and ask how to decide a case. Courts were often underfunded, with little money or resources. It was not uncommon for cases to be heard in small, cramped courtrooms with the electricity cut off while prisoners were unable to attend because of lack of transport from jails to courtrooms."
There's a TV tax in the US. It's called cable subscription and 20-mins-of-advertising-per-hour-of-programming. You pay for what you get. Most of the studios that broadcast support themselves through advertising. In Europe (at least parts of it) the infrastructure was built with public funds, and although the government can't charge a subscription they can impose a tax. Which is almost the same thing.
Yes, I'd definitively second that.
Oh, puh-leeze.
Do you think that US Govt is not corrupt? Maybe not so overtly as the Italian government is but plenty of Congressmen are in the pocket of big coorporations (campaign contributions, etc). Is this system perfect? No, but it works. Most of the time it does not affect the little man that much and they don't care.
Freedom is as loosely defined as morals. It is purely subjective. The reason that you don't see the US censoring media, (although they do engage in intimidation tactics, see the case of NYT reporter going to jail for contempt for refusing to name her source) is that they are so adept at spinning the news. I don't think that they would stoop down to the level of starting a war to distract the country from a domestic scandal (see movie "Wag the dog") but sometimes I wonder.
Hardest thing about this is that I really can't put myself on one side of the fence or the other. If I say that US should retain the control of the root servers...well, I see the point of the EU and other countries. Again, a large portion of business now depends on the internet and noone wants someone else to hold all the eggs. If I say that US should follow some of its own antitrust rules I see that UN is not the ideal body to run the internet.
I believe that eventually we'll see the worldwide network splinter where you would have a wider network of root servers, perhaps one per country, where they'd keep track of the machines in their physical networks. Probably see the domains go from www.whatever.com to us.www.whatever.com and eu.www.whatever.com (perhaps the company whatever maintains mirrors in both countries).
I'm curious why the US would support the international war crimes tribunal if the US Government does not recognize the jurisdiction of the international court?
The process is not perfect but IMHO it is still good. You have to remember that although the President does appoint the justices they still have to be confirmed by the Congress and once they're on the bench they're not beholden to anyone.
Checks and balances.
Why, oh why would you need so much power to game? I build my computer 2 years ago for something like $1500 (maybe less, I can't remember now). I went to arsTechnica, looked at their Hot Rod system guide of the month and plonked a better graphics card in there.
I am still playing games on it, including BF2, Half Life 2, Doom 3 (ok, I no longer play it, but I did play it when it came out. It would have sucked more if it didn't look so pretty).
I might have to go and upgrade my graphics card soon (I got ATI Radeon 9800 non-pro) and maybe my processor (P4 2.6Ghz) in another 6 - 12 months if I want to stay current.
Hrm.
While you never said this explicitly, your rethoric against the "imperialist" argument had me convinced that you believed this.
I might be wrong however, and in that case I apologize.
Sorry, I was referring to the obvious impending victory of the Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. If you think that the only threat to our freedom is the short term, immediate one, you're wrong. If Hitler won, US would eventually be fighting the war on it's own soil.
Wrong, both of you.
There is no empire building in this day and age. The public would not stand for it. And US is a de-facto world ruler as it is, (think how many countries do US bidding in exchange for aid. But that is their own fault for becoming dependent on US.)
While the existence of the US military is to protect our freedoms, a lot of people believe that is not what's being accomplished by the presence in Iraq (Afghanistan is another story, at least for me).
I would love to hear your argument how we enjoy our freedoms *in spite of* the US fighting in WWII. Unless you are blonde.
There is a whole other story there, Troll.
If you think that there is a specific need for a top level official to be versed specifically in the Middle East, ignoring all the other arenas in which FBI operates, you're wrong. For the specific knowledge, you create task forces filled with specialists.
"Not thinking" is not the same as "Not questioning every order the instant it is given".
I believe that there are caveats in the Rules of Engagement or whatever the military rule book is, where the soldier is REQUIRED not to obey the order.
It is obvious that you have not been in the military. The majority of thinking goes on down on the team and squad level. Usually the officers will say, "Take that bridge/street/group of houses". The squad/team leader (NCO usually) will draw up the plan of assault etc.
You can't go into combat if you can't rely on people around you to think, evaluate and act upon situations as they present themselves.
You also can't go into combat saying "WTF. I don't want to go down that street. Why do I have to go down that street?" when there is another team 2 blocks over that needs someone to flank the MG that has it pinned.
The time to question orders is up top, at the boundary between the politicians and the top brass, not on the front line.
Erm, just using statistics. If you bunch all the Protestants and Catholics together (and other followers of Christ, I am not that versed on all Christian incarnations) you get a big majority of population. No?
I am not saying that other religions are not present, but statistically speaking if 75% (statistic pulled out of my arse) of the country is Christian, so will the 75% of the military (if you don't take into consideration ANY other factors such as income levels, education etc. )
This should be modded Troll, not Interesting