You can rail against piracy all you want, you can call it immoral theft, you can make it illegal, but you can't stop it without crippling the economy in other ways.
Can you support that assertion? Name some aspect of the economy that relies on piracy, that if eliminated would cripple it overall.
You have a better proposal? State it. Without changing the nature of humanity or destroying privacy rights, how would you set up a system that allows both for the existence of easy digital communication and simultaneously allows for artists to receive just compensation for their work?
People quit thinking they are entitled to the benefit of other people's time and work without proper compensation as asked by the person doing the work. "Easy digital communication" doesn't presume any kind of rampant copyright violation.
If you reduce it to the level of the individual, he has perhaps several hundred anecdotes (or several thousand.)
Secondly, both of your anecdotes show how severe the problem is. In the first case it's a two for one copied to bought ratio. In the second it was one to one. So, from your anecdotes, music piracy rates are 66% and software piracy rates are 50%. Seems pretty significant to me.
Not that I endorse copyright infringement in this manner, but your premise seems shaky. Where can I get a demo of those Nintendo DS games that aren't on DS Download Station? Where can I get a demo of Wii games?
You don't have the right to try product. You have the right to not buy products that you can't try and thus encourage creators to make a sampler version of whatever the product is.
What happens if I am not in the target market? What less-than-full-featured product from the same company should a hobbyist use instead of Lightwave, much as Photoshop Elements is a consumerized version of Photoshop?
If you aren't the target market then you won't get the product. No company has an obligation to provide a range of products scaling from hobbyist to professional. A lot of hobbies are out of the range of a lot of people because the literal cost of entry is too high. That's just how life is.
Apart from the Libertarians, who seem to object to taxation even when it demonstrably makes life easier, there's not much to complain about in such a proposal.
Right. In a sea of factually incorrect posts, broken logic, and already proven wrong assertions, that has got to be about the dumbest thing ever posted. If you spend even a couple of seconds thinking about it there are so many things wrong with the idea that anyone with even a small amount of cognitive ability wouldn't even be able to write it down. They would recognize how fundamentally flawed it is at the root and not even take the time to type it all out.
What about the people who want to use their entertainment budget for travel instead of movies? What about people who want to forgo entertainment entirely and use that money to buy a house? Who decides what movies are made? How do prevent kickbacks from the movie industry to whoever is holding the tax payer funded purse strings? Why do you want to take away people's freedom?
In your hurry to discredit the current system, i.e. the one where you are doing something illegal, unethical and immoral when you take for yourself without paying, you came up with the shallowest idea possible for a system that would provide you with what you want, ie. the one where you still get what you want without paying, but it's not illegal anymore.
He also assumes that you either know the right answer or know nothing. Here's a pretty hard test for him where a person with some knowledge but without the actual answer will do better than a person with no knowledge:
1. What number am I thinking of?
a) cheese b) galaxy c) 3 d) 1
A person who knows (literally) nothing has a 1 in 4 chance of getting it right. A person who knows what a number is has a 1 in 2 chance. You stick one hundred questions on a test and someone who is versed in the material will score better by eliminating answers they know are wrong than someone who guesses at all the answers.
This guy probably failed both the MCAT and LSAT and topped it off by bombing the GRE. What a putz.
Sure. OK. Save the animals, but kill the people. And the spiders and the other various living creatures that you personally kill every single day by the millions. But that's probably OK cause they're little and not cute and fuzzy.
There is no moral or ethical case for not eating meat. The food chain is the fundamental processes that make the environment work.
Many animals will kill and eat people. Plus many will kill people because they perceive a threat their way of life. Not that I'm claiming animals have such a concept, but a pride of lions will do you in if they think you are a threat. Same goes for a herd of elephants. Even ducks and geese kill do their best to kill you if they think you are invading their territory.
You're applauding a government that nationalized oil companies, food producers, media, etc? Gave dictatorial powers to a lame duck president? Well, not so lame duck anymore since he's aiming to abolish term limits. Oh and that nationalization of their industries have gone really well, unless you like to eat meat. Or have freedom to speak out against the policies of the government. Or want your quality of life to increase. Sure.
Government has no place in business, you always end up with cronyism, corruption and an entrenched pile of criminals pillaging the rest of the country.
I don't think you understand something here. There's more at stake than just a thousand or two dollars. He now has a judgement against him and it'll ride his credit score for at least seven years if not longer. Depends on how much money he makes (eg. if you apply for a job above a certain amount of compensation, shit lives on your credit report forever.)
But honestly, (and I'm sorry if this sounds trollish) I didn't know which to laugh about "blogger loses defamation case" (because it takes nothing to be a blogger so the headline could be "defendant loses defamation case"), or "student blogger loses defamation case" (because I guess he learned something.)
Having said all of that, people holding handsets to their heads are physically restricted from doing a proper head-check before a lane change.
Among humans it is possible twist the torso such that one can hold a phone to one's head and still achieve the desired angle of view. Additionally most phones that require one to hold the handset to your head do not actually attach themselves to your head, thus one is able to lower the phone a small distance, turn one's head and verify that the lane is clear.
You drew an incorrect conclusion. The presence of a phone held near the ear does not physically impair anyone at all in the fashion you describe.
Yeah. It's not like you can't ignore them. If you can't switch your attention from a conversation on the phone to traffic, then perhaps you shouldn't be driving at all?
It's true that Sun doesn't have any super fast, single threaded workstation class SPARC systems. But my brain slipped the gears a bit when I read that Sun doesn't have any decent hardware. Most all Sun hardware is decent, it's just not the fastest for CPU bound tasks, dollar for dollar. If I was going to build a webapp farm, I'd be buying Sun all the way. Niagra is an awesome architecture. If I needed a high throughput scientific system, I'd probably be leaning towards big Suns (E2900+) or big IBMs (570+).
If I needed fast workstations, I'd be leaning towards Intel Core 2 Duo systems. Running either XP, Solaris, or Linux depending on the specific app.
Solaris is already higher quality than Linux. It doesn't have as many drivers, but in what it does have, it's very very good. Better scheduler, better memory management, better file systems, better fault detection, better dynamic reconfiguration.
Sun has more open source lines of code out there than Linus does.
No. Other than failing to obey the orders of a police officer, I don't see that he did anything wrong. He has two choices, obey the officer and then sue later or disobey and be detained. He should be glad they only detained him for an hour. They could have detained him for three days and released him without charges.
As a hypothetical (because we don't really know, his video is pointedly cut to present only what he wants to present) if he was there recording protests, it seems pretty odd that there are no protesters in his video. Perhaps the protesters were behind him. Which would put the police between him and the protesters. From the police's perspective you'd have to consider what exactly could be in this guys camera bag before you turned your back on him. It'd sure suck to be over trying to maintain order in the face of a bunch of hooligan protesters and have some schmuck pull a club out of his camera bag and cold cock you from behind.
And allowing the regular media to stay and sending self proclaimed citizen journalists packing may be perfectly appropriate for the situation. The police have the authority to send everybody down the road, but they allow well known media to stay in place because the police are pretty sure of the MSM's identity. When some chowderhead comes along with "independant journalist", well good luck convincing them you're not a threat.
OK. If you want to swap vulgarities, perhaps your post should be moderated "-1, stupid cunt." Anytime there is a break in the film we have no way of knowing what could have been cut. For all you know each time there was a little cut where he inserted his pearls of wisdom, he cut out fifteen minutes of him jumping up and down swearing at the top of his lungs, and flinging shit all over the place. The video is clearly cut to show the specific items he wants to present. For example there's not a single bit of audio or video of when he was approached by the first officer (who is never on camera but is referred to by the officer that is seen driving up in the video.)
Secondly, I watched both clips and when he is on camera he appears to have dyed hair. I'm from a family of redheads. I know what it looks like.
Again your retardedness is kicking in if you think that news coverage was live. How absolutely stupid are you that you can't comprehend that the video being on youtube and being included in the news report guarantees that it's not a live story. So clearly his appearance and demeanor in the news clip have nothing whatsoever to do with how he was acting or what he was wearing at the time of the original event.
Face it, the original video shows that he's more interested in retaliating and seeming profound than in conveying accurate information.
While I'm generally totally in favor of sticking it to the police, editing your clips pretty much removes 100% credibility. For all we know the dyed-hair camera boy was swearing at them and and wearing a t-shirt that says allah hates niggers. Tell your buddy he'll get a lot more sympathy if he releases the entire tape, unedited with unobscured audio.
This is a good point. Google should lead the way by allowing third parties to replace Google's advertisements via a simple browser setting. So if someone thinks Microsoft's ads are better, Google should provide a simple, stable, robust mechanism for MS to easily replace all adwords placed advertisements for a particular user.
Linux's security record is worse than Microsoft's, just nobody talks about it. Everybody is going to dump on me, but anytime someone finds a way to crash MS's OS or an application it is called a security vulnerability (ie. DOS, remote execution, etc.) If you count every possible OOPS in the linux kernel or every way to crash an app included as an option out of the box in your average linux distro, the numbers are huge.
And thousands of third parties think the Linux kernel dev team's approach to APIs is fucking lame. They have stated that interfaces are specifically not stable and to Torvalds it almost seems as if it's a game to see how much he can fucking annoy the people who made him rich.
I think you misunderstood the question. It wasn't whether it was technically possibly, but whether it was supported by Apple. The fact that someone can kluge a finder semi-replacement into running or can boot the Mac OSX kernel and get it to load X11 isn't what Google is crying about. Google wants to force MS to give Google a soapbox to launch their lame search application and make it easy to brand Microsoft's product with Google's logos.
Lawmakers tell people to do a lot of things. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to order arbitrary actions on a company and the legislative branch hasn't reached the required number of votes to make a difference. People bitch and cry about civil rights eroding, but you'll know they are gone when some unelected political appointee US attorney is allowed to arbitrarily dictate to private entities what they can and can't do.
Besides this complaint comes from Google. A company that disregards other people's copyrights and is as anticompetitive as any legit business on the planet. Cry me a river.
There's no such thing as a "convicted monopolist". Microsoft was found to be in breach of anti-competitive business practices. Given that this is slashdot and we can't use piracy (for copyright violations) or theft (for copyright violations) or Linux (for the name of the OS), you're not going to be allowed to use stupid assed phrases like "convicted monopolists".
Until there is an explicit definition of what an OS is and what exactly is included and that definition becomes the rule of what OS vendors can include and 100% of OS vendors are under the gun to match that definition exactly, then Microsoft can do whatever the fuck they want with their OS. Google has billions of dollars, if they don't like Microsoft's OS then they can damn well make their own and stop trying to force MS to provide support for Google's business model and profit margin.
Shi Tao's lawyer says there was "no obligation at all to follow mainland China's law" (from the article linked above).
I wonder, does this mean that Chinese companies can open up factories in the US? Then proceed to employ children for one tenth of a yuan per week? And make them work one hundred hours per week? And dump all their toxic waste into the local water supply? And pump all their noxious fumes into the atmosphere?
Because there is "no obligation at all to follow mainland US law".
What a stupid statement. If you want to do business in a country, you have to follow their laws.
The difference between a moral person and a whiny bitch is that a moral person sees a problem, studies it in depth, and tries to find solutions while a whiny bitch just sees the surface problem and starts saying it's bad without ever taking the time to learn about the problem and find a solution.
This post is likely going to go straight to -1, troll or flamebait, but it gets tiresome to see people keep pointing and saying "bad" without ever proposing a solution that takes the big picture into account. China's human rights record is pretty shitty, nobody will disagree. But doing business with China, raising the standard of living and raising the education level along with a host of other things, just might be better than trying to cut them off from the world economy.
You might want to ask Google about their policy on how the scanned public domain works can be used. Part of their usual agreement with the libraries is that they will return to the library the digital version of the book -- but the library is not allowed to let anyone have mass or bulk access to the digital versions. Books that are public domain. Which Google has scanned, eg. has not made any transformative change, but wants to control access to. For those who's disbelieve this, go check it out the agreements for public schools (University of California) are available.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you support that assertion? Name some aspect of the economy that relies on piracy, that if eliminated would cripple it overall.
People quit thinking they are entitled to the benefit of other people's time and work without proper compensation as asked by the person doing the work. "Easy digital communication" doesn't presume any kind of rampant copyright violation.
If you reduce it to the level of the individual, he has perhaps several hundred anecdotes (or several thousand.)
Secondly, both of your anecdotes show how severe the problem is. In the first case it's a two for one copied to bought ratio. In the second it was one to one. So, from your anecdotes, music piracy rates are 66% and software piracy rates are 50%. Seems pretty significant to me.
You don't have the right to try product. You have the right to not buy products that you can't try and thus encourage creators to make a sampler version of whatever the product is.
If you aren't the target market then you won't get the product. No company has an obligation to provide a range of products scaling from hobbyist to professional. A lot of hobbies are out of the range of a lot of people because the literal cost of entry is too high. That's just how life is.
Right. In a sea of factually incorrect posts, broken logic, and already proven wrong assertions, that has got to be about the dumbest thing ever posted. If you spend even a couple of seconds thinking about it there are so many things wrong with the idea that anyone with even a small amount of cognitive ability wouldn't even be able to write it down. They would recognize how fundamentally flawed it is at the root and not even take the time to type it all out.
What about the people who want to use their entertainment budget for travel instead of movies? What about people who want to forgo entertainment entirely and use that money to buy a house? Who decides what movies are made? How do prevent kickbacks from the movie industry to whoever is holding the tax payer funded purse strings? Why do you want to take away people's freedom?
In your hurry to discredit the current system, i.e. the one where you are doing something illegal, unethical and immoral when you take for yourself without paying, you came up with the shallowest idea possible for a system that would provide you with what you want, ie. the one where you still get what you want without paying, but it's not illegal anymore.
He also assumes that you either know the right answer or know nothing. Here's a pretty hard test for him where a person with some knowledge but without the actual answer will do better than a person with no knowledge:
1. What number am I thinking of?
a) cheese
b) galaxy
c) 3
d) 1
A person who knows (literally) nothing has a 1 in 4 chance of getting it right. A person who knows what a number is has a 1 in 2 chance. You stick one hundred questions on a test and someone who is versed in the material will score better by eliminating answers they know are wrong than someone who guesses at all the answers.
This guy probably failed both the MCAT and LSAT and topped it off by bombing the GRE. What a putz.
Sure. OK. Save the animals, but kill the people. And the spiders and the other various living creatures that you personally kill every single day by the millions. But that's probably OK cause they're little and not cute and fuzzy.
There is no moral or ethical case for not eating meat. The food chain is the fundamental processes that make the environment work.
Many animals will kill and eat people. Plus many will kill people because they perceive a threat their way of life. Not that I'm claiming animals have such a concept, but a pride of lions will do you in if they think you are a threat. Same goes for a herd of elephants. Even ducks and geese kill do their best to kill you if they think you are invading their territory.
You're applauding a government that nationalized oil companies, food producers, media, etc? Gave dictatorial powers to a lame duck president? Well, not so lame duck anymore since he's aiming to abolish term limits. Oh and that nationalization of their industries have gone really well, unless you like to eat meat. Or have freedom to speak out against the policies of the government. Or want your quality of life to increase. Sure.
Government has no place in business, you always end up with cronyism, corruption and an entrenched pile of criminals pillaging the rest of the country.
I don't think you understand something here. There's more at stake than just a thousand or two dollars. He now has a judgement against him and it'll ride his credit score for at least seven years if not longer. Depends on how much money he makes (eg. if you apply for a job above a certain amount of compensation, shit lives on your credit report forever.)
But honestly, (and I'm sorry if this sounds trollish) I didn't know which to laugh about "blogger loses defamation case" (because it takes nothing to be a blogger so the headline could be "defendant loses defamation case"), or "student blogger loses defamation case" (because I guess he learned something.)
I think you need to stop focusing on what might have happened. Most countries don't punish people for things that didn't happen.
Among humans it is possible twist the torso such that one can hold a phone to one's head and still achieve the desired angle of view. Additionally most phones that require one to hold the handset to your head do not actually attach themselves to your head, thus one is able to lower the phone a small distance, turn one's head and verify that the lane is clear.
You drew an incorrect conclusion. The presence of a phone held near the ear does not physically impair anyone at all in the fashion you describe.
Yeah. It's not like you can't ignore them. If you can't switch your attention from a conversation on the phone to traffic, then perhaps you shouldn't be driving at all?
You sure it's not three virgins and no wise men?
It's true that Sun doesn't have any super fast, single threaded workstation class SPARC systems. But my brain slipped the gears a bit when I read that Sun doesn't have any decent hardware. Most all Sun hardware is decent, it's just not the fastest for CPU bound tasks, dollar for dollar. If I was going to build a webapp farm, I'd be buying Sun all the way. Niagra is an awesome architecture. If I needed a high throughput scientific system, I'd probably be leaning towards big Suns (E2900+) or big IBMs (570+).
If I needed fast workstations, I'd be leaning towards Intel Core 2 Duo systems. Running either XP, Solaris, or Linux depending on the specific app.
Solaris is already higher quality than Linux. It doesn't have as many drivers, but in what it does have, it's very very good. Better scheduler, better memory management, better file systems, better fault detection, better dynamic reconfiguration.
Sun has more open source lines of code out there than Linus does.
No. Other than failing to obey the orders of a police officer, I don't see that he did anything wrong. He has two choices, obey the officer and then sue later or disobey and be detained. He should be glad they only detained him for an hour. They could have detained him for three days and released him without charges.
As a hypothetical (because we don't really know, his video is pointedly cut to present only what he wants to present) if he was there recording protests, it seems pretty odd that there are no protesters in his video. Perhaps the protesters were behind him. Which would put the police between him and the protesters. From the police's perspective you'd have to consider what exactly could be in this guys camera bag before you turned your back on him. It'd sure suck to be over trying to maintain order in the face of a bunch of hooligan protesters and have some schmuck pull a club out of his camera bag and cold cock you from behind.
And allowing the regular media to stay and sending self proclaimed citizen journalists packing may be perfectly appropriate for the situation. The police have the authority to send everybody down the road, but they allow well known media to stay in place because the police are pretty sure of the MSM's identity. When some chowderhead comes along with "independant journalist", well good luck convincing them you're not a threat.
OK. If you want to swap vulgarities, perhaps your post should be moderated "-1, stupid cunt." Anytime there is a break in the film we have no way of knowing what could have been cut. For all you know each time there was a little cut where he inserted his pearls of wisdom, he cut out fifteen minutes of him jumping up and down swearing at the top of his lungs, and flinging shit all over the place. The video is clearly cut to show the specific items he wants to present. For example there's not a single bit of audio or video of when he was approached by the first officer (who is never on camera but is referred to by the officer that is seen driving up in the video.)
Secondly, I watched both clips and when he is on camera he appears to have dyed hair. I'm from a family of redheads. I know what it looks like.
Again your retardedness is kicking in if you think that news coverage was live. How absolutely stupid are you that you can't comprehend that the video being on youtube and being included in the news report guarantees that it's not a live story. So clearly his appearance and demeanor in the news clip have nothing whatsoever to do with how he was acting or what he was wearing at the time of the original event.
Face it, the original video shows that he's more interested in retaliating and seeming profound than in conveying accurate information.
While I'm generally totally in favor of sticking it to the police, editing your clips pretty much removes 100% credibility. For all we know the dyed-hair camera boy was swearing at them and and wearing a t-shirt that says allah hates niggers. Tell your buddy he'll get a lot more sympathy if he releases the entire tape, unedited with unobscured audio.
This is a good point. Google should lead the way by allowing third parties to replace Google's advertisements via a simple browser setting. So if someone thinks Microsoft's ads are better, Google should provide a simple, stable, robust mechanism for MS to easily replace all adwords placed advertisements for a particular user.
Until then, boo hoo.
Linux's security record is worse than Microsoft's, just nobody talks about it. Everybody is going to dump on me, but anytime someone finds a way to crash MS's OS or an application it is called a security vulnerability (ie. DOS, remote execution, etc.) If you count every possible OOPS in the linux kernel or every way to crash an app included as an option out of the box in your average linux distro, the numbers are huge.
And thousands of third parties think the Linux kernel dev team's approach to APIs is fucking lame. They have stated that interfaces are specifically not stable and to Torvalds it almost seems as if it's a game to see how much he can fucking annoy the people who made him rich.
I think you misunderstood the question. It wasn't whether it was technically possibly, but whether it was supported by Apple. The fact that someone can kluge a finder semi-replacement into running or can boot the Mac OSX kernel and get it to load X11 isn't what Google is crying about. Google wants to force MS to give Google a soapbox to launch their lame search application and make it easy to brand Microsoft's product with Google's logos.
Lawmakers tell people to do a lot of things. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to order arbitrary actions on a company and the legislative branch hasn't reached the required number of votes to make a difference. People bitch and cry about civil rights eroding, but you'll know they are gone when some unelected political appointee US attorney is allowed to arbitrarily dictate to private entities what they can and can't do.
Besides this complaint comes from Google. A company that disregards other people's copyrights and is as anticompetitive as any legit business on the planet. Cry me a river.
There's no such thing as a "convicted monopolist". Microsoft was found to be in breach of anti-competitive business practices. Given that this is slashdot and we can't use piracy (for copyright violations) or theft (for copyright violations) or Linux (for the name of the OS), you're not going to be allowed to use stupid assed phrases like "convicted monopolists".
Until there is an explicit definition of what an OS is and what exactly is included and that definition becomes the rule of what OS vendors can include and 100% of OS vendors are under the gun to match that definition exactly, then Microsoft can do whatever the fuck they want with their OS. Google has billions of dollars, if they don't like Microsoft's OS then they can damn well make their own and stop trying to force MS to provide support for Google's business model and profit margin.
I wonder, does this mean that Chinese companies can open up factories in the US? Then proceed to employ children for one tenth of a yuan per week? And make them work one hundred hours per week? And dump all their toxic waste into the local water supply? And pump all their noxious fumes into the atmosphere?
Because there is "no obligation at all to follow mainland US law".
What a stupid statement. If you want to do business in a country, you have to follow their laws.
The difference between a moral person and a whiny bitch is that a moral person sees a problem, studies it in depth, and tries to find solutions while a whiny bitch just sees the surface problem and starts saying it's bad without ever taking the time to learn about the problem and find a solution.
This post is likely going to go straight to -1, troll or flamebait, but it gets tiresome to see people keep pointing and saying "bad" without ever proposing a solution that takes the big picture into account. China's human rights record is pretty shitty, nobody will disagree. But doing business with China, raising the standard of living and raising the education level along with a host of other things, just might be better than trying to cut them off from the world economy.
You might want to ask Google about their policy on how the scanned public domain works can be used. Part of their usual agreement with the libraries is that they will return to the library the digital version of the book -- but the library is not allowed to let anyone have mass or bulk access to the digital versions. Books that are public domain. Which Google has scanned, eg. has not made any transformative change, but wants to control access to. For those who's disbelieve this, go check it out the agreements for public schools (University of California) are available.