[BEGIN] {attempt at humor based on real-life-and-somewhat-relevant-to-the-story experience}
You know, as far as distractions go, whenever I had to do vocabulary words as homework (given a list of words, write down the definitions from the dictionary), it would take me a LOOOONG time to complete. Remember at the tops of each page are the "key words" that help you pinpoint the word you are looking for? I would invariably find those words "interesting" and read their definitions. Not just the ones on the page where the vocab word was, but EVERY key word that I found interesting during the search process. PLUS, while I was skimming the columns to locate the vocab word (when I finally made it to the correct page where it should be) I would get distracted by all the other words and stop and read their definitions! Took me FOREVER to do 10 vocab words! That whole dictionary thing was a HUGE distraction to getting my work done! I think the government needs to reconsider putting dictionaries in every class room and spend that money on more computers. Kids can then safely do their vocab homework with dictionary.com-no key words, no other extraneous, distracting words to detract from your monk-like copying of text from the dictionary to your paper. Heck, you can even skip the writing part altogether an just copy the words and definitions into a word processor and print it out or...email them to your teacher!
[END] {attempt at humor based on real-life-and-somewhat-relevant-to-the-story experience}
Sounds like South Korea. I was there early this year and saw the same crazy traffic. These people wouldn't even give-way to an ambulance (with it's lights on and sirens blaring). I didn't see any accidents, but I saw a scooter almost get squished by a bus as the scooter was weaving between lanes of traffic. Rub-marks are most of the vehicles there too. Oh yeah, the sidewalks? Those are merely raised roads for smaller cars and scooters.
I would reply but I am busy Googling for cheap, equatorial, island real-estate. Cheap real-estate...Gotta do it quick before everyone else thinks of the same idea.
:) Love that term! "Sheeple". You come up with that one yourelf Ted? That's great. Mind if I use it? I'm asking for your permission because if it's your IP (and patented) then I wouldn't want to step on your toes or be dragged into court.
Then stop sending those missionaries to knock on my door!
Seriously now, if your comment were true, then every church/religion in the world would never need to go out and entice young people into joining.
Back in 1986, we had a religious "rock-band" perform at my school whose purpose (they admitted) was to bring the word of god to the students and to encourage students to seek god by attending a church of their choice.
Is it just me or is this hilarious?
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Ballmer said that cutting back on the promised features at least allowed the company to announce a release date for the product, which was a "major accomplishment."
I disagree. I am not intimately familliar with how my city/county processes absentee ballots, but I can extrapolate the method they COULD use based on how my wife's ballot is packaged and returned to the election officials office.
I know when I send in my wife's absentee ballot, there is a multiple-envelope system.
The envelope that contains the actual ballot is blank. That blank, ballot-containing envelope is then placed inside another envelope that has my wife's name and address pre-printed on it. This pre-printed envelope is sealed and signed by her and then mailed to the election official's office.
I would assume that the envelope is received and verified by an election official in a manner similar to verifying a person who walks into the polling place.
When I go to vote, my name is crossed off a roster and I sign next to my name-then I am handed a ballot.
I would guess that they would mark each absentee envelope as being recieved on a master list, (just like they mark each person off the roster when you walk into a polling place) then they open the envelope which contains the plain, un-marked envelope and place it into a bin to be processed by someone else. This ensures that each ballot is anonymous-as long as the person opening the first envelope doesn't make some sort of mark on the plain envelope and that the plain envelopes are sufficiently shuffled to prevent "reverse engineering" which envelope came from who...
If they follow those procedures, then the ballots are still anonymous. Of course, all anonymity is lost if the person who opens the signed/pre-printed envelope then opens the plain wrapped envelope that contains the actual ballot.
How is that any less wrong than someone walking into a music store, walking out with a CD in their hand, and explaining to the cashier that they're not going to pay for it because they can't afford it?
It's not less wrong.
If they can't pay for an album, they don't buy it! But they don't stop there; they go and download it...
I agree-that would be wrong.
Aside from the $.02 CD and paper album cover, there is NO difference between downloading an album and stuffing one in your pocket at the music store.
I agree-except for the case where I may already own the physical CD, I see no problem with downloading a digital copy of the same album for my sole use (i.e., not sharing with others). I see that as being the same as me personally ripping a digital copy. Now, some people have made the argument that even downloading a copy of a CD you already own is wrong also, but that is a different point and I don't want to get into that discussion right now.
In any case, it seems as if we agree on the main points of the discussion. Funny sometimes how two people that agree can take so long to realize it.
Maybe I could have saved us a lot of time if I had simply stated my original point clearly enough. I just feel that the reason that CD sales may be down (which they aren't), is simply because they cost more money than some people want to pay and for the RIAA to simply blame all their woes on P2P is...short-sighted? narrow-minded? ridiculous? Something like that.
However excluding something from a budget does not entitle you to it. That has been your argument thus far
No. My argument is in direct response to the statement made earlier about why the RIAA is losing sales. Let me re-iterate because apparently you cannot focus on more than one item at a time:
You said:...trade a few hundred potential album sales gained from P2P for the THOUSANDS lost to it.
My response: You are assuming that every one who downloads a song would have purchased the album/single if they had not been able to download it for free. This is not an absolute.
.
I did not decide to not purchase an album because I can download it. I decided to not purchase an album BECAUSE I CAN'T AFFORD IT. The RIAA is losing record sales because people CAN'T pay for them.
Also, no where did I say that because I cannot afford to pay for an album, that I am entitled to download it for free. Stop putting words in my mouth and focus on the crux of this particular discussion. I will say it again to get it through your thick skull:
I did not decide to not purchase an album because I can download it. I decided to not purchase an album BECAUSE I CAN'T AFFORD IT. The RIAA is losing record sales because people CAN'T pay for them.
And as far as work goes, you ever hear of a break? Or managing your own time? Or perhaps a lunch hour? Now you're just tyring to be a flamer. Stay focused on my argument or don't bother to respond.
So then there wouldn't be any financial hardship inflicted upon the music industry if EVERYONE downloaded music from P2P instead of buy it, right?
Completely false. I never said they wouldn't be hurt by EVERYONE refusing to buy their music.
...Or are you saying that the RIAA is hurt only when people who CAN afford an album download?
Yes-see original post.
...you can afford a computer and an internet connection, but not a $15.00 CD?
Not exactly. I have a limited amount of money. I choose to spend that money on whatever widgets that I determine are most important to me and my family. What is left over is not enough for me to spend on an overpriced piece of plastic. Also, you are assuming that I have an internet connection and a computer at home and am not using one at work...
Let's draw your logical thinking process out just al little bit farther... just because I have enough money to spend on an internet connection (which might be free) and a computer (which someone might have given to me), then I must have enough money to buy a cd or an external CD burner or a new stereo or a new dining room set or a new computer or a new car. Come on, just because someone has X amount of dollars to spend on Y, does not mean they have ANY money left over to buy anything else. That is High School Logic (tm). That's like telling someone, "Well, because you have enough money to buy food you MUST have enough money to pay for the heating costs of your home." {begin sarcasm} That logic is just spectacular!{end sarcasm}
...you feel entitled to Shit For Free (tm).
I never said I was entitled to ANYTHING for free. I simply said that whether or not I CAN download music for free does not change the FACT that I CANNOT AFFORT TO BUY music and therefore the music industry has lost NOTHING!
trade a few hundred potential album sales gained from P2P for the THOUSANDS lost to it.
You are assuming that every one who downloads a song would have purchased the album/single if they had not been able to download it for free. This is not an absolute.
I cannot afford to go out and buy every album that strikes my fancy. Hell, I can't even afford one right now and there are several I would like to own. However, wether or not I choose to download the song/album for free does not change the fact that I cannot afford to pay for the album at this time and therefore I WILL NOT buy that album. I MAY download it, but the record company has not lost anything by me downloading it nor have they gained anything if I choose NOT to download it.
If the album was LESS EXPENSIVE, I would simply go buy it. It is their pricing practices that prevent a lot of people from purchasing their albums-not P2P.
Well, actually they already have that-sort of. The Apache attack helicopter uses a targeting system that aims based on what the pilot looks at. Except that it uses a monocle over the right eye of the pilot. The monocle displays targeting information and presents a cross-hairs to the pilot. The pilot merely puts the cross-hairs on his target by turning his head and "looking" at it with the monocle and then pressing the trigger for the appropriate weapon.
However, it's not REALLY based on what his eyeball is focused on, it's what the cross-hairs are pointed at. He could point the monocle towards the horizon and without moving his head, he could rotate his eyeballs to look down and fire, but unless he moves his head, the guns/missiles will still fire at what the monocle is pointed/looking at.
Here are just a few pages that a quick Google search turned up: How Apache Helicopters Work-Controls and Sensors or "PBS-Frontline or this page that talks about the M142 INTEGRATED HELMET AND DISPLAY SIGHT SYSTEM (IHADSS)specifically.
Re:This is a good thing.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
From their "About" Page: "The Washington Alliance of Technology Workers is an organization of high-tech workers and allies joining together to provide an effective voice in the legislative and corporate arenas, and to advocate for improved benefits and workplace rights."
I have had the same experience with cooking and women. However, for me, what got my wife interested, was my ability to program an electronic readerboard sign at her work. I.E., she was impressed with my brains. Yes, it was easy (for me), but she was impressed anyway. Impressed enough to go out with me again. And again...
The broadcasters don't like PVR's that allow you to skip commercials because they want you to watch the commercials. In fact, NOT watching the commercials is "theft" of the show (previous slashdot article mentioned this quote from an industry exec-sorry can't find the article), then why limit how many times someone can copy it? Aren't they limiting the number of people who might see the commercials?
Ok, if it's a digital signal, and you edit out the commercials and distribute it on the web, my argument falls apart. But the more people I can share my copy with or make a copy for, then the more people will see their ads.
Heck, NASCAR owners charge advertisers based on how often their car is shown on TV during a race. They actually have people sit around and watch a race and calculate how many minutes and seconds a particular car is displayed. Then they charge the sponsors/advertisers more money (or less?) based on how much air-time their "commercials" get (or so I am told by a Nascar Geek-cannot confirm or deny).
How about this-(completely off the cuff, no thought put into this except for the 10 seconds it takes me to write it so be gentle with me...) What if there was a way to inform the content providers how many times their commercials had been watched? And then set up a payment system so that the show producers were paid a "royalty" by the product advertiser for everytime that their product commercial was viewed? Feasible? Maybe. Desirable? Probably not. Anyway, there's my 2 cents (adjust for inflation as appropriate).
Slashdot Mirror
[BEGIN]
{attempt at humor based on real-life-and-somewhat-relevant-to-the-story experience}
You know, as far as distractions go, whenever I had to do vocabulary words as homework (given a list of words, write down the definitions from the dictionary), it would take me a LOOOONG time to complete. Remember at the tops of each page are the "key words" that help you pinpoint the word you are looking for? I would invariably find those words "interesting" and read their definitions. Not just the ones on the page where the vocab word was, but EVERY key word that I found interesting during the search process.
PLUS, while I was skimming the columns to locate the vocab word (when I finally made it to the correct page where it should be) I would get distracted by all the other words and stop and read their definitions! Took me FOREVER to do 10 vocab words! That whole dictionary thing was a HUGE distraction to getting my work done!
I think the government needs to reconsider putting dictionaries in every class room and spend that money on more computers. Kids can then safely do their vocab homework with dictionary.com-no key words, no other extraneous, distracting words to detract from your monk-like copying of text from the dictionary to your paper. Heck, you can even skip the writing part altogether an just copy the words and definitions into a word processor and print it out or...email them to your teacher!
[END]
{attempt at humor based on real-life-and-somewhat-relevant-to-the-story experience}
Sounds like South Korea. I was there early this year and saw the same crazy traffic. These people wouldn't even give-way to an ambulance (with it's lights on and sirens blaring). I didn't see any accidents, but I saw a scooter almost get squished by a bus as the scooter was weaving between lanes of traffic. Rub-marks are most of the vehicles there too.
Oh yeah, the sidewalks? Those are merely raised roads for smaller cars and scooters.
...has anyone seen my Dad lately? He left for Mossaka over 2 weeks ago and forgot his razor.
It was only a matter of time.
I would reply but I am busy Googling for cheap, equatorial, island real-estate. Cheap real-estate...Gotta do it quick before everyone else thinks of the same idea.
Now where did I put my Visa card...
"...as well as IBM's failure to produce information that back up SCO's breach of contract and copyright infringement claims."
Uh...wait a sec... when did it become the defendant's job to prove the plaintiff's case?
:) Love that term! "Sheeple". You come up with that one yourelf Ted? That's great. Mind if I use it? I'm asking for your permission because if it's your IP (and patented) then I wouldn't want to step on your toes or be dragged into court.
those who don't believe never will believe.
Then stop sending those missionaries to knock on my door!
Seriously now, if your comment were true, then every church/religion in the world would never need to go out and entice young people into joining.
Back in 1986, we had a religious "rock-band" perform at my school whose purpose (they admitted) was to bring the word of god to the students and to encourage students to seek god by attending a church of their choice.
Oh yeah, one more thing: Washington was wrong.
(I mean, hell, I'll give you Voyager ;)
No! You can't make me take it! Nooooo!
Ballmer said that cutting back on the promised features at least allowed the company to announce a release date for the product, which was a "major accomplishment."
I am just speechless. I better sit down." Absentee ballots are typically not anonymous."
I disagree. I am not intimately familliar with how my city/county processes absentee ballots, but I can extrapolate the method they COULD use based on how my wife's ballot is packaged and returned to the election officials office.
I know when I send in my wife's absentee ballot, there is a multiple-envelope system. The envelope that contains the actual ballot is blank. That blank, ballot-containing envelope is then placed inside another envelope that has my wife's name and address pre-printed on it. This pre-printed envelope is sealed and signed by her and then mailed to the election official's office. I would assume that the envelope is received and verified by an election official in a manner similar to verifying a person who walks into the polling place.
When I go to vote, my name is crossed off a roster and I sign next to my name-then I am handed a ballot.
I would guess that they would mark each absentee envelope as being recieved on a master list, (just like they mark each person off the roster when you walk into a polling place) then they open the envelope which contains the plain, un-marked envelope and place it into a bin to be processed by someone else. This ensures that each ballot is anonymous-as long as the person opening the first envelope doesn't make some sort of mark on the plain envelope and that the plain envelopes are sufficiently shuffled to prevent "reverse engineering" which envelope came from who...
If they follow those procedures, then the ballots are still anonymous. Of course, all anonymity is lost if the person who opens the signed/pre-printed envelope then opens the plain wrapped envelope that contains the actual ballot.
Better security! Yeah, that's it!
wait a minute...
How is that any less wrong than someone walking into a music store, walking out with a CD in their hand, and explaining to the cashier that they're not going to pay for it because they can't afford it?
It's not less wrong.
If they can't pay for an album, they don't buy it! But they don't stop there; they go and download it...
I agree-that would be wrong.
Aside from the $.02 CD and paper album cover, there is NO difference between downloading an album and stuffing one in your pocket at the music store.
I agree-except for the case where I may already own the physical CD, I see no problem with downloading a digital copy of the same album for my sole use (i.e., not sharing with others). I see that as being the same as me personally ripping a digital copy. Now, some people have made the argument that even downloading a copy of a CD you already own is wrong also, but that is a different point and I don't want to get into that discussion right now.
In any case, it seems as if we agree on the main points of the discussion. Funny sometimes how two people that agree can take so long to realize it.
Maybe I could have saved us a lot of time if I had simply stated my original point clearly enough. I just feel that the reason that CD sales may be down (which they aren't), is simply because they cost more money than some people want to pay and for the RIAA to simply blame all their woes on P2P is ...short-sighted? narrow-minded? ridiculous? Something like that.
However excluding something from a budget does not entitle you to it. That has been your argument thus far
No. My argument is in direct response to the statement made earlier about why the RIAA is losing sales. Let me re-iterate because apparently you cannot focus on more than one item at a time:
You said: ...trade a few hundred potential album sales gained from P2P for the THOUSANDS lost to it.
My response: You are assuming that every one who downloads a song would have purchased the album/single if they had not been able to download it for free. This is not an absolute.
.I did not decide to not purchase an album because I can download it. I decided to not purchase an album BECAUSE I CAN'T AFFORD IT. The RIAA is losing record sales because people CAN'T pay for them.
Also, no where did I say that because I cannot afford to pay for an album, that I am entitled to download it for free. Stop putting words in my mouth and focus on the crux of this particular discussion. I will say it again to get it through your thick skull:
I did not decide to not purchase an album because I can download it. I decided to not purchase an album BECAUSE I CAN'T AFFORD IT. The RIAA is losing record sales because people CAN'T pay for them.
And as far as work goes, you ever hear of a break? Or managing your own time? Or perhaps a lunch hour? Now you're just tyring to be a flamer. Stay focused on my argument or don't bother to respond.
So then there wouldn't be any financial hardship inflicted upon the music industry if EVERYONE downloaded music from P2P instead of buy it, right?
Completely false. I never said they wouldn't be hurt by EVERYONE refusing to buy their music.
Yes-see original post.
Not exactly. I have a limited amount of money. I choose to spend that money on whatever widgets that I determine are most important to me and my family. What is left over is not enough for me to spend on an overpriced piece of plastic. Also, you are assuming that I have an internet connection and a computer at home and am not using one at work...
Let's draw your logical thinking process out just al little bit farther... just because I have enough money to spend on an internet connection (which might be free) and a computer (which someone might have given to me), then I must have enough money to buy a cd or an external CD burner or a new stereo or a new dining room set or a new computer or a new car. Come on, just because someone has X amount of dollars to spend on Y, does not mean they have ANY money left over to buy anything else. That is High School Logic (tm). That's like telling someone, "Well, because you have enough money to buy food you MUST have enough money to pay for the heating costs of your home." {begin sarcasm} That logic is just spectacular! {end sarcasm}
I never said I was entitled to ANYTHING for free. I simply said that whether or not I CAN download music for free does not change the FACT that I CANNOT AFFORT TO BUY music and therefore the music industry has lost NOTHING!
trade a few hundred potential album sales gained from P2P for the THOUSANDS lost to it.
You are assuming that every one who downloads a song would have purchased the album/single if they had not been able to download it for free. This is not an absolute.
I cannot afford to go out and buy every album that strikes my fancy. Hell, I can't even afford one right now and there are several I would like to own. However, wether or not I choose to download the song/album for free does not change the fact that I cannot afford to pay for the album at this time and therefore I WILL NOT buy that album. I MAY download it, but the record company has not lost anything by me downloading it nor have they gained anything if I choose NOT to download it.
If the album was LESS EXPENSIVE, I would simply go buy it. It is their pricing practices that prevent a lot of people from purchasing their albums-not P2P.Well, actually they already have that-sort of. The Apache attack helicopter uses a targeting system that aims based on what the pilot looks at. Except that it uses a monocle over the right eye of the pilot. The monocle displays targeting information and presents a cross-hairs to the pilot. The pilot merely puts the cross-hairs on his target by turning his head and "looking" at it with the monocle and then pressing the trigger for the appropriate weapon. However, it's not REALLY based on what his eyeball is focused on, it's what the cross-hairs are pointed at. He could point the monocle towards the horizon and without moving his head, he could rotate his eyeballs to look down and fire, but unless he moves his head, the guns/missiles will still fire at what the monocle is pointed/looking at. Here are just a few pages that a quick Google search turned up: How Apache Helicopters Work-Controls and Sensors or "PBS-Frontline or this page that talks about the M142 INTEGRATED HELMET AND DISPLAY SIGHT SYSTEM (IHADSS)specifically.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
hehe. That's what I was thinking too.
But where is Microsoft going to get the "...advanced IT technology...?
Or this story this article. about Georgia Public Service Commission ordering BellSouth to offer naked DSL back in October 2003.
And of course, let's not forget this article.
From their "About" Page: "The Washington Alliance of Technology Workers is an organization of high-tech workers and allies joining together to provide an effective voice in the legislative and corporate arenas, and to advocate for improved benefits and workplace rights."
I have had the same experience with cooking and women. However, for me, what got my wife interested, was my ability to program an electronic readerboard sign at her work. I.E., she was impressed with my brains. Yes, it was easy (for me), but she was impressed anyway. Impressed enough to go out with me again. And again...
The broadcasters don't like PVR's that allow you to skip commercials because they want you to watch the commercials. In fact, NOT watching the commercials is "theft" of the show (previous slashdot article mentioned this quote from an industry exec-sorry can't find the article), then why limit how many times someone can copy it? Aren't they limiting the number of people who might see the commercials?
Ok, if it's a digital signal, and you edit out the commercials and distribute it on the web, my argument falls apart. But the more people I can share my copy with or make a copy for, then the more people will see their ads.
Heck, NASCAR owners charge advertisers based on how often their car is shown on TV during a race. They actually have people sit around and watch a race and calculate how many minutes and seconds a particular car is displayed. Then they charge the sponsors/advertisers more money (or less?) based on how much air-time their "commercials" get (or so I am told by a Nascar Geek-cannot confirm or deny).
How about this-(completely off the cuff, no thought put into this except for the 10 seconds it takes me to write it so be gentle with me...) What if there was a way to inform the content providers how many times their commercials had been watched? And then set up a payment system so that the show producers were paid a "royalty" by the product advertiser for everytime that their product commercial was viewed? Feasible? Maybe. Desirable? Probably not.
Anyway, there's my 2 cents (adjust for inflation as appropriate).
...then I guess I will just stop watching TV and download what I want to watch off the internet.