I don't think the administration believes they're biting the hand, and they may be entirely correct. In this case, the guy had a scholarship, so he wasn't exactly putting food on their plates. Also, it's generally parents, not students, who fork over the cash for tuition. If it's Marquette's goal to attract the dollars of parents who want strict discipline for their kids, then it's possible this might further that goal. Then again, they could be way off.
As a wise man once said, "The reports of piracy's death have been greatly exaggerated." Or maybe it was an insane man. Nevertheless..
I don't think there will ever be such a thing as the death of filesharing, licit or otherwise. I agree, however, that extremely low price points and faster-to-market than pirates (which seems rarely the case) will wipe out the bulk of illicit filesharing. Further, I think publishing companies stand to make even more money through bulk than they do right now. If we could download a song for 5 cents, we'd probably download 20 songs for a dollar instead of just 1 song. The lower profit per song would be offset by the number of songs downloaded, and more music for the dollar means more artists stand to reach an audience, which in turn fuels demand. That's good for the artists, the audience, and the recording companies.
Well, searching people without suspicion in order to prevent a crime or illict act is an effective deterrant, there's no question about it. It's also the definition of a police state. I guess when Congress wrote the 4th Ammendment, they really just wanted the ability to carry around paraphenelia without being hassled, and it had nothing to do with the abuses that are part in parcel of such overbearing authority.
In deciding whether or not to accept monitoring software, as in life, we are essentially asking the question, "Who do I trust more, the game company or my in-game opponent?" The answer may very well be the quasi-objective company, because logically they have nothing to gain and much to lose by rampant cheating.
The first problem is the consequences for a breach of trust on the part of whomever we choose to trust. If an opponent breaches our trust, we may lose the game. If a corporation with monitoring software breaches our trust, we stand to lose substantially more.
The second problem is that the corporation itself need not breach that trust, because there's the issue of exploits. Once again, when an exploit is developed for a game, we may lose the game (although there is no such thing as "losing" in the traditional sense with most persistant online games right now). On the other hand, when an exploit is developed for monitoring software such as Sony's DRM, we know what can happen.
So, if a company cannot write bulletproof code on the very first try, which many would argue is impossible regardless of the number of attempts, then it stands to reason that their monitoring software is just as vulnerable as the software they're purporting to protect.
So while monitoring software appears to be a solid solution at first glance, it turns out to be a double edged vulnerability with far more serious repercussions than simply trusting one's opponent. The real solution is constant assessment and patching of software on the part of the publisher, and there is no shortcut to doing things the right way.
That's not really a choice, because there's an implied negative consequence for picking the second choice: put up with cheating. In effect, it's extortion. Submit to our overbearing software or else. It's the digital equivelant of "voluntary" searches at airports: submit to searches or use a different method of transport. The reality is that there is no practical alternative in many cases, therefore searches are mandatory in effect.
Except that one's own fidelity is never insurance of one's partner's fidelity. Especially when you consider that 10% of children (on average across social, economic, and political borders) are the product of cuckoldry.. So at least 10% of women are unfaithful, and that's just the ones who actually get knocked up. Further consider that you're more likely to use barrier protection (a rubber) when having casual sex than when you're in a monogomous relationship. And finally, that women are much less likely to even know that they have an STD (particularly herpes), since, in addition to the possibility of a symptomless infection, symptoms which do present may not be visible.
Incidentally, this isn't a malign against women, but society already knows men are dogs. Most men, on the other hand, tend to assume the best about women, particularly attractive women, and especially women with whom they may have a relationship. Not that there's any other way to have a successful relationship; just be aware that risks aren't always what they seem.
The ad told the story of a guy who collected a $500,000 jury verdict after he was injured using a lawnmower as a hedge clipper. The agency later conceded that it had no factual basis for the story, but that didn't keep it from circulating widely in the media and in conservative political speeches. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/041 0.mencimer.html
(Think about that for a minute - even if you were to try to cut a hedge with a lawn mower, how could you hold it such that it would be your thumbs which were injured?) A quick Nexis search confirmed the story to have been a fabrication. http://thestoppedclock.blogspot.com/2004_10_10_the stoppedclock_archive.html
And of course there's just logic.. If manufacturers were liable for the method in which their products were used, then they'd be liable for children drinking household cleaners or chokings or stabbings, etc.
The only lawsuit I could find that even comes close to what you're describing is the case of a man in Texas who was killed by lightning. The family argued that the electrical substation less than 20 feet from where the man was standing had attracted the lightning, and that fencing should have been extended to at least 100 feet away. This completely ignored the fact that the man was an employee of the power company, that he was working inside the FIFTY foot fencing radius, and that he had been told by his boss not to perform any maintenance because there was a storm in the area. Nonetheless, the family was awarded $57M when the jury decided that the boss hadn't taken any measures to ensure the man complied with his instructions.
Some people are mad, but they're mostly students. Students are dumb, ergo who is really guilty? Here's how you get nominated: Steal a story without giving credit. That's plagiarism. If the story is sort of the same, that's not enough because sometimes not-so-great minds also think alike.
Empty cartridges could perhaps be traded in for a discount on full ones, and then be refilled and repackaged externally.
Yeah, that worked out well for bottles and cans.
Unless the stores themselves have the equipment to recharge them, shipping costs alone would probably negate the benefit of reusing a container, let alone testing them before they're resold.
From your link: The world's tallest building, the recently opened Taipei 101, has a massive 650 tonne sphere suspended from its 92nd floor
I'm not sure I believe the building itself is increasing seismic activity, but I bet dropping a 650 ton ball from 92 stories would definately make some waves. Mythbusters should've used that puppy for the steel toed boots guillitine.
That's because free markets are based on the idea of competition, not monopolies. When you deregulate a monopoly, like the power industry in California, then you get an Enron situation where prices are inflated by artificially reducing supply. It's not really practical to provide competition for an infrastructure, so the best alternative is to keep it regulated and keep the operation as transparent as possible. Incidentally, "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" was an excellent documentary on the subject. I just hope it gets the attention it deserves, since many people just think of the whole thing as a little book fixing. In fact, it's far more insidious and involved many "reputable" institutions facilitating all of it.
I don't think anyone's ever died of a broken arm because they got to the hospital in 30 minutes instead of 15. I mean, I understand you want to protect your children's livelyhood, but consider that they probably shouldn't be employed in the first place.
I'm not normally one to advocate driving slowly. The interstate system is modeled on the autobahn, so it's safe for much higher speeds than the posted limits. That said, 70 miles per second is a bit excessive. Let's try to keep it under Mach 300 in the future.
I've heard that mouse argument before, but it seems a non-issue to me. A mouse is about as unintuitive as a steering wheel. Sure, it seems easier if you could see exactly where the wheels are pointing when you're first learning to drive, but most people can pick it up in hours, days, or weeks, and it ends up being much better than turning the wheels by hand. Each input device (mouse and steering wheel) is used in almost exactly the same way: by estimating the amount you need to move it, and then fine tuning and adjusting for precision from there. It's much the same way we function and interact with everything around us.
This isn't new. Back before the interweb, people would send codes by posting classifieds in the newspaper. I can't find any source material right now.. I think I either saw it on a documentary, or maybe at the Spy Museum in DC, or possibly both.
Are we really here on this earth to just cheat each other and laugh about it?
Yes.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Repos might not be a joke, but you are.
on
High-Tech RepoMan
·
· Score: 1
Exactly! For example, if I take something that isn't mine without paying for it, have I "stolen," it? Not at all! I'm merely redistributing wealth. And if I shoot someone in the head, did I "murder" them? Of course not! They should know better than to keep their head in front of a gun after it goes off! I'm sick of how the people are trying to malign all sorts of actions by lumping them together under "labels." You can't label me!
MSN Messenger... Some people will laugh, but I've never had a problem with it traversing my LAN, and the video quality is on par with anything else I've seen.. the camera seems to be the limiting factor. When are they going to make some decent high resolution cameras that can run at more than 1 frame per shutterbutton click? (Meaning I'd like either my digital camera to be usable as a webcam, or my webcam to get on par with my digital camera quality).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the administration believes they're biting the hand, and they may be entirely correct. In this case, the guy had a scholarship, so he wasn't exactly putting food on their plates. Also, it's generally parents, not students, who fork over the cash for tuition. If it's Marquette's goal to attract the dollars of parents who want strict discipline for their kids, then it's possible this might further that goal. Then again, they could be way off.
Sue people into existance? I'd pay a buck to see that.
I heard patents are developing WMDs.
As a wise man once said, "The reports of piracy's death have been greatly exaggerated." Or maybe it was an insane man. Nevertheless..
I don't think there will ever be such a thing as the death of filesharing, licit or otherwise. I agree, however, that extremely low price points and faster-to-market than pirates (which seems rarely the case) will wipe out the bulk of illicit filesharing. Further, I think publishing companies stand to make even more money through bulk than they do right now. If we could download a song for 5 cents, we'd probably download 20 songs for a dollar instead of just 1 song. The lower profit per song would be offset by the number of songs downloaded, and more music for the dollar means more artists stand to reach an audience, which in turn fuels demand. That's good for the artists, the audience, and the recording companies.
Well, searching people without suspicion in order to prevent a crime or illict act is an effective deterrant, there's no question about it. It's also the definition of a police state. I guess when Congress wrote the 4th Ammendment, they really just wanted the ability to carry around paraphenelia without being hassled, and it had nothing to do with the abuses that are part in parcel of such overbearing authority.
In deciding whether or not to accept monitoring software, as in life, we are essentially asking the question, "Who do I trust more, the game company or my in-game opponent?" The answer may very well be the quasi-objective company, because logically they have nothing to gain and much to lose by rampant cheating.
The first problem is the consequences for a breach of trust on the part of whomever we choose to trust. If an opponent breaches our trust, we may lose the game. If a corporation with monitoring software breaches our trust, we stand to lose substantially more.
The second problem is that the corporation itself need not breach that trust, because there's the issue of exploits. Once again, when an exploit is developed for a game, we may lose the game (although there is no such thing as "losing" in the traditional sense with most persistant online games right now). On the other hand, when an exploit is developed for monitoring software such as Sony's DRM, we know what can happen.
So, if a company cannot write bulletproof code on the very first try, which many would argue is impossible regardless of the number of attempts, then it stands to reason that their monitoring software is just as vulnerable as the software they're purporting to protect.
So while monitoring software appears to be a solid solution at first glance, it turns out to be a double edged vulnerability with far more serious repercussions than simply trusting one's opponent. The real solution is constant assessment and patching of software on the part of the publisher, and there is no shortcut to doing things the right way.
That's not really a choice, because there's an implied negative consequence for picking the second choice: put up with cheating. In effect, it's extortion. Submit to our overbearing software or else. It's the digital equivelant of "voluntary" searches at airports: submit to searches or use a different method of transport. The reality is that there is no practical alternative in many cases, therefore searches are mandatory in effect.
Except that one's own fidelity is never insurance of one's partner's fidelity. Especially when you consider that 10% of children (on average across social, economic, and political borders) are the product of cuckoldry.. So at least 10% of women are unfaithful, and that's just the ones who actually get knocked up. Further consider that you're more likely to use barrier protection (a rubber) when having casual sex than when you're in a monogomous relationship. And finally, that women are much less likely to even know that they have an STD (particularly herpes), since, in addition to the possibility of a symptomless infection, symptoms which do present may not be visible.
Incidentally, this isn't a malign against women, but society already knows men are dogs. Most men, on the other hand, tend to assume the best about women, particularly attractive women, and especially women with whom they may have a relationship. Not that there's any other way to have a successful relationship; just be aware that risks aren't always what they seem.
Right. Pay-your-own-fees means people can't afford to win, and loser-pays means they can't afford to lose.
The solution, obviously, is to make lawyers work for free.
Except the fatal flaw in your argument is that there is no fatal flaw in the Xbox 360. It merely crashes; there's no burning involved.
You may very well be the only person left on the planet who believes the cruise control myth, but here's some light reading on that:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
http://www.atla.org/homepage/debunk.aspx
As for the lawnmower hokey:
And of course there's just logic.. If manufacturers were liable for the method in which their products were used, then they'd be liable for children drinking household cleaners or chokings or stabbings, etc.
The only lawsuit I could find that even comes close to what you're describing is the case of a man in Texas who was killed by lightning. The family argued that the electrical substation less than 20 feet from where the man was standing had attracted the lightning, and that fencing should have been extended to at least 100 feet away. This completely ignored the fact that the man was an employee of the power company, that he was working inside the FIFTY foot fencing radius, and that he had been told by his boss not to perform any maintenance because there was a storm in the area. Nonetheless, the family was awarded $57M when the jury decided that the boss hadn't taken any measures to ensure the man complied with his instructions.
TADA!
And that's how I got through high school.
Practically all the energy...we use originates from the Sun
That's why we need to extract energy from dirt, so we're not so dependant on this "sun" thing.
Wait a minute.. forget I said anything.
*Scribbles patent*
*Sound of footsteps, door slamming, and car starting and peeling off*
{if you don't get it, you need to watch Futurama}
(And joke explanations should result in a mandatory 5 hour viewing of Carrot Top and relinquishing of any and all karma).
Empty cartridges could perhaps be traded in for a discount on full ones, and then be refilled and repackaged externally.
Yeah, that worked out well for bottles and cans.
Unless the stores themselves have the equipment to recharge them, shipping costs alone would probably negate the benefit of reusing a container, let alone testing them before they're resold.
From your link: The world's tallest building, the recently opened Taipei 101, has a massive 650 tonne sphere suspended from its 92nd floor
I'm not sure I believe the building itself is increasing seismic activity, but I bet dropping a 650 ton ball from 92 stories would definately make some waves. Mythbusters should've used that puppy for the steel toed boots guillitine.
That's because free markets are based on the idea of competition, not monopolies. When you deregulate a monopoly, like the power industry in California, then you get an Enron situation where prices are inflated by artificially reducing supply. It's not really practical to provide competition for an infrastructure, so the best alternative is to keep it regulated and keep the operation as transparent as possible. Incidentally, "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" was an excellent documentary on the subject. I just hope it gets the attention it deserves, since many people just think of the whole thing as a little book fixing. In fact, it's far more insidious and involved many "reputable" institutions facilitating all of it.
Sounds like an interesting idea for a renewable energy source, but what happens if one of these tornadoes gets away?
Run.
I don't think anyone's ever died of a broken arm because they got to the hospital in 30 minutes instead of 15. I mean, I understand you want to protect your children's livelyhood, but consider that they probably shouldn't be employed in the first place.
I'm not normally one to advocate driving slowly. The interstate system is modeled on the autobahn, so it's safe for much higher speeds than the posted limits. That said, 70 miles per second is a bit excessive. Let's try to keep it under Mach 300 in the future.
I've heard that mouse argument before, but it seems a non-issue to me. A mouse is about as unintuitive as a steering wheel. Sure, it seems easier if you could see exactly where the wheels are pointing when you're first learning to drive, but most people can pick it up in hours, days, or weeks, and it ends up being much better than turning the wheels by hand. Each input device (mouse and steering wheel) is used in almost exactly the same way: by estimating the amount you need to move it, and then fine tuning and adjusting for precision from there. It's much the same way we function and interact with everything around us.
This isn't new. Back before the interweb, people would send codes by posting classifieds in the newspaper. I can't find any source material right now.. I think I either saw it on a documentary, or maybe at the Spy Museum in DC, or possibly both.
Are we really here on this earth to just cheat each other and laugh about it?
Yes.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Exactly! For example, if I take something that isn't mine without paying for it, have I "stolen," it? Not at all! I'm merely redistributing wealth. And if I shoot someone in the head, did I "murder" them? Of course not! They should know better than to keep their head in front of a gun after it goes off! I'm sick of how the people are trying to malign all sorts of actions by lumping them together under "labels." You can't label me!
MSN Messenger... Some people will laugh, but I've never had a problem with it traversing my LAN, and the video quality is on par with anything else I've seen.. the camera seems to be the limiting factor. When are they going to make some decent high resolution cameras that can run at more than 1 frame per shutterbutton click? (Meaning I'd like either my digital camera to be usable as a webcam, or my webcam to get on par with my digital camera quality).
That almost as if the information is traveling along an infrastructure of some sort rather than just teleporting...