What about the film industry creating a cartel and using laws to enforce it, stuff like region coding DVD's and BluRay's, encryption, or adding unskippable bs like copyright notices on LEGIT bought products.
It's their product and they can sell it under any circumstances they want. Don't like DRM? Don't buy it, but don't use DRM as an excuse to pirate something. Or, buy it and use one of the many products that will rip a copy free of DRM and the notices.
The "pirates" are obviously giving consumers a better product, but corrupt governments side on the media cartels who refuse to update their business models to the current real world - they are stuck in the last century.
No, pirates are simply giving people an excuse to get stuff for free. You argument is akin to saying "I don't like GPL terms so I will go ahead and take the source and do whatever I want with it and distribute it without providing the source code; the desires of the original creators be damned since I have a LEGIT copy. The GPL business model is so last century; this is 2014 where people make obey off of code.
As for business models, I can get a movie on BR, DVD and iTunes in one package; giving me the ability to view it how and when I want. I am not a fan of DRM and would like
Here's a thought. If the studios said "We know many people pirate our materials. So, we've setup a fund where you can make a donation of XX$ for each copy you pirated. You can do it anonymously so we will not know who contributed so there is no range rod us going after you. You'll get a receipt, if you want, so if we do prosecute you as a result of another action you have proof to avoid a lawsuit." How much money form people who simply want "a better ported product" will actually pay for it?
Certainly, taxi and limo companies have a stake in keeping the status quo. That does not change the facts about under-insurance and under-licensing. So, they do have a legitimate beef about unfairness and protection of the public. This also works in their self-interested to limit competition, though.
If we don't have enough taxis, or limitation of taxis is artificially boosting rates, change the local regulations to allow more taxis. Let's have a more fundamental public debate and solution. Sure, taxi and limo companies are greedy..
Don't confuse rates with what is really at stake here. One of the problems is medallions have become so valuable in some areas that cab companies will fight to the death to prevent more being issued. A medallion can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars; and may be sold to a cab driver so it's producing a steady income stream whether or not the cab is on the road. It's also easily repossessed, doesn't depreciate and easy to put back in service so if the driver fails to pay you get it back and can sell it again. Given the millions of dollars at stake it's no surprise companies fight to prevent more medallions form being issued.
Sterling never did anything illegal, he was just an old biggoted man. There exists no punishment society can inflict on him beyond personal actions like boycotting or just not liking him... So what gives? Why do people think that he can be robbed of an asset for being a biggot?
He has first amendment protections to be as big of a douchebag as he wants. His privacy was violated by his mistress and he was doing nothing illegal. The NBA has no grounds to force him out or deny him profit from the sale of an asset he shouldn't be forced to sell.
Actually, since the agreement between Sterling and the NBA is a private contractual one they are within their rights to do whatever is contractually permitted. How society views him and actions that take are separate from the agreement he has with the NBA.
Hopefully the team's value will plummet after the sale is complete.
I doubt it. There are many more people out there that want to buy a team than teams available for sale so prices tend not to drop; and given that many people probably own teams for reasons beyond investment their is a value to owning one, beyond the basic financials, that people are willing to pay a premium to own one.
Given that anybody who pirated the content likely wouldn't have paid for it even if they'd not pirated it
While that is a standard "piracy has no effect on sales" arguement I don't buy it. While that may be true for some pirates who simply get off having one of every released software title or very expensive products, for many products I bet the allure of free vs. buy is too strong take away free and some probably not insignificant percentage would buy.
this is just an excuse from the likes of EA, Activision, and Ubisoft. (And when was the last time any of the above put out a game that wasn't another tepid dishwater remake or derivative copy of somebody else's game anyway?)
The quality of the product aside it's pretty clear that high rates of piracy relative to sales results in less development and products.
Chicago has the "Rocket Docket" where low level traffic violations are dismissed en mass because the cop fails to show; or if they actually go to trial often dismissed before etch judge even hears the evidence on request of the prosecutor. They have to many important cases to worry about the BS ones; if everyone went to court they courts would dimpled from the sheer volume. That's why fines need to be set low enough and drivers allowed to avoid point sna swipe tickets form records by going to a traffic school; if the penalty is to high people will fight.
"Non-commercial RenderMan will be freely available for... developers...," it added.'
Forget the others; they're basically saying anyone not making commercial feature films can use it for free -- which means small software developers can now create excellent animation sequences for free, as long as they can actually do decent animation. This could usher in Pixar-level animation in App-style games, which would be significantly better than the current options.
Here we come, Bendy Luxo apps!
If I read their pricing schedule correctly a commercial license is only $495; so someone could create some animation and later buy a license at a reasonable price if they decide to do a commercial release.
1. Lazy Dummies: Who, while they may be dummies, will never exert enough effort to really accomplish anything. You don't have to worry about them, just give them some trivial and unimportant set of tasks and let them go off on their own since the will never endanger the project.
2. Competent Dummies: They may be dummies relative to everyone else but they have a skill set that is capable of accomplishing some tasks. Assign them tasks commensurate with their skills and keep an eye on them.
3. Enthusiastic Dummies: They don't realize they're dummies and will take on tasks beyond their skills or capabilities, often without telling you because they want to contribute and think they can do it. These are the dangerous ones because they can cause a lot of damage before they are stopped. Keep a close leash on them.
Oh good! So now if some Chinese copycat company with no morals rips off my company's technology and I sue them then they spend 10 million on lawyers and beat my small company, I have to pay that bill for them. Fantastic!
Not really. If you have legitimate claim and litigate in good faith then you are unlikely to get hit with paying the winner's expenses; while adding significant financial risk to the "they'll settle because it's cheaper to than fight even a bogus claim" business model.
If Wikipedia is statistically as accurate as Britannica, then that remains the case regardless of its "editability". It hardly matters if you read an error in Britannica that has been there for 10 years, or one that just appeared 3 seconds ago
What matters is the ability to introduce errors or specific POVs into the source document which deals directly with how easy it is to edit the source. Even if the error is transient someone reading the article will get bad information which means the source is less than reliable as a primary source. The statistical percentage of errors is not the issue although one could Rgue that any measure of errors in Wikipedia is subject to large error bars because one doesn't know if someone has corrected the error or introduced new ones.
"Ja, Ve investigated but der Amerikans undt Birtish vouldn't answer zee question and zee others vent all Sgt Schulz on uns"
...Holy crap...
I have always found it strange how you Anglo Saxons see so much sanctity in feces. To us Germans it is a revolting substance but for you it is the focus of much religious reverence.
Well, it started out out as bing referred to as "wholly crap" as in "completely crap" but given the deep Anglo Saxon religious roots it got misinterpreted as "Holy crap" and that is what stuck. Or something like that...
"Ja, Ve investigated but der Amerikans undt Birtish vouldn't answer zee question and zee others vent all Sgt Schulz on uns"
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, leaders realized such a prosecution would open a can of worms that could lead to very embarrassing disclosures about German activities and complicity in the spying. No politician wants to be caught in that mess, and the spymasters are quite happy to keep working together while the politicians publicly denounce the spying for their own political ends. I would not be surprised if sone of the professionals are going "We have too get some of that stuff for ourselves" and "Holy crap. They can do that?"
I'm not saying you don't have a point, but Wikipedia's accuracy is actually close to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Anything people do will have errors, whether due to malice or incompetence. And even if it doesn't initially, accuracy is a moving target, and errors in science and medicine will accumulate over time as our knowledge itself evolves. In my experience, statements such as yours are often used by the intellectually lazy to dismiss Wikipedia as evidence that their worldview is out of touch with reality, so a little bit less hyperbole would be advantageous for intelligent discourse. Sure, people will try to push their agendas. They will be frustrated by bona fide editors as well as people trying to push an opposite agenda, and the end result comes out quite OK compared to other sources of information.
While I agree Wikipedia generally comes out OK, the real danger, IMHO, is from its edibility. People view it at a point in time and thus the quality and accuracy of the information varies depending on the last edit. Couple that with a perception that Wikipedia is an authoritative source and you have a situation where someone can get bad information while believing it to be accurate. In fairness, that is not a Wikipedia unique issue but rather a problem with how people view internet information; where the are small islands of knowledge floating in giant seas of crap. Wikipedia is good as a general reference and a starting point for information but what you find needs to be verified by independent sources; especially if you are relying on it for health related issues. Of course, that is true for dead tree sources as well.
I am shocked. Shocked. No one would use a widely accessed platform to push a POV nor would it be adequately vetted by professionals for accuracy and completeness and edits limited to trusted sources. Add in that their are many more people who think they are experts that aren't and it is a wonder that Wikipedia's accuracy is above 0%.
Maybe this was a proof-of-concept hack and they didn't want to take the risks involved in setting up an actual Paypal account they could extract money from until they were sure it worked?
Sorry about two replies. This could all be a eats for some more involved attack beyond simple locks and they don't care about the locked devices or payment.
Maybe this was a proof-of-concept hack and they didn't want to take the risks involved in setting up an actual Paypal account they could extract money from until they were sure it worked?
Possibly. Problem is now that they know it works how do they let people know where to pay; plus PayPal is unlikely to allow payment so they need to find another untraceable way to collect cash and notify their victims before Apple does a fix.
Wouldn't the FBI/other put a trace on the account and prevent the criminals from withdrawing without revealing themselves, within a day or two?
It is not like the message is: "Leave 10,000 dollars under the bridge, and come alone or your data gets it."
That, and PayPal also says the account doesn't exist. Then again, just because they are smart enough to hack the Apple servers does';t mean they aren't stupid in other ways; or maybe are arrogant enough to feel they are untouchable?
IIUC, he said it was larger than legal size. This makes digitizing it difficult.
A good digital SLR with a quality lens and a copy stand should be able to make a decent enough copy for preservation purposes.
OTOH, another poster said that actual professional photographic businesses would be willing to reporduce it, that the only problem was with "end user" places like WalMart and CopyMat.
You won't get that decent of a print anyway at those places. I'd go with a decent online shop that can supply machine specific color calibrations and calibrate the monitor if you want a decent print.
Unfortunately the screwy way copyright and the like work in the US, you get stupid things. Like my parents can't even make a digital print of their wedding picture. Because it's technically copyright to the photographer (who's dead) and the studio (which has been out of business for 35 years).
Never mind that the picture was a work for hire.
Actually, it probably wan't a work for hire; the contract probably allowed the photographer to keep the rights to the photo. After all, selling prints is how they made money. If you want the negatives and rights the costs for the shot would be higher since they would not make any money off of prints.
Never mind that they're the subjects of the picture.
Largely irrelevant. They photographer, unless the contract allowed it, couldn't sell the picture for say an advertisement for a store without a model release but simply being the subject doesn't give them rights to the picture. YMMV, depending on local laws and how famous the subject.
Never mind that the picture itself is fading and they're doing this for preservational purposes.
Given the circumstances, I would go ahead and make a digital copy. I doubt anyone will come after them.
Frankly, I'm amused to see the number of people here talking about the poor, put-upon publishers, when those publishers are earning three times as much as the actual writer from an ebook sale. Couldn't posters spare a thought for those who actually wrote the book now and again?
They do;as do the publishers. It starts with the letter F and with the letter U.
Re:One problem with auto saving
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
Carl-s
It's only pronounced that way. When writing we still use "Ctrl".
Gotta luv speal cheakers...
One problem with auto saving
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
is how do revert to older versions? I use a program that saves every change so while a crash would not result in lost work I can't revert to an earlier version unless I save a copy first before editing. Fortunately I use another program that saves a copy every time I use Carl-s so I can roll back from its copies.
They include the DeHaviland Comet - a fantastic aircraft which set the standard in the airliner industry for decades to come. It did suffer from a design flaw which caused several crashes, but those crashes helped us learn a lot more about metal fatigue and the structural integrity of aircraft, and lead directly to improved safety in later designs. It was also fixed as soon as it was identified. Suggesting that the Comet was one of "the worst planes" - or that it should have never have flown - is just plane ignorant.
In addition, they left out the Lockheed L-188 Electra which also had a series of early crashes due to a design flaw called whirl mode flutter which resulted in the wings diverging from the fuselage's flight path. Nonetheless, it soldiered on and a variant still flies today as the P-3 Orion.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the film industry creating a cartel and using laws to enforce it, stuff like region coding DVD's and BluRay's, encryption, or adding unskippable bs like copyright notices on LEGIT bought products.
It's their product and they can sell it under any circumstances they want. Don't like DRM? Don't buy it, but don't use DRM as an excuse to pirate something. Or, buy it and use one of the many products that will rip a copy free of DRM and the notices.
The "pirates" are obviously giving consumers a better product, but corrupt governments side on the media cartels who refuse to update their business models to the current real world - they are stuck in the last century.
No, pirates are simply giving people an excuse to get stuff for free. You argument is akin to saying "I don't like GPL terms so I will go ahead and take the source and do whatever I want with it and distribute it without providing the source code; the desires of the original creators be damned since I have a LEGIT copy. The GPL business model is so last century; this is 2014 where people make obey off of code.
As for business models, I can get a movie on BR, DVD and iTunes in one package; giving me the ability to view it how and when I want. I am not a fan of DRM and would like
Here's a thought. If the studios said "We know many people pirate our materials. So, we've setup a fund where you can make a donation of XX$ for each copy you pirated. You can do it anonymously so we will not know who contributed so there is no range rod us going after you. You'll get a receipt, if you want, so if we do prosecute you as a result of another action you have proof to avoid a lawsuit." How much money form people who simply want "a better ported product" will actually pay for it?
I sold my first work to them. Od course, they went on to bigger and better ...
Certainly, taxi and limo companies have a stake in keeping the status quo. That does not change the facts about under-insurance and under-licensing. So, they do have a legitimate beef about unfairness and protection of the public. This also works in their self-interested to limit competition, though.
If we don't have enough taxis, or limitation of taxis is artificially boosting rates, change the local regulations to allow more taxis. Let's have a more fundamental public debate and solution. Sure, taxi and limo companies are greedy. .
Don't confuse rates with what is really at stake here. One of the problems is medallions have become so valuable in some areas that cab companies will fight to the death to prevent more being issued. A medallion can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars; and may be sold to a cab driver so it's producing a steady income stream whether or not the cab is on the road. It's also easily repossessed, doesn't depreciate and easy to put back in service so if the driver fails to pay you get it back and can sell it again. Given the millions of dollars at stake it's no surprise companies fight to prevent more medallions form being issued.
Sterling never did anything illegal, he was just an old biggoted man. There exists no punishment society can inflict on him beyond personal actions like boycotting or just not liking him... So what gives? Why do people think that he can be robbed of an asset for being a biggot?
He has first amendment protections to be as big of a douchebag as he wants. His privacy was violated by his mistress and he was doing nothing illegal. The NBA has no grounds to force him out or deny him profit from the sale of an asset he shouldn't be forced to sell.
Actually, since the agreement between Sterling and the NBA is a private contractual one they are within their rights to do whatever is contractually permitted. How society views him and actions that take are separate from the agreement he has with the NBA.
Hopefully the team's value will plummet after the sale is complete.
I doubt it. There are many more people out there that want to buy a team than teams available for sale so prices tend not to drop; and given that many people probably own teams for reasons beyond investment their is a value to owning one, beyond the basic financials, that people are willing to pay a premium to own one.
Given that anybody who pirated the content likely wouldn't have paid for it even if they'd not pirated it
While that is a standard "piracy has no effect on sales" arguement I don't buy it. While that may be true for some pirates who simply get off having one of every released software title or very expensive products, for many products I bet the allure of free vs. buy is too strong take away free and some probably not insignificant percentage would buy.
this is just an excuse from the likes of EA, Activision, and Ubisoft. (And when was the last time any of the above put out a game that wasn't another tepid dishwater remake or derivative copy of somebody else's game anyway?)
The quality of the product aside it's pretty clear that high rates of piracy relative to sales results in less development and products.
Chicago has the "Rocket Docket" where low level traffic violations are dismissed en mass because the cop fails to show; or if they actually go to trial often dismissed before etch judge even hears the evidence on request of the prosecutor. They have to many important cases to worry about the BS ones; if everyone went to court they courts would dimpled from the sheer volume. That's why fines need to be set low enough and drivers allowed to avoid point sna swipe tickets form records by going to a traffic school; if the penalty is to high people will fight.
Forget the others; they're basically saying anyone not making commercial feature films can use it for free -- which means small software developers can now create excellent animation sequences for free, as long as they can actually do decent animation. This could usher in Pixar-level animation in App-style games, which would be significantly better than the current options.
Here we come, Bendy Luxo apps!
If I read their pricing schedule correctly a commercial license is only $495; so someone could create some animation and later buy a license at a reasonable price if they decide to do a commercial release.
1. Lazy Dummies: Who, while they may be dummies, will never exert enough effort to really accomplish anything. You don't have to worry about them, just give them some trivial and unimportant set of tasks and let them go off on their own since the will never endanger the project.
2. Competent Dummies: They may be dummies relative to everyone else but they have a skill set that is capable of accomplishing some tasks. Assign them tasks commensurate with their skills and keep an eye on them.
3. Enthusiastic Dummies: They don't realize they're dummies and will take on tasks beyond their skills or capabilities, often without telling you because they want to contribute and think they can do it. These are the dangerous ones because they can cause a lot of damage before they are stopped. Keep a close leash on them.
Oh good! So now if some Chinese copycat company with no morals rips off my company's technology and I sue them then they spend 10 million on lawyers and beat my small company, I have to pay that bill for them. Fantastic!
Not really. If you have legitimate claim and litigate in good faith then you are unlikely to get hit with paying the winner's expenses; while adding significant financial risk to the "they'll settle because it's cheaper to than fight even a bogus claim" business model.
If Wikipedia is statistically as accurate as Britannica, then that remains the case regardless of its "editability". It hardly matters if you read an error in Britannica that has been there for 10 years, or one that just appeared 3 seconds ago
What matters is the ability to introduce errors or specific POVs into the source document which deals directly with how easy it is to edit the source. Even if the error is transient someone reading the article will get bad information which means the source is less than reliable as a primary source. The statistical percentage of errors is not the issue although one could Rgue that any measure of errors in Wikipedia is subject to large error bars because one doesn't know if someone has corrected the error or introduced new ones.
"Ja, Ve investigated but der Amerikans undt Birtish vouldn't answer zee question and zee others vent all Sgt Schulz on uns"
...Holy crap...
I have always found it strange how you Anglo Saxons see so much sanctity in feces. To us Germans it is a revolting substance but for you it is the focus of much religious reverence.
Well, it started out out as bing referred to as "wholly crap" as in "completely crap" but given the deep Anglo Saxon religious roots it got misinterpreted as "Holy crap" and that is what stuck. Or something like that...
"Ja, Ve investigated but der Amerikans undt Birtish vouldn't answer zee question and zee others vent all Sgt Schulz on uns"
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, leaders realized such a prosecution would open a can of worms that could lead to very embarrassing disclosures about German activities and complicity in the spying. No politician wants to be caught in that mess, and the spymasters are quite happy to keep working together while the politicians publicly denounce the spying for their own political ends. I would not be surprised if sone of the professionals are going "We have too get some of that stuff for ourselves" and "Holy crap. They can do that?"
I'm not saying you don't have a point, but Wikipedia's accuracy is actually close to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Anything people do will have errors, whether due to malice or incompetence. And even if it doesn't initially, accuracy is a moving target, and errors in science and medicine will accumulate over time as our knowledge itself evolves. In my experience, statements such as yours are often used by the intellectually lazy to dismiss Wikipedia as evidence that their worldview is out of touch with reality, so a little bit less hyperbole would be advantageous for intelligent discourse. Sure, people will try to push their agendas. They will be frustrated by bona fide editors as well as people trying to push an opposite agenda, and the end result comes out quite OK compared to other sources of information.
While I agree Wikipedia generally comes out OK, the real danger, IMHO, is from its edibility. People view it at a point in time and thus the quality and accuracy of the information varies depending on the last edit. Couple that with a perception that Wikipedia is an authoritative source and you have a situation where someone can get bad information while believing it to be accurate. In fairness, that is not a Wikipedia unique issue but rather a problem with how people view internet information; where the are small islands of knowledge floating in giant seas of crap. Wikipedia is good as a general reference and a starting point for information but what you find needs to be verified by independent sources; especially if you are relying on it for health related issues. Of course, that is true for dead tree sources as well.
I am shocked. Shocked. No one would use a widely accessed platform to push a POV nor would it be adequately vetted by professionals for accuracy and completeness and edits limited to trusted sources. Add in that their are many more people who think they are experts that aren't and it is a wonder that Wikipedia's accuracy is above 0%.
Maybe this was a proof-of-concept hack and they didn't want to take the risks involved in setting up an actual Paypal account they could extract money from until they were sure it worked?
Sorry about two replies. This could all be a eats for some more involved attack beyond simple locks and they don't care about the locked devices or payment.
Maybe this was a proof-of-concept hack and they didn't want to take the risks involved in setting up an actual Paypal account they could extract money from until they were sure it worked?
Possibly. Problem is now that they know it works how do they let people know where to pay; plus PayPal is unlikely to allow payment so they need to find another untraceable way to collect cash and notify their victims before Apple does a fix.
Wouldn't the FBI/other put a trace on the account and prevent the criminals from withdrawing without revealing themselves, within a day or two?
It is not like the message is: "Leave 10,000 dollars under the bridge, and come alone or your data gets it."
That, and PayPal also says the account doesn't exist. Then again, just because they are smart enough to hack the Apple servers does';t mean they aren't stupid in other ways; or maybe are arrogant enough to feel they are untouchable?
IIUC, he said it was larger than legal size. This makes digitizing it difficult.
A good digital SLR with a quality lens and a copy stand should be able to make a decent enough copy for preservation purposes.
OTOH, another poster said that actual professional photographic businesses would be willing to reporduce it, that the only problem was with "end user" places like WalMart and CopyMat.
You won't get that decent of a print anyway at those places. I'd go with a decent online shop that can supply machine specific color calibrations and calibrate the monitor if you want a decent print.
Unfortunately the screwy way copyright and the like work in the US, you get stupid things. Like my parents can't even make a digital print of their wedding picture. Because it's technically copyright to the photographer (who's dead) and the studio (which has been out of business for 35 years).
Never mind that the picture was a work for hire.
Actually, it probably wan't a work for hire; the contract probably allowed the photographer to keep the rights to the photo. After all, selling prints is how they made money. If you want the negatives and rights the costs for the shot would be higher since they would not make any money off of prints.
Never mind that they're the subjects of the picture.
Largely irrelevant. They photographer, unless the contract allowed it, couldn't sell the picture for say an advertisement for a store without a model release but simply being the subject doesn't give them rights to the picture. YMMV, depending on local laws and how famous the subject.
Never mind that the picture itself is fading and they're doing this for preservational purposes.
Given the circumstances, I would go ahead and make a digital copy. I doubt anyone will come after them.
Frankly, I'm amused to see the number of people here talking about the poor, put-upon publishers, when those publishers are earning three times as much as the actual writer from an ebook sale. Couldn't posters spare a thought for those who actually wrote the book now and again?
They do;as do the publishers. It starts with the letter F and with the letter U.
Carl-s
It's only pronounced that way. When writing we still use "Ctrl".
Gotta luv speal cheakers...
is how do revert to older versions? I use a program that saves every change so while a crash would not result in lost work I can't revert to an earlier version unless I save a copy first before editing. Fortunately I use another program that saves a copy every time I use Carl-s so I can roll back from its copies.
Perhaps that means we should change how a word will be interpreted in a court of law?
The problem is it's how the jury interprets the story the lawyers craft around the word, not the word.
They include the DeHaviland Comet - a fantastic aircraft which set the standard in the airliner industry for decades to come. It did suffer from a design flaw which caused several crashes, but those crashes helped us learn a lot more about metal fatigue and the structural integrity of aircraft, and lead directly to improved safety in later designs. It was also fixed as soon as it was identified. Suggesting that the Comet was one of "the worst planes" - or that it should have never have flown - is just plane ignorant.
In addition, they left out the Lockheed L-188 Electra which also had a series of early crashes due to a design flaw called whirl mode flutter which resulted in the wings diverging from the fuselage's flight path. Nonetheless, it soldiered on and a variant still flies today as the P-3 Orion.