There is a big difference between a peice of rock that is blasted off the face of Mars in a cataclysmic impact, and one that is carefully collected and transported in a controlled environment.
Europa is the reason that Galileo is being sent to crash into Jupiter while we still have control of it, rather than let it continue to orbit indefinately.
Sucks for Jupiter then, doesn't it? So, possibly contaminating some other planet is the only way they can figure out how to avoid contaminating ours. This is evidence of sound judgement and planning?
I think these geniuses need a refresher in History. Perhaps a short refresher on the VERY NEGATIVE consequences of early travelers moving material from the SAME PLANET to different areas.
If we need to bring it back to study, I can only assume that we don't know enough about it already to be sure that it is safe to introduce to Earth.
Actually, PCs are the one big exception, if anything, and that is only if you exclude notebooks. I suggest your open your eyes to the much broader world of consumer electronics. (Note: you will have to venture beyond Best Buy.)
Please also note that I did NOT say that this tech was CHEAPER, just that it was AVAILABLE, and by available I mean to those who can afford it. Even the richest man in America can't buy and use a cell phone on par with a Japanese teenager.
Your assertion that the only difference is size (as if that were insignificant) just proves my point.
Judging by the price of "services" that are currently offered by carriers in the US, you can bet that in addition to being years behind in implemetation, any new features/capabilities will be prohibitively expensive.
I'm sure they will be content to milk their corporate customers for top dollar for a few years before they lower the price enough to make it practical for personal use. After all, with the average user still impressed by the fact that they can screw a new faceplate on to their Nokia 5190, they won't be under much pressure to roll this out.
I think you sig(?) says a lot about why we (American's) almost never see cool techonology while it is new. Americans just won't buy it. Japanese are willing to pay a premium for the latest, smallest, coolest devices. Americans will put up with obsolete devices until the next level has been around so long that it is cheap (because it too has become obsolete).
How many Americans do you still see with Nokia 5190s? It's pathetic.
Now hang no there mister! As an American I can assure you that my country is on the leading edge of technology. My notebook computer weighs less that 6 pounds, and my cell phone can use analog and digital networks!
And don't get me started on our superior automobile technology!
Because (if you are in America) you are routinely sold technology that is practically obsolete in Japan and the rest of Asia and told that it is state of the art.
Just another manifestation of the BIG LIE of American technological superiority.
It is. But an IPO marks the transition from sound business to cashing in as quickly as possible. Shareholders don't care about long or even mid term viability. Shareholders have no loyalty to the brand OR to it's customers. With them in charge, sound business is out the window.
Jesus, there's nothing I hate more than people who tell you to read their comments who haven't read yours. Where exactly did I say I thought it was okay to build a replica of a car? And why on Earth do you think that's even what we're talking about?
Even if you assemble a second car identical to the first, you still ended up paying for all the parts again, plus whatever labor went into it. It's nothing like duplicating software--with something tangible, duplication has the cost of materials tied into it. There are no legal problems because you HAVE paid for both 'copies' of the car. Duplicating software has no practical cost to it... which means the manufacturer of the individual bits gets nothing when you copy them. (emphasis added by me).
Does that answer your question? I am simply pointing out why they are not as different as you assume.
The fact is, buying a CD to duplicate software is not a necessity--buying the parts to assemble a copy of a car is.
Maybe not a CD, but you must provide storage of some kind and storage costs you something. The fact that the cost is infintessimally small does not change the principle. That your whole argument about how IP is somehow different that regular property is based on the fact that IP is easier to copy belies its logic. I suppose you think it is more illegal to replicate a Porsche than it is to replicate a bicycle. In all of these cases, the act is the same. Their relative cost or difficulty is immaterial.
And a 'medium' such as sound waves or electrical impulses is not the same as computer 'media'. I apologize if you didn't understand the distinction being made.
Your distinction is based on complete ignorance of the definition of medium, and its relationship to the word media. Simply put, a medium is a conveyance or storage device. More than one meduim, is media. Computer media, be it CDs, a hard disks or RAM, is a conveyance or storage device for information that a computer can use.
This plan of yours is completely pointless. Purposely propogating these viruses does nothing to prove that they can't be prevented if IIS is administered properly. This is like talking loudly during a movie to prove that it is annoying when others do it. You are just adding to the noise.
BTW, PWS was not affected by any of the viruses/worms that you list.
The assumption that the software is the media is wrong, or at least vastly over-simplified.
Read my comment, that is NOT my assumption. I was simply stating that if it is acceptable to build a replica of a car, as you seem to believe, it must be acceptable to replicate software. In both cases you are using the IP that went into the original creation, to create a substitute for the original, thereby depriving the original creator of revenue.
('media' is the plural of 'medium'.)
And that argument has nothing to do with whether or not the replication of either item is legal or not.
Maybe not, but if you condone one, you must condone both.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a big difference between a peice of rock that is blasted off the face of Mars in a cataclysmic impact, and one that is carefully collected and transported in a controlled environment.
Europa is the reason that Galileo is being sent to crash into Jupiter while we still have control of it, rather than let it continue to orbit indefinately.
Sucks for Jupiter then, doesn't it? So, possibly contaminating some other planet is the only way they can figure out how to avoid contaminating ours. This is evidence of sound judgement and planning?
Of course you realize that your assumption is based on a knowledge of ecology that is entirely Earth specific.
I think these geniuses need a refresher in History. Perhaps a short refresher on the VERY NEGATIVE consequences of early travelers moving material from the SAME PLANET to different areas.
If we need to bring it back to study, I can only assume that we don't know enough about it already to be sure that it is safe to introduce to Earth.
I guess irony really is dead in America.
Actually, PCs are the one big exception, if anything, and that is only if you exclude notebooks. I suggest your open your eyes to the much broader world of consumer electronics. (Note: you will have to venture beyond Best Buy.)
Please also note that I did NOT say that this tech was CHEAPER, just that it was AVAILABLE, and by available I mean to those who can afford it. Even the richest man in America can't buy and use a cell phone on par with a Japanese teenager.
Your assertion that the only difference is size (as if that were insignificant) just proves my point.
Judging by the price of "services" that are currently offered by carriers in the US, you can bet that in addition to being years behind in implemetation, any new features/capabilities will be prohibitively expensive.
I'm sure they will be content to milk their corporate customers for top dollar for a few years before they lower the price enough to make it practical for personal use. After all, with the average user still impressed by the fact that they can screw a new faceplate on to their Nokia 5190, they won't be under much pressure to roll this out.
Interesting. Too bad they don't sell devices that can DETECT SARCASM.
All of yout points are spot on.
I think you sig(?) says a lot about why we (American's) almost never see cool techonology while it is new. Americans just won't buy it. Japanese are willing to pay a premium for the latest, smallest, coolest devices. Americans will put up with obsolete devices until the next level has been around so long that it is cheap (because it too has become obsolete).
How many Americans do you still see with Nokia 5190s? It's pathetic.
How soon before this technology is co-opted and run into the ground by manufacturers of existing energy technology?
Whatever the case, you can bet that America will be dead last in implemetation.
What are you saying? America is too big and unwieldy to support timely progress?
Now hang no there mister! As an American I can assure you that my country is on the leading edge of technology. My notebook computer weighs less that 6 pounds, and my cell phone can use analog and digital networks!
And don't get me started on our superior automobile technology!
Because (if you are in America) you are routinely sold technology that is practically obsolete in Japan and the rest of Asia and told that it is state of the art.
Just another manifestation of the BIG LIE of American technological superiority.
That's a sound business model to me.
It is. But an IPO marks the transition from sound business to cashing in as quickly as possible. Shareholders don't care about long or even mid term viability. Shareholders have no loyalty to the brand OR to it's customers. With them in charge, sound business is out the window.
Perhaps Paypal is pursuing a plan that simply puts more pennies in the principals' pockets?
Prefectly possible. Prescient point!
This can only mean their impending doom.
Which is why I skim the agreement to ensure that they do not update my OS.
All the rest of the restrictions about installation, alterarion, and transfer, I ignore.
Well, I admit that I DO skim them to ensure that the product does not contain any "features" that I don't want.
Other than that, I doubt that these agreements would stand up in court. They are not signed. The company does not get a copy. What agreement?
Heck no.
Jesus, there's nothing I hate more than people who tell you to read their comments who haven't read yours. Where exactly did I say I thought it was okay to build a replica of a car? And why on Earth do you think that's even what we're talking about?
Let's review your original comment :
Even if you assemble a second car identical to the first, you still ended up paying for all the parts again, plus whatever labor went into it. It's nothing like duplicating software--with something tangible, duplication has the cost of materials tied into it. There are no legal problems because you HAVE paid for both 'copies' of the car. Duplicating software has no practical cost to it... which means the manufacturer of the individual bits gets nothing when you copy them.
(emphasis added by me).
Does that answer your question? I am simply pointing out why they are not as different as you assume.
The fact is, buying a CD to duplicate software is not a necessity--buying the parts to assemble a copy of a car is.
Maybe not a CD, but you must provide storage of some kind and storage costs you something. The fact that the cost is infintessimally small does not change the principle. That your whole argument about how IP is somehow different that regular property is based on the fact that IP is easier to copy belies its logic. I suppose you think it is more illegal to replicate a Porsche than it is to replicate a bicycle. In all of these cases, the act is the same. Their relative cost or difficulty is immaterial.
And a 'medium' such as sound waves or electrical impulses is not the same as computer 'media'. I apologize if you didn't understand the distinction being made.
Your distinction is based on complete ignorance of the definition of medium, and its relationship to the word media. Simply put, a medium is a conveyance or storage device. More than one meduim, is media. Computer media, be it CDs, a hard disks or RAM, is a conveyance or storage device for information that a computer can use.
This plan of yours is completely pointless. Purposely propogating these viruses does nothing to prove that they can't be prevented if IIS is administered properly. This is like talking loudly during a movie to prove that it is annoying when others do it. You are just adding to the noise.
BTW, PWS was not affected by any of the viruses/worms that you list.
one t0q too many i'd say.
The assumption that the software is the media is wrong, or at least vastly over-simplified.
Read my comment, that is NOT my assumption. I was simply stating that if it is acceptable to build a replica of a car, as you seem to believe, it must be acceptable to replicate software. In both cases you are using the IP that went into the original creation, to create a substitute for the original, thereby depriving the original creator of revenue.
('media' is the plural of 'medium'.)
And that argument has nothing to do with whether or not the replication of either item is legal or not.
Maybe not, but if you condone one, you must condone both.