Because while "one-way traps" are good enough, quantum cryptography is "better". Heard of progress? Yea, we started that new crazy idea a couple of years ago.
My reaction to this was, "huh, interesting study....others I've read news reports on came to similar results" you on the other hand read the blurb here and not the article (not before commenting anyways because you said the article says it just "doesn't hurt" sales when infact it says sales are HELPED by downloads.
Also, you just seem interested in essentially saying the conclusion this study comes to is stupid....without providing any information.
You're being quite simple minded by saying just because it seems like the obvious end is that people will download the music and never buy the CD that that is the ONLY way it can happen. There's no way that the people who a) want something tangible b) have morals and c) have now discovered new music they want to buy
Not that I really have a well formed opinion on the subject of Lindows/Microsoft but there is a difference. It's one thing for a government to say "You can't do this in our country OR other countries" (this is to a BUSINESS now, not an individual)...I can see fault in this but I can also see how it can stand up. HOWEVER, a government clearly cannot say "you can do this here so you can do it in other countries too". So I think both the seemingly contradicting points do not actually contradict each other.
True, because the next step of piracy will be to skip the RIAA all-together and kidnap the recording artists themselves and force them to record the MP3s at gunpoint.
I dbout it when they're doing it in bulk. DirecTV is doing this same thing only with an order of magnitude more cases....I doubt they wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't profitable.
Not all places are well run machines. At some places higher-ups demand more access to their machines, and they also do so for their "friends" who aren't above you. Often times this makes implementing Group Policies at all useless. Filtering out viruses is easy enough, but if/when Exchange/NAV acts up and just decides to STOP BLOCKING FILTERED ATTACHMENTS (it happens) for even a few minutes...Joe Idiot decides "oh it's an attachment from someone I know, it's ok to DOWNLOAD AND EXECUTE THE PROGRAM"
Don't get me wrong, if the company from the ground up is well ran then your post is true, but sometimes that isn't the case.
Listening to internet radio with Windows Media Player? Buy a high-quality version of the currently playing song with just one click
Main issue aside, this feature (regardless of who) is the *ONE* feature I want if I will buy MP3s (ech, not WMAs) online, *EVER*. Do any of the current online music stores support such a feature? Preferrably they provide the radio as well.
He's exaggerating the original idea to the point where it doesn't make any sense. Going from programming in.NET to giving blowjobs is hardly akin to programming in J2EE to.NET. It may be an analogy, but it is a pitifully failed one.
What exactly would you prefer?? The users are NOT going to take care of this themselves unless they're forced to. It's like having a car with a really bad emissions leak...it's screwing up the environment for everyone else. Only in that case the government steps in and makes them fix it....not doing so is ILLEGAL. I'd rather it be a corporate policy than a law personally.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like an easy way to get sued to me.
There's no way that's legal.
No, I've tried it. Still choppy.
Because while "one-way traps" are good enough, quantum cryptography is "better". Heard of progress? Yea, we started that new crazy idea a couple of years ago.
Actually, you got it backwards... TCP runs on top of IP.
Mod parent up, he's right on the money.
Off topic, but I *LOVE* your sig.
"September 11th was a faith-based initiative."
Oh come on, you didn't like the "You got served" episode? That was hilarious
Except at really high resolutions.....interestingly enough performance didn't drop much at all when the resolution went up...that is a first.
If you want to be nit picky, it's much less quality too.
Their hardware isn't REQUIRED, but simply makes the encryption faster.
Maybe it's just me, but I think this story is funny. Maybe I'm just comparing it to the previous one so I'm biased.
My reaction to this was, "huh, interesting study....others I've read news reports on came to similar results" you on the other hand read the blurb here and not the article (not before commenting anyways because you said the article says it just "doesn't hurt" sales when infact it says sales are HELPED by downloads.
Also, you just seem interested in essentially saying the conclusion this study comes to is stupid....without providing any information.
You're being quite simple minded by saying just because it seems like the obvious end is that people will download the music and never buy the CD that that is the ONLY way it can happen. There's no way that the people who
a) want something tangible
b) have morals and
c) have now discovered new music they want to buy
will offset the thieves...nah, that's impossible
Can you hear the "whooshing" sound?
Nice troll......look at how high you're getting modded....you must be proud.
Not that I really have a well formed opinion on the subject of Lindows/Microsoft but there is a difference. It's one thing for a government to say "You can't do this in our country OR other countries" (this is to a BUSINESS now, not an individual)...I can see fault in this but I can also see how it can stand up. HOWEVER, a government clearly cannot say "you can do this here so you can do it in other countries too". So I think both the seemingly contradicting points do not actually contradict each other.
JMHO
True, because the next step of piracy will be to skip the RIAA all-together and kidnap the recording artists themselves and force them to record the MP3s at gunpoint.
I dbout it when they're doing it in bulk. DirecTV is doing this same thing only with an order of magnitude more cases....I doubt they wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't profitable.
Not all places are well run machines. At some places higher-ups demand more access to their machines, and they also do so for their "friends" who aren't above you. Often times this makes implementing Group Policies at all useless. Filtering out viruses is easy enough, but if/when Exchange/NAV acts up and just decides to STOP BLOCKING FILTERED ATTACHMENTS (it happens) for even a few minutes...Joe Idiot decides "oh it's an attachment from someone I know, it's ok to DOWNLOAD AND EXECUTE THE PROGRAM"
Don't get me wrong, if the company from the ground up is well ran then your post is true, but sometimes that isn't the case.
Yea, because right NOW all of Gates' money is under his mattress.
Main issue aside, this feature (regardless of who) is the *ONE* feature I want if I will buy MP3s (ech, not WMAs) online, *EVER*. Do any of the current online music stores support such a feature? Preferrably they provide the radio as well.
Ok, then what is the step before giving blowjobs?
.NET to giving blowjobs is hardly akin to programming in J2EE to .NET. It may be an analogy, but it is a pitifully failed one.
He's exaggerating the original idea to the point where it doesn't make any sense. Going from programming in
So, in your mind, programming in a language you don't like is akin to giving blowjobs for money?
Good reasoning!
How?
Simple:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
True, but will that be $3.99 per movie? I don't think so...I mean Dish makes a profit off the PPV too don't they? Or not?
What exactly would you prefer?? The users are NOT going to take care of this themselves unless they're forced to. It's like having a car with a really bad emissions leak...it's screwing up the environment for everyone else. Only in that case the government steps in and makes them fix it....not doing so is ILLEGAL. I'd rather it be a corporate policy than a law personally.