hmmm... the points you make are valid, but I'm not sure they pertain to this study.
The examples you used cite tangible objects that we are able to perceive with our senses, and thus use previous concepts we know to make sense out of them (bokeh is a "blurry" background and a "sharp" foreground image; two previous concepts we understand form a new concept).
But without those essential building blocks, symbolic logic could not exist. If you had no comprehension of the idea of addition, you could never add two arbitrary numbers; that is, you would count the two (or more) groups of whatever object was in front of you and come out with a sum, with no real understanding of why. One stone and one stone is two stones, but what is 1+1 ?
You may not have a [recognized language] word for it, but your brain must assign a variable to the idea which it can reference in a thought.
Realistically, there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that's happening.
The insurance companies are just adopting the same "guilty until proven innocent" mentality as the government and other large corporations. They will penalize the "rogue" drivers who don't transmit information, because clearly they're breaking the law; for what other reason would they choose not to allow persistent tracking of their every move?
I never used to believe in the whole "slippery slope" argument, but lately... damn.
I don't know, maybe the reason I'm a Microsoft supporter is because I believe in the value of IP, or more specifically, ownership.
Though I believe that knowledge and information should be free, I believe even more strongly that that is a personal choice to be made by every individual/company. I also believe this decision should be respected by competitors and consumers. Maybe I've read too much Rand, I don't know, I just see something inherently wrong with your argument, but I'm at work and too tired to elaborate right now...:)
... Um, no, because no record label would license out their music in an unprotected format.
I'm neither an Apple fan nor a Real fan (ha!), but Apple is most definitely in the right here. Sorry to all the zealots out there disappointed to learn that Apple is just another corporate whore like the rest and not the ultra-hip, non-conformist underdog you thought, but they have an obligation to protect their property, intellectual or physical, and they have a right to do with their products what they wish.
When I get ticketed for speeding when going down a clear, level interstate, with NO ONE in sight, that is revenue generation.
When the speed limit drops from 55MPH to 35MPH and increases back to 55MPH within the span of 1.5 miles for no apparent reason along a US highway, and there is a police officer waiting in 35MPH zone, that is revenue generation.
When I know that I am capable of driving at a higher speed than the posted limit, that my car is in good working order and that by all my cognitive abilities, it is no more dangerous to exceed said limit given the current conditions, yet an officer refuses to consider these factors and obey a relatively-arbitrary number posted on a sign, that is for revenue generation.
Well, yeah, I shot him, but not in a vital organ. I mean, he didn't die, so it's not THAT bad...
Of course, some one will say that's not a valid comparison; yes it is. There's always some worse degree of action you can perform, but that's not a valid justification for the action.
The stresses incurred in a job in the IT field and those incurred in a more manually-intensive job are much different. Much.
I got so sick of my job after four years that I quit and joined a pizzeria (granted, not factory work, but I've done my share of that, too). I went from sitting at a desk and fixing systems/developing to running around on my feet 8 hours a day in a furnace, making less money. I loved it.
Ultimately, a pizza doesn't crash, or boot loop for no reason, or need to have its location defined down to the pixel. A pizza gets burnt, in which case you dish $5 out of your pay and make another one (and enjoy a slighty-crispy slice). Same as a factory-type job. The physical conditions may be more straining, but your every movement is typically not mission-critical. Doesn't make the job any less important, though.
Yes, but this has been the case throughout history: culture has always been socially-synonymous with wealth. The great operas and symphonies were not performed on streetcorners for the chimney sweepers, they were in lavish concert halls and operahouses for the rich.
I don't disagree with what you say, but you make it sound as though these musicians and artists are releasing their music into public domain, and the RIAA is snatching it up without their consent and selling it. Again, the truth is you do not have a RIGHT to culture; it is a luxury, one in which you're welcome to engage, but since culture is the product of a society, society can charge for it if it wishes.
Hmmm, that'll be my new sig: everything's a product.
You're right; that's fair enough. I suppose I didn't mean stealing in a legal context, simply in a moral/practical sense; and I understand that to an extent, the two are intertwined (a very loose extent, and I'm speaking of this instance, not generally).
The main point in my post was simply that people are aggrandizing their piracy/theft/whatever into a protest of the RIAA/MPAA, but then claiming that it doesn't matter because it's not hurting them *REALLY*. The hyporcisy is glaringly obvious. I don't quite believe the claims of lost profits from the RIAA, but of course they use them to prove their point. And I certainly don't agree with their tactics for enforcement, but if I tell you that I'll shoot you if you download a song, and you start downloading and I start shooting, you can't really claim innocence.
Don't like the system? Change it. Demand change, demand to be heard. Don't defy it for your own personal benefit and claim that you're not doing anything wrong because the laws are unjust. That's just stupid.
You fucking people and your fucking self-deception. MUSIC is a product, not the CD on which it is distributed. A MOVIE is a product, not the reel from which it is projected. SOFTWARE/CODE is a product, not the disc from which it is installed.
These things are priveleges, not rights; you do not have a right to hear music, as much as you may like to think otherwise. You're not helping the artist fight some grave injustice when you bypass the RIAA and "duplicate" music through various sources; you are fucking stealing. If this is what you want to do, fine; call yourself a theif and be done with it, but don't try to talk about how you're "sticking it to the man" and your favorite bands "aren't making any money anyway"; your favorite bands made a concious decision to sign with "the man" and they're certainly not making any more money when you STEAL their music.
I am a musician. I will never sign with an RIAA member label (if it was ever offered), because I believe my music should be freely distributed. But I don't speak for the thousands of other artists out there, nor would I ever want someone else making that decision for me.
/rant
/first time I've understood why some posts become so emotional... sorry. I'm not as infuriated as I sound.
...yeah, except that iTunes pays royalties to the RIAA. And that means that Pepsi, in licensing the "free" songs for this promotion, is giving money to the RIAA.
So they're not really "sticking it to the man" or anything...
just a thought.
Itchy92
Well, the whole reasoning behind this technology was that credit card companies don't want to adopt new standards, which is why smartcards are still nonstandard.
However, why couldn't they just make it that you had to verify the credit card through a secure party? For example, to add your card to the device, you would call the company and register that card with them, and they would give you a unique code to enter into the device. Of course, you would have to verify the integrity of the company first, but that seems like a simple way to enhance the security of this system.
IANAE (I am not an economist), but tax cuts are a temporary solution. Taxes fund the government who, right now, is spending *a lot* of money. While it does help stimulate the consumer market, it also drives up the national deficit. The first couple of tax cuts were sufficient, they just weren't given enough time to take effect. Now it's just driving the US up in debt.
At any rate, back to the topic at hand...
Being able to capture, retain, and download pictures is my own DRM system
What? No.
That's not a fair argument at all. Your "DRM" does not apply to a piece of hardware you purchased with explicit knowledge of its restrictions and its DRM. Your DRM applies to a camera that allows you the liberties you mentioned; to apply it to a camera that specificially states its intended terms of use, which are not congruent with yours, does not make sense.
It's like complaining that a DVD-ROM drive doesn't have an option to rip movies to your hard drive, even though you made/burned the movie (and therefore own all rights to it); it's not supposed to let you do it!
Itchy92
yes, but do you see them on civilian vehicles?
All the examples you mentioned are government-sanctioned to have strobing lights for various "safety" reasons. Though I do agree that they tend to be distracting more often than alerting...
Off-topic, but I also really hate when people put their hazards on when driving through the rain? What f*cking genius thought of that one?
Bill never said the 640K
Quote, and I'm willing to bet he never said the 4GB one, either.
I know everytime this quote is used, someone has to debunk it, but there's no reason to perpetuate a false quote by one of the geniuses of our time.
if you ask me, its just a way to disguise a technical project.
Bust out the tinfoil, fellas.
I believe the government is in cahoots with developers of this project. Each client program will have a "software RFID" to trace comments back to the poster. Those whose conspiracy theories hit too close to home will be tracked down and "disappeared" in the night.
Although I suppose the same would still be possible with a forum and weblogs, but still...
And I was kidding about software RFID; it was just the first conspiracy buzzword that came to mind.
/pathetic attempt at humor
Slashdot Mirror
- You think the pet rock was a good idea?
- Sure it was! The guy made a million dollars... You know, I had an idea like that once...
hmmm... the points you make are valid, but I'm not sure they pertain to this study.
The examples you used cite tangible objects that we are able to perceive with our senses, and thus use previous concepts we know to make sense out of them (bokeh is a "blurry" background and a "sharp" foreground image; two previous concepts we understand form a new concept).
But without those essential building blocks, symbolic logic could not exist. If you had no comprehension of the idea of addition, you could never add two arbitrary numbers; that is, you would count the two (or more) groups of whatever object was in front of you and come out with a sum, with no real understanding of why. One stone and one stone is two stones, but what is 1+1 ?
You may not have a [recognized language] word for it, but your brain must assign a variable to the idea which it can reference in a thought.
Somebody should amend Godwin's law to include calling somebody a shill.
/lame joke
You can't just change a law, on a whim, without the consent of the people! What are you, a fucking Nazi?
Ideally, that would be... well, ideal.
Realistically, there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that's happening.
The insurance companies are just adopting the same "guilty until proven innocent" mentality as the government and other large corporations. They will penalize the "rogue" drivers who don't transmit information, because clearly they're breaking the law; for what other reason would they choose not to allow persistent tracking of their every move?
I never used to believe in the whole "slippery slope" argument, but lately... damn.
Soooo... not similar at all, is what you're saying?
Actually, it was automatically revoked when you mentioned sports.
I don't know, maybe the reason I'm a Microsoft supporter is because I believe in the value of IP, or more specifically, ownership.
:)
Though I believe that knowledge and information should be free, I believe even more strongly that that is a personal choice to be made by every individual/company. I also believe this decision should be respected by competitors and consumers.
Maybe I've read too much Rand, I don't know, I just see something inherently wrong with your argument, but I'm at work and too tired to elaborate right now...
... Um, no, because no record label would license out their music in an unprotected format.
I'm neither an Apple fan nor a Real fan (ha!), but Apple is most definitely in the right here. Sorry to all the zealots out there disappointed to learn that Apple is just another corporate whore like the rest and not the ultra-hip, non-conformist underdog you thought, but they have an obligation to protect their property, intellectual or physical, and they have a right to do with their products what they wish.
That's not speeding, that's stupidity.
When I get ticketed for speeding when going down a clear, level interstate, with NO ONE in sight, that is revenue generation.
When the speed limit drops from 55MPH to 35MPH and increases back to 55MPH within the span of 1.5 miles for no apparent reason along a US highway, and there is a police officer waiting in 35MPH zone, that is revenue generation.
When I know that I am capable of driving at a higher speed than the posted limit, that my car is in good working order and that by all my cognitive abilities, it is no more dangerous to exceed said limit given the current conditions, yet an officer refuses to consider these factors and obey a relatively-arbitrary number posted on a sign, that is for revenue generation.
Well, yeah, I shot him, but not in a vital organ. I mean, he didn't die, so it's not THAT bad...
Of course, some one will say that's not a valid comparison; yes it is. There's always some worse degree of action you can perform, but that's not a valid justification for the action.
Seems you're trolling, but I'll bite.
The stresses incurred in a job in the IT field and those incurred in a more manually-intensive job are much different. Much.
I got so sick of my job after four years that I quit and joined a pizzeria (granted, not factory work, but I've done my share of that, too). I went from sitting at a desk and fixing systems/developing to running around on my feet 8 hours a day in a furnace, making less money. I loved it.
Ultimately, a pizza doesn't crash, or boot loop for no reason, or need to have its location defined down to the pixel. A pizza gets burnt, in which case you dish $5 out of your pay and make another one (and enjoy a slighty-crispy slice). Same as a factory-type job. The physical conditions may be more straining, but your every movement is typically not mission-critical. Doesn't make the job any less important, though.
Yes, but this has been the case throughout history: culture has always been socially-synonymous with wealth. The great operas and symphonies were not performed on streetcorners for the chimney sweepers, they were in lavish concert halls and operahouses for the rich.
I don't disagree with what you say, but you make it sound as though these musicians and artists are releasing their music into public domain, and the RIAA is snatching it up without their consent and selling it. Again, the truth is you do not have a RIGHT to culture; it is a luxury, one in which you're welcome to engage, but since culture is the product of a society, society can charge for it if it wishes.
Hmmm, that'll be my new sig: everything's a product.
You're right; that's fair enough. I suppose I didn't mean stealing in a legal context, simply in a moral/practical sense; and I understand that to an extent, the two are intertwined (a very loose extent, and I'm speaking of this instance, not generally).
The main point in my post was simply that people are aggrandizing their piracy/theft/whatever into a protest of the RIAA/MPAA, but then claiming that it doesn't matter because it's not hurting them *REALLY*. The hyporcisy is glaringly obvious. I don't quite believe the claims of lost profits from the RIAA, but of course they use them to prove their point. And I certainly don't agree with their tactics for enforcement, but if I tell you that I'll shoot you if you download a song, and you start downloading and I start shooting, you can't really claim innocence.
Don't like the system? Change it. Demand change, demand to be heard. Don't defy it for your own personal benefit and claim that you're not doing anything wrong because the laws are unjust. That's just stupid.
You fucking people and your fucking self-deception. MUSIC is a product, not the CD on which it is distributed. A MOVIE is a product, not the reel from which it is projected. SOFTWARE/CODE is a product, not the disc from which it is installed.
/rant
/first time I've understood why some posts become so emotional... sorry. I'm not as infuriated as I sound.
These things are priveleges, not rights; you do not have a right to hear music, as much as you may like to think otherwise. You're not helping the artist fight some grave injustice when you bypass the RIAA and "duplicate" music through various sources; you are fucking stealing. If this is what you want to do, fine; call yourself a theif and be done with it, but don't try to talk about how you're "sticking it to the man" and your favorite bands "aren't making any money anyway"; your favorite bands made a concious decision to sign with "the man" and they're certainly not making any more money when you STEAL their music.
I am a musician. I will never sign with an RIAA member label (if it was ever offered), because I believe my music should be freely distributed. But I don't speak for the thousands of other artists out there, nor would I ever want someone else making that decision for me.
...yeah, except that iTunes pays royalties to the RIAA. And that means that Pepsi, in licensing the "free" songs for this promotion, is giving money to the RIAA.
So they're not really "sticking it to the man" or anything...
just a thought.
Itchy92
Well, the whole reasoning behind this technology was that credit card companies don't want to adopt new standards, which is why smartcards are still nonstandard.
However, why couldn't they just make it that you had to verify the credit card through a secure party? For example, to add your card to the device, you would call the company and register that card with them, and they would give you a unique code to enter into the device. Of course, you would have to verify the integrity of the company first, but that seems like a simple way to enhance the security of this system.
Just my $.02
itchy92
Oh, well, I guess they can...
Unfortunately, no one can tell you what the goatse is... you have to see it for yourself. \Whoa
IANAE (I am not an economist), but tax cuts are a temporary solution. Taxes fund the government who, right now, is spending *a lot* of money. While it does help stimulate the consumer market, it also drives up the national deficit. The first couple of tax cuts were sufficient, they just weren't given enough time to take effect. Now it's just driving the US up in debt.
At any rate, back to the topic at hand...
Being able to capture, retain, and download pictures is my own DRM system
What? No.
That's not a fair argument at all. Your "DRM" does not apply to a piece of hardware you purchased with explicit knowledge of its restrictions and its DRM. Your DRM applies to a camera that allows you the liberties you mentioned; to apply it to a camera that specificially states its intended terms of use, which are not congruent with yours, does not make sense.
It's like complaining that a DVD-ROM drive doesn't have an option to rip movies to your hard drive, even though you made/burned the movie (and therefore own all rights to it); it's not supposed to let you do it!
Itchy92
yes, but do you see them on civilian vehicles?
All the examples you mentioned are government-sanctioned to have strobing lights for various "safety" reasons. Though I do agree that they tend to be distracting more often than alerting...
Off-topic, but I also really hate when people put their hazards on when driving through the rain? What f*cking genius thought of that one?
I know it's a troll, but I'm gonna have to pull out a Slashdot cliche for this one...
What the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck?
That is all.
Of course they are. Outlook and Messenger are their programs. They can code them however they like.
Bill never said the 640K Quote, and I'm willing to bet he never said the 4GB one, either.
I know everytime this quote is used, someone has to debunk it, but there's no reason to perpetuate a false quote by one of the geniuses of our time.
if you ask me, its just a way to disguise a technical project.
/pathetic attempt at humor
Bust out the tinfoil, fellas.
I believe the government is in cahoots with developers of this project. Each client program will have a "software RFID" to trace comments back to the poster. Those whose conspiracy theories hit too close to home will be tracked down and "disappeared" in the night.
Although I suppose the same would still be possible with a forum and weblogs, but still...
And I was kidding about software RFID; it was just the first conspiracy buzzword that came to mind.