TitanTV offers no XML feed, so you're back to scraping it.
Re:Or, everyone could stop breaking the law too. .
on
Judge Deals Blow to RIAA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
However, despite this you blast RIAA anytime it tries a new way of getting at the information it needs to proceed with its mission of preventing file sharing.
Perhaps we object to its mission. Or perhaps just its tactics. Either way, the objection needs to be evaluated on its own regardless of the tactics of file sharers.
I don't agree with all their tactics, but if a file sharer has the right to get creative and try things, why shouldn't they?
Oh, if they want to play in the technical arena, they have every right to be creative. They'll lose, of course -- which is why they don't want to play in that court exclusively anymore. When they start playing in the LEGAL arena, their "creativity" is something else entirely -- it's promotion and institutionalization of injustice.
Trying to constantly one-up 'the man' by cracking all encryption, circumventing logs, etc., in the pursuit of acquiring that which you didn't pay for is wrong and to persist in this will one day result in some very draconion or strange move on the industry's part that will really make it hard for everyone.
Like most RIAA apologists, you've got the order backwards. The Draconian and strange moves on the industry's part which really make it hard for everyone -- Serial Copy Management System (which killed DAT) and the DMCA -- came BEFORE Napster. Ante hoc ergo non propter hoc.
The argument that DRM treats the consumer like a criminal is true and I agree. But if you keep behaving in a criminal way. . .
As long as the RIAA (and MPAA) have the power to make things crimes -- and they do, no question about it -- their complaining about criminal behavior is simply a demand for obedience.
Unlike ISPs, which have either knuckled under or put up a very weak defense of their users,
Let's give the Devil his due. RIAA v. Verizon. Sorry, no help for AT&T subscribers; they're working on ratting you out even before you've started downloading.
I may be wrong, but I have heard that paying off credit cards every month (and thus not accruing any finance charges) is viewed negatively by financial institutions, and may actually hurt your credit score instead of improving it. They aren't making any money off of you, so they won't raise your credit limit (and why would they need to, if you aren't making purchases that raise your balance close to the limit anyway).
There may be one or two issuers who feel that way. The rest of them, faced with someone paying off their cards every month, just continues raising credit limits and sending more and more card offers. You could anthropomorphize this behavior as them trying to "tempt" you into overextending yourself, but it's probably just algorithmic.
After a while of doing this you'll probably hit a ceiling and they'll stop raising your limit. If you want them to raise it more, you can then stop using that card -- they'll often either raise your limit or offer you an upgraded level of card.
There's no tax consequences to the user of either a cashier's or certified check, above and beyond that of the original transaction.
With a cashier's check, you pay the bank $X (plus a fee) for the check, and the bank pays $X to the payee (usually through the check-clearing system) when the check comes in.
With a certified check, you pay the bank a fee and they issue a check for $X drawn on your account. They then put a hold on $X in your account so you can't withdraw it any other way. The bank pays the $X when the certified check comes in.
The only tax consequence in either case is the fee paid to the bank, which is income to the bank.
Banks generally prefer to issue cashiers checks rather than certified checks, perhaps because then they make money on the "float".
You should always pay a lot more than the minimum payment on loans during the first part of the loan because initially, almost 100% of the minimum payment is just covering the interest.
Better to just get a loan with a shorter term in the first place; they typically have a lower interest rate.
features are not patented.
The way to build them are. You just have to do it differently.
You've been living in a cave since, oh, before Slashdot was started, right? Patenting features (or "patenting the goal") is one of the oft-cited abuses of the patent system.
Looking at the sample images at dpreview.com, I see some significant chromatic abberation in the Pentax 10D image (text near the bottom of the studio still) which is not at all present in the Nikon and Canon images. Checking at B&H, I see a shocking lack of lenses for Pentax DSLRs, although Pentax fans keep saying more are due out soon.
Too bad, because feature for feature the Pentax does look like the best value for money. But it looks like I'll be waiting for the follow-on to the 30D (which I expect to have the 10 megapixel sensor and dust reduction system of the Rebel XTi) instead. Although I'd rather have the 5D.
Personally I liked Minolta, but they've been swallowed by Sony.
This is an arguement for the current model? Or for spending more tax-payers money on enforcing laws to support the buisinesses that support the current model because that's more efficient than just giving tax-money straight to artists? I didn't even like the idea, but since you put it that way...
It'd be more efficient to give the tax money straight to the hookers, actually.
The answer to your first question is because you already do pay for lots of things that you don't use, and other people pay for things that they use, but you don't.
Q: "Why should I accept this new injustice"?
A: "Well, there's all these old ones you already accept."
Not the most convincing argument I've ever seen.
Questions about corruption are similarly misguided. The answer is the same one that holds everywhere: effective oversight. It generally works.
Really? What planet do you live on? I live on Planet Earth, where the sky is blue, sparks fly upwards, and corruption is endemic. Further, we already have a couple of nice models for a system where music producers get paid for music from a big slush fund, based on that music's popularity -- ASCAP and BMI. They aren't reknowned for their fairness, far from it.
Give them an incentive, and the RIAAs of the world WILL figure out a way to game the system so their acts get everything and the little guy gets nothing. In fact, were such a tax-funded music system to be passed, the RIAA itself -- in its guise as "Sound Source" -- would most likely be the ones administering it. Talk about handing the fox the keys to the henhouse.
One of the great advantages a new medium has over older media is it hasn't accumulated the amount of cruft the older media have accumulated in years of special-interest pleading. One of the best ways to kill the new medium is to dump all that cruft upon it.
The US is by far the most succesful in the software sector, and it is the prinary grantor of software patents.
It's well known that "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy. What should be even more well known, but apparently is not, is that "prior hoc ergo propter hoc" is ALSO a fallacy -- and that its reverse is sound reasoning. The US's success in the software sector pre-dates its primacy in software patents, and therefore was not caused by its primacy in software patents. Q.E.D.
There's no reason why entertainers who supply music cannot be paid from general taxation based on the measured popularity of their products. The technology exists to make such a scheme workable. Additionally, there are obvious benefits in having such content available for free to the end user.
Apart from the Libertarians, who seem to object to taxation even when it demonstrably makes life easier, there's not much to complain about in such a proposal. Sometimes new technology makes new markets possible, sometimes it renders old ones impossible. That's just life in the modern world.
There's lots to complain about. One -- why, as a non-music-listener, should I pay for these people? Two, how much should they be paid, and who decides? Right now the really popular ones get enough to keep them well-supplied with mansions, drugs, and hookers, whereas less-popular ones get nothing. Three, you've just created a great incentive to cheat; faking measures of popularity for entertainers would be a free ticket to the treasury.
Nanotech. If molecular nanotechnology happens, and many scientists are stating that it IS going to happen, it's just a matter of WHEN, then all those other questions will quickly become irrelevant
Sure. And nuclear power will be clean, safe, and too cheap to meter. Don't believe the hype.
In my lifetime, I haven't seen a single country in as many different wars as (the United States of) America.
Short lifetime. The old USSR and China have had their share of wars. As for US efforts to solve world hunger...if the US _really_ wanted to solve world hunger, step one would be MORE war, not less. Sending food to starving nations, where it just gets used to feed armies who then kill and enslave those who are producing food locally, is ineffective. Sending soldiers to pacify and occupy those nations would work far better. But it would take a lot of soldiers, require extreme ruthlessness, and forget about nation-building -- it would be empire, plain and simple. I don't recommend it.
When all the petroleum is gone, it's the end of the world as we know it. But the wikipedia page you linked to refers to a Cornell study which claims that using switchgrass for ethanol production is even less efficient than using corn -- 45% more fossil energy input than ethanol energy output. Which means that using switchgrass for fuel increases the depletion of petroleum.
Oil crops are produced at levels orders of magnitude below our petroleum use.
And alas, it's not true that we can just grow more food stocks when we need more. Sure, to some degree we can increase it -- but there is a limit to the available arable land, a limit to growing seasons, etc. And to grow more food despite those constraints requires more energy, so you reach a point of diminishing returns quickly in growing food for energy.
Preaching conservation sounds like austerity because it IS austerity. No matter how much one conserves, one can always conserve more, and many outspoken conservationists will not admit to a limit to conservation which leaves consumption higher than that of a third-world peasant.
If this law is real and was actually strictly followed, lots of photographers would be out of business. Art photographers often take pictures with recognizable people of them, and publicly display them with the intent of selling them. Publishers of travel books, guides, brochures also publish pictures with recognizable people in them. News photographers do as well. All commercial, all with recognizable people. What's Google doing differently?
5. The system of claim 1, wherein said hierarchy has a structure comprising plural geographical levels into which the geographical areas are geographically categorized by size to provide a low level, one or more intermediate levels and a high level, each of the geographical levels above the lowest level encompassing a plurality of lower level geographical areas.
Heh. Looks a little impressive in patentese. Much less impressive when you consider that your levels could be something like "municpality, county, state, region country". Put that way, it's clear there's nothing at all novel about this way of organizing geographical information.
All this hand-waving is people showing their true colors. They are pirates at heart and simply want to complain.
Pirates, hell. Real pirates who have a bent for copyright infringement just pull out their cutlass, slice off the metadata, and pirate away. Possibly after buying the tunes with a stolen credit card anyway. Clueless noobs will simply put the files up on P2P without stripping the metadata. There's only a very tiny segment who wants to share the files, knows about the metadata, and doesn't know how to remove it.
This story was probably planted by the music industry, which doesn't want to see those non-DRM files out there. Note how it seems to be in an alternate reality concerning them -- "Most music companies seem to have realised that suing your customers doesn't do much to increase sales." Uh, yeah, right.
Slashdot Mirror
TitanTV offers no XML feed, so you're back to scraping it.
Perhaps we object to its mission. Or perhaps just its tactics. Either way, the objection needs to be evaluated on its own regardless of the tactics of file sharers.
Oh, if they want to play in the technical arena, they have every right to be creative. They'll lose, of course -- which is why they don't want to play in that court exclusively anymore. When they start playing in the LEGAL arena, their "creativity" is something else entirely -- it's promotion and institutionalization of injustice.
Like most RIAA apologists, you've got the order backwards. The Draconian and strange moves on the industry's part which really make it hard for everyone -- Serial Copy Management System (which killed DAT) and the DMCA -- came BEFORE Napster. Ante hoc ergo non propter hoc.
As long as the RIAA (and MPAA) have the power to make things crimes -- and they do, no question about it -- their complaining about criminal behavior is simply a demand for obedience.
After a while of doing this you'll probably hit a ceiling and they'll stop raising your limit. If you want them to raise it more, you can then stop using that card -- they'll often either raise your limit or offer you an upgraded level of card.
There's no tax consequences to the user of either a cashier's or certified check, above and beyond that of the original transaction.
With a cashier's check, you pay the bank $X (plus a fee) for the check, and the bank pays $X to the payee (usually through the check-clearing system) when the check comes in.
With a certified check, you pay the bank a fee and they issue a check for $X drawn on your account. They then put a hold on $X in your account so you can't withdraw it any other way. The bank pays the $X when the certified check comes in.
The only tax consequence in either case is the fee paid to the bank, which is income to the bank.
Banks generally prefer to issue cashiers checks rather than certified checks, perhaps because then they make money on the "float".
Looking at the sample images at dpreview.com, I see some significant chromatic abberation in the Pentax 10D image (text near the bottom of the studio still) which is not at all present in the Nikon and Canon images. Checking at B&H, I see a shocking lack of lenses for Pentax DSLRs, although Pentax fans keep saying more are due out soon.
Too bad, because feature for feature the Pentax does look like the best value for money. But it looks like I'll be waiting for the follow-on to the 30D (which I expect to have the 10 megapixel sensor and dust reduction system of the Rebel XTi) instead. Although I'd rather have the 5D.
Personally I liked Minolta, but they've been swallowed by Sony.
A: "Well, there's all these old ones you already accept."
Not the most convincing argument I've ever seen.
Really? What planet do you live on? I live on Planet Earth, where the sky is blue, sparks fly upwards, and corruption is endemic. Further, we already have a couple of nice models for a system where music producers get paid for music from a big slush fund, based on that music's popularity -- ASCAP and BMI. They aren't reknowned for their fairness, far from it.Give them an incentive, and the RIAAs of the world WILL figure out a way to game the system so their acts get everything and the little guy gets nothing. In fact, were such a tax-funded music system to be passed, the RIAA itself -- in its guise as "Sound Source" -- would most likely be the ones administering it. Talk about handing the fox the keys to the henhouse.
One of the great advantages a new medium has over older media is it hasn't accumulated the amount of cruft the older media have accumulated in years of special-interest pleading. One of the best ways to kill the new medium is to dump all that cruft upon it.
When all the petroleum is gone, it's the end of the world as we know it. But the wikipedia page you linked to refers to a Cornell study which claims that using switchgrass for ethanol production is even less efficient than using corn -- 45% more fossil energy input than ethanol energy output. Which means that using switchgrass for fuel increases the depletion of petroleum.
Oil crops are produced at levels orders of magnitude below our petroleum use.
And alas, it's not true that we can just grow more food stocks when we need more. Sure, to some degree we can increase it -- but there is a limit to the available arable land, a limit to growing seasons, etc. And to grow more food despite those constraints requires more energy, so you reach a point of diminishing returns quickly in growing food for energy.
Preaching conservation sounds like austerity because it IS austerity. No matter how much one conserves, one can always conserve more, and many outspoken conservationists will not admit to a limit to conservation which leaves consumption higher than that of a third-world peasant.
If this law is real and was actually strictly followed, lots of photographers would be out of business. Art photographers often take pictures with recognizable people of them, and publicly display them with the intent of selling them. Publishers of travel books, guides, brochures also publish pictures with recognizable people in them. News photographers do as well. All commercial, all with recognizable people. What's Google doing differently?
You don't need to re-compile. You can find the bug by reverse-engineering the binary, then make a binary patch without recompiling.
Two words: Oracle Spatial
Pirates, hell. Real pirates who have a bent for copyright infringement just pull out their cutlass, slice off the metadata, and pirate away. Possibly after buying the tunes with a stolen credit card anyway. Clueless noobs will simply put the files up on P2P without stripping the metadata. There's only a very tiny segment who wants to share the files, knows about the metadata, and doesn't know how to remove it.
This story was probably planted by the music industry, which doesn't want to see those non-DRM files out there. Note how it seems to be in an alternate reality concerning them -- "Most music companies seem to have realised that suing your customers doesn't do much to increase sales." Uh, yeah, right.
Microsoft is not suing (yet), but they are _menacing_ other companies in order to get paid for a competitor's products. Nice work if you can get it.