At the risk of sounding like an insensitive racist jerk, what, exactly, has korea contributed positively to the net? 85% of the spam i get continues to be Korean and they have effectively made a shambles out of the korean war project. We're not talking about a Nigeria and it's 419 scams. We're talking about a country that has the resources and ability to be doing a lot more than it currently is.
From time to time, the internet death penalty for countries has been considered and is actually implemented locally by particularly zealous sysadmins. But we've seen that this tends to, at best, piss off a few users unless it's implemented really widely, which it is unlikely to ever be. So, what is the answer to korea?
note: I have visited korea three times and have found it to be a great place. it's their extremely half-assed internet policies that I object to
Re:Challenge it all
on
Data Quality Act
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
No, the heart of democracy is not "... challenge the government and make __them/it__ own up..."
The above implies that "the government" in a democracy is something seperate from "us." What you have described is a closely monitored custodianship that can occur in any policical structure--democracy, communism, monarchy, etc, but is most closely associated with european-style socialist bureaucracies.
If a democracy is rule by the people, then the "most pure form" of democracy would be precisely the opposite--where you could not see the dividing line between "the people" and "the government." There would be no issue of whether you could "challenge the government figures"--it would just be sorta obvious that you could actively participate in any discussion and work on them.
Not allowing others to see your data allows you to have more maneuvering room insofar as determining your own company's valuation (up or down, depending on the situation). Furthermore, having more information than your neighbor allows you to make better hedges on futures prices and influence them as well.
"Open source" in the mining industry is a naive and stupid idea insofar as individual companies are concerned.
Have you noticed that the PC gaming industry is essentially a pimple on the ass of the console gaming industry thesedays despite facts such as:
Console games individually cost more
PC games offer many possibilities console games dont (due largely to storage / processing power issues)
The installed base of PCs is much higher than any individual console?
Come on. Software piracy was a major, MAJOR contributor to the downfall of the PC gaming industry. Still is, actually.
The method that had better inherent copy protection (console games) generated more money for the producers who were then able to turn around and expand the size of the industry and expand the realm of available choices to consumers.
As far as the computer and it's memory hierarchy is concerned, there IS write only memory. The printer, for example, in the absence of a scanner, is just this, as could be certain video displays.
Wow! What a fun trip on the wayback machine to 1999 with OSS zealots claiming that OSS software is de facto superior. While today's./er has matured somewhat, you really do take one back.
With OpenOffice, you get a completely functional presentation program (Impress) that can edit power-point files: for free. MS PowerPoint ALONE costs 300 dollars. Lets say that OpenOffice's Impress costed 1 dollar. Is MS PowerPoint really 300 times better than OpenOffice Impress?
Are you stupid or something, boy? Powerpoint doesn't have to be 300x better to justify your numbers. It has to simply make back its costs. If powerpoint is 1% better, and that allows me to make an extra 301 dollars, then I come out ahead with powerpoint. Is a $1000 golf club going to get you to the hole in 10% of the shots of a $100 dollar one? Then why don't professional golfers use $100 clubs?
2. piracy costs hundreds of thousands of jobs a year. regarldess of the truth of that claim (it probably represents "opportunity cost" jobs lost), i am amazed how you appear to think that the only jobs that matter are programmer jobs.
3. not even worth responding to. who the hell modded this up? why am i responding to this troll?
Folks, redhat has been caught with it's pants down and condom on. Whatever their original intent, RH is now primarily driven by bottom line. Some may call this greed--others may call it reasonable business. One thing is clear--RH continues (desperately) to need the support of the slashdot-sympathetic because that's the seeds of its major asset--name and brand spread.
So ask yourself--are the apologetics that RH has produced honest in the sense that RH continues to be the torchbearer for Linux and the spirit of free software? Or is it just a ploy to try to keep as many of you as possible from defecting? Are you fundamentally for Linux or are you fundamentally for the idea of free as in speech software?
(the second question is not rhetorical--the answer shold not be linux.)
If piracy were good for sales, companies would quickly figure it out and actively encourage it. Darwinian marketing, survival of the fittest, every little edge--that whole bit. Look--you can accuse the music makers of a lot of things, but inattention to market and lack desire to squeeze every last penny out of the consumer are not in that list!
The problem is that except in isolated, questionable instances intended generally as somebody's defense of stealing, piracy doesn't help sales. Stop deluding yourself.
In absolute sense, yes. However, the RIAA has already marginalized music file "sharing" to where I'd be suprised if it's even 10% as prevalent as it was during napster's apex (geeks excluded.)
re: "who cares, use X instead!
Gee, we haven't seen that before. The "problem" is that every X tends to be even less subscribed and include an even more evil revenue model.
re: bad analogies
I don't care and neither should the RIAA what you, sitting in your bedroom think music sharing does to record sales. Even if you're right (and, you're not), this is not a decision for you to make.
Additionally--the bad analogies to 'premium sales networks.' The guy selling TVs out of the back of his van has never serioulsy but a dent in consumer electronics sales--otherwise the controlling interests would go after them harder. encarta beat out 'encyclopedia salesmen' (actually, it didn't--encyclopedia salesmen were effectively gone at least a decade before) because it delivered a product of acceptable quality for a lesser price. If you think that electronic distribution is the way of the future and will kill off RIAA dinosaurs, invest int the few companies that are trying to do this without effectively resorting to thievery.
my whole point was that this is/not/ indicative of a trend, but rather that this is just 'to be expected' legal maneuvering. my whole point was that the market is playing itself out and that there is no particular reason for the slashbots to come out declaring this to be another sign of the end times. as you have done.
(if you'll pardon my sentence fragments, i'll try to overlook that six line long run-on sentence which you penned.)
your post doesn't merit a 'substantive rebuttal' because your 'substantive rebuttal' to my post is nothing more than argumentum ad misericordium-- a stylized "no, you're wrong hey hey ho ho evil corporations have got to go."
a substantive rebuttal on your part would have showed that the legal maneuverings going on are likely to produce a result which is substantially counter to reasonable expectations. given the history of industry attempts at legal maneuverings based on similar 'implied contracts' with consumers, my specific point is that we have little to fear. furthermore, a substantive rebuttal would go on to say that even if the legal system failed on this issue, market forces would not restore the lost consumer surplus in one way or another... again.. bloody unlikely given current technological trends. the broadcast providers, as we know, need to compete.
so, mr 'substantive rebuttal,' how about instead of some, franky, bizarre spiel about spending vacations in kenya or heroic claptrap about 'freedoms of the past,' talk about the fucking issues.
(ill bet ANYBODY that the person i am writing to is an american undergraduate student, whether he admits to it or not.)
my whole point was that this is/not/ indicative of a trend, but rather that this is just 'to be expected' legal maneuvering. my whole point was that the market is playing itself out and that there is no particular reason for the slashbots to come out declaring this to be another sign of the end times. as you have done.
(if you'll pardon my sentence fragments, i'll try to overlook that six line long run-on sentence which you penned.)
your post doesn't merit a 'substantive rebuttal' because your 'substantive rebuttal' to my post is nothing more than argumentum ad misericordium-- a stylized "no, you're wrong hey hey ho ho evil corporations have got to go."
a substantive rebuttal on your part would have showed that the legal maneuverings going on are likely to produce a result which is substantially counter to reasonable expectations. given the history of industry attempts at legal maneuverings based on similar 'implied contracts' with consumers, my specific point is that we have little to fear. furthermore, a substantive rebuttal would go on to say that even if the legal system failed on this issue, market forces would not restore the lost consumer surplus in one way or another... again.. bloody unlikely given current technological trends. the broadcast providers, as we know, need to compete.
so, mr 'substantive rebuttal,' how about instead of some, franky, bizarre spiel about spending vacations in kenya or heroic claptrap about 'freedoms of the past,' talk about the fucking issues.
(ill bet ANYBODY that the person i am writing to is an american undergraduate student, whether he admits to it or not.)
The networks have used the airwaves "with impunity?" I'm sorry, I must have dreamt up the whole FCC as well as the various fees invovled.
Look, your "call to action" is cute, in a naive sort of way. My point was not cynicism--it was instead that the PARTICULARs of this case at this point are not where you should be going up in arms because it's relatively humdrum legal maneuvering rather than any sort of watershed.
Sophomoric overdramatic words about the killing fields of cambodia (where i happened to have visited last week) ain't gonna change that, and, in fact, are emblematic of the exact sort of overreaction that i was talking about.
This message will doubtlessly spawn messages accusing the industry of lack of ability to change with advances in technology, and so forth along with the usual crapola about "it's our airwaves, dammit", but let's not lose sight of the big picture: any lawsuit about breaking implict contracts is necessarily a stalling tactic. It may win on some minor points, but it mostly just gives the broadcasters time to secure settlements with PVR companies and come up with alternate technologies and models.
no, you can't patent an idea, but thanks for playing. now--back to intellectual property 101, day 1.
the closest you can come to in the US in patenting an idea is a business method patent--something that europe and japan really dont have much of. there are good arguments both ways as to whether BMP's are good for society or not.
You can't make something blatantly public as they have and then, years later try to patent it. No reasonable potential for patent / no story here. Move along, folks.
"If I don't use EMACS or vi, will I be taken seriously?"
This is not a troll. There is a real bias in many Uni CS departments towards unix based tools. When I was doing my PhD, I came in, set up my SourceSafe (which is a thousand times easier to use than CVS) and did my programming work for Unix systems with the MS-Windows programming IDEs that I'm used to and prefer.
the thing is, I took shit the whole time I was there for being 'the windows guy.' No, I was writing unix stuff--I was just doing it (this was about 7-3 years ago) on systems with better IDEs so that I could get to the meat of my research faster. This wasnt a question of interoperability--I was working alone on a thesis. It was just a question of departmental bias. Operating system bias in any flavor is bad. When it permeates a large section of an ivy league CS department, it's silly and counterproductive.
Perhaps I am not making a strong enough case for myself. The bias that I experienced was basically that "anything other than Unix is crap. Unix _is_ the one true way of doing things and you'd be a fool to do anything but man for cmd line flags all day." I certainly understand and appreciate personal preferences, but if CS departments are supposed to be where the next generation of software ideas are coming from, a little open mindedness would be a good thing.
It boggles my mind that "sloppy"s reply was modded insightful. Oh wait, this is slashdot. no it doesn't.
For all the self-righteous talk, we all know that the non-infringing use of this technology is likely less than 1%, and perhaps less than.1%. Regardless of whether you consider the whole concept of intellectual property to be morally bankrupt and practically corrupt, the screwdrivers analogy is oversimplistic and patronizing.
Hey, didn't we have this debate already with Napster, et al?
Once NDA has been violated, is it ethically correct to encourage all to pour through the breech? Or, is it better for society that even if there is a breech of contract, responsible individuals work to intelligently minimize the damage? For shame, slashdot.
You do your own policing? Your neighborhood doesn't have a fleet of cars that go around, at taxpayer expense, with the word "POLICE" in big letters on them?
Crimes, large or small, necessarily involve law enforcement.
Sad death yes. Truly an american icon no. Mostly manufactured pop star yes.
RIAA: Slashdot must think very little of the mental capacities of its readers to throw such a bad slippery slope argument at them as the teaser for this article. for shame!
Slashdot Mirror
From time to time, the internet death penalty for countries has been considered and is actually implemented locally by particularly zealous sysadmins. But we've seen that this tends to, at best, piss off a few users unless it's implemented really widely, which it is unlikely to ever be. So, what is the answer to korea?
note: I have visited korea three times and have found it to be a great place. it's their extremely half-assed internet policies that I object to
The above implies that "the government" in a democracy is something seperate from "us." What you have described is a closely monitored custodianship that can occur in any policical structure--democracy, communism, monarchy, etc, but is most closely associated with european-style socialist bureaucracies.
If a democracy is rule by the people, then the "most pure form" of democracy would be precisely the opposite--where you could not see the dividing line between "the people" and "the government." There would be no issue of whether you could "challenge the government figures"--it would just be sorta obvious that you could actively participate in any discussion and work on them.
Quoth:
intellectual property law as specified in the constitution ...
Which constituion was this, again?
Exclusivity is critical for extreme profitability
This would explain why there is only one car maker in the world.
I couldn't be bothered to read the "click here to read more" rest after seeing the above whoppers.
- score -1, naive
- score -1, simplistic
This is a serious proposition and about as objectively applicable as "-1, Troll""Open source" in the mining industry is a naive and stupid idea insofar as individual companies are concerned.
Have you noticed that the PC gaming industry is essentially a pimple on the ass of the console gaming industry thesedays despite facts such as:
- Console games individually cost more
- PC games offer many possibilities console games dont (due largely to storage / processing power issues)
- The installed base of PCs is much higher than any individual console?
Come on. Software piracy was a major, MAJOR contributor to the downfall of the PC gaming industry. Still is, actually.The method that had better inherent copy protection (console games) generated more money for the producers who were then able to turn around and expand the size of the industry and expand the realm of available choices to consumers.
As far as the computer and it's memory hierarchy is concerned, there IS write only memory. The printer, for example, in the absence of a scanner, is just this, as could be certain video displays.
With OpenOffice, you get a completely functional presentation program (Impress) that can edit power-point files: for free. MS PowerPoint ALONE costs 300 dollars. Lets say that OpenOffice's Impress costed 1 dollar. Is MS PowerPoint really 300 times better than OpenOffice Impress?
Are you stupid or something, boy? Powerpoint doesn't have to be 300x better to justify your numbers. It has to simply make back its costs. If powerpoint is 1% better, and that allows me to make an extra 301 dollars, then I come out ahead with powerpoint. Is a $1000 golf club going to get you to the hole in 10% of the shots of a $100 dollar one? Then why don't professional golfers use $100 clubs?
2. piracy costs hundreds of thousands of jobs a year. regarldess of the truth of that claim (it probably represents "opportunity cost" jobs lost), i am amazed how you appear to think that the only jobs that matter are programmer jobs.
3. not even worth responding to. who the hell modded this up? why am i responding to this troll?
So ask yourself--are the apologetics that RH has produced honest in the sense that RH continues to be the torchbearer for Linux and the spirit of free software? Or is it just a ploy to try to keep as many of you as possible from defecting? Are you fundamentally for Linux or are you fundamentally for the idea of free as in speech software?
(the second question is not rhetorical--the answer shold not be linux.)
If piracy were good for sales, companies would quickly figure it out and actively encourage it. Darwinian marketing, survival of the fittest, every little edge--that whole bit. Look--you can accuse the music makers of a lot of things, but inattention to market and lack desire to squeeze every last penny out of the consumer are not in that list! The problem is that except in isolated, questionable instances intended generally as somebody's defense of stealing, piracy doesn't help sales. Stop deluding yourself.
In absolute sense, yes. However, the RIAA has already marginalized music file "sharing" to where I'd be suprised if it's even 10% as prevalent as it was during napster's apex (geeks excluded.)
re: "who cares, use X instead!
Gee, we haven't seen that before. The "problem" is that every X tends to be even less subscribed and include an even more evil revenue model.
re: bad analogies
I don't care and neither should the RIAA what you, sitting in your bedroom think music sharing does to record sales. Even if you're right (and, you're not), this is not a decision for you to make.
Additionally--the bad analogies to 'premium sales networks.' The guy selling TVs out of the back of his van has never serioulsy but a dent in consumer electronics sales--otherwise the controlling interests would go after them harder. encarta beat out 'encyclopedia salesmen' (actually, it didn't--encyclopedia salesmen were effectively gone at least a decade before) because it delivered a product of acceptable quality for a lesser price. If you think that electronic distribution is the way of the future and will kill off RIAA dinosaurs, invest int the few companies that are trying to do this without effectively resorting to thievery.
Don't fool yourself. Whether or not they are unmanned, These are real aircraft.
- Airline Transport Pilot (Citation V, Falcon 50/EX, CanadairRJ, B737-200/300/800).
my whole point was that this is /not/ indicative of a trend, but rather that this is just 'to be expected' legal maneuvering. my whole point was that the market is playing itself out and that there is no particular reason for the slashbots to come out declaring this to be another sign of the end times. as you have done.
(if you'll pardon my sentence fragments, i'll try to overlook that six line long run-on sentence which you penned.)
your post doesn't merit a 'substantive rebuttal' because your 'substantive rebuttal' to my post is nothing more than argumentum ad misericordium-- a stylized "no, you're wrong hey hey ho ho evil corporations have got to go."
a substantive rebuttal on your part would have showed that the legal maneuverings going on are likely to produce a result which is substantially counter to reasonable expectations. given the history of industry attempts at legal maneuverings based on similar 'implied contracts' with consumers, my specific point is that we have little to fear. furthermore, a substantive rebuttal would go on to say that even if the legal system failed on this issue, market forces would not restore the lost consumer surplus in one way or another... again.. bloody unlikely given current technological trends. the broadcast providers, as we know, need to compete.
so, mr 'substantive rebuttal,' how about instead of some, franky, bizarre spiel about spending vacations in kenya or heroic claptrap about 'freedoms of the past,' talk about the fucking issues.
(ill bet ANYBODY that the person i am writing to is an american undergraduate student, whether he admits to it or not.)
my whole point was that this is /not/ indicative of a trend, but rather that this is just 'to be expected' legal maneuvering. my whole point was that the market is playing itself out and that there is no particular reason for the slashbots to come out declaring this to be another sign of the end times. as you have done.
(if you'll pardon my sentence fragments, i'll try to overlook that six line long run-on sentence which you penned.)
your post doesn't merit a 'substantive rebuttal' because your 'substantive rebuttal' to my post is nothing more than argumentum ad misericordium-- a stylized "no, you're wrong hey hey ho ho evil corporations have got to go."
a substantive rebuttal on your part would have showed that the legal maneuverings going on are likely to produce a result which is substantially counter to reasonable expectations. given the history of industry attempts at legal maneuverings based on similar 'implied contracts' with consumers, my specific point is that we have little to fear. furthermore, a substantive rebuttal would go on to say that even if the legal system failed on this issue, market forces would not restore the lost consumer surplus in one way or another... again.. bloody unlikely given current technological trends. the broadcast providers, as we know, need to compete.
so, mr 'substantive rebuttal,' how about instead of some, franky, bizarre spiel about spending vacations in kenya or heroic claptrap about 'freedoms of the past,' talk about the fucking issues.
(ill bet ANYBODY that the person i am writing to is an american undergraduate student, whether he admits to it or not.)
Look, your "call to action" is cute, in a naive sort of way. My point was not cynicism--it was instead that the PARTICULARs of this case at this point are not where you should be going up in arms because it's relatively humdrum legal maneuvering rather than any sort of watershed.
Sophomoric overdramatic words about the killing fields of cambodia (where i happened to have visited last week) ain't gonna change that, and, in fact, are emblematic of the exact sort of overreaction that i was talking about.
Don't panic. The sun may come up tomorrow.
the closest you can come to in the US in patenting an idea is a business method patent--something that europe and japan really dont have much of. there are good arguments both ways as to whether BMP's are good for society or not.
You can't make something blatantly public as they have and then, years later try to patent it. No reasonable potential for patent / no story here. Move along, folks.
"If I don't use EMACS or vi, will I be taken seriously?" This is not a troll. There is a real bias in many Uni CS departments towards unix based tools. When I was doing my PhD, I came in, set up my SourceSafe (which is a thousand times easier to use than CVS) and did my programming work for Unix systems with the MS-Windows programming IDEs that I'm used to and prefer. the thing is, I took shit the whole time I was there for being 'the windows guy.' No, I was writing unix stuff--I was just doing it (this was about 7-3 years ago) on systems with better IDEs so that I could get to the meat of my research faster. This wasnt a question of interoperability--I was working alone on a thesis. It was just a question of departmental bias. Operating system bias in any flavor is bad. When it permeates a large section of an ivy league CS department, it's silly and counterproductive. Perhaps I am not making a strong enough case for myself. The bias that I experienced was basically that "anything other than Unix is crap. Unix _is_ the one true way of doing things and you'd be a fool to do anything but man for cmd line flags all day." I certainly understand and appreciate personal preferences, but if CS departments are supposed to be where the next generation of software ideas are coming from, a little open mindedness would be a good thing.
It boggles my mind that "sloppy"s reply was modded insightful. Oh wait, this is slashdot. no it doesn't. For all the self-righteous talk, we all know that the non-infringing use of this technology is likely less than 1%, and perhaps less than .1%. Regardless of whether you consider the whole concept of intellectual property to be morally bankrupt and practically corrupt, the screwdrivers analogy is oversimplistic and patronizing.
Hey, didn't we have this debate already with Napster, et al?
Once NDA has been violated, is it ethically correct to encourage all to pour through the breech? Or, is it better for society that even if there is a breech of contract, responsible individuals work to intelligently minimize the damage? For shame, slashdot.
Crimes, large or small, necessarily involve law enforcement.
Sad death yes. Truly an american icon no. Mostly manufactured pop star yes. RIAA: Slashdot must think very little of the mental capacities of its readers to throw such a bad slippery slope argument at them as the teaser for this article. for shame!