Pardon my French, but any and all statistics on this subject or any other subject are meaningless bullshit. Both sides of any argument, but this one in particular, use misleading or flat out false statistics to try to support their position.
Practically everything that I have found has been written for, or is a study funded by, one of the groups that hold extreme viewpoints on the subject, e.g. the NRA or the Brady Foundation.
This is natural. Would you spend your time or money on a study which you had absolutely no interest either way in?
I would also ask what ideas the members of this community have about this issue and what FACTS they can offer to support their ideas.
How about these?
Pro-gun: XX% of ____ gun ______.
Anti-gun: XX% of ____ gun ______.
Fill in the blanks with whatever you want, whether you've researched it or not. Won't affect the veracity of them at all. Statistics shouldn't be listened to at all for these arguments. Pay attention to moral or logical arguments, not a biased half-truth.
Apparently you haven't heard about the latest anti-terror bill, the Fuck Freedom law. Among other things, it imposes the death penalty for speaking out against the government.
You may think it's funny now, but reread this in a year.
In other news, a recent report indicated that many terrorists use homeless shelters for food, housing and clothing. A Homeland Security directive today ordered all homeless shelters demolished and anyone who's given to charity in the last year arrested.
I really see this and the real story on the same level. Shelters are run by volunteers charitably. Open WAPs are run by volunteers charitably. Both have the theoretical possiblity of aiding terrorism. Shouldn't both be banned if one is? Seriously, how far will we tolerate having our freedoms taken away in the name of security?
Nah, the prosecuting attorney would ask why he had the harness in the first place. A better defense would be saying he wanted to hang himself but all he could find was bungee rope, and while falling the rope mysteriously slipped off his neck and got tangled in his belt loops.
"See how badly we need to not sell our customers anything at all? That'll solve this nasty piracy issue. We'll just have one of our Congressional whores write us a bill making it legal for us to take customers' money and give them nothing."
Easy solution: censor everything. The phrase "Kids, always do your homework" shouldn't be allowed on a website, because some of the letters could be rearranged to form "ass", and if a kid saw that, they'd undoubtedly grow up to become an axe-wielding drug dealer, right?
You don't need beans, you need cows. The cows produce the methane, which would generate electricity and power the servers. And then since you have so many cows, start a dairy business on the side. Google Milk anyone?
I'd be willing to bet that the crappy 128k ogg was reencoded from an MP3. You'd be surprised how many people think they can convert a 128k MP3 to 128k Ogg and have it miraculously sound better. I've ran across a few such files myself and they sound horrible. However, I have yet to hear a song that sounds better in MP3 than Ogg, at equal bitrates, when both are encoded correctly. Not saying it isn't possible, just that I've never heard one.
Everyone go get a copy of the DeCSS source here, along with any other DMCA-infringing stuff you can find, then print it out and turn yourself in to the police. Insist that they arrest you. Alternatively, mail copies of same to the Attorney General/Congressional Representatives/Movie execs, with a note explaining how you downloaded it and your conscience has been really bothering you about it. Provide an address where you can be arrested.
Same here. I have cable and leave my computer on 24/7, so I find it hard to think of computing *without* an internet connection. Seems impossible to be sitting at a computer but unable to read/., check on my downloads (the reason I got cable in the first place), download the latest version of a program I'm running, or search for something I need to know.
The Anti-Leech law was passed as a rider to the wildly popular "Vote for this or we'll label you an unpatriotic Commie" bill. Other riders to this bill included the Fsck Civil Rights Act and the new Anything Corporations Want to Do is Fine With Us law. The bill's sponsor, Representative Dick Corporatewhore, was quoted as saying "Voters schmoters! I have money!" before he lifted off in his new 747 for the country he recently bought with his campaign donations.
If someone chooses to run this software for their website, that's fine with me. I can go to a different site. End result: they lose the ad revenue they were going to get from my visit anyway. On top of that, I might like the other site I go to better. I'll then recommend to my friends (who don't use ad blockers) the site that doesn't block ad blockers, hurting the ad blocker-blocking site even more. Where is the line drawn between choosing what you want to view and "thievery"? If I use ad blockers, I am a thief, at least according to this company. How about if I change channels or get up to get a snack when the commercials come on TV? What are the network execs going to do about it? Strap me down into my couch? Suppose I'm driving on the highway past a billboard. If I don't look at it, I'm a thief, right?
It will be interesting to see how this works. It can obviously be circumvented using one of the DRM hacks, but I'm sure at least some will buy the files. Especially those on dial up who spent 15 minutes to get one song.
Either that, or they'll be mad that you just wasted 15 minutes of their time and bandwidth. On top of that, you face the rest of the problems this kind of business model faces, the biggest of which being a large chunk of your target audience doesn't have a credit card. Sure, some will buy it, but not enough will to make it sucessful.
Baby steps. Slow and steady wins the race.
Baby steps don't mean much if you fall flat on your face every time you stand up, and slow and steady is still doomed when your opponent (in this case, the free P2Ps) has such a huge headstart.
If my cable ISP ever caps me, I'm going to mail them an envelope with about a buck in pennies and a note saying "this should be enough to cover the cost to quadruple my cap this month." Seriously, doesn't each gigabyte of data transferred cost ISPs something like 10 cents? If broadband costs $40+/month, surely they could afford to set caps at more than 5 or 10 gigs/month.
Ever time I hear this, I wonder why the record labels are bothering. It's not that tough of a decision for consumers. You can have digitally-rights managed, proprietary format songs that you pay for, or songs that you can burn to a CD or put on a portable player for free. And before I get flamed, yes, I am in favor of the artists getting compensation. But the record industry has a rather bad track record when it comes to giving artists a fair share of the profits. What's to assure me they won't just do the same with this new form of media? Give me a system that doesn't restrict my fair use, isn't overpriced and gives more than a 2% share to the artist, then I'll look at it.
How bout a railgun? One would think that would make the average criminal think twice about jacking your stereo. On the downside, it would drain the batteries pretty quick. A chaingun wouldn't be bad either, except then you have the ammo storage problem. And yes, I have been playing WAY too much Quake lately.
Slashdot Mirror
Practically everything that I have found has been written for, or is a study funded by, one of the groups that hold extreme viewpoints on the subject, e.g. the NRA or the Brady Foundation.
This is natural. Would you spend your time or money on a study which you had absolutely no interest either way in?
I would also ask what ideas the members of this community have about this issue and what FACTS they can offer to support their ideas.
How about these?
Pro-gun: XX% of ____ gun ______.
Anti-gun: XX% of ____ gun ______.
Fill in the blanks with whatever you want, whether you've researched it or not. Won't affect the veracity of them at all. Statistics shouldn't be listened to at all for these arguments. Pay attention to moral or logical arguments, not a biased half-truth.
You may think it's funny now, but reread this in a year.
I was actually aware of that. My post wasn't intended as a joke, it just got modded funny by people who misunderstood it.
I really see this and the real story on the same level. Shelters are run by volunteers charitably. Open WAPs are run by volunteers charitably. Both have the theoretical possiblity of aiding terrorism. Shouldn't both be banned if one is? Seriously, how far will we tolerate having our freedoms taken away in the name of security?
if (keyboard == smashed || controller == thrownagainstwall) {cheat(more);}
Nah, the prosecuting attorney would ask why he had the harness in the first place. A better defense would be saying he wanted to hang himself but all he could find was bungee rope, and while falling the rope mysteriously slipped off his neck and got tangled in his belt loops.
"See how badly we need to not sell our customers anything at all? That'll solve this nasty piracy issue. We'll just have one of our Congressional whores write us a bill making it legal for us to take customers' money and give them nothing."
Easy solution: censor everything. The phrase "Kids, always do your homework" shouldn't be allowed on a website, because some of the letters could be rearranged to form "ass", and if a kid saw that, they'd undoubtedly grow up to become an axe-wielding drug dealer, right?
You don't need beans, you need cows. The cows produce the methane, which would generate electricity and power the servers. And then since you have so many cows, start a dairy business on the side. Google Milk anyone?
Nah, I definitely think we could use more rain over here in the Pacific Northwest...
I'd be willing to bet that the crappy 128k ogg was reencoded from an MP3. You'd be surprised how many people think they can convert a 128k MP3 to 128k Ogg and have it miraculously sound better. I've ran across a few such files myself and they sound horrible. However, I have yet to hear a song that sounds better in MP3 than Ogg, at equal bitrates, when both are encoded correctly. Not saying it isn't possible, just that I've never heard one.
I want to see Jar Jar Binks get lightsabered into a few thousand pieces in 3D.
Everyone go get a copy of the DeCSS source here, along with any other DMCA-infringing stuff you can find, then print it out and turn yourself in to the police. Insist that they arrest you. Alternatively, mail copies of same to the Attorney General/Congressional Representatives/Movie execs, with a note explaining how you downloaded it and your conscience has been really bothering you about it. Provide an address where you can be arrested.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!
and...
1. Build immensly powerful, sugar-cube sized server
2. ???
3. Profit!
...while the kid in the middle at the top is thinking, "Hey, this new Virtual Reality Upskirt program is great!"
Same here. I have cable and leave my computer on 24/7, so I find it hard to think of computing *without* an internet connection. Seems impossible to be sitting at a computer but unable to read /., check on my downloads (the reason I got cable in the first place), download the latest version of a program I'm running, or search for something I need to know.
Who needs hookers when you have an such an awesome pick-up line?
"Hey baby, I have a 1/100th share in the 86th most powerful computer in the world."
Astrophysics? Pfft! How bout a LAN party? Does 10 billion fps on UT2003 sound good?
The Anti-Leech law was passed as a rider to the wildly popular "Vote for this or we'll label you an unpatriotic Commie" bill. Other riders to this bill included the Fsck Civil Rights Act and the new Anything Corporations Want to Do is Fine With Us law. The bill's sponsor, Representative Dick Corporatewhore, was quoted as saying "Voters schmoters! I have money!" before he lifted off in his new 747 for the country he recently bought with his campaign donations.
If someone chooses to run this software for their website, that's fine with me. I can go to a different site. End result: they lose the ad revenue they were going to get from my visit anyway. On top of that, I might like the other site I go to better. I'll then recommend to my friends (who don't use ad blockers) the site that doesn't block ad blockers, hurting the ad blocker-blocking site even more. Where is the line drawn between choosing what you want to view and "thievery"? If I use ad blockers, I am a thief, at least according to this company. How about if I change channels or get up to get a snack when the commercials come on TV? What are the network execs going to do about it? Strap me down into my couch? Suppose I'm driving on the highway past a billboard. If I don't look at it, I'm a thief, right?
Either that, or they'll be mad that you just wasted 15 minutes of their time and bandwidth. On top of that, you face the rest of the problems this kind of business model faces, the biggest of which being a large chunk of your target audience doesn't have a credit card. Sure, some will buy it, but not enough will to make it sucessful.
Baby steps. Slow and steady wins the race.
Baby steps don't mean much if you fall flat on your face every time you stand up, and slow and steady is still doomed when your opponent (in this case, the free P2Ps) has such a huge headstart.
If my cable ISP ever caps me, I'm going to mail them an envelope with about a buck in pennies and a note saying "this should be enough to cover the cost to quadruple my cap this month." Seriously, doesn't each gigabyte of data transferred cost ISPs something like 10 cents? If broadband costs $40+/month, surely they could afford to set caps at more than 5 or 10 gigs/month.
Ever time I hear this, I wonder why the record labels are bothering. It's not that tough of a decision for consumers. You can have digitally-rights managed, proprietary format songs that you pay for, or songs that you can burn to a CD or put on a portable player for free. And before I get flamed, yes, I am in favor of the artists getting compensation. But the record industry has a rather bad track record when it comes to giving artists a fair share of the profits. What's to assure me they won't just do the same with this new form of media? Give me a system that doesn't restrict my fair use, isn't overpriced and gives more than a 2% share to the artist, then I'll look at it.
How bout a railgun? One would think that would make the average criminal think twice about jacking your stereo. On the downside, it would drain the batteries pretty quick. A chaingun wouldn't be bad either, except then you have the ammo storage problem. And yes, I have been playing WAY too much Quake lately.
Way too broad. This criteria fits most of the members on /., myself included.