It's only stupid to look at Wikipedia first if you have poor media literacy and don't know how to read it analytically (but then, in that case, you'd probably do poorly on a normal websearch as well.)
A pretty large portion of my websearches are out of idle curiosity or unimportant research (like fact-checking for a frivolous hobby purpose). For these purposes, going directly to Wikipedia is often quicker, easier, and freer of ads than a Google search. A scan of recent Wikipedia lookups on my laptop shows stuff like "American Gladiators," "Caffiene," "Somerville, MA," "Radiohead," "Woodrow Wilson" -- all topics for which I had, at best, passing interest at the time I looked them up.
When I'm interested in something more in-depth, Wikipedia's list of references and links can often provide a starting point of resources to consider that have already been pre-scanned by a human being. For a hot-button issue, it won't help me, but for, I dunno, Islamic democracy (a relevant, modern topic) it provides me with a starting point of links and article references that I can check and judge the validity of myself.
For really, really important stuff it definitely wouldn't be my first (or second, or third) choice, but then... how often do you do really, really important stuff on the Internet compared to how often you want to know what year "Like a Prayer" came out or what the population density of Iowa is?
I don't know about all chains, but my local supermarket (Wegmans', mentioned above a ways) certainly doesn't do that. I shop there regularly and watch the actual prices of the items I purchase, not just whether they're "on sale." There's no such deception going on.
Honestly, most people shop for groceries every week and purchase the same items over and over. The idea that you could consistently fool the entire customer base -- that you won't have anyone who pays attention to the "normal" price and compares it to the "sale" price -- is ridiculous.
The article quite clearly states that Sony is opening a site for mediated player-to-player sales of in-game items, with Sony taking a cut, not a Sony-run shop. So, yes, you can in fact make money off of it.
Whatever benefits are gained from the elements you mention will be more than made up for by the vast quantities of tax lost from unspent income taken in by wealthy individuals.
So the reason people in America are poor is because it's profitable, and not because factors outside their control force them into poverty? If only it was less lucrative to be poor everyone would start raking in the dough... that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier 3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.a spx
Please don't trot this chestnut out again. It's quite well established that the case was reasonable and the woman was injured by coffee that was hot to a dangerous degree.
Anyway, I don't really understand how "the market" is supposed to solve anything when market forces are supposed to be defined by informed consumption yet you support the use of disinformation to mislead customers.
Why does regular business sense stop applying when the Magical Internets come into play? As a business owner, it's your responsibility to be careful with your money. If you buy a service from someone, you should know what you're paying for and how to cancel it when you no longer need it. If you don't find this out in advance, you're setting yourself up for problems down the road -- whether you're paying the landscaper or the web developer. I might feel soorry for you if you wind up in trouble as a result of it, but it is your own mistake that led you there.
What if this guy really is just clueless?
He probably shouldn't have tried to promote his business using the Internet, then, or he should've hired someone with a clue to handle it for him.
As everyone arguing against this judgment is ignoring, he was contacted by the Restaurant Association and informed that his website had potential to get him in legal trouble; not just a cranky customer, but a trade association with the power and mandate to offer accurate advice. It's the point at which he ignored this advice that he made himself legitimately culpable.
If it didn't have a date listed and some sort of "menu may change without notice" tag, then it's implicitly advertising it as the current menu. Use common sense here.
Based on the usenet thread linked to above, it seems that at least one approach would be to use an unneeded part of the ID3 tag (like the Album Art section) for a small packet of virus code, then have the very first byte of the MP3 be a JUMP to the relevant code.
The result is an MP3 whose overall structure is correct, and whose audio stream (with the exception of one byte) is valid and will play correctly, but which contains malicious code which could be executed under certain circumstances.
I'd argue against the implicit value judgment on "disposable factory workers" here. No one should have to deal with management imposing ludicrous demands; that's why labor unions were created in the first place.
You completely missed the point of the distinction he was making.
If you shoplift a CD, you are taking a physical item. The store you stole from paid maybe $6 to purchase that CD, and is reselling it to you now. When you steal it, not only don't they get your money, but they're also out the $6 they paid to buy it in the first place.
When you download an MP3, you are not taking any physical item. It's true that you are acquiring something without paying for it. But you are not, in any sense, depriving someone else of something that they had, only something that they were entitled to on principle.
An argument can be made that this is unethical, and that it constitutes a form of theft, certainly. But even if it is, it is a fundamentally different, and lesser, form of theft. Any attempt to reason on the issue needs to recognize this distinction if it's going to come to a legitimate conclusion.
Not that I have anything more than negative interest in the franchise, but I think French Stewart is actually a much better piece of casting, honestly. He actually sounds (the voice is pretty much dead-on) and acts (vapid and oblivious) like the cartoon character he's supposed to be portraying. The movie will still rot, but at least it's not Matthew Broderick playing the character all weird and nebbishy.
Slashdot Mirror
A pretty large portion of my websearches are out of idle curiosity or unimportant research (like fact-checking for a frivolous hobby purpose). For these purposes, going directly to Wikipedia is often quicker, easier, and freer of ads than a Google search. A scan of recent Wikipedia lookups on my laptop shows stuff like "American Gladiators," "Caffiene," "Somerville, MA," "Radiohead," "Woodrow Wilson" -- all topics for which I had, at best, passing interest at the time I looked them up.
When I'm interested in something more in-depth, Wikipedia's list of references and links can often provide a starting point of resources to consider that have already been pre-scanned by a human being. For a hot-button issue, it won't help me, but for, I dunno, Islamic democracy (a relevant, modern topic) it provides me with a starting point of links and article references that I can check and judge the validity of myself.
For really, really important stuff it definitely wouldn't be my first (or second, or third) choice, but then... how often do you do really, really important stuff on the Internet compared to how often you want to know what year "Like a Prayer" came out or what the population density of Iowa is?
I don't know about all chains, but my local supermarket (Wegmans', mentioned above a ways) certainly doesn't do that. I shop there regularly and watch the actual prices of the items I purchase, not just whether they're "on sale." There's no such deception going on.
Honestly, most people shop for groceries every week and purchase the same items over and over. The idea that you could consistently fool the entire customer base -- that you won't have anyone who pays attention to the "normal" price and compares it to the "sale" price -- is ridiculous.
The article quite clearly states that Sony is opening a site for mediated player-to-player sales of in-game items, with Sony taking a cut, not a Sony-run shop. So, yes, you can in fact make money off of it.
Whatever benefits are gained from the elements you mention will be more than made up for by the vast quantities of tax lost from unspent income taken in by wealthy individuals.
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/sales.html
Check it out; in half the states, food items are exempt from sales tax. (A good choice.)
So the reason people in America are poor is because it's profitable, and not because factors outside their control force them into poverty? If only it was less lucrative to be poor everyone would start raking in the dough... that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier 3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.a spx
Please don't trot this chestnut out again. It's quite well established that the case was reasonable and the woman was injured by coffee that was hot to a dangerous degree.
Anyway, I don't really understand how "the market" is supposed to solve anything when market forces are supposed to be defined by informed consumption yet you support the use of disinformation to mislead customers.
Why does regular business sense stop applying when the Magical Internets come into play? As a business owner, it's your responsibility to be careful with your money. If you buy a service from someone, you should know what you're paying for and how to cancel it when you no longer need it. If you don't find this out in advance, you're setting yourself up for problems down the road -- whether you're paying the landscaper or the web developer. I might feel soorry for you if you wind up in trouble as a result of it, but it is your own mistake that led you there.
What if this guy really is just clueless? He probably shouldn't have tried to promote his business using the Internet, then, or he should've hired someone with a clue to handle it for him. As everyone arguing against this judgment is ignoring, he was contacted by the Restaurant Association and informed that his website had potential to get him in legal trouble; not just a cranky customer, but a trade association with the power and mandate to offer accurate advice. It's the point at which he ignored this advice that he made himself legitimately culpable.
If it didn't have a date listed and some sort of "menu may change without notice" tag, then it's implicitly advertising it as the current menu. Use common sense here.
Based on the usenet thread linked to above, it seems that at least one approach would be to use an unneeded part of the ID3 tag (like the Album Art section) for a small packet of virus code, then have the very first byte of the MP3 be a JUMP to the relevant code. The result is an MP3 whose overall structure is correct, and whose audio stream (with the exception of one byte) is valid and will play correctly, but which contains malicious code which could be executed under certain circumstances.
I'd argue against the implicit value judgment on "disposable factory workers" here. No one should have to deal with management imposing ludicrous demands; that's why labor unions were created in the first place.
You completely missed the point of the distinction he was making. If you shoplift a CD, you are taking a physical item. The store you stole from paid maybe $6 to purchase that CD, and is reselling it to you now. When you steal it, not only don't they get your money, but they're also out the $6 they paid to buy it in the first place. When you download an MP3, you are not taking any physical item. It's true that you are acquiring something without paying for it. But you are not, in any sense, depriving someone else of something that they had, only something that they were entitled to on principle. An argument can be made that this is unethical, and that it constitutes a form of theft, certainly. But even if it is, it is a fundamentally different, and lesser, form of theft. Any attempt to reason on the issue needs to recognize this distinction if it's going to come to a legitimate conclusion.
Not that I have anything more than negative interest in the franchise, but I think French Stewart is actually a much better piece of casting, honestly. He actually sounds (the voice is pretty much dead-on) and acts (vapid and oblivious) like the cartoon character he's supposed to be portraying. The movie will still rot, but at least it's not Matthew Broderick playing the character all weird and nebbishy.