How can you possibly deny that providing free entertainment in the form of hundred-million-dollar blockbusters would imply a cost to the producers?
Drawing a conclusion from a conditional of which the antecedent is undeniably true is not a fallacy.
And how can there be such a thing as a deliberate "confusion"? If it's deliberate, then I'm not confused! I'm just putting an accent on my point.
(Yes, I'm ignoring the fact that the marginal cost to the producers of someone seeing a movie is essentially zero. The movie still costs money to produce. If you think that you're special enough to see a movie for free while everyone else has to pay, and that by only you seeing it for free you are not costing the producers any extra money, then you're a lot more special than I am.)
(And yes, I do download movies from BitTorrent all the time. But it doesn't mean it's right:-))
Sorry about the extra comma. That's exactly one question -- no fallacy. I've been trained in analysis of logical arguments as well.
"Steal" was a concious word choice. Yes, you "make" copies. But if you don't have a right to, you're "stealing". Regardless, "make" or "steal", the argument is the same.
I do agree with you that perhaps the punishments are too harsh. I wish the law would require proof of intent to distribute, because otherwise I believe this crime should be no worse than what you'll get fined for shoplifting ("stealing" a copy for your own personal use). But if you intend to distribute the copy illegally, which it seems most offenders do, then there really is no doubt that this one case of "theft" is a thousand times worse.
Just visit Suprnova.org. Spiderman CAM: 2052 current downloaders. That's just one of several.
(Of course, the telesync versions that just came out have over 10,000 downloaders combined.)
Now, not all CAMs will end up on Suprnova. But not all people that walk into a bank with a black stocking over their face are going to rob it, either, yet they'll still be arrested.
Finally, just about zero CAMs are worth watching. (I'd much rather wait for a DVD-rip myself.) That doesn't mean the filmmakers don't have a right to try to prevent copying.
You know, normally I'm as anti-RIAA/MPAA as the next slashdotter. But you're just insane! All of your arguments can be applied against you in the same manner.
Is it your god-given right to receive free entertainment, at the cost of the filmmakers?
If not, then don't you think there's a good reason for this law to exist: to deter people who would steal copies of the filmmakers' films?
If not, then at least won't you recognize that every CAM-copy distributed on the internet is no better than sneaking in the back door of the theater? If these punks had been caught doing that, shouldn't they be subject to arrest under the law? Maybe the penalties for that would be a little lighter, but if you think about it from the perspective of the theater owners and filmmakers, a single CAM copy is worth thousands of back-door pilchers.
That's why blackholing spam is a terrible idea. Whether you use Outlook, Apple Mail, Thunderbird, or whatever other client-side client, it's always better to use the built-in filters. That way you have a junk-mail folder that you can scan periodically, not to mention that the filter can learn what you think is spam, instead of blackholing things based on poor, inflexible rulesets.
I hadn't noticed. Who are you paying money to lose your mail for you? They don't deserve it, because there are better services available without such problems. I know there must be, because I've never experienced them.
About the only problem I've ever had with email -- that wasn't my fault, anyway -- is overzealous spam filters. The simple solution to this is to install your own filters, set the threshhold relatively high, and check your junk mail folders periodically. Never should you blackhole email if you value its timely delivery. Anyway, the latest spam filters are good enough that this isn't much of a problem anymore.
Hello? SpaceShipOne doesn't get anywhere near orbit, let alone having the ability to deliever cargo to ISS. It's a completely different ballgame, so no wonder the costs are different.
In my physics class, E means the electric field vector.
Re:Why aren't these on the Mars rovers?
on
70 Megapixel Webcam
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Sure, it's stiched together from multiple photos, but at the resolution they're using, it's the same resolution as a human eye. That's pretty amazing.
If you still don't think so, why don't you try to make a single-CCD camera that can take a 360 degree panorama then? Or even easier, take a 8 megapixel CCD from a prosumer camera, harden it for the extremes of space and mars, and make it suitable for precise scientific measurements. Good luck!
My first day at the University of Washington they packed all the freshmen into an indoor arena for orientation. They also gave all 4000 of us gift bags that included frisbees. I don't need to say what happened next.
College students are stupid enough, and when it comes to computers, most people that use them in their workplaces are even stupider. That said, I agree with you completely that the simplest solution would have been to not give us frisbees in the first place.
Wrong, it can be done with autorefreshes, and the articles linked from both (three?) of the recent Slashdot articles prove it. In the latest version, the downloaded.img file doesn't even show up in Safari's download window, so you don't even know it's happening!
If it was a pledge book, then it wasn't really secret. If he was a pledge, then he wasn't a full member yet, and didn't have access to the "real" secrets.
Everyone should be clear: the "software" that they couldn't verify was the flight plan for the launch vehicle, not the software on the satelite.
Variable high-altitude winds just prior to launch required them to update the flight control parameters, but they couldn't verify that the update was successful in the final 4 minutes before launch. Better safe than sorry, so they scrubbed it 'till tomorrow.
Re:Still not a justification for ISS
on
Testing Relativity
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Well, the article says they are using the existing structure of ISS as a frame on which to mount their interferometer. Of course this could be done without ISS, but it would require design, construction, and launch of a similarly gigantic structure, which of course must also have the ability to face itself toward the sun at all times.
All of that would just be extra cost and effort for this mission. It could be done, but the fact that ISS exists means they don't have to. Will the savings on this one mission justify the enormous cost of ISS? No. But it does prove that ISS has the ability to function as a platform for some science that is perhaps a little more interesting than the meanial microgravity experiments of which they've been so fond thus far.
I'm sure it would be possible to configure a/48 split over multiple sites, on the ISP level, but I can't imagine why you'd want to. There are still more/48s available to the world than the entire IPv4 address space.
Slashdot Mirror
How can you possibly deny that providing free entertainment in the form of hundred-million-dollar blockbusters would imply a cost to the producers?
:-))
Drawing a conclusion from a conditional of which the antecedent is undeniably true is not a fallacy.
And how can there be such a thing as a deliberate "confusion"? If it's deliberate, then I'm not confused! I'm just putting an accent on my point.
(Yes, I'm ignoring the fact that the marginal cost to the producers of someone seeing a movie is essentially zero. The movie still costs money to produce. If you think that you're special enough to see a movie for free while everyone else has to pay, and that by only you seeing it for free you are not costing the producers any extra money, then you're a lot more special than I am.)
(And yes, I do download movies from BitTorrent all the time. But it doesn't mean it's right
Sorry about the extra comma. That's exactly one question -- no fallacy. I've been trained in analysis of logical arguments as well.
"Steal" was a concious word choice. Yes, you "make" copies. But if you don't have a right to, you're "stealing". Regardless, "make" or "steal", the argument is the same.
I do agree with you that perhaps the punishments are too harsh. I wish the law would require proof of intent to distribute, because otherwise I believe this crime should be no worse than what you'll get fined for shoplifting ("stealing" a copy for your own personal use). But if you intend to distribute the copy illegally, which it seems most offenders do, then there really is no doubt that this one case of "theft" is a thousand times worse.
Just visit Suprnova.org. Spiderman CAM: 2052 current downloaders. That's just one of several.
(Of course, the telesync versions that just came out have over 10,000 downloaders combined.)
Now, not all CAMs will end up on Suprnova. But not all people that walk into a bank with a black stocking over their face are going to rob it, either, yet they'll still be arrested.
Finally, just about zero CAMs are worth watching. (I'd much rather wait for a DVD-rip myself.) That doesn't mean the filmmakers don't have a right to try to prevent copying.
So even in the worst case, it's still faster than my DSL line. That is pretty freakin' amazing.
You know, normally I'm as anti-RIAA/MPAA as the next slashdotter. But you're just insane! All of your arguments can be applied against you in the same manner.
Is it your god-given right to receive free entertainment, at the cost of the filmmakers?
If not, then don't you think there's a good reason for this law to exist: to deter people who would steal copies of the filmmakers' films?
If not, then at least won't you recognize that every CAM-copy distributed on the internet is no better than sneaking in the back door of the theater? If these punks had been caught doing that, shouldn't they be subject to arrest under the law? Maybe the penalties for that would be a little lighter, but if you think about it from the perspective of the theater owners and filmmakers, a single CAM copy is worth thousands of back-door pilchers.
That's why blackholing spam is a terrible idea. Whether you use Outlook, Apple Mail, Thunderbird, or whatever other client-side client, it's always better to use the built-in filters. That way you have a junk-mail folder that you can scan periodically, not to mention that the filter can learn what you think is spam, instead of blackholing things based on poor, inflexible rulesets.
I hadn't noticed. Who are you paying money to lose your mail for you? They don't deserve it, because there are better services available without such problems. I know there must be, because I've never experienced them.
About the only problem I've ever had with email -- that wasn't my fault, anyway -- is overzealous spam filters. The simple solution to this is to install your own filters, set the threshhold relatively high, and check your junk mail folders periodically. Never should you blackhole email if you value its timely delivery. Anyway, the latest spam filters are good enough that this isn't much of a problem anymore.
I've tried that... my powerbook heats up until it burns my bare legs.
Hello? SpaceShipOne doesn't get anywhere near orbit, let alone having the ability to deliever cargo to ISS. It's a completely different ballgame, so no wonder the costs are different.
In my physics class, E means the electric field vector.
Sure, it's stiched together from multiple photos, but at the resolution they're using, it's the same resolution as a human eye. That's pretty amazing.
If you still don't think so, why don't you try to make a single-CCD camera that can take a 360 degree panorama then? Or even easier, take a 8 megapixel CCD from a prosumer camera, harden it for the extremes of space and mars, and make it suitable for precise scientific measurements. Good luck!
My first day at the University of Washington they packed all the freshmen into an indoor arena for orientation. They also gave all 4000 of us gift bags that included frisbees. I don't need to say what happened next.
College students are stupid enough, and when it comes to computers, most people that use them in their workplaces are even stupider. That said, I agree with you completely that the simplest solution would have been to not give us frisbees in the first place.
It's been 6 hours since this was posted and there are no comments!
BSD may not be dead, but it's sure as hell that nobody cares on slashdot.
Wrong, it can be done with autorefreshes, and the articles linked from both (three?) of the recent Slashdot articles prove it. In the latest version, the downloaded .img file doesn't even show up in Safari's download window, so you don't even know it's happening!
Try it, the proof of concept hack does just this.
This hint was taken directly from the article...
Blatant karma whore!
How about:
Apple Menu -> Software Update...
um, that's it.
Yup, reporting at its worst.
If it was a pledge book, then it wasn't really secret. If he was a pledge, then he wasn't a full member yet, and didn't have access to the "real" secrets.
Sorry to dissappoint you.
Everyone should be clear: the "software" that they couldn't verify was the flight plan for the launch vehicle, not the software on the satelite.
Variable high-altitude winds just prior to launch required them to update the flight control parameters, but they couldn't verify that the update was successful in the final 4 minutes before launch. Better safe than sorry, so they scrubbed it 'till tomorrow.
Not to mention infinite angular momentum. That's one hell of a gyroscope!
Hehe, good point :-)
Well, the article says they are using the existing structure of ISS as a frame on which to mount their interferometer. Of course this could be done without ISS, but it would require design, construction, and launch of a similarly gigantic structure, which of course must also have the ability to face itself toward the sun at all times.
All of that would just be extra cost and effort for this mission. It could be done, but the fact that ISS exists means they don't have to. Will the savings on this one mission justify the enormous cost of ISS? No. But it does prove that ISS has the ability to function as a platform for some science that is perhaps a little more interesting than the meanial microgravity experiments of which they've been so fond thus far.
Did you read the other part of the article about the mathematically-sound ways in which the bias is removed?
Same here. How strange. Completely stock configuration.
I'm sure it would be possible to configure a /48 split over multiple sites, on the ISP level, but I can't imagine why you'd want to. There are still more /48s available to the world than the entire IPv4 address space.