However, all of the moderations except some of the "Troll"s appear to have expired for some reason. Look at this comment to see some of the mods it got. It doesn't take into account the fact that it got 3 or 4 more "Troll"s and another one or two "Funny"s after it got posted.;-)
Yes, I know this is offtopic, but gimme some slack.
"So as long as you mom buys the software, and the rest of the world pirates itk, then it's still under 100%."
Yes, but that doesn't actually mean a great deal. If 99% of the software in use is pirated, then obviously you do not get much benefit (if any). However, if, say, 20-30% of the software in use is pirated, then you get the benefit of getting people addicted to it whilst still having the majority of users paying $$$ for it.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. When I say allowing "some" piracy, I'm talking about the percentage of the copies of software which are pirated. For example, if half of your software was bought illegitimately, then "some" piracy is occuring, but "total" piracy has not occured. "Total" piracy occurs when 100% of your software in use is pirated, and "no" piracy occurs when 0% of your software being used is pirated (i.e. it is all being purchased legally). Does that clear things up for you?
"Sheesh, talk about missing the point of the article. The article is talking about developing markets, not the US. Microsoft cares deeply about piracy in the US. The point is that in developing markets, Microsoft wants to establish a foothold."
Or, to sum it up, Microsoft won't bother alienating their market until they've got a market to alienate.;-)
I'm starting to think that the returns by allowing privacy are something like the Laffer curve with piracy along the x-axis and benefit along the y-axis; by allowing no piracy, then you don't benefit, nor do you benefit by having all copies of your software pirated. However, if you give some leeway and allow some of the copies of your software to be pirated, then it gives you maximum benefit. Unfortunately, it is entirely possible that the whole piracy vs. benefit graph is more reminiscent of a Neo-Laffer curve, where there are so many possible factors which can affect it that it is impossible to tell in advance what effect piracy will have.
Just because it's not possible to split infinitives in Latin or French doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible in English. That's why we use two words to make the infinitive in English. Some might say that technically it's not possible to split the infinitive because technically the infinitive is merely a particular form of a verb that does not actually require the word "to" to precede it.
"And what happens if someone takes a nude picture of your sister without her permission and makes a million from it? Does he own the pictures and the money? What rights does your sister have?"
AFAIK, in Britain, the photographer owns the photos and can do whatever they like with them as long as it's not libellous.
It's not because child porn is BAD BAD BAD, it's because the way in which it is made is BAD BAD BAD. That's why it's illegal in so many countries, but regular porn isn't.
"Incidently, it may turn out to be a good thing in the long term -- distributed, failsafe, untrusted networks have a lot of potential for the future, and it's unlikely that they would have been popularized nearly as soon without the RIAA."
You're using such a network right now, which has been popularised with virtually no help from the RIAA whatsoever.
It doesn't matter how many people you have working on it, if they don't have the time, the hardware, the money, the motivation, and the right management, then replacing a 30 year old system is a horrible underfunded chore.
Yes, but even if the main distros of Linux do turn into some ghastly copy of Windows, the situation is still very salvageable since someone else can just pick up the source code and fix it.
Whereas with Windows these days you're effectively paying $BIGNUM for what is pretty much a long-term lease rather than proper ownership of a buggy operating system which intrudes on your privacy.
It seems as if they're just banning web sites which are (in)famous among the Internet community. All the less obscure (yet equally objectionable sites) are still perfectly accessible. If they just keep banning the most popular sites, then all that will happen is that people will become more discreet in their surfing habits and they won't have any popular sites to block.
Yes, it would kill people, but guess what - the dam shouldn't have been connected to the Internet in the first place! Only a complete retard would hook a dam up so that it could be hacked into from the other side of the world! Why the hell does a dam even need to be part of a WAN?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know this is offtopic, but gimme some slack.
Yes, but that doesn't actually mean a great deal. If 99% of the software in use is pirated, then obviously you do not get much benefit (if any). However, if, say, 20-30% of the software in use is pirated, then you get the benefit of getting people addicted to it whilst still having the majority of users paying $$$ for it.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. When I say allowing "some" piracy, I'm talking about the percentage of the copies of software which are pirated. For example, if half of your software was bought illegitimately, then "some" piracy is occuring, but "total" piracy has not occured. "Total" piracy occurs when 100% of your software in use is pirated, and "no" piracy occurs when 0% of your software being used is pirated (i.e. it is all being purchased legally). Does that clear things up for you?
Or, to sum it up, Microsoft won't bother alienating their market until they've got a market to alienate. ;-)
I'm starting to think that the returns by allowing privacy are something like the Laffer curve with piracy along the x-axis and benefit along the y-axis; by allowing no piracy, then you don't benefit, nor do you benefit by having all copies of your software pirated. However, if you give some leeway and allow some of the copies of your software to be pirated, then it gives you maximum benefit. Unfortunately, it is entirely possible that the whole piracy vs. benefit graph is more reminiscent of a Neo-Laffer curve, where there are so many possible factors which can affect it that it is impossible to tell in advance what effect piracy will have.
Just because it's not possible to split infinitives in Latin or French doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible in English. That's why we use two words to make the infinitive in English. Some might say that technically it's not possible to split the infinitive because technically the infinitive is merely a particular form of a verb that does not actually require the word "to" to precede it.
AFAIK, in Britain, the photographer owns the photos and can do whatever they like with them as long as it's not libellous.
Except suckering rich people out of $600K and getting to get your own private copy of their DNA.
Why don't we just get rid of the users instead?
Um. We're still sitting on our collective ass. We're just a lot more vocal about it now.
RTFF and weep.
...if you don't get caught, it's not illegal ;-)
It's not because child porn is BAD BAD BAD, it's because the way in which it is made is BAD BAD BAD. That's why it's illegal in so many countries, but regular porn isn't.
You're using such a network right now, which has been popularised with virtually no help from the RIAA whatsoever.
It doesn't matter how many people you have working on it, if they don't have the time, the hardware, the money, the motivation, and the right management, then replacing a 30 year old system is a horrible underfunded chore.
Nah, I'm pretty sure it'd run GNOME.
This is a serious discussion?
Whereas with Windows these days you're effectively paying $BIGNUM for what is pretty much a long-term lease rather than proper ownership of a buggy operating system which intrudes on your privacy.
Well what the heck were you expecting them to say? "Oh, do please go ahead, because we're sure this is all for the good of science and mankind?"
Grokster? LimeWire? KaZaA Lite?
How to do this:
Yes, that certainly is very bold, isn't it?
It seems as if they're just banning web sites which are (in)famous among the Internet community. All the less obscure (yet equally objectionable sites) are still perfectly accessible. If they just keep banning the most popular sites, then all that will happen is that people will become more discreet in their surfing habits and they won't have any popular sites to block.
Well, if people are willing to take cookery advice from Slashdot...
...was Hotmail particularly secure to begin with?
Yes, it would kill people, but guess what - the dam shouldn't have been connected to the Internet in the first place! Only a complete retard would hook a dam up so that it could be hacked into from the other side of the world! Why the hell does a dam even need to be part of a WAN?