Let's go back to the original, shall we? "If you're sure you own each of those 11,800 songs on the iPod, then, technically, it may be legal. Not own just one of them (a possibility that approaches certainty) and you're infringing."
So first, it's a statement of fact. If you didn't previously own just one of them, then you are infringing. The RIAA isn't suing people for listening to songs, it's suing them for downloading them. Taking possesion is infringement. If they search your computer and find downloaded tunes you can't produce the disks or receipts for, you're infringing, even if you claim you've never listened to a single one of them.
And yes, he "could" delete them, but then why did he pay a premium for them then?
And the odds still approach certainty that given any two random people and 11,800 songs, the buyer doesn't own at least one of those that the seller ah... obtained, no matter how long he's been collecting them. So again, the probability is that he will be infringing.
Finally, both you and I know this is a "legal" as buying the insanely cheap fur coat off the truck down by the docks. "Stolen?" No, this isn't stolen! We... ah... couldn't fit all of these into our store. Yeah, that's it." Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Personally, I think the Chinese have this search engine censorship backwards. If I were in charge of the country, I think I'd WANT a massive easy to use search engine that spends its days and nights toiling away finding links to dissident web sites. After all, it would make my job of finding and... uh... reeducating those unhappy people MUCH easier.
"...if a company is not willing to invest it's money in you by getting the training, then why should YOU have to invest your free time in the company by training yourself?"
Because in doing so you're investing in yourself and increasing your value? I consult at a company where a good portion of the "developers" actively resist training and learning anything new. It seems that they expect, somehow, to keep on doing the same things the same way forever.
Well guess what? There will come a day, soon, when those skills will no longer be needed. And since they failed to stay current, they too, will no longer be needed.
Totally agree. There's a little book called QBQ (The Question Behind the Question) that points this out. People need to stop complaining about how a boss or sales or marketing or management "doesn't get it", and instead ask what they themselves can do to solve the problem.
This is especially true in situations where most other people might just coast through a job, doing nothing until asked. Believe me. People notice when someone starts being proactive and starts seeking solutions...
"Cash flows from the customers pockets to the stock holders pockets."
You realize, of course, that in all probability you're one of those stock holders? Between money in IRAs, 401Ks, other pension and retirement funds, life insurance, and bank accounts, the "Average Joe" owns half the stock in the country.
No, going by the principles of statistics. The odds of an individual legally owning the same set of the 11,800 different songs on that iPod, out of the millions upon millions of songs available, is so close to zero that it makes winning the lottery AND getting hit by lightning on the same day seem like a sure thing in comparison.
As such, I'd bet any amount of money you care to name that whoever else purchases said iPod WILL be in infringement, with a statistical certainty approaching unity.
So. Are you sure that YOU don't need to visit another land? Given the lack of comprehension shown, the attitude, and the "guilty until proven innocent" trip that you laid on me, I'm also sure, with a statistical certainty approaching unity, that you won't be missed...
The operative word in the sentence, of course, being IF. If you're sure you own each of those 11,800 songs on the iPod, then, technically, it may be legal. Not own just one of them (a possibility that approaches certainty) and you're infringing.
And there are plenty of services available whereby you ship off your cd collection and an ipod and they send one back stuffed with that music.
"... and notice that linux support is the primary differentiating factor."
If it is. They may notice that all the other video card boxes have bright colorful flashy flame graphics and theirs doesn't. The others may have Open GL or Mac support. They may attribute it to a bad review in a game or hardware rag. The others may be 5% cheaper, and they may decide they have a pricing issue.
In short, everyone at the company may have an opinion as to why their product isn't doing well. Or maybe it IS doing well, but could do better. Either way, with enough feedback they don't have to guess....
While oversized (one word) schools has the issues you describe, a smaller one is not necessarily the answer to the question at hand. While an individual there may recognize the mother who picks up the child every day, they may not know the father or grandmother who rarely does but is authorized to do so.
It also ignores the fact that teachers and administrators get sick, have subs, take leave, are terminated, and so on. Thus a potential replacement in all likelyhood would not know the parents by sight.
While I believe the retinal scans are overkill as well, we may be overlooking other costs and factors. While a simple log and photo id would seem to suffice, it implies that someone is there to check said log and id. I assume that person would be paid...
"In this system children get to decide what they want to do."
Yeah, that's going to work SO well once they grow up. Seriously, children don't know what skills they're going to need to function in a modern society, nor do they understand how things are often related to one another. How many fields of endeavor depend upon solid math skills? How many times will a child change his or her mind regarding what they want to do later in life?
Teach them English so they can communicate. Teach them math so they're prepared for almost any job. Teach them history so their society isn't doomed to repeating the same mistakes. Teach science and biology and art and music. Teach them to think. Teach them to learn.
Yeah, client and mailing lists that often have cost millions of dollars to build are worth nothing. Databases full of personal information, SSNs, and credit card numbers are worth nothing. Server and application passwords are worth nothing. Medical patient data is worth nothing. Engineering and research data is worth nothing. Corporate documents discussing contracts, bids, and potential mergers is worth nothing.
While your NDA regarding an online pet food store promoted by a sock puppet may be worth little (or nothing), there's plenty of data out there that is. Heck, tell me that if you had a personal USB thumb drive with text files containing your bank account numbers, passwords, and other data, and it went missing YOU wouldn't be just a little worried about what someone might do with it?
That's insufficient. If all you do is not buy the product then they don't know WHY people aren't buying. They may reason they need better marketing, or a prettier box, or additional non-Linux related features.
Or maybe other people (Windows/Mac) are buying it, and they don't know how many more sales they might be generating by also supporting Linux. Either way, you need to contact the company in question and tell them (politely) why you didn't buy their product, and bought a competitor's instead.
Someone, somewhere, will start charging for better QOS. Someone, somewhere, will start paying for it. Then someone, somewhere, will offer the same thing at a reduced price to get the business. Eventually, someone will offer high QOS at the standard rate as a competitive advantage for using their service.
No, in the credit industry a "revolver" is someone who maintains a monthly balance in a "revolving" account, and generates regular income via interest on the account. The industry has a different word for those who miss the occasional payment and as such generates late fees and invokes higher interest rates: profitable.
If your sole criteria is "Progress is good, as long as no one gets harmed in the progress," then nothing will ever get done, as it's next to impossible to make a decision that everyone agrees with and "harms" no one.
Better to pick various examples of "harm", stack them up, and then see what causes the most BENEFIT with the least amount of "harm". Apparently, some people will suffer "harm" simply due to seeing a windmill where none was there before, while other people may suffer harm (in the most extreme case, as in die) due to rollling power outages.
Unfortunately, many people are unable to properly judge what's harmful, or to balance potential, future harm against more immediate "harm". As in, my property values may go down if a windmill appears on that hill, vs. my property values will go down when no one in my area is able to get reliable power and everyone else leaves.
Actually a true story. A local community voted, A) to authorize the construction of about 5,000 new McMansions in a new suburb, and B) to block the construction of a new power grid (towers). (Using basically the same arguments: property values; eyesore; etc.) Care to guess the result? 'Course, now the people are yelling that the government should have realized what was going on and DONE SOMETHING.
As to "There's a definite possibility of a maybe that one of these things could fall over and destroy a house (should someone be stupid enough to build one over a house in the first place)." Possible? Yes. Just as it's "possible" you or I will be struck by lightning while debating this matter.
Personally, I'm not too worried, though with your concepts of statistical probability, perhaps you should be...
No, it's attitudes like this one that will be our downfall. Look genius, even a casual reading of the article indicates that they're looking to place these things in RURAL areas (e.g. farmland), while you make it sound like some idiot's going to plant one in the back yard of his half acre subdivision.
Here's an idea. Rather than making a "sacrifice", how about we let the farmer in our example decide for himself if the reward compensates for the potential risk? And not pressure him on one side by the idiots in government, nor on the other by the idiots for whom any change is evil.
Though I'd like to take all of the people who're making protests and cut off their power for a month or so. Just so they can have a taste of what's coming.
"...who really think of it as a destruction of pristine green space."
So? Yet another example of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), or better still, BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone). I can hear that conversation now. "Oh, yeah, enviromentalism is great and I strongly advocate that... what? Next door? No, no, no. You don't understand. ELSEWHERE. We need better evironmental policies ELSEWHERE."
Here's an idea, let's build all of these things in the middle of the desert so no one has to see them or live near them... except for the people we need to run them... who would see them. DRAT!!!!
I'm a consultant who uses a Mac and Office, and it's NOT for the Track Changes functionality. I use it because I need transparent file interchange cababilities with my clients... and I can't bill them $20,000 a shot on one hand, while telling them I can't afford $400 to read their files correctly on the other. Religous issues aside, Office is simply a tool, and a "standard" one at that. No more. No less. Ditto for Photoshop.
Yes, but. Actually, I have to wonder about that. Will they faill in love with a system that only half works and doesn't support their system/video card/camera/printer/scanner/whatever? Which is what I'd expect if you install OS X on "unsupported" hardware, as the article suggests.
"TransGaming doesn't seem as though they have the resources or interest to do it..."
So tell 'em you'd buy one. If enough people flash dollar signs in front of them, I bet the company might develop an interest. Send them an email now... info@transgaming.com.
Slashdot Mirror
So first, it's a statement of fact. If you didn't previously own just one of them, then you are infringing. The RIAA isn't suing people for listening to songs, it's suing them for downloading them. Taking possesion is infringement. If they search your computer and find downloaded tunes you can't produce the disks or receipts for, you're infringing, even if you claim you've never listened to a single one of them.
And yes, he "could" delete them, but then why did he pay a premium for them then?
And the odds still approach certainty that given any two random people and 11,800 songs, the buyer doesn't own at least one of those that the seller ah... obtained, no matter how long he's been collecting them. So again, the probability is that he will be infringing.
Finally, both you and I know this is a "legal" as buying the insanely cheap fur coat off the truck down by the docks. "Stolen?" No, this isn't stolen! We... ah... couldn't fit all of these into our store. Yeah, that's it." Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Personally, I think the Chinese have this search engine censorship backwards. If I were in charge of the country, I think I'd WANT a massive easy to use search engine that spends its days and nights toiling away finding links to dissident web sites. After all, it would make my job of finding and... uh... reeducating those unhappy people MUCH easier.
Because in doing so you're investing in yourself and increasing your value? I consult at a company where a good portion of the "developers" actively resist training and learning anything new. It seems that they expect, somehow, to keep on doing the same things the same way forever.
Well guess what? There will come a day, soon, when those skills will no longer be needed. And since they failed to stay current, they too, will no longer be needed.
This is especially true in situations where most other people might just coast through a job, doing nothing until asked. Believe me. People notice when someone starts being proactive and starts seeking solutions...
You realize, of course, that in all probability you're one of those stock holders? Between money in IRAs, 401Ks, other pension and retirement funds, life insurance, and bank accounts, the "Average Joe" owns half the stock in the country.
Either you're not thinking very hard, or your family thinks you can cook up a great Eggs Benedict....
As such, I'd bet any amount of money you care to name that whoever else purchases said iPod WILL be in infringement, with a statistical certainty approaching unity.
So. Are you sure that YOU don't need to visit another land? Given the lack of comprehension shown, the attitude, and the "guilty until proven innocent" trip that you laid on me, I'm also sure, with a statistical certainty approaching unity, that you won't be missed...
The operative word in the sentence, of course, being IF. If you're sure you own each of those 11,800 songs on the iPod, then, technically, it may be legal. Not own just one of them (a possibility that approaches certainty) and you're infringing.
And there are plenty of services available whereby you ship off your cd collection and an ipod and they send one back stuffed with that music.
If it is. They may notice that all the other video card boxes have bright colorful flashy flame graphics and theirs doesn't. The others may have Open GL or Mac support. They may attribute it to a bad review in a game or hardware rag. The others may be 5% cheaper, and they may decide they have a pricing issue.
In short, everyone at the company may have an opinion as to why their product isn't doing well. Or maybe it IS doing well, but could do better. Either way, with enough feedback they don't have to guess....
It also ignores the fact that teachers and administrators get sick, have subs, take leave, are terminated, and so on. Thus a potential replacement in all likelyhood would not know the parents by sight.
While I believe the retinal scans are overkill as well, we may be overlooking other costs and factors. While a simple log and photo id would seem to suffice, it implies that someone is there to check said log and id. I assume that person would be paid...
Yeah, that's going to work SO well once they grow up. Seriously, children don't know what skills they're going to need to function in a modern society, nor do they understand how things are often related to one another. How many fields of endeavor depend upon solid math skills? How many times will a child change his or her mind regarding what they want to do later in life?
Teach them English so they can communicate. Teach them math so they're prepared for almost any job. Teach them history so their society isn't doomed to repeating the same mistakes. Teach science and biology and art and music. Teach them to think. Teach them to learn.
As the saying goes, I've found that some people make their own luck...
While your NDA regarding an online pet food store promoted by a sock puppet may be worth little (or nothing), there's plenty of data out there that is. Heck, tell me that if you had a personal USB thumb drive with text files containing your bank account numbers, passwords, and other data, and it went missing YOU wouldn't be just a little worried about what someone might do with it?
Or maybe other people (Windows/Mac) are buying it, and they don't know how many more sales they might be generating by also supporting Linux. Either way, you need to contact the company in question and tell them (politely) why you didn't buy their product, and bought a competitor's instead.
In the end, it balances back out...
So true. And yet another dongle eating up a port...
Why? Do they really WANT to work at McDonalds and Wal Mart for the rest of their lives?
No, in the credit industry a "revolver" is someone who maintains a monthly balance in a "revolving" account, and generates regular income via interest on the account. The industry has a different word for those who miss the occasional payment and as such generates late fees and invokes higher interest rates: profitable.
Better to pick various examples of "harm", stack them up, and then see what causes the most BENEFIT with the least amount of "harm". Apparently, some people will suffer "harm" simply due to seeing a windmill where none was there before, while other people may suffer harm (in the most extreme case, as in die) due to rollling power outages.
Unfortunately, many people are unable to properly judge what's harmful, or to balance potential, future harm against more immediate "harm". As in, my property values may go down if a windmill appears on that hill, vs. my property values will go down when no one in my area is able to get reliable power and everyone else leaves.
Actually a true story. A local community voted, A) to authorize the construction of about 5,000 new McMansions in a new suburb, and B) to block the construction of a new power grid (towers). (Using basically the same arguments: property values; eyesore; etc.) Care to guess the result? 'Course, now the people are yelling that the government should have realized what was going on and DONE SOMETHING.
As to "There's a definite possibility of a maybe that one of these things could fall over and destroy a house (should someone be stupid enough to build one over a house in the first place)." Possible? Yes. Just as it's "possible" you or I will be struck by lightning while debating this matter.
Personally, I'm not too worried, though with your concepts of statistical probability, perhaps you should be...
Here's an idea. Rather than making a "sacrifice", how about we let the farmer in our example decide for himself if the reward compensates for the potential risk? And not pressure him on one side by the idiots in government, nor on the other by the idiots for whom any change is evil.
Though I'd like to take all of the people who're making protests and cut off their power for a month or so. Just so they can have a taste of what's coming.
So? Yet another example of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), or better still, BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone). I can hear that conversation now. "Oh, yeah, enviromentalism is great and I strongly advocate that... what? Next door? No, no, no. You don't understand. ELSEWHERE. We need better evironmental policies ELSEWHERE."
Here's an idea, let's build all of these things in the middle of the desert so no one has to see them or live near them... except for the people we need to run them... who would see them. DRAT!!!!
I assume this includes Linux? ;)
I'm a consultant who uses a Mac and Office, and it's NOT for the Track Changes functionality. I use it because I need transparent file interchange cababilities with my clients... and I can't bill them $20,000 a shot on one hand, while telling them I can't afford $400 to read their files correctly on the other. Religous issues aside, Office is simply a tool, and a "standard" one at that. No more. No less. Ditto for Photoshop.
Yes, but. Actually, I have to wonder about that. Will they faill in love with a system that only half works and doesn't support their system/video card/camera/printer/scanner/whatever? Which is what I'd expect if you install OS X on "unsupported" hardware, as the article suggests.
So tell 'em you'd buy one. If enough people flash dollar signs in front of them, I bet the company might develop an interest. Send them an email now... info@transgaming.com.