No, actually pompous childishness is insisting that you are a wonderful master debater who is xonstantly [sic] praised for their grasp of their laws of logic, while insisting the guy you're discussing things with is an idiot who can't follow a logical argument,
I have insisted none of those things.
throwing insults whilst chiding your opponent for hurling them back, coming up with straw men, misrepresenting the arguments you make,
I have done none of those things.
asking for references to be cited while rejecting any evidence actually presented to you
It is perfectly legitimate to reject demonstrably invalid or irrelevant evidence, as I have done.
and then expecting your opponent to bother trying to refute anything knowing full well that any refutation he comes up with will be misinterpretted [sic], twisted, rejected and ridiculed.
Rejecting and even ridiculing an argument is perfectly legitimate when the argument is invalid and/or ridiculous. I do not (deliberately) twist my opponents' arguments in order to refute them. As I've said before, if you clarify something you think I've not responded to directly, I will respond to it more directly.
Perhaps in your alternate reality, where you like to misquote and mistrepresent [sic] what is being said, while latching onto any phrase in isolation and out of context that supports your twisted point of view.
This is a red herring. Attacking my quoting style does not prove my usage of ad hominem incorrect.
That said, my quoting style is designed to maximize brevity and demonstrate precisely what I am responding to (and ignoring). If you feel it misrepresents the point you were trying to make (meaning, you thought I missed your point) you are free to clarify it further, as I have with you.
Yup. Morons attract morons.
So, it's not enough to lob ad hominems at me, but you must insult an entire community of people who you've not even had the slightest discourse with as well?
If you're continuing these attacks because you're expecting me to respond in kind, you'll be disappointed. The only thing these continued insults make me feel is disappointment that a married man and a father can have such a profound lack of decorum and maturity.
Anyway, I'm here to debate optimal color schemes, not trade insults with you. Shall we get back to the debate? Since you've yet to refute the arguments I've made attacking your position, the burden of proof is still on you. If you can adequately disprove any of my arguments, I will have to either concede that point or find a better argument to support it.
You clearly don't know the meaning of the phrase. What I said was you didn't make your point very well.
Which is an ad hominem. According to the very source you cited, "[t]he implication is that the person's... ability to argue correctly lacks authority." That is what you're asserting by claiming that the reason you didn't understand the point I was making was because I didn't make it very well. It can be stated that a point did not get across without assigning blame or attacking one's character. If you reread my posts, you will see that such neutral language is precisely what I have used.
[Y]ou seem to think it's logically consistent to accuse me of ad hominem attacks, but excuse yourself of the same under almost exactly the same circumstances.
I have clearly demonstrated, repeatedly, that none of my posts contain ad hominems. This is supported by the very source you have cited.
[Y]ou're irritating me with your... misuse of terminology... [and] incompeten[ce].
Except for that pesky fact that my usage is correct.
I'm laughing my arse off at what I'm sure you still consider to be a sound argument.
One which you've yet to refute.
[Y]ou're irritating me with your... arrogance... [and] pompous[ness].
All those ad hominems that I've had the restraint and humility to not respond in kind to and you have the audacity to refer to me as arrogant and pompous? I'm still waiting for that apology.
You must be fun at parties.
I've been told I am.:) My strict adherence to the rules of formal debate and logic has been the subject of much praise in public debates I've attended.
I didn't miss your point. You didn't make it very well
Another ad hominem.
Then I'm suppose to read your mind to work out what you're trying to say, and when I fail to, you accuse me of taking it out of context.
Another ad hominem. And I accused you of nothing. I merely stated the fact that you didn't respond to the point I was making which implies that you didn't understand. So I reiterated it in a way that might get it across better.
That's your interpretation of my assertion.
Feel free to reiterate it more clearly.
Did you even notice how close the results were for white on black vs black on white?
Yes. And as I said, this is the case because those are the two highest contrast combinations. Did you notice how many other things they tested?
Ahhh good old ergnomics theory that most office workers are forced to read so employers can avoid law suites when office work actually causes injury. All these things ever do is mix common sense with complete nonsense then force to in theory adopt the approach. In practice no one I know actually does everything that is required of their ergonomics training, and for good reason: If they were to take the general principles and apply it to their own situations, they'd find that they need to add a good dose of common sense.
Do you have a substantiation for any of the claims you make there?
"Light text on dark backgrounds is easier on the eyes than the traditional black text on white backgrounds. That is why the classic Windows Accessibility color scheme recolors Windows to have large light text on black backgrounds."
The color schemes that person is referring to are offered in both white on black and black on white.
This link is a rant by one individual about their own preference.
In any case all I needed to prove was that there were other people who held similar views that light text on a dark background is easier for them to read. You asserted this was not the case. I've proven otherwise. (Hell you've helped me prove otherwise).
As I've stated already, I never asserted nobody else held your view. I challenge you to find a place where I did. Moreover, that is most certainly not all you needed to prove. I told you what burden of proof you had and you've yet to meet it. You cannot poorly attack the references I provided, which aren't even my responsibility to provide at this stage of the debate, and then arbitrarily declare victory. That is, if you intend to preach to anyone other than the choir.
This isn't a murder trial and there is no burden of proof.
I am merely following the rules of formal debate. Again, if you intend to be convincing to anyone other than those who already agree with you, then you should do the same.
In the context of your original joke, it was used to marginalize and belittle my opinion.
Here's something we can agree on. I was attacking your argument.
That's why I was offended.
You shouldn't be. I was attacking your argument, not you.
Your very own link proves that I'm not in the minority at all.
"Anyone" huh? So what now I'm a nobody? There are plenty of people out there that go to great lengths to switch back to a black background. Take a look at the VIM colour schemes people create.
You missed my point. I was referring to people who must context switch constantly in a single work session between a paper medium and a white on black computer screen. These people would easily suffer from eye strain. The consistency of the same color scheme on both paper and the computer screen is appreciated in such scenarios and these scenarios are very common.
I'm not sure what you're looking for in substantiation.
Evidently not, because your reply had absolutely nothing to do with what I asked for. I stated that your original argument implies that if printing black paper with white text were equally as cost effective as printing white paper with black text, then the black paper with white text would be the overwhelming majority preference by most people. You must substantiate that implication.
Cite your own sources... Why should I spend the time and effort digging up references for you?
Since you're the one asserting that the vast majority of all the content on the internet has picked the incorrect color scheme (a not generally accepted position), the burden of proof lies on you, the asserter.
Oh gimme a break and stop being so dishonest. You can't get more personal that suggesting tht someone is happy with an inferior solution because they're a basement dweller with no social skills.
It's called a joke, as was spelled out in my original post. It's also a very common one on Slashdot. Since your account is older than mine and has many more posts than mine, I'd assumed you'd be familiar with it. I'd invoke the similar "you must be new here" joke at this time as well, but you might get irrationally offended by that too.;)
That at least makes you a liar for suggesting I'm alone.
I never suggested you were alone. I suggested you are in the vast minority. Which you are.
I'd say it has more to do with trying to make it look like printed text, which is silly.... when we got computers, people wanted them to look more familiar.
Aside from it being far from the primary reason, it's a perfectly valid one. Anyone who has had to switch from reading printed text to a white on black screen over and over again would appreciate the consistency.
It costs less and is easier to print white on black, which is why books and printed presses went for that in the first place.
This implies that if it costs were equal to print white on black, that would be the overwhelming majority preference. Substantiation?
Then check again, because you have it wrong.
Don't be lazy. You can do better than that. Cite at least one valid advantage of white on black and substantiate it.
I don't have a basement. I have a study. I don't live with my mother. I live with my wife (and will soon be living with a son). Most of my time in front of the computer is spent in a well lit office. My personal timeis largely on a laptop in the train (and the reflective screen makes that a difficult lighting situation). I love how you allude to a joke and try to belittle a bloke by making assumptions that just make you look foolish. Oh wait, I forgot you said "barring" that joke...which is why you felt the need to mention it.
Looking foolish is taking something personally that wasn't meant to be.
Oh? Is it? Is that why the majority of monitors automatically compensates for changes in ambient light? Oh wait, they don't.
That response has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making about how most content on the internet is predominantly black on white for reasons of better matching the surrounding light level of most users as the vast majority of us do not work in complete darkness.
Has nothing to do with a statistical analysis of who finds what more readable. But don't let facts get in your way. This is after all/.
Your condescension would be far more effective if you actually substantiated any of these "facts" you cite, instead of acting as if they should be obvious to the entire universe.
Whoa, I wasn't trying to call slashdot and almost all websites "just stupid" in the sense that you seem to think. I'm saying we've gotten use to conventions that are problematic.
Or maybe Slashdot and almost every other site on the internet chooses black on white because it's more readable for the vast majority of users? Last I checked, the only advantage white on black has is when your computer screen is your only source of light in a room. Barring the "get out of your mom's basement" joke, I don't think most of us are using computers in complete darkness most of the time.
It's all about matching brightness with your surroundings. For most people white on black is NOT it.
I have worked for Google and while I cannot speak for the homepage, I do know that they're very concerned as a company about code compression and obfuscation. It is a required practice to run code through in-house compressors after it is completed.
I've also worked for Yahoo!, who don't do this (to their HTML at least), but their HTML and CSS still is invalid. I recall participating in internal company debates about the whether or not it is advantageous to use the W3C-valid IE Conditional Comments approach to doing IE-only CSS hacks or to use CSS-validator-breaking CSS hacks to keep all CSS, even the hacks, in a single stylesheet.
I advocated the Conditional Comments approach, citing many of the reasons you do now - that it scales well to future browsers, that it is more semantically correct, that it does not depend on browser bugs to be successful, etc. However, I lost this argument and the company consensus is to currently use the CSS hack approach. For reasons of it being less HTTP requests. You can see it in YUI's CSS library, in particular the CSS resets.
For the record, I agree with you. I am in complete disagreement with what appears to be a majority consensus lately in webdev that W3C standards are irrelevant. I am delighted that my current employer (PayPal) has seen the light and is moving in the direction of web standards purism after what used to be one of the worst offending codebases on the net.
As a content creator, yes I hope it DOES happen. Because I'm sick of self righteous pricks helping themselves to the fruits of my hard work and paying fuck all in return. Especially the pompous ones that come onto slashdot and try and define stealing hollywood movies as some kind of fucking civil rights issue. grow up.
Let's set aside the moral high ground and the sensationalism for a moment.
Even if I agreed with your sentiment, the problem with your position is it denies reality. These people helping themselves to the fruits of your labor are not going to stop and only increase in number no matter what legislative changes occur. You must either work them into your business model or get out of the business. And those are the only two options on the table.
What a silly attempt at backpedaling. You said "allow is not a synonym of condone." A Thesaurus is used to find synonyms. The first entry on dictionary.com's thesaurus for "condone" is "allow." Not only that, but the fourth entry in the definition you cited yourself equates allowing to condoning.
Between that and misspelling "notorious" and "subtleties" I'd say you lost this one. Better luck next time though.
Your logic skills suck, as does your grasp of English.
Comedy gold! (See below.)
So by not criminalizing offensive body owners, you are condoning them?
Body owners you say? What was that about my English skills? Oh, and you forgot to pluralize reason in your second paragraph.
That said, assuming you meant "body odors" the answer to your question is yes, by not criminalizing offensive body odors, we, as a society, do condone it. We find it distasteful, but like many distasteful things it is a fact of life that we have no choice but to live with. Much like file sharing is now a fact of life.
There are lots of other reason he may have chosen to license the work under Creative Commons that have nothing to do with wanting people to freely trade his music on Torrent sites. He may have accepted this as a trade off that was the best option.
What the hell does that mean? When you license your work under Creative Commons Noncommercial, you do so because you want to encourage redistribution in all noncommercial contexts not some noncommercial contexts. You imply that there's some sort of meaningful difference between users of bit torrent and a college student using Ghosts I-IV to score a nonprofit independent film for film school class. Both activities are nonprofit redistributions of Trent's work, complete with compliance with the attribution clause.
Not really, it sounds like a statement of not wanting to criminalise fans who share his music while still encouraging fans to pay for the music.
I see. So logically, it follows that a statement of not wanting to criminalize marijuana use while still encouraging people not to use it would make perfect sense as well?
How about a statement of not wanting to criminalize murder while still encouraging people not to? Identical reasoning there, so it must make perfect sense as well. Right?
No. Decriminalization is effectively condoning and endorsing the prior infringing activity. You can't have it both ways. It's either one, or the other.
Because he'd rather endorse the $5 version of it than the "free" version?
Then why license the whole album under creative commons thereby opening the floodgates for legal torrenting of the whole damn thing? Doesn't that seem at all contradictory to you?
How many ad impressions must be made to earn $5?
Wrong question. The right question is how much money is he making off the freeloaders now? The answer to that question is he's not making any money off them. Piratebay and mininova are getting the ad revenue for the perfectly legal free torrents of the album. Not Trent.
Unbelievable that somebody provides everything you've been asking for and still you want more.
Except he hasn't. I'm asking Trent to set good example for the future of digital downloads. By condoning but not endorsing a non-consumer cost monetization model he's not setting a good example.
I did not claim otherwise. I find the business model he's using for the physical media fantastic and a great step forward. In that sense, art does sell and he's setting a great example.
The example he's not setting very well is on the digital download front. While $5 for 36 tracks is a great deal compared to what is common today, it still relies on the old and broken consumer-cost business model for digital downloads. A model which has been torn down time and time again by numerous economists - see articles like The Inevitable March of Recorded Music Toward Free, or the one I wrote, or one several others.
In a slight step backward from the NiggyTardust release, maybe because of disappointment surrounding it's profitability, despite licensing all of Ghosts under Creative Commons, Trent this time not only refuses to provide a free download on his own servers (for the whole album) but has failed to monetize the freeloaders. This is the same mistake he made with the NiggyTardust release all over again. His business model seems to rely on shaming his fans into paying $5; hardly a viable business model.
If I were him, I'd have ran my own torrent tracker and put ads on it. That way he'd make greater than $0 off the freeloaders and wouldn't look like a hypocrite by licensing the album under creative commons but refusing to provide a free download personally.
But if ever there was a man in the perfect position to lead a revolution in the music industry it's Trent Reznor. He's become the de facto figurehead for progress in the music business. And he has all he needs to successfully lead such a revolution: 1. immense fame, 2. immense critical acclaim, 3. a willingness to experiment with radical new business models, and 4. gobs of money to serve as venture capital.
Aside from the possibilities of being totally unaware of his potential or unfortunately unwilling lead the movement as you imply is possible, I can conjure up no reasons as to why he hasn't tried already.
I paid my $5 for the album download the day before yesterday, but still haven't managed to download my MP3s. The server took such a severe beating initially that the connection dropped consistently.. a snowball's chance in hell getting the album.
I decided to wait for the traffic to ease off, but later I've been greeted with an error message "Exceeded download limit" or "Please click the download link in your origi(o)nal email".
I've contacted NIN support twice for help. No response.
Should have known better. I'm surprised if I'm the only one with these problems.
Why Trent didn't set up his own bit torrent tracker and save boatloads of bandwidth is beyond me. A few ads on the free download page to make > 0 revenue off those opting for the free version wouldn't have hurt either.
What I don't understand is why he didn't offer the whole thing on bit torrent as opposed to 1/4 of it. The whole album is licensed under creative commons, so all the piratebay torrents are totally legal. Why isn't he running his own tracker with a few ads here and there to make a few extra bucks off the freeloaders instead of letting piratebay get the ad revenue?
It's not that he needs the money, but it would set a better example than the admittedly spectacular one he's already setting. Speaking of setting examples, why isn't he taking his immense wealth and starting a brand new record label based on this tiered style of distribution? (e.g. all you can drink free downloads for the freeloaders in exchange for some ad revenue and high quality spiffy packaging for the paying customers.)
Regarding Ultima Online, play on a free server like UOGamers. The reimplemented server software prevents the server-related exploits like speedhacking (attempting it gets you auto-banned) and as for scripting, admins are vigilant about combating it. They have measures that EA didn't implement like in-game captchas and other internal methods of blocking scripting attempts.
I quit UO on EA's servers five years ago (making a hefty sum selling all my stuff on ebay in the process!) for the player run community have haven't looked back. The player run servers are of higher quality, sufficiently large populations, and are overall a superior gaming experience to EA's servers. I love it.:)
Best of all - no monthly fee. I can binge and purge freely and not feel obligated to login for 5 hours every day.
[quote]Making software that works right out of the box requires a grown up sitting at a desk working their ass off 40 hours a week getting paid a nice fat wage.[/quote]
This is why most of the best open source software is written by people who work for a company which derives its profit from elsewhere.
No, I don't like her because her defense of "I didn't do it," is a sign that she believes what she did is wrong, which makes her into a hypocrite. She want to be a martyr? She should have stood up to the jury and said, "Yes, I did do it, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that." These cases need to seek jury nullification.
Re:Oh, so much karma to burn..
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 5, Informative
If you were in Soviet Russia, would a Beowulf cluster of Natalie Portmans and other insensitive clods as our 1337 new goatse overlords (confirmed by Netcraft as dying) have you naked and petrified with hot grits poured down Cowboy Neal's pants (profit!!!) ?
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
For the newbies among us, allow me to explain all the parts. This post is the culmination of 11 Slashdot memes which are, in order:
3. Star Trek TNG and Star Trek Voyager (tied) Damn cool.
4. Firefly Great, but canceled too early.
5. Farscape Great, but canceled too early.
6. Star Trek Enterprise Good, but could have been as awesome as DS9 had it not been canceled so early.
7. Star Trek TOS Decent, great for its time, some episodes are pretty timeless.
8. Babylon 5 Lots of potential drowns under bad writing. Too many monologues. Wooden characters. Only Londo and G'Kar were interesting, but didn't get anywhere near as much screentime as the boring characters.
9. Star Trek TAS A travesty, but for hardcore Trek fans it's got some value. (Overly simplistic writing.)
10. Stargate SG1 Unresolvable technical problems in the premise and lots of filler.
11. Stargate Atlantis Unresolvable technical problems in the premise and lots of filler.
Slashdot Mirror
I have insisted none of those things.
I have done none of those things.
It is perfectly legitimate to reject demonstrably invalid or irrelevant evidence, as I have done.
Rejecting and even ridiculing an argument is perfectly legitimate when the argument is invalid and/or ridiculous. I do not (deliberately) twist my opponents' arguments in order to refute them. As I've said before, if you clarify something you think I've not responded to directly, I will respond to it more directly.
Repeating the same false statement over and over that I've refuted again and again does not suddenly make it true.
Pompous childishness is resorting to insults rather than refutations.
This is a red herring. Attacking my quoting style does not prove my usage of ad hominem incorrect.
That said, my quoting style is designed to maximize brevity and demonstrate precisely what I am responding to (and ignoring). If you feel it misrepresents the point you were trying to make (meaning, you thought I missed your point) you are free to clarify it further, as I have with you.
So, it's not enough to lob ad hominems at me, but you must insult an entire community of people who you've not even had the slightest discourse with as well?
If you're continuing these attacks because you're expecting me to respond in kind, you'll be disappointed. The only thing these continued insults make me feel is disappointment that a married man and a father can have such a profound lack of decorum and maturity.
Anyway, I'm here to debate optimal color schemes, not trade insults with you. Shall we get back to the debate? Since you've yet to refute the arguments I've made attacking your position, the burden of proof is still on you. If you can adequately disprove any of my arguments, I will have to either concede that point or find a better argument to support it.
Which is an ad hominem. According to the very source you cited, "[t]he implication is that the person's ... ability to argue correctly lacks authority." That is what you're asserting by claiming that the reason you didn't understand the point I was making was because I didn't make it very well. It can be stated that a point did not get across without assigning blame or attacking one's character. If you reread my posts, you will see that such neutral language is precisely what I have used.
I have clearly demonstrated, repeatedly, that none of my posts contain ad hominems. This is supported by the very source you have cited.
Except for that pesky fact that my usage is correct.
One which you've yet to refute.
All those ad hominems that I've had the restraint and humility to not respond in kind to and you have the audacity to refer to me as arrogant and pompous? I'm still waiting for that apology.
I've been told I am. :)
My strict adherence to the rules of formal debate and logic has been the subject of much praise in public debates I've attended.
Another ad hominem.
Another ad hominem. And I accused you of nothing. I merely stated the fact that you didn't respond to the point I was making which implies that you didn't understand. So I reiterated it in a way that might get it across better.
Feel free to reiterate it more clearly.
Yes. And as I said, this is the case because those are the two highest contrast combinations. Did you notice how many other things they tested?
Do you have a substantiation for any of the claims you make there?
The color schemes that person is referring to are offered in both white on black and black on white.
That individual's "rant" cites eye strain as his primary problem with such color schemes and also cites the following article as substantiation for why that may be the case: http://www.markboulton.co.uk/journal/comments/five_simple_steps_to_better_typography/
As I've stated already, I never asserted nobody else held your view. I challenge you to find a place where I did. Moreover, that is most certainly not all you needed to prove. I told you what burden of proof you had and you've yet to meet it. You cannot poorly attack the references I provided, which aren't even my responsibility to provide at this stage of the debate, and then arbitrarily declare victory. That is, if you intend to preach to anyone other than the choir.
I am merely following the rules of formal debate. Again, if you intend to be convincing to anyone other than those who already agree with you, then you should do the same.
Here's something we can agree on. I was attacking your argument.
You shouldn't be. I was attacking your argument, not you.
You missed my point. I was referring to people who must context switch constantly in a single work session between a paper medium and a white on black computer screen. These people would easily suffer from eye strain. The consistency of the same color scheme on both paper and the computer screen is appreciated in such scenarios and these scenarios are very common.
Evidently not, because your reply had absolutely nothing to do with what I asked for. I stated that your original argument implies that if printing black paper with white text were equally as cost effective as printing white paper with black text, then the black paper with white text would be the overwhelming majority preference by most people. You must substantiate that implication.
Since you're the one asserting that the vast majority of all the content on the internet has picked the incorrect color scheme (a not generally accepted position), the burden of proof lies on you, the asserter.
However, I'll bite.
- Here is a survey indicating black on white as the clear preference: http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/survreslts.html (it is interesting to note that white on black does well too because the higher the contrast, the better. The ZernBurn folks could learn a thing or two from this.)
- Here are two substantiations demonstrating a preference for black on white in order to match surrounding light level as I've previously argued: http://www.office-ergo.com/setting.htm and http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200608/light_text_on_dark_background_vs_readability/ (I'm citing the article, not the Digg discussion)
It's called a joke, as was spelled out in my original post. It's also a very common one on Slashdot. Since your account is older than mine and has many more posts than mine, I'd assumed you'd be familiar with it. I'd invoke the similar "you must be new here" joke at this time as well, but you might get irrationally offended by that too. ;)
I never suggested you were alone. I suggested you are in the vast minority. Which you are.
Which proves what exactly?
All those ad hominems and you're calling me a troll? Don't you find that the least bit ironic?
Aside from it being far from the primary reason, it's a perfectly valid one. Anyone who has had to switch from reading printed text to a white on black screen over and over again would appreciate the consistency.
This implies that if it costs were equal to print white on black, that would be the overwhelming majority preference. Substantiation?
Don't be lazy. You can do better than that. Cite at least one valid advantage of white on black and substantiate it.
Looking foolish is taking something personally that wasn't meant to be.
That response has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making about how most content on the internet is predominantly black on white for reasons of better matching the surrounding light level of most users as the vast majority of us do not work in complete darkness.
Your condescension would be far more effective if you actually substantiated any of these "facts" you cite, instead of acting as if they should be obvious to the entire universe.
Go ahead, prove me wrong. I'm waiting.
Or maybe Slashdot and almost every other site on the internet chooses black on white because it's more readable for the vast majority of users? Last I checked, the only advantage white on black has is when your computer screen is your only source of light in a room. Barring the "get out of your mom's basement" joke, I don't think most of us are using computers in complete darkness most of the time.
It's all about matching brightness with your surroundings. For most people white on black is NOT it.
I have worked for Google and while I cannot speak for the homepage, I do know that they're very concerned as a company about code compression and obfuscation. It is a required practice to run code through in-house compressors after it is completed.
I've also worked for Yahoo!, who don't do this (to their HTML at least), but their HTML and CSS still is invalid. I recall participating in internal company debates about the whether or not it is advantageous to use the W3C-valid IE Conditional Comments approach to doing IE-only CSS hacks or to use CSS-validator-breaking CSS hacks to keep all CSS, even the hacks, in a single stylesheet.
I advocated the Conditional Comments approach, citing many of the reasons you do now - that it scales well to future browsers, that it is more semantically correct, that it does not depend on browser bugs to be successful, etc. However, I lost this argument and the company consensus is to currently use the CSS hack approach. For reasons of it being less HTTP requests. You can see it in YUI's CSS library, in particular the CSS resets.
For the record, I agree with you. I am in complete disagreement with what appears to be a majority consensus lately in webdev that W3C standards are irrelevant. I am delighted that my current employer (PayPal) has seen the light and is moving in the direction of web standards purism after what used to be one of the worst offending codebases on the net.
Let's set aside the moral high ground and the sensationalism for a moment.
Even if I agreed with your sentiment, the problem with your position is it denies reality. These people helping themselves to the fruits of your labor are not going to stop and only increase in number no matter what legislative changes occur. You must either work them into your business model or get out of the business. And those are the only two options on the table.
What a silly attempt at backpedaling. You said "allow is not a synonym of condone." A Thesaurus is used to find synonyms. The first entry on dictionary.com's thesaurus for "condone" is "allow." Not only that, but the fourth entry in the definition you cited yourself equates allowing to condoning.
Between that and misspelling "notorious" and "subtleties" I'd say you lost this one. Better luck next time though.
That said, assuming you meant "body odors" the answer to your question is yes, by not criminalizing offensive body odors, we, as a society, do condone it. We find it distasteful, but like many distasteful things it is a fact of life that we have no choice but to live with. Much like file sharing is now a fact of life.More comedy gold!Source: the dictionary.com thesaurus What the hell does that mean? When you license your work under Creative Commons Noncommercial, you do so because you want to encourage redistribution in all noncommercial contexts not some noncommercial contexts. You imply that there's some sort of meaningful difference between users of bit torrent and a college student using Ghosts I-IV to score a nonprofit independent film for film school class. Both activities are nonprofit redistributions of Trent's work, complete with compliance with the attribution clause.
How about a statement of not wanting to criminalize murder while still encouraging people not to? Identical reasoning there, so it must make perfect sense as well. Right?
No. Decriminalization is effectively condoning and endorsing the prior infringing activity. You can't have it both ways. It's either one, or the other.
Then why license the whole album under creative commons thereby opening the floodgates for legal torrenting of the whole damn thing? Doesn't that seem at all contradictory to you?
Wrong question. The right question is how much money is he making off the freeloaders now? The answer to that question is he's not making any money off them. Piratebay and mininova are getting the ad revenue for the perfectly legal free torrents of the album. Not Trent.
Except he hasn't. I'm asking Trent to set good example for the future of digital downloads. By condoning but not endorsing a non-consumer cost monetization model he's not setting a good example.
I did not claim otherwise. I find the business model he's using for the physical media fantastic and a great step forward. In that sense, art does sell and he's setting a great example.
The example he's not setting very well is on the digital download front. While $5 for 36 tracks is a great deal compared to what is common today, it still relies on the old and broken consumer-cost business model for digital downloads. A model which has been torn down time and time again by numerous economists - see articles like The Inevitable March of Recorded Music Toward Free, or the one I wrote, or one several others.
In a slight step backward from the NiggyTardust release, maybe because of disappointment surrounding it's profitability, despite licensing all of Ghosts under Creative Commons, Trent this time not only refuses to provide a free download on his own servers (for the whole album) but has failed to monetize the freeloaders. This is the same mistake he made with the NiggyTardust release all over again. His business model seems to rely on shaming his fans into paying $5; hardly a viable business model.
If I were him, I'd have ran my own torrent tracker and put ads on it. That way he'd make greater than $0 off the freeloaders and wouldn't look like a hypocrite by licensing the album under creative commons but refusing to provide a free download personally.
Maybe.
But if ever there was a man in the perfect position to lead a revolution in the music industry it's Trent Reznor. He's become the de facto figurehead for progress in the music business. And he has all he needs to successfully lead such a revolution: 1. immense fame, 2. immense critical acclaim, 3. a willingness to experiment with radical new business models, and 4. gobs of money to serve as venture capital.
Aside from the possibilities of being totally unaware of his potential or unfortunately unwilling lead the movement as you imply is possible, I can conjure up no reasons as to why he hasn't tried already.
Then go torrent it. It's licensed under creative commons. All those torrents are legal. Have fun.
Why Trent didn't set up his own bit torrent tracker and save boatloads of bandwidth is beyond me. A few ads on the free download page to make > 0 revenue off those opting for the free version wouldn't have hurt either.
What I don't understand is why he didn't offer the whole thing on bit torrent as opposed to 1/4 of it. The whole album is licensed under creative commons, so all the piratebay torrents are totally legal. Why isn't he running his own tracker with a few ads here and there to make a few extra bucks off the freeloaders instead of letting piratebay get the ad revenue?
It's not that he needs the money, but it would set a better example than the admittedly spectacular one he's already setting. Speaking of setting examples, why isn't he taking his immense wealth and starting a brand new record label based on this tiered style of distribution? (e.g. all you can drink free downloads for the freeloaders in exchange for some ad revenue and high quality spiffy packaging for the paying customers.)
Regarding Ultima Online, play on a free server like UOGamers. The reimplemented server software prevents the server-related exploits like speedhacking (attempting it gets you auto-banned) and as for scripting, admins are vigilant about combating it. They have measures that EA didn't implement like in-game captchas and other internal methods of blocking scripting attempts.
:)
I quit UO on EA's servers five years ago (making a hefty sum selling all my stuff on ebay in the process!) for the player run community have haven't looked back. The player run servers are of higher quality, sufficiently large populations, and are overall a superior gaming experience to EA's servers. I love it.
Best of all - no monthly fee. I can binge and purge freely and not feel obligated to login for 5 hours every day.
[quote]Making software that works right out of the box requires a grown up sitting at a desk working their ass off 40 hours a week getting paid a nice fat wage.[/quote]
This is why most of the best open source software is written by people who work for a company which derives its profit from elsewhere.
No, I don't like her because her defense of "I didn't do it," is a sign that she believes what she did is wrong, which makes her into a hypocrite. She want to be a martyr? She should have stood up to the jury and said, "Yes, I did do it, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that." These cases need to seek jury nullification.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
For the newbies among us, allow me to explain all the parts. This post is the culmination of 11 Slashdot memes which are, in order:
1. Russian reversal - in Soviet Russa joke - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reversal#Russian_reversal
2. Beowulf cluster Slashdot meme - "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of..." self referential joke - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot#Culture
3. Natalie Portman obsession Slashdot meme - originally arose due to widespread attraction of Slashdot posters to Natalie Portman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot#Culture
4. Insensitive clod Slashdot meme - joke originating from a Calvin and Hobbes strip dated February 14, 1986 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot#Culture
5. 1337 = LEET = elite internet meme - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet
6. Goatse internet meme - a widespread shock image - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse
7. "I, for one, welcome our new (insert descriptive here) overlords" internet meme - originally arose due to the widespread popularity of the Simpsons episode "Deep Space Homer" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culturally_significant_phrases_from_The_Simpsons#Influences_on_language
8. "Netcraft confirms, (insert target of joke here; was originally BSD) is dying" Slashdot meme - one of the original Slashdot troll posts - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot#Culture
9. Naked / petrified / hot grits poured down the pants Slashdot meme - a reference to an unusual true story about the cruel and unusual punishment of a southern U.S. woman to her unfaithful significant other - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot#Culture
10. Cowboy Neal Slashdot meme - a reference to Jonathan Pater's nickname which is featured prominently, especially on Slashdot polls - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot#Culture
11. ??? Profit!!! internet meme - a reference to a joke in a South Park episode - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underpants_Gnomes#The_Gnomes
I tend to flat out ignore contemporary science fiction shows such as Quantum Leap, Sliders, X Files, etc. They tend to be quite lame.
Funny, it makes for numerous great films. Not to mention the Japanese Anime genres.
I rank Sci Fi shows thusly:
1. BSG (2003)
Utterly amazing.
2. Star Trek DS9
Similarly utterly amazing.
3. Star Trek TNG and Star Trek Voyager (tied)
Damn cool.
4. Firefly
Great, but canceled too early.
5. Farscape
Great, but canceled too early.
6. Star Trek Enterprise
Good, but could have been as awesome as DS9 had it not been canceled so early.
7. Star Trek TOS
Decent, great for its time, some episodes are pretty timeless.
8. Babylon 5
Lots of potential drowns under bad writing. Too many monologues. Wooden characters. Only Londo and G'Kar were interesting, but didn't get anywhere near as much screentime as the boring characters.
9. Star Trek TAS
A travesty, but for hardcore Trek fans it's got some value. (Overly simplistic writing.)
10. Stargate SG1
Unresolvable technical problems in the premise and lots of filler.
11. Stargate Atlantis
Unresolvable technical problems in the premise and lots of filler.
12. BSG (1978)
Numerous unresolvable technical problems.
13. BSG (1980)
Numerous unresolvable technical problems.
14. Dr. Who
Slapstick comedy masquerading as science fiction.