It's more like he stopped and considered his audience, rather than just blithely spouting his mouth.
As far as I can tell, that is commonly perceived as a more mature trait--knowing you're saying something you shouldn't, yet saying it indicating you have a sense of "decency."
Much like the time I was swearing about something in front of my land lady... The swearing was of a much lower volume, and there to solely add emphasis to what I was saying. As opposed to saying it casually, as if it were part of my daily vocabulary. I have a feeling she appreciated this.
Ultimately, there are those CD's that you HAVE to own. If the mp3's lead you to said CD, then that piracy has lead you to music you desire to own.
The more music a person is exposed to, the more likely they are to buy something. Especially if they have comprehension of audio codecs of causing quality loss.
This is seemingly a principle of advertising--exposure, exposure, and more exposure. Advertisers wish to shove ads down our throats in the hopes of their product being included in our next round of purchases.
And do any of us look like friendly helpful Romulans with failing nervous systems?
I sure as hell don't feel like a friendly helpful Romulan who's going to die if I don't get help soon. I mean, you humans might interrogate me! Err. Uhm. Uhm. I mean, you might find out... I like puppies. Yes, I like puppies.
I may be redundant here, as I'm procrastinating enough just by looking at/. -- but, this does not set ANYTHING in stone. It basically says that the Supreme Court doesn't wish to decide on these cases.
The Supreme Court has the option of trying cases on this topic in the future, when they feel the core problem of the matter is more accessible.
Considering the subject matter, though, I don't think they will. Forcing the RIAA to use the court system seems reasonable, as opposed to letting them effectively issue their own subpoenas with no financial or time effort.
Using lead to shield against beta particles is actually worse than using a sheet of plastic.
The beta particles usually cause the lead to kick out a whole slew of other varied emissions, as opposed to just being absorbed.
What is with all the idjits who've read the article but have NO FRAME OF REFERENCE?
It's sorta like, gee. How many of the people saying Yahoo! has the right to do this realize that Yahoo!'s IM client does not force you to view ads?
It makes little to no sense, other than "you're not using what we want you to use."
Hypocrits. Were this the RIAA or MPAA, a substantial number of us (stupid)/.'ers would be up in arms because they're restricting our rights to backup (pirate) CD's and DVD's. Irregardless of how ignorant we may be on the topic. (I know, I know. Yahoo!'s IM client is free, nothing the RIAA/MPAA offers us is likewise)
I installed their client (albeit an older version) before I made that post, just to confirm what others were saying. The closest thing Yahoo! has to ads is the Insider window, and you can turn that off.
Now please describe for me where exactly the ads are hiding, so that I can be wrong and end this discussion already.
You have not used Yahoo!'s IM client, nor do you pay attention to the threads around this one.
Yahoo! IM client does not use ads for revenue.
Therefore, they are not making money on any individual using THEIR client, either.
Then tell them they're free to start charging for their IM network.
I'll tell them that I'm not planning on using it.
I'd be interested in finding out just how many of their IM network users would jump ship were they to do that.
As it is, they appear to be pissing up a rope, to encourage people to use their IM client instead of anyone else's.
It's a failed technique in my case: until there is a full release of Trillian (that works with the "new" protocol), and Yahoo has ceased playing with the protocol, I am not interested in using their network.
I'd have to say that Bush is more of an incompetent cowboy. Which makes him an incompetent politician, perhaps.
It also helps that I think they've been trying to foster that image about him, since the entire terrorism thing started. Been a while since we've had a president who seemed crazy enough to be stupid or stupid enough to be crazy.
HannaKwaanzMas. Ramadan's been over for a while now (is not necessarily at the same time as Christmas, due to a totally lunar calendar and no adjustments)...
This sounds sort of cynical to me, but it strikes me that the people who might be concerned about that don't comprehend the word "cache" and therefore never click on that link in the search results...
Thus, never discovering that their site has been archived somewhere else. That, and Google has a rather chunky disclaimer-type-deal at the top--I'm sure it's in response to just that behaviour.
What you're not getting is that they're still using conditioning. You describe it as punishment, but it's not.
Punishment, the adding of a negative stimulus to a situation (or the removal of a positive stimulus from a situation), is different from conditioning / reinforcement.
From what I've read, it sounds like they're using operant conditioning--where positive reinforcement is adding a positive stimulus to a particular response, and what you mistake for punishment: negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is the removal of a negative stimulus to a particular response.
It's more like: It will stop when you tell us what we want to know. What's stopping? Lack of sleep, pain, hunger. You pick the lever.
While it's likely that they're going to try and give out false information for the sake of relief, there's a probable chance that they have other individuals who may or may not be able to corroborate this information. They don't seek honesty, they seek agreement between sources.
Anyway, as far as the entire situation goes, it is a rather sad state of affairs. And in all honesty, I don't think we've been the "land of the free" in a long time. Depending on how you want to slice the word free, that is.
My honest opinion is that it's going to get worse before it gets better. And even when it does get better, the people that take the fall won't be likely to be the ones responsible for this.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more like he stopped and considered his audience, rather than just blithely spouting his mouth.
As far as I can tell, that is commonly perceived as a more mature trait--knowing you're saying something you shouldn't, yet saying it indicating you have a sense of "decency."
Much like the time I was swearing about something in front of my land lady... The swearing was of a much lower volume, and there to solely add emphasis to what I was saying. As opposed to saying it casually, as if it were part of my daily vocabulary. I have a feeling she appreciated this.
I do.
Ultimately, there are those CD's that you HAVE to own. If the mp3's lead you to said CD, then that piracy has lead you to music you desire to own.
The more music a person is exposed to, the more likely they are to buy something. Especially if they have comprehension of audio codecs of causing quality loss.
This is seemingly a principle of advertising--exposure, exposure, and more exposure. Advertisers wish to shove ads down our throats in the hopes of their product being included in our next round of purchases.
The inanities of copyright law do not justify a seventies revival. Please! Please! Hide the disco ball!
How can I overclock my brain booster?!??!?!! HOW?!?@!
Oh, wait.
Lick a wall socket.
BRB.
Pshaw. Does it look like we're on Galorndon Core?
And do any of us look like friendly helpful Romulans with failing nervous systems?
I sure as hell don't feel like a friendly helpful Romulan who's going to die if I don't get help soon. I mean, you humans might interrogate me! Err. Uhm. Uhm. I mean, you might find out... I like puppies. Yes, I like puppies.
I may be redundant here, as I'm procrastinating enough just by looking at /. -- but, this does not set ANYTHING in stone. It basically says that the Supreme Court doesn't wish to decide on these cases.
The Supreme Court has the option of trying cases on this topic in the future, when they feel the core problem of the matter is more accessible.
Considering the subject matter, though, I don't think they will. Forcing the RIAA to use the court system seems reasonable, as opposed to letting them effectively issue their own subpoenas with no financial or time effort.
Using lead to shield against beta particles is actually worse than using a sheet of plastic. The beta particles usually cause the lead to kick out a whole slew of other varied emissions, as opposed to just being absorbed.
What is with all the idjits who've read the article but have NO FRAME OF REFERENCE?
/.'ers would be up in arms because they're restricting our rights to backup (pirate) CD's and DVD's. Irregardless of how ignorant we may be on the topic. (I know, I know. Yahoo!'s IM client is free, nothing the RIAA/MPAA offers us is likewise)
It's sorta like, gee. How many of the people saying Yahoo! has the right to do this realize that Yahoo!'s IM client does not force you to view ads?
It makes little to no sense, other than "you're not using what we want you to use."
Hypocrits. Were this the RIAA or MPAA, a substantial number of us (stupid)
"Donny, you're out of your element!"
I should stop reading comments again.
I installed their client (albeit an older version) before I made that post, just to confirm what others were saying. The closest thing Yahoo! has to ads is the Insider window, and you can turn that off.
Now please describe for me where exactly the ads are hiding, so that I can be wrong and end this discussion already.
You have not used Yahoo!'s IM client, nor do you pay attention to the threads around this one. Yahoo! IM client does not use ads for revenue. Therefore, they are not making money on any individual using THEIR client, either.
True. But, they're not charging for using their network, are they?
Then tell them they're free to start charging for their IM network.
I'll tell them that I'm not planning on using it.
I'd be interested in finding out just how many of their IM network users would jump ship were they to do that.
As it is, they appear to be pissing up a rope, to encourage people to use their IM client instead of anyone else's.
It's a failed technique in my case: until there is a full release of Trillian (that works with the "new" protocol), and Yahoo has ceased playing with the protocol, I am not interested in using their network.
It's easier to just have an ignition switch that they're afraid of.
I dunno about anyone else's friends, but text based login prompts tend to frighten mine.
I'd have to say that Bush is more of an incompetent cowboy. Which makes him an incompetent politician, perhaps.
It also helps that I think they've been trying to foster that image about him, since the entire terrorism thing started. Been a while since we've had a president who seemed crazy enough to be stupid or stupid enough to be crazy.
I will be less than satisfied if this is not an option, either. If he wants to reduce dissension amongst fans, it's his only hope.
The player wouldn't control me... Cuz you can't control me!
HannaKwaanzMas. Ramadan's been over for a while now (is not necessarily at the same time as Christmas, due to a totally lunar calendar and no adjustments)...
This sounds sort of cynical to me, but it strikes me that the people who might be concerned about that don't comprehend the word "cache" and therefore never click on that link in the search results...
Thus, never discovering that their site has been archived somewhere else. That, and Google has a rather chunky disclaimer-type-deal at the top--I'm sure it's in response to just that behaviour.
It's nice to see you passed general psychology.
What you're not getting is that they're still using conditioning. You describe it as punishment, but it's not.
Punishment, the adding of a negative stimulus to a situation (or the removal of a positive stimulus from a situation), is different from conditioning / reinforcement.
From what I've read, it sounds like they're using operant conditioning--where positive reinforcement is adding a positive stimulus to a particular response, and what you mistake for punishment: negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is the removal of a negative stimulus to a particular response.
It's more like: It will stop when you tell us what we want to know. What's stopping? Lack of sleep, pain, hunger. You pick the lever.
While it's likely that they're going to try and give out false information for the sake of relief, there's a probable chance that they have other individuals who may or may not be able to corroborate this information. They don't seek honesty, they seek agreement between sources.
Anyway, as far as the entire situation goes, it is a rather sad state of affairs. And in all honesty, I don't think we've been the "land of the free" in a long time. Depending on how you want to slice the word free, that is.
My honest opinion is that it's going to get worse before it gets better. And even when it does get better, the people that take the fall won't be likely to be the ones responsible for this.