"We're the only UK online bank with the BS7799 Information Security certification from the BSI. That means we have an extremely secure Internet Banking service"
Plus every newspaper that ever runs a story on the most / least secure banks seems to always rank smile #1. I'm not a 'shill', I dont work for smile, I run my own games company. I'm just a happy customer.
Another good reason I use smile (www.smile.co.uk) They have great customer service (best ive encountered), reasonable interest rates, a great,usable website, and are consistantly ranked the top UK bank for security. On top it all, they are an ethical bank who restrict where they invest your cash. It amazes me that people still use high street banks. I haven't set foot in a bank in 5 years.
if people screw with my bank account, I can tell when I check my bank balance. i have no way to know if my vote was counted, although in any system of elections that isnt based on proportional representation, most peoples votes are wasted anyway.
I mean people who copy and distribute copyrighted works without the authors permission, and without compensating the author for the effort involved in its creation. Thats too long to type, so I used 'piracy'.
well many users are stupid, many users dont take any steps to remove malware from their machines. Many of those users end up as parts of botnets that cause spam attacks for everyone. Microsoft are damned if they do and damned if they dont. Making the system default to dealing harshly with malware sounds a *good* thing to me. Sure theres a chance of a false positive, but given the fact that I'm getting maybe 50 spams an hour at a minimum, anything that helps cut down on the amount of zombied machiens out there is a good thing.
And as for the system having more restrictive DRM on it, who is suprised? software and video and music piracy is spiralling to ridiculous levels, does anyone really think that there isnt overwhelming pressure to limit this at the O/S level?
agreed 100%. Sony are stuck in a childlike *3D is better* mentality. Just like adding more polygons or bump mapping automatically makes a game more fun. Take Chess, that games sucked ass until they invented bump mapping and facial animation. Now its teh r0xx0r.
Yet a post box survievd the blast at a distance of a few yards. Oh yes.... If only everyone built everything the same way us Brits built our post boxes. They must be made out of neutronium or something. I reckon my great great grandchildren will still float past the same pillar boxes in their hover cars.
That sucks. If I make no calls this month, my bill is zero. And the actual per minute cost doesn't seem high to me either, but then I'm not a big mobile phone user.
petrol use isnt as inelastic as you think. If the fuel price trebled I wouldnt pop down the motorway to see my parents as casually as I do now. I used to car share, and you can bet mroe people would car share as the price went up. And when people move homes/jobs, a greater emphasis would be placed on distance to work if the fuel price was higher. Sure its not perfectly elastic, but people talk up the inelasticity of fuel prices far too much.
I wasn't aware everyone who drove a prius had a private jet.
maybe its different in the US, here I have a plan that costs nothing. I pay per minute of call time. Hence my £1-2 monthly bill. Don't you have pay-as-you-call phone plans in the US?
the whole point is it will be used by people like me, as a PHONE. Not a text messaging device. I've only sent maybe 3 texts in a year. Its quicker to just call someone.
where can you get a phone for free? get me 100 would you? or are you talking about a 'free phone with our monthly line rental" plan, which is about as far from 'free' as you can get. I paid a whopping £60 for my phone. My monthly bills are about £1-2. A monthly 'plan' would make zero sense for me.
taxing stuff is a good way to control peoples behaviour if you need that behaviour to change. How would you achieve the same effect? some motivational posters maybe?
"For example, let's say I write a song. It's my song. You don't have the right to force me to publish and distribute it in any way, including singing it, recording it, etc"
You are absolutely, totally, fundamentally correct. The same people who argue massively for their personal freedom to do X,Y or Z, are the same people that would like to prevent people from creating something and offering it for sale on their own terms.
I just cannot understand this concept of it being someones "basic human right" to take a novel I write, a song I write, or some software I might write, and do what they want with it, unless between us, we can agree terms. If those terms include (as they generally do) that they are purchasing the individual right to a copy, and not the right to distribute further copies, then as long as we both realise this at the point of sale, thats a fair deal.
Nobody has the right to take something I create away from me. My time belongs to nobody except me. I'm under no *obligation* to provide anyone with the fruits of my labour. If I wrote the greatest novel ever ma,e its my right to just burn the thing and never share it with anyone, so why do I not also have the right to sell it on *my* terms. Surely its a *basic right* for me to profit from the fruits of my own personal labour?
A communist would argue that I *do* have the obligation to provide the fruits of my labour to everyone, and that I should not profit from the means of production, distribution or exchange, but generally the people who argue against DRM go ballistic if you even mention the *c* word.
Your analysis is simplistic. you dont pay the plumber to fix the toilet. You pay him to fix the toilet and you pay for him to have spent years studying as an apprentice for him to learn how to do this.
You may only wish to pay the musician to play for 2 hours on stage, but they may have had to practice music and songwriting for 20 years to get good enough to perform for you. The fact that you are only interested in their *current action* should not render valueless the fact that there are many years of work that go into it at a time when not only did *you* not pay them to practice and write songs, but nobody did, and during which they had absolutely zero guarantee of ever earning a penny from their efforts (unlike your plumber example, who can be pretty sure of getting paid work as a plumber).
The supply of copies of a particular song is high, thanks to technology, but the supply of people able to write songs that capture the feelings of millions of people is extremely limited. Unless every bar band you see are as talented as the beatles and led zeppelin, which frankly, they aren't.
"If I spend time making copies of something, it is my time I am wasting" which represents a trivial amount of effort in comparison with the effort made by the person who wrote that song, or directed that movie. I can write E-MC squared very easily (i just did it) but you think thats the same as deriving it in the first place? To people who create original and entertaining / enlightening content, its insulting to compare their efforts with the effort required to make a copy. All that has changed recently is that technology hs allowed us a way to render the efforts of creative people worthless to them, by removing the method by which they are compensated for their work. Anyone who thinks this is somehow *good* for the encouragement of creative works is frankly delusional. Poeple like to pretend that creative people are *happy* to work for free, whereas of course they themselves always want to be paid for their job.
I really don't see the problem in paying $20 for an album of music I like. I will *easily* get $20 worth of entertainment from that album. I can spend $20 on food in a very short space of time, and not think twice about it. why should music be different?
you dont need panels that you can actually drive over in the normal sense. the panels could be mounted a few centimeters below the surface with some kind of replacebale grid over the top that the car tyres actually travel on. or you could sue them for the lane diviers in long strips, to minimise the extent to which they are driven over.
im talking nosnense, but I really like your idea. If I was a billionaire, I'd bung you 10 million to develop a prototype.
you imply that having a high level of gun ownership in the US has enabled the people to keep a tight rein on their government and prevent them doing anything authoritarian or stupid. The evidence for this point is not especially compelling. I understand the theory, but in practice, it's not really working is it?
well said. I especially like the parent posters call to arms to "stop buying their products!!!" as he crys into his beer over the fact that he cant now get those products for free. doh!
a simplistic (at best) analysis. I wonder how much you claim you would be prepared to pay if you could *not* get a free copy? Im rpesuming, of course, that as you feel your not leeching or freelaoding, that you send a check for $2.50 to the artist? RIGHT?
if It could justify me getting adobe photoshop for free, I'll happily pretend, even to myself, that I was only prepare to pay 0.01c under the price, and therefore I just took it.
The guys insane. Im a computer programmer and I still buy CDs. why? because I can play them in my car stereo, or my wifes, or our home CD player, or the other CD player in another room. Thats 5 dedicated devices I have for playing these things. I can also lend the CD to a friend if I wanted. This is all way mroe convenient than arsing around with downlaoded files. If I only ever used my PC to play music, it would be different, and I *do* rip the very rare CDs which i listen to whilst coding. I'd be amazed if you cant still buy high street CDs in 5 years, and probably in 10 or even 15 years.
Slashdot Mirror
from: http://www.smile.co.uk/servlet/Satellite?cid=11248 67052002&pagename=Smile%2FPage%2FsmView&c=Page
"We're the only UK online bank with the BS7799 Information Security certification from the BSI. That means we have an extremely secure Internet Banking service"
wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BS_7799
Plus every newspaper that ever runs a story on the most / least secure banks seems to always rank smile #1. I'm not a 'shill', I dont work for smile, I run my own games company. I'm just a happy customer.
Another good reason I use smile (www.smile.co.uk) They have great customer service (best ive encountered), reasonable interest rates, a great,usable website, and are consistantly ranked the top UK bank for security. On top it all, they are an ethical bank who restrict where they invest your cash.
It amazes me that people still use high street banks. I haven't set foot in a bank in 5 years.
if people screw with my bank account, I can tell when I check my bank balance. i have no way to know if my vote was counted, although in any system of elections that isnt based on proportional representation, most peoples votes are wasted anyway.
I mean people who copy and distribute copyrighted works without the authors permission, and without compensating the author for the effort involved in its creation. Thats too long to type, so I used 'piracy'.
well many users are stupid, many users dont take any steps to remove malware from their machines. Many of those users end up as parts of botnets that cause spam attacks for everyone.
Microsoft are damned if they do and damned if they dont. Making the system default to dealing harshly with malware sounds a *good* thing to me. Sure theres a chance of a false positive, but given the fact that I'm getting maybe 50 spams an hour at a minimum, anything that helps cut down on the amount of zombied machiens out there is a good thing.
And as for the system having more restrictive DRM on it, who is suprised? software and video and music piracy is spiralling to ridiculous levels, does anyone really think that there isnt overwhelming pressure to limit this at the O/S level?
actually I take that back, now its working its quite cool, albeit under IE.
wow a site called websiteoptimisation thats mega-slow AND doesn't work on firefox?
Thats l33t.
agreed 100%. Sony are stuck in a childlike *3D is better* mentality. Just like adding more polygons or bump mapping automatically makes a game more fun.
Take Chess, that games sucked ass until they invented bump mapping and facial animation. Now its teh r0xx0r.
Yet a post box survievd the blast at a distance of a few yards. Oh yes....
If only everyone built everything the same way us Brits built our post boxes. They must be made out of neutronium or something. I reckon my great great grandchildren will still float past the same pillar boxes in their hover cars.
That sucks. If I make no calls this month, my bill is zero. And the actual per minute cost doesn't seem high to me either, but then I'm not a big mobile phone user.
petrol use isnt as inelastic as you think. If the fuel price trebled I wouldnt pop down the motorway to see my parents as casually as I do now. I used to car share, and you can bet mroe people would car share as the price went up. And when people move homes /jobs, a greater emphasis would be placed on distance to work if the fuel price was higher.
Sure its not perfectly elastic, but people talk up the inelasticity of fuel prices far too much.
I wasn't aware everyone who drove a prius had a private jet.
maybe its different in the US, here I have a plan that costs nothing. I pay per minute of call time. Hence my £1-2 monthly bill. Don't you have pay-as-you-call phone plans in the US?
the whole point is it will be used by people like me, as a PHONE. Not a text messaging device. I've only sent maybe 3 texts in a year. Its quicker to just call someone.
where can you get a phone for free? get me 100 would you? or are you talking about a 'free phone with our monthly line rental" plan, which is about as far from 'free' as you can get.
I paid a whopping £60 for my phone. My monthly bills are about £1-2. A monthly 'plan' would make zero sense for me.
Surely the ihabitants of easter island thought the same way. right up to the end.
taxing stuff is a good way to control peoples behaviour if you need that behaviour to change.
How would you achieve the same effect? some motivational posters maybe?
you seriously think this is the first study on the effects of climate change?
where have you been?
another 10 years of twiddling thumbs? are you kidding?
if 9 people tell me my house is on fire, and 1 guy says he's not sure. I dont ask the tenth guy to find out. I grab a bucket of water.
"For example, let's say I write a song. It's my song. You don't have the right to force me to publish and distribute it in any way, including singing it, recording it, etc"
You are absolutely, totally, fundamentally correct.
The same people who argue massively for their personal freedom to do X,Y or Z, are the same people that would like to prevent people from creating something and offering it for sale on their own terms.
I just cannot understand this concept of it being someones "basic human right" to take a novel I write, a song I write, or some software I might write, and do what they want with it, unless between us, we can agree terms.
If those terms include (as they generally do) that they are purchasing the individual right to a copy, and not the right to distribute further copies, then as long as we both realise this at the point of sale, thats a fair deal.
Nobody has the right to take something I create away from me. My time belongs to nobody except me. I'm under no *obligation* to provide anyone with the fruits of my labour. If I wrote the greatest novel ever ma,e its my right to just burn the thing and never share it with anyone, so why do I not also have the right to sell it on *my* terms. Surely its a *basic right* for me to profit from the fruits of my own personal labour?
A communist would argue that I *do* have the obligation to provide the fruits of my labour to everyone, and that I should not profit from the means of production, distribution or exchange, but generally the people who argue against DRM go ballistic if you even mention the *c* word.
Your analysis is simplistic. you dont pay the plumber to fix the toilet. You pay him to fix the toilet and you pay for him to have spent years studying as an apprentice for him to learn how to do this.
You may only wish to pay the musician to play for 2 hours on stage, but they may have had to practice music and songwriting for 20 years to get good enough to perform for you. The fact that you are only interested in their *current action* should not render valueless the fact that there are many years of work that go into it at a time when not only did *you* not pay them to practice and write songs, but nobody did, and during which they had absolutely zero guarantee of ever earning a penny from their efforts (unlike your plumber example, who can be pretty sure of getting paid work as a plumber).
The supply of copies of a particular song is high, thanks to technology, but the supply of people able to write songs that capture the feelings of millions of people is extremely limited. Unless every bar band you see are as talented as the beatles and led zeppelin, which frankly, they aren't.
"If I spend time making copies of something, it is my time I am wasting"
which represents a trivial amount of effort in comparison with the effort made by the person who wrote that song, or directed that movie. I can write E-MC squared very easily (i just did it) but you think thats the same as deriving it in the first place? To people who create original and entertaining / enlightening content, its insulting to compare their efforts with the effort required to make a copy. All that has changed recently is that technology hs allowed us a way to render the efforts of creative people worthless to them, by removing the method by which they are compensated for their work. Anyone who thinks this is somehow *good* for the encouragement of creative works is frankly delusional. Poeple like to pretend that creative people are *happy* to work for free, whereas of course they themselves always want to be paid for their job.
I really don't see the problem in paying $20 for an album of music I like. I will *easily* get $20 worth of entertainment from that album. I can spend $20 on food in a very short space of time, and not think twice about it. why should music be different?
you dont need panels that you can actually drive over in the normal sense. the panels could be mounted a few centimeters below the surface with some kind of replacebale grid over the top that the car tyres actually travel on.
or you could sue them for the lane diviers in long strips, to minimise the extent to which they are driven over.
im talking nosnense, but I really like your idea. If I was a billionaire, I'd bung you 10 million to develop a prototype.
you imply that having a high level of gun ownership in the US has enabled the people to keep a tight rein on their government and prevent them doing anything authoritarian or stupid.
The evidence for this point is not especially compelling.
I understand the theory, but in practice, it's not really working is it?
well said. I especially like the parent posters call to arms to "stop buying their products!!!" as he crys into his beer over the fact that he cant now get those products for free.
doh!
why would I do that? thats just making like more complex for myself.
a simplistic (at best) analysis. I wonder how much you claim you would be prepared to pay if you could *not* get a free copy?
Im rpesuming, of course, that as you feel your not leeching or freelaoding, that you send a check for $2.50 to the artist?
RIGHT?
if It could justify me getting adobe photoshop for free, I'll happily pretend, even to myself, that I was only prepare to pay 0.01c under the price, and therefore I just took it.
The guys insane. Im a computer programmer and I still buy CDs. why? because I can play them in my car stereo, or my wifes, or our home CD player, or the other CD player in another room. Thats 5 dedicated devices I have for playing these things. I can also lend the CD to a friend if I wanted. This is all way mroe convenient than arsing around with downlaoded files. If I only ever used my PC to play music, it would be different, and I *do* rip the very rare CDs which i listen to whilst coding.
I'd be amazed if you cant still buy high street CDs in 5 years, and probably in 10 or even 15 years.