One way to tell if someone's opinion is overly influenced by political bias is if their conclusions change when the party/political label changes. I'd suggest some people try those glasses on around here occasionally.
If you were the average consumer of games, then the game industry would reconsider DRM. You aren't. It's not hurting them enough, because the average user doesn't care. If we want DRM to "go away" (and I'd be quite happy to see that happen), then we've got to make sure the average user cares - and makes purchasing decisions due to the presence of DRM.
Ignorance, laziness, and lack of perspective.
Do you understand that success can be defined differently by people with different goals? Or is that beyond you completely?
I don't think DRM is successful, when it comes to MY goals. But many of those who are employing it? Yes, I believe their goals are being met.
Would you like to add anything useful to this conversation, or are you just throwing stuff out there to see if anything sticks, oh wise and whatever one.
As I stated elsewhere - you're idea of the purpose of DRM is flawed - therefore you are "expecting" them to learn a lesson that doesn't apply. It's not about stopping ANYONE from stealing their stuff - its about making sure that the amount of theft is trivial.
Check your assumptions about other's intentions when you think them a fool - sometimes they are a fool - but sometimes the fool isn't them.
"Thus DRM is a fool's errand. It always has been. "
The purpose of DRM isn't to stop copying altogether - it's to increase the difficulty to the point where the amount of copying is trivial. "Thus DRM sometimes works - and certainly can work. It always has."
Then use an operating system where the bulk of the consumers agree with your design philosophy. Unfortunately, you are vastly in the minority. And you probably need to stop for a minute, realize that, get comfortable with it, and stop making assertions on behalf of a majority that you are not part of.
C Corp? Or S Corp?
Because if you are an S Corp, you certainly as hell ARE getting taxed at that bracket. If you are a C Corp and a small business, well - you better make sure the IRS is okay with that! They don't like that. If you are anything else, well, again, you are being taxed for all your business's income.
Are you sure you are a small business owner?
So glad to see your response to my question/concern was to mark me as your foe. You are a very "special" person there, L4T. Sometimes, it's better to clear an issue up instead of going on a Jihad. But then again, given your history so far - not much hope, is there?
So, the fact that you have YET to provide any proof, after quite a few requests - clearly you don't care if you are correct. What an ass. Post your own story - stop trying to hijack this one.
Do you know what science means? It's a process that's extremely well defined. And yes, economists use those tools. They don't use them well enough yet, and it's a baby science, but the scientific method is used.
Don't deny reality - it'll only bite you on the ass.
You are kidding, right? You know the difference between released versions, and not released, right? Not to mention the difference between desktop and server software? I appreciate that my list was not nearly perfect, but your criticism leaves out the fact that I was showing one way it would work within a logical framework - and ignoring any sort of framework of your own - I mean, what about Windows 2008, if you are counting server software? Windows NT 3.51? Windows NT 4.0. Sheesh.
1. Windows 3.1
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Windows 2000 and/or Windows ME (arguably, they are different product lines)
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7
No way, huh? It didn't take too much work to come up with that list, and there are good reasons for it to be an accurate one, no?
It looks like there may be some actual proof on the way. I'll be happy to look at it. Implying that I won't accept any level of evidence is pretty ridiculous. You don't know me, and you provided "evidence" that was unsourced, unsubstantial, and didn't actually show us anything, like, you know, an actual email in violation.
For you, someone telling you "Yes, she used private email illegally for government business" might suffice - but let's put the shoe on the other foot - taking someone else's word for something like this, when you don't know THEIR agenda, is usually only done by fools - or by people who WANT to believe. That makes sense, right?
Thank you for that. Took awhile to read through the document. You did notice, of course, that these emails were from her official government account, right?
This would REALLY be interesting if there was some content. Are you telling me that some little kid can "hack" her email, but no one else can get their hands on EVIDENCE?! That the kid posted everything in that email account, but no evidence was found? You consider this proof?
WTF?
I'm still waiting to see a sensible response that goes beyond "but I don't, I mean, PEOPLE don't like her!!!"
The Guardian says so? Did they actually show any of the emails? 'Cause that link you posted? It doesn't show ANY inappropriate emails. Invalid cites? Priceless.
I seem to see dozens of posters who have decided that Palin was conducting government business over her email. I thought I'd read all the email that had been made public. Did I miss some? Where is this idea coming from? Is it just a meme that everyone believes because someone asserted it? Has anyone actually SEEN an email that was "conducting government business"? If so, can you please post the content?
The credit card industry has mandatory PCI compliance. This basically covers your concerns. Supposedly, those companies not compliant will not be allowed to process credit cards - and the requirements must be audited and proven by an outside firm. It's QUITE expensive. The problem is whether or not these rules are being enforced. They ARE getting more stringent as time goes forward.
I'm sorry, but no way does this make any sense. Did you forget the frickin' OR? As in: "or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
You make no sense.
Slashdot Mirror
One way to tell if someone's opinion is overly influenced by political bias is if their conclusions change when the party/political label changes. I'd suggest some people try those glasses on around here occasionally.
I'm sorry, in advance.
If you were the average consumer of games, then the game industry would reconsider DRM. You aren't. It's not hurting them enough, because the average user doesn't care. If we want DRM to "go away" (and I'd be quite happy to see that happen), then we've got to make sure the average user cares - and makes purchasing decisions due to the presence of DRM. Ignorance, laziness, and lack of perspective.
Do you understand that success can be defined differently by people with different goals? Or is that beyond you completely?
I don't think DRM is successful, when it comes to MY goals. But many of those who are employing it? Yes, I believe their goals are being met.
Would you like to add anything useful to this conversation, or are you just throwing stuff out there to see if anything sticks, oh wise and whatever one.
As I stated elsewhere - you're idea of the purpose of DRM is flawed - therefore you are "expecting" them to learn a lesson that doesn't apply. It's not about stopping ANYONE from stealing their stuff - its about making sure that the amount of theft is trivial. Check your assumptions about other's intentions when you think them a fool - sometimes they are a fool - but sometimes the fool isn't them.
"Thus DRM is a fool's errand. It always has been. " The purpose of DRM isn't to stop copying altogether - it's to increase the difficulty to the point where the amount of copying is trivial. "Thus DRM sometimes works - and certainly can work. It always has."
Then use an operating system where the bulk of the consumers agree with your design philosophy. Unfortunately, you are vastly in the minority. And you probably need to stop for a minute, realize that, get comfortable with it, and stop making assertions on behalf of a majority that you are not part of.
C Corp? Or S Corp? Because if you are an S Corp, you certainly as hell ARE getting taxed at that bracket. If you are a C Corp and a small business, well - you better make sure the IRS is okay with that! They don't like that. If you are anything else, well, again, you are being taxed for all your business's income. Are you sure you are a small business owner?
So glad to see your response to my question/concern was to mark me as your foe. You are a very "special" person there, L4T. Sometimes, it's better to clear an issue up instead of going on a Jihad. But then again, given your history so far - not much hope, is there?
So, the fact that you have YET to provide any proof, after quite a few requests - clearly you don't care if you are correct. What an ass. Post your own story - stop trying to hijack this one.
Do you know what science means? It's a process that's extremely well defined. And yes, economists use those tools. They don't use them well enough yet, and it's a baby science, but the scientific method is used.
Don't deny reality - it'll only bite you on the ass.
That's ridiculous. It may not be well developed, but they use scientific principles and methodology. It IS a science. Buy a clue.
See, I'm not so sure how correct your analysis is, but at least it is logically consistent! Well done!
You are kidding, right? You know the difference between released versions, and not released, right? Not to mention the difference between desktop and server software? I appreciate that my list was not nearly perfect, but your criticism leaves out the fact that I was showing one way it would work within a logical framework - and ignoring any sort of framework of your own - I mean, what about Windows 2008, if you are counting server software? Windows NT 3.51? Windows NT 4.0. Sheesh.
1. Windows 3.1 2. Windows 95 3. Windows 98 4. Windows 2000 and/or Windows ME (arguably, they are different product lines) 5. Windows XP 6. Windows Vista 7. Windows 7 No way, huh? It didn't take too much work to come up with that list, and there are good reasons for it to be an accurate one, no?
It looks like there may be some actual proof on the way. I'll be happy to look at it. Implying that I won't accept any level of evidence is pretty ridiculous. You don't know me, and you provided "evidence" that was unsourced, unsubstantial, and didn't actually show us anything, like, you know, an actual email in violation. For you, someone telling you "Yes, she used private email illegally for government business" might suffice - but let's put the shoe on the other foot - taking someone else's word for something like this, when you don't know THEIR agenda, is usually only done by fools - or by people who WANT to believe. That makes sense, right?
I'm still waiting for something besides hearsay, really.
Thank you for that. Took awhile to read through the document. You did notice, of course, that these emails were from her official government account, right?
By the way, who says she's refusing to turn them over? Have any source for that?!
This would REALLY be interesting if there was some content. Are you telling me that some little kid can "hack" her email, but no one else can get their hands on EVIDENCE?! That the kid posted everything in that email account, but no evidence was found? You consider this proof? WTF? I'm still waiting to see a sensible response that goes beyond "but I don't, I mean, PEOPLE don't like her!!!"
The Guardian says so? Did they actually show any of the emails? 'Cause that link you posted? It doesn't show ANY inappropriate emails. Invalid cites? Priceless.
I seem to see dozens of posters who have decided that Palin was conducting government business over her email. I thought I'd read all the email that had been made public. Did I miss some? Where is this idea coming from? Is it just a meme that everyone believes because someone asserted it? Has anyone actually SEEN an email that was "conducting government business"? If so, can you please post the content?
Let me fix that for you: I also think politicians have been doing this since before Nixon got caught with tapes.
The credit card industry has mandatory PCI compliance. This basically covers your concerns. Supposedly, those companies not compliant will not be allowed to process credit cards - and the requirements must be audited and proven by an outside firm. It's QUITE expensive. The problem is whether or not these rules are being enforced. They ARE getting more stringent as time goes forward.
I'm sorry, but no way does this make any sense. Did you forget the frickin' OR? As in: "or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." You make no sense.