READ IT AGIAN. I'm not sure if you take the point or not.
The theft in question is of the revenue stream, not of the product. Copying the product is copyright infringement and not theft as I stated N posts ago, but the case in question is of revenue stream as the perpetrators were selling the product, not merely copying it. Do you get it????
That theft has to be of physical property is clearly incorrect. I feel the need to update the Wikipedia article mentioned. Theft in this case refers to theft of money or revenue. Money is not a physical object. Your dollar/pound/euro/yen bill is not money, but a representation of something to cancel debt. If you add up the amount of savings in any country it would far surpass the amount of physical tender (ever) in issuance - broad money!=narrow money (look it up). So saying theft has to refer to something which physically exists is a falacy at the most basic level. The Wikipedia references go some way to differentiating what is theft, but your citing them means their definitions are not obvious enough, or you lack the ability to tell the difference between copyright infringement and theft, the difference I mentioned in my original post.
I shall not dignify you with further replies to any inane last word you may provide in further futile efforts to get the upper hand.
Did you read my comment? I clearly stated that copyright infringement was not theft. What was the point of that post?
In the case of organised crime selling copied products when permitted copies are available, then revenue streams were stolen. That is theft. Theft does not have to be 'physical' (however you define that, do you consider my brushing past you in the street theft of some of your electrons) to be classified as theft. But copyright infrincement is not theft, as I stated in my earlier post.
To copy and share copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement. To sell copy and sell copyrighted materials in a market/environment where legal copies are also for sale is theft of a revenue stream. TFA refers to organised criminals conducting not only copyright infringement, but theft of revenue. These were not nice people benevolently running a backwater torrent site, they were copying and selling copyrighted materials.
Yes theft is an often misused concept in regards to copyright infringement, but in this case it wasn't.
...don't go to Rwanda. There are lots of great African countries, but most of them don't have a recent history of genocide. It was 10 years ago - you think that's a long time - well all the people that did it are still there, the same psychology that led up to the genocide still exists, and most perpetrators were not imprisoned.
You may have "done some travelling" but you're about to choose one of the most troubled and dangerous countries on this planet - its not a week in Mexico.
To paraphrase your comment:
How many people do you know that jaywalked in high school? How many people do you know from high school that got pregnant?
It's more about perception than anything else. I'm not saying I agree that jay walking should be censored, but I can say that I'm far more worried about any kid of mine suffering negative consequences of jay walking than I am about them watching a video game and getting involved with wholly normal sexual behaviour of a teenager.. It just feels a lot more likely to happen. Kids do stupid stuff with regards to crossing roads.
That said, I don't think San Andreas is a worthy scapegoat, here. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that jay walking as is an essential part of the game is a bigger hot button to me than the sexual content, but I think these peoples fuses are too short to begin with.
The most toubling thing: I actually thing people are more against perceptions of encouraging jay walking than they are murder.
RTFCs. Realise that the point of the discussion is not about the legal technicality of what the board can and can't do, rather why and for what end the system exists for. The point is that why classify the game as '18+ content' (or beyond as they had no classification' because it contains sex, yet not do it because it contains murderous violence. Did you miss it? If you state think to refer to the classification system for what actions mean what classification level you totally miss the point of what do classifications mean if sex is considered more adult than violence within the classification bounds or not.
This particular news story isn't about that. The fact is, this game was certified without full knowledge of what was being certified.
This news story is exactly about that. It is about something o extreme violence being 15 rated, yet something which contains sex, a less (if at all) violent act being 18 rated (hence unratable in Australia with the 15 limit mentioned in TFA).
The point is exactly about why sex is considered more heinous/adult/restricted than extreme violence, else why would their placing in the rating system be changed/reversed.
Well... it is in that Pair Networks are far from the biggest network (webhosting, in their context) company, yet they are contributing something which will be released under the BSD licence, hence truely free... and will be of benefit to all both large and small. So yes it is alturism but in a form which also benefits themselves, as all great alturism should do (spreading good amongst all should benefit yourself, however directly or indirectly).
Why is blowing people's heads off considered less serious than sex? I San Andres I could conduct a drive-by
shooting, or otherwise brutally murder someone. But having sex results in an older age limit?
Even if this is sex with a prostitute, or going several steps further if it is rape,
then surely that remains less serious than murder, or mass murder.
It is said that murderous video games don't make murderers (on the whole, for the millions that play). Is the
assumption different for other crimes, if so is there any evidence, and if not why restrict them?
It could be said that minors (however defined) shouldn't be exposed to sex (or sex in a violent context), but
then why is it more OK for them to be exposed to murder? Does anyone have a rational argument either way?
The only thing that surprises me about this statement is that companies are willing to spend 2x as much on the hardware and the additional money on the OS. Yeah, in corporate environments it's probably not as big of a deal but when you are talking 25+ of 10k+ machines that's a lot of cash
Not sure of your corporate environments, but in my medium sized company we're talking 1200 desktops - that is a fair amount of cash in terms of consumed user end hardware. Add to that the direct costs of training/re-employing sysadmins and defining new policies based around this system. Add to that the cost of re-engineering everyone's VBA macros (this is an office environment) which worked fine under windows, but may need debugging elsewhere - while individually small costs, collectively they are large. My company recently underwent a change in filing policy - no more folders or directories for shared documents, now we were to shoot all of our documents into a big pool and to run a search-folder system based on meta data and quick (indexed) full-text searching. The cost benefit analysis of this, undertaken post the event, was not favourable.
Key point: run a cost benefit analysis before doing anything substantial. Everything has a cost, be it a direct cost, or the time lost someone could have been doing something else. Analysis of a transfer from a WinXP environemnt to a OSX environment under an environment any greater than a small company (cited 25 desktops) would be interesting.
where they taught us a terrible language called Turing
Turing wasn't a terrible language, at least the Pascal like one with the same name wasn't! Clean syntax, higher level, great debugger (on Sun, don't know about elsewhere), decent range of types, fairly OK at OO, and really quick to get going. Beat Java and C++ hands down when I learned them subsequently to learning Turing. Now I mainly use Python (the odd bit of VBA as my glue as working in finance I'm constrained to Windows - there are no decent data providors on other platforms), but Turing was pretty decent. Surely better than the pile of crud I was made to shovel with something called Haskell - program an interpreter for a functional language in Haskell - yeah that's really worth while - my interpreter passed its instructions directly to the Haskell interpreter, the lecturer was not impressed with my smartass-ness.
In the UK typical price you'd pay for a undergrad textbook in any subject is £30 (about $50)
Depends on the course and option you take then. I did my undergrad in the UK, graduated in 2001. In my final year, books averaged £60, about 7 books for the year: courses were based around time series analysis, game theory, finance. These were the standard text books for the subject, add it that photocopying costs for all of the journal articles (though the legal signs above every photocopier said "do not copy copyrighted material" and it all was).
Haha, it seems on seeing my post someone went and modded my others of the week (not that they were very meangingful)! Karma is easily lost and gained, I've gone from 'Bad' to 'Excellent' too many times to recount, and have given up caring.
In reply to your journal entry, its probably because you have the ability to think somewhat independently, have a heathly streak of pessimism, and may speak up against the/. groupthink where it is clearly wrong.
As any team or community increases its diversity, its value-added in any area decreases if all members like to be seen to have their say. That is the case of Slashdot.
Time has awoken. The VORTEX to fpdom haS opened, and j00 HAVE not FAILED at life. Congralulations at entering the kindgom of the Community of Logged in Trolls.
"I don't use IE at all, but I'll test on it because I have to," said Web designer Donna Donohue, owner of Norwich, Conn.-based development firm KidoImages. "We code to standards to be compliant with Firefox, and then hack for IE."
Oh, so true, Firefox is also my main testing and QA platform, though I do try to code to standards then adapt to the quirks of a single application, even Firefox has the odd lack of compliance.
[sarcasm]Looking forward to IE7, Firefox has dominated the browser competition for too long [/sarcasm]!
Amazing that this is turned into a problem. I've dual processor Macs for years.
Dual cores does not equal dual processors. If you had dual processors either your software had a dual+ licence, or if it knew it was restricted to a single processor, it would stick to that.
The tradeoff in terms of hardware and licence cost between dual CPUs and (faster) single CPUs was simple (infact there was little difference per-chip performance wise between them). There was also a good level of seperation between parallel and serial performance: with a reasonably wide physical space between the dual chips, tasks that could take advantage of dual cores were those with the most parallel nature, tasks that were highly serial couldn't get much uplift in performance.
Dual/multi cores is different in the sense per-CPU performance is faster for multi-core CPUs than single core CPUs, no matter what sort of task it is - CPUs with a single core simple can't beat multi-cores even on the most non-parallel type task. Dual core doesn't mean having 2x the throughput of a single core processor of the (otherwise) same spec, however: as some serials of instructions cannot be reduced to parallel, their performance will be 1-2 times a single CPU, probably in the upper quarter of this. As more cores are added the potential for parallelism reduces, and multi-cores increasingly underperform the sum of cingle core performance.
Now, this poses an interesting dilemma. Previously companies could add ever faster CPUs and (probably) get their software running faster and faster at no additional software cost. With dual+ core CPUs they're instantly doubling+ their licencing costs, while not getting a linear uplift in performance, and having previously expected this performance at no software cost. That's why they're getting upset.
The end result? My crystal ball suggests there will be a fixed cost aspect to software, perhaps as a scalar 0-1 times the number of cores on a CPU, accompanies by a per-CPU cycle charge over a hurdle rate.
I could talk for hours about parallelism vs. serialism, I hope the above breakdown wasn't too simplictic.
But it hasn't! It has made its way into a lot of things, El Reg sheds a little more light on things: if you pay for support you get it, no matter how dead the OS is. It remains something companies find worth paying for, given the amount of infrastructure throughout the global economy it is embedded in.
But it hasn't! It has made its way into a lot of things, El Reg sheds a little more light on things: if you pay for support you get it, no matter how dead the OS is. It remains something companies find worth paying for, given the amount of infrastructure throughout the global economy it is embedded in.
Slashdot Mirror
They could tax Empornium for 100% and it will still be free!
READ IT AGIAN. I'm not sure if you take the point or not.
The theft in question is of the revenue stream, not of the product. Copying the product is copyright infringement and not theft as I stated N posts ago, but the case in question is of revenue stream as the perpetrators were selling the product, not merely copying it. Do you get it????
That theft has to be of physical property is clearly incorrect. I feel the need to update the Wikipedia article mentioned. Theft in this case refers to theft of money or revenue. Money is not a physical object. Your dollar/pound/euro/yen bill is not money, but a representation of something to cancel debt. If you add up the amount of savings in any country it would far surpass the amount of physical tender (ever) in issuance - broad money!=narrow money (look it up). So saying theft has to refer to something which physically exists is a falacy at the most basic level. The Wikipedia references go some way to differentiating what is theft, but your citing them means their definitions are not obvious enough, or you lack the ability to tell the difference between copyright infringement and theft, the difference I mentioned in my original post.
I shall not dignify you with further replies to any inane last word you may provide in further futile efforts to get the upper hand.
Did you read my comment? I clearly stated that copyright infringement was not theft. What was the point of that post?
In the case of organised crime selling copied products when permitted copies are available, then revenue streams were stolen. That is theft. Theft does not have to be 'physical' (however you define that, do you consider my brushing past you in the street theft of some of your electrons) to be classified as theft. But copyright infrincement is not theft, as I stated in my earlier post.
To copy and share copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement. To sell copy and sell copyrighted materials in a market/environment where legal copies are also for sale is theft of a revenue stream. TFA refers to organised criminals conducting not only copyright infringement, but theft of revenue. These were not nice people benevolently running a backwater torrent site, they were copying and selling copyrighted materials.
Yes theft is an often misused concept in regards to copyright infringement, but in this case it wasn't.
...don't go to Rwanda. There are lots of great African countries, but most of them don't have a recent history of genocide. It was 10 years ago - you think that's a long time - well all the people that did it are still there, the same psychology that led up to the genocide still exists, and most perpetrators were not imprisoned.
You may have "done some travelling" but you're about to choose one of the most troubled and dangerous countries on this planet - its not a week in Mexico.
To paraphrase your comment: How many people do you know that jaywalked in high school? How many people do you know from high school that got pregnant?
It's more about perception than anything else. I'm not saying I agree that jay walking should be censored, but I can say that I'm far more worried about any kid of mine suffering negative consequences of jay walking than I am about them watching a video game and getting involved with wholly normal sexual behaviour of a teenager.. It just feels a lot more likely to happen. Kids do stupid stuff with regards to crossing roads.
That said, I don't think San Andreas is a worthy scapegoat, here. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that jay walking as is an essential part of the game is a bigger hot button to me than the sexual content, but I think these peoples fuses are too short to begin with.
The most toubling thing: I actually thing people are more against perceptions of encouraging jay walking than they are murder.
RTFCs. Realise that the point of the discussion is not about the legal technicality of what the board can and can't do, rather why and for what end the system exists for. The point is that why classify the game as '18+ content' (or beyond as they had no classification' because it contains sex, yet not do it because it contains murderous violence. Did you miss it? If you state think to refer to the classification system for what actions mean what classification level you totally miss the point of what do classifications mean if sex is considered more adult than violence within the classification bounds or not.
This particular news story isn't about that. The fact is, this game was certified without full knowledge of what was being certified.
This news story is exactly about that. It is about something o extreme violence being 15 rated, yet something which contains sex, a less (if at all) violent act being 18 rated (hence unratable in Australia with the 15 limit mentioned in TFA).
The point is exactly about why sex is considered more heinous/adult/restricted than extreme violence, else why would their placing in the rating system be changed/reversed.
Well... it is in that Pair Networks are far from the biggest network (webhosting, in their context) company, yet they are contributing something which will be released under the BSD licence, hence truely free... and will be of benefit to all both large and small. So yes it is alturism but in a form which also benefits themselves, as all great alturism should do (spreading good amongst all should benefit yourself, however directly or indirectly).
So I say GO PAIR NETWORKS!
I'm consistently confused.
Why is blowing people's heads off considered less serious than sex? I San Andres I could conduct a drive-by shooting, or otherwise brutally murder someone. But having sex results in an older age limit?
Even if this is sex with a prostitute, or going several steps further if it is rape, then surely that remains less serious than murder, or mass murder.
It is said that murderous video games don't make murderers (on the whole, for the millions that play). Is the assumption different for other crimes, if so is there any evidence, and if not why restrict them?
It could be said that minors (however defined) shouldn't be exposed to sex (or sex in a violent context), but then why is it more OK for them to be exposed to murder? Does anyone have a rational argument either way?
From TFA:
Required for full three month are US$18,900 (15,600 or CHF24,000)
26. July 2005: Pair Networks, pledged US$14,000 Thank you very much!
Go Pair Networks!
The only thing that surprises me about this statement is that companies are willing to spend 2x as much on the hardware and the additional money on the OS. Yeah, in corporate environments it's probably not as big of a deal but when you are talking 25+ of 10k+ machines that's a lot of cash
Not sure of your corporate environments, but in my medium sized company we're talking 1200 desktops - that is a fair amount of cash in terms of consumed user end hardware. Add to that the direct costs of training/re-employing sysadmins and defining new policies based around this system. Add to that the cost of re-engineering everyone's VBA macros (this is an office environment) which worked fine under windows, but may need debugging elsewhere - while individually small costs, collectively they are large. My company recently underwent a change in filing policy - no more folders or directories for shared documents, now we were to shoot all of our documents into a big pool and to run a search-folder system based on meta data and quick (indexed) full-text searching. The cost benefit analysis of this, undertaken post the event, was not favourable.
Key point: run a cost benefit analysis before doing anything substantial. Everything has a cost, be it a direct cost, or the time lost someone could have been doing something else. Analysis of a transfer from a WinXP environemnt to a OSX environment under an environment any greater than a small company (cited 25 desktops) would be interesting.
where they taught us a terrible language called Turing
Turing wasn't a terrible language, at least the Pascal like one with the same name wasn't! Clean syntax, higher level, great debugger (on Sun, don't know about elsewhere), decent range of types, fairly OK at OO, and really quick to get going. Beat Java and C++ hands down when I learned them subsequently to learning Turing. Now I mainly use Python (the odd bit of VBA as my glue as working in finance I'm constrained to Windows - there are no decent data providors on other platforms), but Turing was pretty decent. Surely better than the pile of crud I was made to shovel with something called Haskell - program an interpreter for a functional language in Haskell - yeah that's really worth while - my interpreter passed its instructions directly to the Haskell interpreter, the lecturer was not impressed with my smartass-ness.
See Subject
In the UK typical price you'd pay for a undergrad textbook in any subject is £30 (about $50)
Depends on the course and option you take then. I did my undergrad in the UK, graduated in 2001. In my final year, books averaged £60, about 7 books for the year: courses were based around time series analysis, game theory, finance. These were the standard text books for the subject, add it that photocopying costs for all of the journal articles (though the legal signs above every photocopier said "do not copy copyrighted material" and it all was).
Haha, it seems on seeing my post someone went and modded my others of the week (not that they were very meangingful)! Karma is easily lost and gained, I've gone from 'Bad' to 'Excellent' too many times to recount, and have given up caring.
In reply to your journal entry, its probably because you have the ability to think somewhat independently, have a heathly streak of pessimism, and may speak up against the /. groupthink where it is clearly wrong.
As any team or community increases its diversity, its value-added in any area decreases if all members like to be seen to have their say. That is the case of Slashdot.
Time has awoken. The VORTEX to fpdom haS opened, and j00 HAVE not FAILED at life. Congralulations at entering the kindgom of the Community of Logged in Trolls.
"I don't use IE at all, but I'll test on it because I have to," said Web designer Donna Donohue, owner of Norwich, Conn.-based development firm KidoImages. "We code to standards to be compliant with Firefox, and then hack for IE."
Oh, so true, Firefox is also my main testing and QA platform, though I do try to code to standards then adapt to the quirks of a single application, even Firefox has the odd lack of compliance.
[sarcasm]Looking forward to IE7, Firefox has dominated the browser competition for too long [/sarcasm]!
See subject.
Amazing that this is turned into a problem. I've dual processor Macs for years.
Dual cores does not equal dual processors. If you had dual processors either your software had a dual+ licence, or if it knew it was restricted to a single processor, it would stick to that.
The tradeoff in terms of hardware and licence cost between dual CPUs and (faster) single CPUs was simple (infact there was little difference per-chip performance wise between them). There was also a good level of seperation between parallel and serial performance: with a reasonably wide physical space between the dual chips, tasks that could take advantage of dual cores were those with the most parallel nature, tasks that were highly serial couldn't get much uplift in performance.
Dual/multi cores is different in the sense per-CPU performance is faster for multi-core CPUs than single core CPUs, no matter what sort of task it is - CPUs with a single core simple can't beat multi-cores even on the most non-parallel type task. Dual core doesn't mean having 2x the throughput of a single core processor of the (otherwise) same spec, however: as some serials of instructions cannot be reduced to parallel, their performance will be 1-2 times a single CPU, probably in the upper quarter of this. As more cores are added the potential for parallelism reduces, and multi-cores increasingly underperform the sum of cingle core performance.
Now, this poses an interesting dilemma. Previously companies could add ever faster CPUs and (probably) get their software running faster and faster at no additional software cost. With dual+ core CPUs they're instantly doubling+ their licencing costs, while not getting a linear uplift in performance, and having previously expected this performance at no software cost. That's why they're getting upset.
The end result? My crystal ball suggests there will be a fixed cost aspect to software, perhaps as a scalar 0-1 times the number of cores on a CPU, accompanies by a per-CPU cycle charge over a hurdle rate.
I could talk for hours about parallelism vs. serialism, I hope the above breakdown wasn't too simplictic.
The problem with per-computer licensing is that it encourages a company to just create one massive 500-processor computer
They've not seen my penchant for circular references, clearly!
(Note: If you have to explain why your comment is funny, it isn't)
Note:
1st post:
Re:Hey! (Score:5, Funny)
by commodoresloat (172735) on Friday July 15, @03:09AM (#13069590)
2nd post:
Re:Hey! (Score:4, Funny)
by darkpixel2k (623900) on Friday July 15, @03:32AM (#13069728) (http://www.darkpixel.com/)
3rd post:
Re:Hey! (Score:1)
by euphgeek (624997) on Friday July 15, @04:14PM (#13073993)
You:
by HardCase (14757) on Friday July 15, @04:53PM (#13074454)
He wasn't referring to his comment. Bad karma should not be directed, allow an individual to fall into that trap themselves.
It's a wonder it took so long to die.
But it hasn't! It has made its way into a lot of things, El Reg sheds a little more light on things: if you pay for support you get it, no matter how dead the OS is. It remains something companies find worth paying for, given the amount of infrastructure throughout the global economy it is embedded in.
It first died in 2000, and keeps on dying!
It's a wonder it took so long to die.
But it hasn't! It has made its way into a lot of things, El Reg sheds a little more light on things: if you pay for support you get it, no matter how dead the OS is. It remains something companies find worth paying for, given the amount of infrastructure throughout the global economy it is embedded in.
It first died in 2000, can keeps on dying!