If you geeks want to be taken seriously when you (for example) complain about electronic voting, or argue for the benefits of free software, you'll have to get rid of the violent video games.
The adult world will not take you seriously until you do.
David Maurer, in his classic sociological work, The Big Con: The Story of the Confidence Man, reports that con men look especially for people who believe that they are honest. They say that the man most vulnerable to being conned is the man who sincerely believes in his own honesty. Once you believe in your own honesty, you are at risk of being conned.
In the story at hand, Mr. Sessions clearly believes himself to be an honest man.
Is this bad decision coming solely from Phil Hughes? I don't know much about the corporate structure of SSC, but maybe some here do: who exactly as SSC is the person with the authority to change this bad decision?
Linux Gazette is not only an online mag. It's distributed in lots of different forms. "apt-get install lg-subscription" installs all of Linux Gazette on your own machine.
Even though SCO has refused to undergo the technical equivalent of DNA testing, and even though my (and other people's) DNA is probably all over Linux.
I assume you are not a long-time reader of Linux Gazette. SSC radically changed the format of the publication, to the point where it is a substantially different product. (For example, they didn't even plan to have a monthly publication, until after the split took place and SSC realized it needed to backpedal on the changes.)
LG is not a service. It's a publication. And it's a publication that existed _before_ SSC started hosting it, and it still exists, with the same people, after SSC has decided it no longer wants to support the publication, but instead wants to publish something new.
You need to read more about this. Ownership of LG was never tranferred to SSC, and SSC merely offered hosting and other support to a preexisting publication. That publication still exists, but no longer with SSC. What SSC has is anyone's guess.
The only thing corporations understand is money. Cancel your subscription to Linux Journal until SSC abandons this foolhardy path. You can always resubscribe.
The time to act is now, not after SSC has used the courts to screw over the community.
Are you sure it didn't have anything to do with the fact that everyone was saying it sucked?
I don't personally know all that many people who would be likely to see it in the first place. People I know aren't typical candidates to see a Matrix movie.
Some users have been misinterpreting "moral hazard" to mean something about placing a "morality cost" on the act of copyright infringement.
I agree that this is a misunderstanding. I also agree with most of the comments you make. They were very interesting articles. But even if it would be obvious to most economists, I still think the articles failed to address the specific question of why consumers would be motivated to stop using file-sharing. Suppose I have, on the one hand, the RIAA offering me one of the new schemes the article proposes, and, on the other hand, file-sharing. Why should I embrace the RIAA proposition?
Re:One weakness of both articles: free always wins
on
Economics of File-Sharing
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
if it came with extras such as interesting CD booklets (or downloadable versions thereof).
This is one of my pet peeves: back in the 1970's, album covers and inserts were an art form. You would buy an album, take it home, open it, put the record on the turntable, and then sit listening to it while you absorbed the cover art and (often) the fold-out section. It was a true multimedia experience, and many of my memories of favorite albums are inextricably linked to the tactile and visual sensations of the album cover. The covers were huge! They filled your entire field of vision! And they were designed by interesting artists who built in elaborate connections to the music itself.
What bothers me most is that premiums on automobile, homeowners, life, and health insurance are going to be steadily raised to cover the losing business investment in recording insurance.
Could you elaborate on this point? What is recording insurance? And, whatever it is, wouldn't the rates for it have gone through the roof in recent years (since file-sharing), so as to cover the losses you're talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
If you geeks want to be taken seriously when you (for example) complain about electronic voting, or argue for the benefits of free software, you'll have to get rid of the violent video games.
The adult world will not take you seriously until you do.
"you can't con an honest man"
David Maurer, in his classic sociological work, The Big Con: The Story of the Confidence Man, reports that con men look especially for people who believe that they are honest. They say that the man most vulnerable to being conned is the man who sincerely believes in his own honesty. Once you believe in your own honesty, you are at risk of being conned.
In the story at hand, Mr. Sessions clearly believes himself to be an honest man.
Did anyone else read it that way, or have I relocated by brain to crack island?
You didn't notice that there wasn't a comma after the word "letter". Had there been such a comma, your misreading would have made (some) sense.
Punctuation affects the meaning of sentences, people.
If your gf is busting your chops over this, you have much more serious problems than a loud mouse. Lose the gf, keep the mouse.
My favorite part of the article was this:
For more information on SCO products and services visit http://www.sco.com.
UNIX Power Tools really is one of the best books out there on using UNIX.
That's really true. But it's also a really good book on using Linux. Unix Power Tools is my favorite Linux book right now.
No wonder you're anonymous.
It doesn't matter what their motive was in sponsoring Linux Gazette. Sponsorship does not confer ownership.
Is this bad decision coming solely from Phil Hughes? I don't know much about the corporate structure of SSC, but maybe some here do: who exactly as SSC is the person with the authority to change this bad decision?
I want a online mag, not a CMS.
Linux Gazette is not only an online mag. It's distributed in lots of different forms. "apt-get install lg-subscription" installs all of Linux Gazette on your own machine.
and even though my (and other people's) DNA is probably all over Linux.
Ewwww! Gross! TMI, Linus!
Since when?
publisher@linuxgazette.com works. Phil Hughes may even answer your mail personally.
I assume you are not a long-time reader of Linux Gazette. SSC radically changed the format of the publication, to the point where it is a substantially different product. (For example, they didn't even plan to have a monthly publication, until after the split took place and SSC realized it needed to backpedal on the changes.)
And look at all that impressive content!
LG is not a service. It's a publication. And it's a publication that existed _before_ SSC started hosting it, and it still exists, with the same people, after SSC has decided it no longer wants to support the publication, but instead wants to publish something new.
You need to read more about this. Ownership of LG was never tranferred to SSC, and SSC merely offered hosting and other support to a preexisting publication. That publication still exists, but no longer with SSC. What SSC has is anyone's guess.
The only thing corporations understand is money. Cancel your subscription to Linux Journal until SSC abandons this foolhardy path. You can always resubscribe.
The time to act is now, not after SSC has used the courts to screw over the community.
ratpoison takes up zero pixels, and all commands are issued from the keyboard.
I just canceled my subscription to Linux Journal. It's a good magazine, but I'm sick of corporations acting like predators.
I use MythTV, and it automatically skips over commercials, so I don't ever see them.
I don't personally know all that many people who would be likely to see it in the first place. People I know aren't typical candidates to see a Matrix movie.
Mod parent up!
I agree that this is a misunderstanding. I also agree with most of the comments you make. They were very interesting articles. But even if it would be obvious to most economists, I still think the articles failed to address the specific question of why consumers would be motivated to stop using file-sharing. Suppose I have, on the one hand, the RIAA offering me one of the new schemes the article proposes, and, on the other hand, file-sharing. Why should I embrace the RIAA proposition?
This is one of my pet peeves: back in the 1970's, album covers and inserts were an art form. You would buy an album, take it home, open it, put the record on the turntable, and then sit listening to it while you absorbed the cover art and (often) the fold-out section. It was a true multimedia experience, and many of my memories of favorite albums are inextricably linked to the tactile and visual sensations of the album cover. The covers were huge! They filled your entire field of vision! And they were designed by interesting artists who built in elaborate connections to the music itself.
Those days are long gone, and it's a sad thing.
Could you elaborate on this point? What is recording insurance? And, whatever it is, wouldn't the rates for it have gone through the roof in recent years (since file-sharing), so as to cover the losses you're talking about?