This doesn't work in a market where the consumers are as ethically corrupt as the distributors. People are happy enough to get music for free (disclosure: I support p2p), so it should be obvious that when it comes to boycotts, consumers only stem demands when the consumers themselves believe they are not being supplied with goods at a fair price. Consumers don't really mind when those who are producing the products are being mistreaded. (See: Nike, Addidas, Esprit, Hillfiger, etc)
All of which doesn't help the folks who are actually being screwed; the artists.
People buy sweatshop produced clothes. Just because as inidividuals we might be ethically conflicted about who we are buying for, doesn't mean we'll do anything about it if the producer is able to keep us from experiencing first-hand the consequences of our 'voting' dollars.
The market is good for helping people make money, but very poor at punishing those who don't deserve to by way of their means to the end of actually supplying the product to the consumer.
And who can blame us? There's 24 hours in a day, and in this specialized world, the onus to ensure that we are using our wealth ethically should be on the producer of the product, not on the consumer. Any other way results in gross ineffiency (since presumably we must *all* experience the negative consequences of our purchasing buck for a particular company before we stop voting).
I just feel bad that people have lost such faith in their _votes_ in a democracy that they feel the only way to deal with unethical business practices is to expect people to stop participating in a market (in the case of a monopoly/cartel such as music) all together instead of vote for politicians who's ethics cannot be had for a price.
I'm all for punshing shoddy product with my dollars, but my government should hold up its end of the bargain by equalizing markets that have grown into monopolies in cases where people are unlikely to revolt. (Again, see sweatshops.)
> Whine all you want, but it is justifying theft, one way or the other, to think that it is ok to have services such as Kazaa.
We should shut down FedEx too. Last I heard, they had delivered lots of illegal things to sketchy people. Clearly we must ensure that people are on tigbht-fitting technological leashes so they don't have to think or act accountable for their actions. Welcome to utopia, where, if you can physically do it, it must be okay! Never think about the consequences of your individual actions again!
Would you be the first to turn in your friends and family, or are the people that made the tools responsible for bending and warping their puny little minds into acts of wonton piracy?
Maybe Tiscali recognizes that if Kazaa has been downloaded 120 million times, there can't be that many Kazaa users that are full blown warez kiddies.
Most of the people I know who p2p (I don't out of sheer laziness, but then again, I've stopped buying music due to the crappiness of product right now) were not bandwidth guzzling warez monkeys but just wanted a recording of a top 40 song that they could have taped off the radio twice an hour anyhow.
So maybe Tiscali sees p2p as broadband's killer app, and has taken a more objective analysis of how their bandwidth will be affect by this partnership rather than just assuming that they'll only attract the types who throttle the pipe.
ROFL? but i can't access robots.txt because according to the parent poster, **I'm not allowed to connect over his public port without his preauthorized permission**
am I the only one who sees the futility in this argument? define permission as it applies to the legality of ones actions...
>Even animals know the right from wrong. People should start learning too.
If animals know the difference, please explain to me why horses engage in sex with people instead of take 1 second out of their day by trampling them to death?
If they know its okay, then you have to agree that any animal that doesn't fight back against a human during animal/human sex is concenting and thus it must be OK. (And believe me, animals do *not* have to be forced into sex with humans. Hell, we all know dogs and cats will hump anything they can get their legs around during heat.)
I'm not tipping my cards as to what my personal opinion is, but your statement sounds an awful lot like Hallmark logic. According to your reasoning, beastiality is A-OK so long as the animal doesnt fight back, in which case animals simply deserve protection under rape laws!
You cannot pass along GPL'd software with conditions attached that *reduce* the terms of the GPL for that receiving party. (This would be like me distributing Vendor X software and having people sign NDAs that _force_ them to break the terms of the licence attached to the Vendor X software.. what was the point of the Vendor X licence then?)
If you give me GPL'd software, I can redistribute it if I adhere to the conditions set forth in the GPL. You cannot tell me that I must ignore certain rights given to me by virtue of you distributing GPL'd source/software.
This is the 'viral'ness that MS hates, but its so wonderful if you think about it; you can't go out and grab value, and redistribute that value, while improving your positioning in the marketplace by reducing the rights of the people you are distributing the software to. It creates an even playing field for all; and lets us try and restore our economy to a meritocracy where people create value through collarberative work rather than information hoarding and reinventing wheels...
If anything, the GPL simply ensures that people can benifit from authors' work without those same people abusing the terms and conditions you'd like to attach to your software. If you dont like the GPL, create your own licence, but the whole point is that the GPL's "restrictive terms" ensure to the original author that his hard work will never be used so that somebody else can gain a competative advantage through information hoarding.
I don't get it.. don't you think its more efficient for everybody to run as hard as they can to the finish line, even helping each other along the way, instead of spending so much time trying to trip each other up and prevent others' progress such that *everybody* runs the race slower? It seems obvious to me that the more open you make the scientific community, the more progress it can make with less work. One company might not become a true victor in a market, but who the hell cares because the whole point of this system was to encourage technological development and collarberative work in the first place..
The GPL also states that if you distribute the source, you must give the same rights to that person as you had.
So you can't attach an NDA wtih GPL'd software/source saying, "BTW, you know the part in the GPL where it says now that you have the source, you can distribute it too, so long as you adhere to these conditions? Well forget it. You can't distribute it. We're ignoring that point of the GPL and you'd better not exercise that right."
At least, thats my understanding. Please correct me if I'm off base.
Man invents the VCR. All is good. You can record shows. Hollywood sues. Consumer wins. Man can now make 'perfect copies of TV shows', so long as he doesn't rebroadcast them.
Flags wave. People sing the national anthem. Technology gets better. VCR gets better. VCR is now called Tivo.
The whole I work 40 hours a week is to develop better VCRs! (Well, I work on other technologies, but I'm speaking for people who's job it is to make better and better methods of recording/playing TV.. ) If the ultimate goal of the technology is perfect copies, why the hell are we working on it if we can make it so good it supposedly 'destroys Hollywood'.
Frankly, if anything, I like these things because if they make less money off the shows, they have less money to _make_ the shows, and then the only things they can improve instead of special effects and hire-a-cameos are the plots and substance of televsion programming. Which sounds like a win to me. I'm willing to forgo special effects, text superposition, multimillion dollar paycheques and bluescreen for an industry that actually improves via the quality of the shows rather than the quality of the productions.
Which is to say, if anything, if this hurts the production industry, good.
Remember the whole uproar about ebonics? And how its still made fun of? The irony.. its shakesperian compared to IM-speak, and the beauty of it is that IM-speak is mostly used by the kids of the crowd that took issue with ebonics.
I guess you never read the paper left on the subway or a bus? Should we be arresting people who read the left over papers, or the folks that leave the paper there for someone to steal?
Doesn't "Design Patterns" have smalltalk in it too?
I'm a C++ guy, but I always was able to look at code in languages I hadn't programmed in as pseudocode.. I mean, you can usually tell in general whats going on. And since Design Patterns are about generalizing solutions into clearly defined patterns, I felt it was pretty appropriate that you shouldn't need to be have to compile the language in your head for examples of design pattern...
Re:What's a good programming language in general?
on
Applied Java Patterns
·
· Score: 2
You'll probably elicit more concensus if you ask "Which religion is the right one?"
I've had success in C++. Others have in Java. Every lang has its strength and weaknesses; when you use them often has more to do with what platforms and technologies and APIs you'll be hooking into, and whats been used in the past when you join companies and projects. There's no true abolute..
This might sound trollish, but I assure you its a sincere question:
Did MS ever make its own hardware? Do they have their own in house hardware engineers? Or do they just integrate horizontally with the hardware market when they choose?
> Unless we can determine that they really do have an excess of bandwidth or that they don't mind us using their service, how can we possibly justify this kind of thing?
Personally, the onus is on the owner of property to spend _some_ effort in protecting it.
Case in point: If I leave my television on my lawn, unlocked, it'll get stolen. The police won't do a thing about it, because they will contend that I put so little effort into protecting my personal property that it must not have been worth that much to me. They won't consider their own effort worth the cost of protecting my property since I did not do a minimum amount of work to protect it myself.
As a warchalker, you can't tell for sure if somebody is actually providing a wifi access point au gratis or if some lazy admin at some company forgot to secure the wireless network. Is the network legal or illegal to connect to? Should the onus really be on the part of the connector?
The owner of the property has a responsibility to use a reasonable amount of effort and care in securing their own property; or else the rest of society spends alot of money and time protecting the property of people who are too lazy or incompetant to do so. Ass we both know, humans dont like freeloaders, so I think in this case, people are right to whine and bitch about the wifi network owners laziness, incompetnance, or lack of education.
My problem is that with so much money riding on the success of these movies, that its hard for me to take the guilty pleasure of enjoying such a scene when one could plausibly construe the scene as an easy-to-make marketing ploy.
Between all the crossovers, cameos, in jokes, and plot ploys in hollywood entertainment these days, its increasingly difficult for me to enjoy my guilty pleasures. When I know whoever owned the rights to the characters/franchise/brands involved is making a crudload of money off of pandering to my guilty desires instead of challenging them or surprising them with novel ideas, I just want to turn the TV off. As a fan of various shows, characters, etc, sometimes I feel downright exploited.. as if somebody out there knows what kind of cultural crack I'm unable to resist, and is making some phat cash of peddling me 'the goods'...
Well, back to Yoda. Really, I much prefered the mystery. We all knew Yoda could kick some Imperial ass, so did we *really* have to see it? I much preferred the mystery, but now I am ruined.:(
And alot of the old games were nicely packaged (for the time) garbage.
Hindsight is 20/20, history is seen through the eyes of its victors with a focus on the classics, yadda yadda.
There are still lots of great games coming out. I also wonder if people who didn't like todays games but loved the classics have a much simpler reason for doing so: youth. There are tons of stuff I enjoyed more when I was a kid than as an adult. The game of baseball hasn't gotten worse... I just had more time and appreciation for playing it when I was a kid.:)
Disclosure: played lots of games then, play lots of games now. I think alot of the reason that its hard to find great games today is a matter of optics. We're spoiled by the classics (considering that you rightly point out that the quality of the game is not detemrined by its _absolute_ level of graphic and audio greatness), and so the bar is higher for people who've played way more games than kids today.
Anyhow, I'm getting sick of this whole "back when I was a kid, you didnt need great graphics to make a game" thing. The games that were classics still usually had graphics that were better than its peers at the time.. everything is relative.
I believe the problem is with people glamourizing the gansta culture, regardless of colour.
And thinking that gangsta talk is "black" is like saying red-neck speak is "white".
The point is that people should not cop an image from a culture which promotes violence, white or black. This is not a colour issue, its a culture issue. You do not have to be a certain colour to try and cop a certain culture.
I get an extra default point of Karma for generally being a high quality poster.
I dont karma whore, I dont intentionally troll (not to say that I havn't rightly been modded a troll for some of my posts).. but yes, I should have marked that post as just a +1 (we have the option to post as No Score +1 bonus as I have with this post.)
Too bad you're AC, you might not come back to learn this.
Slashdot Mirror
This doesn't work in a market where the consumers are as ethically corrupt as the distributors. People are happy enough to get music for free (disclosure: I support p2p), so it should be obvious that when it comes to boycotts, consumers only stem demands when the consumers themselves believe they are not being supplied with goods at a fair price. Consumers don't really mind when those who are producing the products are being mistreaded. (See: Nike, Addidas, Esprit, Hillfiger, etc)
All of which doesn't help the folks who are actually being screwed; the artists.
People buy sweatshop produced clothes. Just because as inidividuals we might be ethically conflicted about who we are buying for, doesn't mean we'll do anything about it if the producer is able to keep us from experiencing first-hand the consequences of our 'voting' dollars.
The market is good for helping people make money, but very poor at punishing those who don't deserve to by way of their means to the end of actually supplying the product to the consumer.
And who can blame us? There's 24 hours in a day, and in this specialized world, the onus to ensure that we are using our wealth ethically should be on the producer of the product, not on the consumer. Any other way results in gross ineffiency (since presumably we must *all* experience the negative consequences of our purchasing buck for a particular company before we stop voting).
I just feel bad that people have lost such faith in their _votes_ in a democracy that they feel the only way to deal with unethical business practices is to expect people to stop participating in a market (in the case of a monopoly/cartel such as music) all together instead of vote for politicians who's ethics cannot be had for a price.
I'm all for punshing shoddy product with my dollars, but my government should hold up its end of the bargain by equalizing markets that have grown into monopolies in cases where people are unlikely to revolt. (Again, see sweatshops.)
> Whine all you want, but it is justifying theft, one way or the other, to think that it is ok to have services such as Kazaa.
We should shut down FedEx too. Last I heard, they had delivered lots of illegal things to sketchy people. Clearly we must ensure that people are on tigbht-fitting technological leashes so they don't have to think or act accountable for their actions. Welcome to utopia, where, if you can physically do it, it must be okay! Never think about the consequences of your individual actions again!
Would you be the first to turn in your friends and family, or are the people that made the tools responsible for bending and warping their puny little minds into acts of wonton piracy?
Maybe Tiscali recognizes that if Kazaa has been downloaded 120 million times, there can't be that many Kazaa users that are full blown warez kiddies.
Most of the people I know who p2p (I don't out of sheer laziness, but then again, I've stopped buying music due to the crappiness of product right now) were not bandwidth guzzling warez monkeys but just wanted a recording of a top 40 song that they could have taped off the radio twice an hour anyhow.
So maybe Tiscali sees p2p as broadband's killer app, and has taken a more objective analysis of how their bandwidth will be affect by this partnership rather than just assuming that they'll only attract the types who throttle the pipe.
But it sounds like this ISP is in support of Kazaa, and won't be a pushover.
The RIAA wanted Kazaa dead before, but now they have to deal with a company with money. Different ball game for RIAA, don't you think?
Because the company thats advertising in this case has money, and (presumably) decent laywers.
:)
Let the pissing contest begin! Down with the RIAA!
ROFL? but i can't access robots.txt because according to the parent poster, **I'm not allowed to connect over his public port without his preauthorized permission**
...
am I the only one who sees the futility in this argument? define permission as it applies to the legality of ones actions
So it's illegal to probe the HTTP port on computers in Maryland with robots because you didn't get permission from the guy who admins the web site?
Isn't a public port part and parcel with permission to access said port?
>Even animals know the right from wrong. People should start learning too.
If animals know the difference, please explain to me why horses engage in sex with people instead of take 1 second out of their day by trampling them to death?
If they know its okay, then you have to agree that any animal that doesn't fight back against a human during animal/human sex is concenting and thus it must be OK. (And believe me, animals do *not* have to be forced into sex with humans. Hell, we all know dogs and cats will hump anything they can get their legs around during heat.)
I'm not tipping my cards as to what my personal opinion is, but your statement sounds an awful lot like Hallmark logic. According to your reasoning, beastiality is A-OK so long as the animal doesnt fight back, in which case animals simply deserve protection under rape laws!
You cannot pass along GPL'd software with conditions attached that *reduce* the terms of the GPL for that receiving party. (This would be like me distributing Vendor X software and having people sign NDAs that _force_ them to break the terms of the licence attached to the Vendor X software .. what was the point of the Vendor X licence then?)
...
.. don't you think its more efficient for everybody to run as hard as they can to the finish line, even helping each other along the way, instead of spending so much time trying to trip each other up and prevent others' progress such that *everybody* runs the race slower? It seems obvious to me that the more open you make the scientific community, the more progress it can make with less work. One company might not become a true victor in a market, but who the hell cares because the whole point of this system was to encourage technological development and collarberative work in the first place ..
If you give me GPL'd software, I can redistribute it if I adhere to the conditions set forth in the GPL. You cannot tell me that I must ignore certain rights given to me by virtue of you distributing GPL'd source/software.
This is the 'viral'ness that MS hates, but its so wonderful if you think about it; you can't go out and grab value, and redistribute that value, while improving your positioning in the marketplace by reducing the rights of the people you are distributing the software to. It creates an even playing field for all; and lets us try and restore our economy to a meritocracy where people create value through collarberative work rather than information hoarding and reinventing wheels
If anything, the GPL simply ensures that people can benifit from authors' work without those same people abusing the terms and conditions you'd like to attach to your software. If you dont like the GPL, create your own licence, but the whole point is that the GPL's "restrictive terms" ensure to the original author that his hard work will never be used so that somebody else can gain a competative advantage through information hoarding.
I don't get it
The GPL also states that if you distribute the source, you must give the same rights to that person as you had.
So you can't attach an NDA wtih GPL'd software/source saying, "BTW, you know the part in the GPL where it says now that you have the source, you can distribute it too, so long as you adhere to these conditions? Well forget it. You can't distribute it. We're ignoring that point of the GPL and you'd better not exercise that right."
At least, thats my understanding. Please correct me if I'm off base.
Man invents the VCR. All is good. You can record shows. Hollywood sues. Consumer wins. Man can now make 'perfect copies of TV shows', so long as he doesn't rebroadcast them.
.. ) If the ultimate goal of the technology is perfect copies, why the hell are we working on it if we can make it so good it supposedly 'destroys Hollywood'.
Flags wave. People sing the national anthem. Technology gets better. VCR gets better. VCR is now called Tivo.
The whole I work 40 hours a week is to develop better VCRs! (Well, I work on other technologies, but I'm speaking for people who's job it is to make better and better methods of recording/playing TV
Frankly, if anything, I like these things because if they make less money off the shows, they have less money to _make_ the shows, and then the only things they can improve instead of special effects and hire-a-cameos are the plots and substance of televsion programming. Which sounds like a win to me. I'm willing to forgo special effects, text superposition, multimillion dollar paycheques and bluescreen for an industry that actually improves via the quality of the shows rather than the quality of the productions.
Which is to say, if anything, if this hurts the production industry, good.
Remember the whole uproar about ebonics? And how its still made fun of? The irony .. its shakesperian compared to IM-speak, and the beauty of it is that IM-speak is mostly used by the kids of the crowd that took issue with ebonics.
..
Ah, the wonderus circle of life
I guess you never read the paper left on the subway or a bus? Should we be arresting people who read the left over papers, or the folks that leave the paper there for someone to steal?
Moron.
Doesn't "Design Patterns" have smalltalk in it too?
.. I mean, you can usually tell in general whats going on. And since Design Patterns are about generalizing solutions into clearly defined patterns, I felt it was pretty appropriate that you shouldn't need to be have to compile the language in your head for examples of design pattern ...
I'm a C++ guy, but I always was able to look at code in languages I hadn't programmed in as pseudocode
You'll probably elicit more concensus if you ask "Which religion is the right one?"
..
I've had success in C++. Others have in Java. Every lang has its strength and weaknesses; when you use them often has more to do with what platforms and technologies and APIs you'll be hooking into, and whats been used in the past when you join companies and projects. There's no true abolute
Okay, so design is done in house, but manufacturing is outsourced. Thanks.
This might sound trollish, but I assure you its a sincere question:
Did MS ever make its own hardware? Do they have their own in house hardware engineers? Or do they just integrate horizontally with the hardware market when they choose?
Furture Windows Msg:
"Sorry, you cannot use Explorer.exe at this time. The CPU's resources are being used to serve the WinWiFi router."
> Unless we can determine that they really do have an excess of bandwidth or that they don't mind us using their service, how can we possibly justify this kind of thing?
Personally, the onus is on the owner of property to spend _some_ effort in protecting it.
Case in point: If I leave my television on my lawn, unlocked, it'll get stolen. The police won't do a thing about it, because they will contend that I put so little effort into protecting my personal property that it must not have been worth that much to me. They won't consider their own effort worth the cost of protecting my property since I did not do a minimum amount of work to protect it myself.
As a warchalker, you can't tell for sure if somebody is actually providing a wifi access point au gratis or if some lazy admin at some company forgot to secure the wireless network. Is the network legal or illegal to connect to? Should the onus really be on the part of the connector?
The owner of the property has a responsibility to use a reasonable amount of effort and care in securing their own property; or else the rest of society spends alot of money and time protecting the property of people who are too lazy or incompetant to do so. Ass we both know, humans dont like freeloaders, so I think in this case, people are right to whine and bitch about the wifi network owners laziness, incompetnance, or lack of education.
Be fair. How else are they going to aquire the material they need to make their food?
My problem is that with so much money riding on the success of these movies, that its hard for me to take the guilty pleasure of enjoying such a scene when one could plausibly construe the scene as an easy-to-make marketing ploy.
.. as if somebody out there knows what kind of cultural crack I'm unable to resist, and is making some phat cash of peddling me 'the goods' ...
:(
Between all the crossovers, cameos, in jokes, and plot ploys in hollywood entertainment these days, its increasingly difficult for me to enjoy my guilty pleasures. When I know whoever owned the rights to the characters/franchise/brands involved is making a crudload of money off of pandering to my guilty desires instead of challenging them or surprising them with novel ideas, I just want to turn the TV off. As a fan of various shows, characters, etc, sometimes I feel downright exploited
Well, back to Yoda. Really, I much prefered the mystery. We all knew Yoda could kick some Imperial ass, so did we *really* have to see it? I much preferred the mystery, but now I am ruined.
And alot of the old games were nicely packaged (for the time) garbage.
... I just had more time and appreciation for playing it when I was a kid. :)
.. everything is relative.
Hindsight is 20/20, history is seen through the eyes of its victors with a focus on the classics, yadda yadda.
There are still lots of great games coming out. I also wonder if people who didn't like todays games but loved the classics have a much simpler reason for doing so: youth. There are tons of stuff I enjoyed more when I was a kid than as an adult. The game of baseball hasn't gotten worse
Disclosure: played lots of games then, play lots of games now. I think alot of the reason that its hard to find great games today is a matter of optics. We're spoiled by the classics (considering that you rightly point out that the quality of the game is not detemrined by its _absolute_ level of graphic and audio greatness), and so the bar is higher for people who've played way more games than kids today.
Anyhow, I'm getting sick of this whole "back when I was a kid, you didnt need great graphics to make a game" thing. The games that were classics still usually had graphics that were better than its peers at the time
Some art's worth is derived soley from the process taken to make said art.
This is a very intersting way of playing with that notion.
I believe the problem is with people glamourizing the gansta culture, regardless of colour.
And thinking that gangsta talk is "black" is like saying red-neck speak is "white".
The point is that people should not cop an image from a culture which promotes violence, white or black. This is not a colour issue, its a culture issue. You do not have to be a certain colour to try and cop a certain culture.
I get an extra default point of Karma for generally being a high quality poster.
.. but yes, I should have marked that post as just a +1 (we have the option to post as No Score +1 bonus as I have with this post.)
I dont karma whore, I dont intentionally troll (not to say that I havn't rightly been modded a troll for some of my posts)
Too bad you're AC, you might not come back to learn this.