If you work for any company involved in the distribution - for profit - of materials that can be in digital form, you should be concerned. Concerned to the point of getting a different job.
I wish I had a longer comment, but all I can really come up with is "So what?" and "Tough shit." People get laid off all the time.
Hey, if they can say that having more than an ounce of pot is "intent to distribute", then it stands to reason that having more than 10 songs is also, even if they're not shared.
But from what I've seen so far, the criticism mostly stems from concerns about price and having to switch cellphone carriers. I don't think that's really going to be the stumbling point.
My biggest complaint is that it maxes out at an unexpandable 8GB. Am I the only one?
I'm thinking that if I saw someone who switched jobs for a 40% salary increase, they're not salary chasing, they were being underpaid. You can only probably do this a couple times anyway until you get to what you're actually worth.
Well, it sucks. The front page has three images, which may not be bad in content, but they're so overcompressed, it looks absolutely horrible. The placement of the links in the center of the images is sort of weird. The contact information on the bottom of the page is presented as an image, and looks worse than if it were just browser-rendered text. It basically looks very amateurish.
Being a little-known candidate it also isn't organized in a clear way in which a person unfamiliar with Ron Paul would be able to get a good idea of what he stands for. The only information about Ron Paul is presented as a disorganized list of comments from random people. There is no information presented in an organized fashion.
They are not run by a dictator. A dictator tends to stifle progress because his idea is law and that's what's going to happen.
I think you're taking the term too literally. "Benevolent dictatorship" seems to have become a term to describe a type of project management, it doesn't have anything to do with an actual government.
That seems to describe a corporate bureaucracy more than a "benevolent dictatorship". People in bureaucracies always seem to end up primarily concerned with maintaining their fiefdoms, and "moving up the ladder." Benevolent dictators are basically "leaders" who define general goals and design philosophies, and end up having the final say whether an idea is feasible - and they obtain these dictatorships solely by having consistently been correct about whether the ideas were valuable.
The problem with the MSNBC article is it completely misrepresents the journal article.
That being said, I really appreciate the story, since I started looking through the Journal of Consumer Research. It's a really interesting journal, it's basically about all the tricks marketers use to get you to buy shit.
Founded in 1974, the Journal of Consumer Research publishes scholarly research that describes and explains consumer behavior. Empirical, theoretical, and methodological articles spanning fields such as psychology, marketing, sociology, economics, and anthropology are featured in this interdisciplinary quarterly. The primary thrust of JCR is academic, rather than managerial, with topics ranging from micro-level processes (e.g., brand choice) to more macro-level issues (e.g., the development of materialistic values).
It's only $25/year for students. It's $140/year for everyone else, though. Then again, understanding how you're being manipulated into buying products can probably save you a lot more than that...
I RTFAed (Not the msnbc article, the journal article).
1. The actual study was a marketing study, in which the ability of a group of people to come up with a list of brand names was compared with the ability of individuals. 2. The groups were of 3.
Well, what if (assuming it's also illegal in Australia), the guy distills whiskey in his home. The constitutional basis for all the drug laws in the US is interstate commerce - their argument is that even if you make your own drugs, you're affecting interstate commerce by altering the demand for drugs produced out of state (I'll admit, I think that's a pretty weak argument, but the supreme court bought it). So, likewise, manufacturing your own liquor affects the US, because maybe the guy would have bought US-made liquor instead of making it himself. Would he be extradited?
Even a more direct case - if an Australian tourist gets mugged by an American, the mugger isn't extradited to Australia. The victim may have been Australian, but the crime was committed in the US by a US citizen.
Furthermore, the software companies are probably multinational corporations - and probably have some sort of presence in Australia. That means that this was a crime committed by an Australian, in Australia, with an Australian victim.
The DoD network primarily consisted of university undergraduates, but was supported by software company employees, who would leak copies of software and other digital media. DoD also received such files indirectly, from other networks.
That line kind of caught me off guard, considering how I always hear them whining about how piracy is stealing the bread out of the mouths of their starving children...
Theft of copyright is not possible, the premise is theft of 'presumed' revenues.
Well, obviously if you pirated it, you needed it, and you would have bought it if you couldn't have pirated it.
For instance, I use a program at work that costs $30,000 a copy. I made $20K last year. Obviously, if I couldn't have pirated it, I would have eaten garbage, lived in an alley, and sold all my plasma to buy it.
Not only that, judges generally tell juries that it is not an option. In fact, letting a judge know that you're aware of the concept is a good way to get out of jury duty.
If everyone who got warez from DoD gave $1 for every $1000 "worth" of warez they downloaded, he could probably afford every lawyer that anyone's ever heard of.
what would you do if your father or mother earned a living writing books, and everyone stole the material, gave it away, or re-sold on the street corner for $1.00 or $2.00.
I'd tell them to look for another line of work. Just because people don't pay to watch me jack off doesn't mean I have a right to earn a living off it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you work for any company involved in the distribution - for profit - of materials that can be in digital form, you should be concerned. Concerned to the point of getting a different job.
I wish I had a longer comment, but all I can really come up with is "So what?" and "Tough shit." People get laid off all the time.
Hey, if they can say that having more than an ounce of pot is "intent to distribute", then it stands to reason that having more than 10 songs is also, even if they're not shared.
Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2281 by Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) on July 29, 1997
The congress was also majority Republican (in both houses).
Not that the Democrats did or would have done anything to stop it.
If they ever figure out what's killing all the bees, someone PLEASE do it to all the goddamn yellowjackets!
Almost as retarded as BMW selling a $40,000 car when I can get a Hyundai for $10,000.
But from what I've seen so far, the criticism mostly stems from concerns about price and having to switch cellphone carriers. I don't think that's really going to be the stumbling point.
My biggest complaint is that it maxes out at an unexpandable 8GB. Am I the only one?
I don't want to worry about buying the wrong kind of flash memory.
Well, that certainly won't be a problem with the iPhone, which can't even take it.
I'm thinking that if I saw someone who switched jobs for a 40% salary increase, they're not salary chasing, they were being underpaid. You can only probably do this a couple times anyway until you get to what you're actually worth.
My TV doesn't run on Windows.
OK, I'll review Ron Paul's site then..
Well, it sucks. The front page has three images, which may not be bad in content, but they're so overcompressed, it looks absolutely horrible. The placement of the links in the center of the images is sort of weird. The contact information on the bottom of the page is presented as an image, and looks worse than if it were just browser-rendered text. It basically looks very amateurish.
Being a little-known candidate it also isn't organized in a clear way in which a person unfamiliar with Ron Paul would be able to get a good idea of what he stands for. The only information about Ron Paul is presented as a disorganized list of comments from random people.
There is no information presented in an organized fashion.
They are not run by a dictator. A dictator tends to stifle progress because his idea is law and that's what's going to happen.
I think you're taking the term too literally. "Benevolent dictatorship" seems to have become a term to describe a type of project management, it doesn't have anything to do with an actual government.
That seems to describe a corporate bureaucracy more than a "benevolent dictatorship". People in bureaucracies always seem to end up primarily concerned with maintaining their fiefdoms, and "moving up the ladder." Benevolent dictators are basically "leaders" who define general goals and design philosophies, and end up having the final say whether an idea is feasible - and they obtain these dictatorships solely by having consistently been correct about whether the ideas were valuable.
The problem with the MSNBC article is it completely misrepresents the journal article.
That being said, I really appreciate the story, since I started looking through the Journal of Consumer Research. It's a really interesting journal, it's basically about all the tricks marketers use to get you to buy shit.
Founded in 1974, the Journal of Consumer Research publishes scholarly research that describes and explains consumer behavior. Empirical, theoretical, and methodological articles spanning fields such as psychology, marketing, sociology, economics, and anthropology are featured in this interdisciplinary quarterly. The primary thrust of JCR is academic, rather than managerial, with topics ranging from micro-level processes (e.g., brand choice) to more macro-level issues (e.g., the development of materialistic values).
It's only $25/year for students. It's $140/year for everyone else, though. Then again, understanding how you're being manipulated into buying products can probably save you a lot more than that...
I RTFAed (Not the msnbc article, the journal article).
1. The actual study was a marketing study, in which the ability of a group of people to come up with a list of brand names was compared with the ability of individuals.
2. The groups were of 3.
According to the journal article,
Collaborative groups consisted of triads, which are an appropriate size for small groups (Weldon and Bellinger 1997).
Well, what if (assuming it's also illegal in Australia), the guy distills whiskey in his home. The constitutional basis for all the drug laws in the US is interstate commerce - their argument is that even if you make your own drugs, you're affecting interstate commerce by altering the demand for drugs produced out of state (I'll admit, I think that's a pretty weak argument, but the supreme court bought it). So, likewise, manufacturing your own liquor affects the US, because maybe the guy would have bought US-made liquor instead of making it himself. Would he be extradited?
Even a more direct case - if an Australian tourist gets mugged by an American, the mugger isn't extradited to Australia. The victim may have been Australian, but the crime was committed in the US by a US citizen.
Furthermore, the software companies are probably multinational corporations - and probably have some sort of presence in Australia. That means that this was a crime committed by an Australian, in Australia, with an Australian victim.
The DoD network primarily consisted of university undergraduates, but was supported by software company employees, who would leak copies of software and other digital media. DoD also received such files indirectly, from other networks.
That line kind of caught me off guard, considering how I always hear them whining about how piracy is stealing the bread out of the mouths of their starving children...
Theft of copyright is not possible, the premise is theft of 'presumed' revenues.
Well, obviously if you pirated it, you needed it, and you would have bought it if you couldn't have pirated it.
For instance, I use a program at work that costs $30,000 a copy. I made $20K last year. Obviously, if I couldn't have pirated it, I would have eaten garbage, lived in an alley, and sold all my plasma to buy it.
Not only that, judges generally tell juries that it is not an option. In fact, letting a judge know that you're aware of the concept is a good way to get out of jury duty.
If everyone who got warez from DoD gave $1 for every $1000 "worth" of warez they downloaded, he could probably afford every lawyer that anyone's ever heard of.
Yeah, it's not the same thing. It's like if you lived in Australia, bought a Cuban cigar, and got extradited to the US to face trial.
what would you do if your father or mother earned a living writing books, and everyone stole the material, gave it away, or re-sold on the street corner for $1.00 or $2.00.
I'd tell them to look for another line of work. Just because people don't pay to watch me jack off doesn't mean I have a right to earn a living off it.
A better comparison would be imprisoning people who watched the Super Bowl, saw the ad for Ford, and didn't buy a car.
The article doesn't really say anything other than it's a pattern. It just looks like random dots. Maybe like the yellow circles on money?
I think he was referring to open ink cartridges. You could just pour ink in a hole in the top of the printer or something.
As good as HP ink might be, it's not $2000/gallon good.
The picture in the article looks like the ink is barely readable, except for printing large logos. Or am I missing something?