I'm sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but really, why is the moon such a temptation? While I realize that there have been several innovations related to space exploration, some of which can be tied to lunar landings, I just can't justify the exorbitant amounts of money needed to go to the moon. Now we're talking about setting up a permanent colony on the moon? I mean, it's great that people are responding to competition and all, but why do we need to play along with this colossal money pit? I realize that somebody will label me as some troll against humanity due to my lack of jumping aboard the moon wagon, but I just don't see the relevance of another lunar landing or, God help us, a Mars landing (manned). Please, enlighten me if there were significant technologies that were directly related to the lunar landings; technologies that completely compensated the enormous costs involved.
I can't believe you actually think that! Not to sound condescending or anything, but do you actually think that you won't be further pursued if you're initially unable to pay? Have you considered how they can garnish your future wages for the rest of your life if need be? Hell, you might as well try to sell their songs to other people and go for criminal charges as well. Then you might at least live with financial stability with Buba your friendly, ehh, roommate.
The music wouldn't necessarily need to be downloaded from just her. If she distributed it, for say, an average of 2-3 downloads a song and that was the end of the distribution, then yeah, $750 per song is horrendous. However, what stops the person that received a song from redistributing it? If you consider a massive network of millions of users, odds are that the song was copied much more than 2 times. Whether it actually was downloaded 750 or how ever many times is beside the point; it has the potential to be downloaded over and over. It is this potential that the RIAA doesn't like as it also has the potential to sum to massive profit losses on their part. Note that I don't like the RIAA, but they do need to stop threats to their business and it seems that scare tactics have the potential to be cheep and effective. I mean, if going after kids doesn't stop them from suing, what chance would a typical college student have? In the end, its just business as usual; they're trying to fix a problem as cheaply as the can.
Perhaps this person is merely playing Devil's advocate. After all, this would account for the blaring misinformation and the writhing heap of self-contradiction of which this article would otherwise consist.
For example, apparently math isn't that important:
$8 per (extra hour) meal * 365 days (who works an entire year) = $2,920 (about $3,000 a year)
Perhaps that was 3 meals a day?
$8 * 3 * 365 = $8,760 (about $9,000 a year)
Also, a fair amount of this article seems to be aimed at IT professionals. However, unlike desktop users, a considerable amount of work is done with UNIX based systems; even some of those crazy Free Operating Systems are used. It sure is a good thing that those choosing to work with some certain quality software outside of the free domain are getting what they paid for. After all, it's not like there was a security frenzy for both desktop users and ITs last summer or anything.
You see? Obviously this is just a joke or a simple story taken out of context. I'm sure you can find several other examples that would support this claim. (documentation, usability, standardization, etc)
Has anyone else noticed that every other year sports the release of yet another product that will topple traditional PCs? Note that I'm not trying to return to the era of mainframe beats all; I just think that a small cube version of a PC isn't going to signal the end of the tower case.
Basically, until something tiny with more than 2 card slots and room for upgrades is released, why not just go for a notebook computer? I just don't see these things becoming more than another blip in the relatively short history of computers.
Has anybody else noticed that all of this information about Windows security is starting to resemble the last efforts of Gray Davis?
During the campaign, Davis spent much of his time pointing out the flaws of Arnold Schwarzenegger while trying to appear more suitable to remain in office. However, there was, arguably, much more evidence that showed Davis' inability to function correctly and without corruption. In the end, Davis was just defending his status while condemning his opponent. Obviously, this is expected in any similar debate between conflicting parties. However, the (apparent) blaring inadequacy of Davis was enough to nullify most of his defense.
Similarly, Microsoft has been putting forth a supreme effort to make Windows appear more secure than Linux despite a plethora of data to the contrary. (As long as the study wasn't put forth by Microsoft or someone affiliated with Microsoft.)
While I'm not trying to convince anyone that the quality of Windows and Davis or Linux and Schwarzenegger is the same (I don't have anything to say about which candidate was better suited to serve as Governor), the arguments seem very similar, specifically on the Windows and Davis side. Also, it should be noted that Windows is nowhere near the crisis that Davis faced.
Just figured someone my have something else to say about this.
I'm not so sure that I agree with your assumptions. While it is true that we tend to communicate at rates faster than we physically travel, that's just the way that we know the world to be. This observation might be some universal constant, or it might just be the way we're used to our world. Or, even better, it might be essentially none of the above. My point is that the way we observe things might not actually have any relevance outside of our world. I would, however, agree that it is somewhat ludicrous to expect that any or all life outside of our planet did, does, or will communicate through radio signals.
Don't forget that many technologies and ideas that were initially developed for war have found applications in furthering everyday life. For example, some concepts behind calculus and classical physics were developed with the intention to kill the enemy. Also, don't forget about that whole nuclear thing... Assuming, of course, that you view nuclear energy as something other than the end of the world.
What makes you think that a fully-fledged AI would be able to be saved to some external medium and then simply rebooted? Perhaps certain aspects of an AI could be replaced without deeply affecting it, though rebooting it entirely might be a bit more profound. Though you might not damage anything on a lower level, you might completely destroy things on a higher, symbolic level. After all, waking from a coma is similar to a reboot.
Anyway, just blathering on... mostly about GEB (or my interpretation at least)
It seems to be very common for/. users to consider most Windows users as some sort of inferior species.
I have never been able to find a Windows user that didn't know that they were using Windows. While it is sometimes true that they might not know that Windows is an OS, they do know that they're using Windows for something. However, I don't think that this ignorance is a reason for constant criticizing. After all, many people don't need to know what an OS is and therefore don't care.
I'm not embracing or condemning abortion in this comment; I simply want to get one thing straight. People are nothing but a lump of cells. How do you "murder" a person?
Note that I'm not using this as an argument for or against abortion; this is just what I was able to derive from your comment.
Everything currently involved in copying music (through a P2P network or just by ripping a CD) still involves a physical medium. Therefore, the copyrights still affect you in the exact same manner as before (though nothing has really changed).
I realize that the murderer was somewhat of a horrific metaphor, but I was merely trying to illustrate my thoughts on the absurdity (my opinion of course) of considering piracy to be moral (or at least not immoral). However, I'd like to thank you for pointing it out in a manner other than a simple you suc, as this seems to be commonplace.
While it is true that copyrights are temporary, that's not really the issue at hand. The problem is that a vast amount of copyrighted material was and is pirated within the time restrictions. Thus, those who own the copyrights can react however they see fit. However, I'd like to say that I agree that the steps taken to punish those involved with piracy are far too severe. Regardless of the punishment, I simply believe that sharing music against the explicit wishes of those responsible for making it available, though perhaps not stealing, is immoral.
Anyway, thank you again for your courteous and informative rebuttal.
"We don't have the "factory logo" stamped on the designer clothes."
I don't think that a record label is referring to a factory in which a CD was made, but rather the fact that it is distributing that particular album. I understand what you're saying, but I wouldn't try to use an analogy involving clothes. I buy Nike, Reebok, whatever clothes all the time. All of these clothes are labeled; in fact most of them involve the company as the main label.
Just a minor problem I had with your otherwise interesting post.
I'm also confused as to whether you're being serious or just sarcastic. If you are serious, then you must be incredibly ignorant of current events or you just don't believe that the RIAA actually exists.
No matter how evil they are, companies generally don't enjoy spending money on lots of lawyers to go sue people unless they are losing out due to the impact of something.
I'm not going to refute your claim of corrupt practices in the business world because these things happen every day, news breaking or not. However, if you're trying to establish this as a reason to support your own wrongdoing, then I wouldn't be talking of logic. My point is basically this: if big business jumped of a cliff, would you jump too?
Without spending much time on the piracy of intellectual property (yes I consider music to be IP), as it is one very abstract and loosely defined concept, I'll try to present my own opinion of why it's immoral. The fact is this; you can argue that piracy of anything intellectual isn't wrong at all. In fact, you can make a rather convincing argument that copying isn't even close to stealing. You can also make the argument that murder isn't at all wrong and the idea was only perpetuated by those in power seeking more control. Basically, I believe that some moral issues just have to be established in order to be compatible with the society in which we live.
Note that I'm not claiming to be a saint... I've downloaded my (more than) fair share of stuff, but I don't think that you can make a valid argument supporting piracy while fitting it within the constraints of modern society.
Just as with Mplayer, you don't really have to have all of those different players. Granted, it is nice to have Quicktime installed and possibly Real Player; though any other coded (including Divx) can be played rather easily in Windows Media Player. In other words, the two players can play most files. However, I'll always have a strange desire to watch DVDs through a nice virtual console.
As for a network comparison, I'd also prefer Linux. However, I'd also realize that perhaps something like BSD would handle things a bit better.
I'd also argue that any OS is what you make of it. Using Linux/Windows/whatever is simply a preference and most comments about which is better is strictly based on an opinion.
What amazes me is that, although this discussion has sparked a lot of comments on assumptions and theorizing, you seem to blatantly ignore them with this whole Bush sux and that's that attitude. However, before assuming that I'm some crazy republican I would like to say that I'm not trying to side with Bush, I'm just trying to explain the problem that I have with your statement.
I happen to believe that global warming is a reality that has a direct relation to human activity. I believe that findings such as the ones discussed here support the general theory as a whole. However, this is not a proof for global warming; it is basically proof of a short and localized environmental alteration. It appears to me that this evidence, along with other findings, makes the rejection of global warming look stupid. However, that is just my point of view and not some infallible fact. Global warming could simply be our own attempt to aggrandize our own impact on the world; it could simply be a natural process. (I just said that I don't agree with this point of view) Until further evidence, similar to the business week findings, surfaces on a much grander (global) scale, nothing has been proven; one situation is just more plausible than the other. Of course even then it could be some weird anomaly...
Anyway, back to the subject at hand... I don't like your post because you said, "the Bush adminstration was wrong. We are causing global warming. Of course, the Bush administration is also wrong on nearly everything else, but that's not my point." In my mind, at least, this is no different from simply saying Gore sux and that's that; global warming doesn't exist. It appears to me as though you're trying to present your own assumptions as facts.
I'm probably wrong on some points and I would expect that I'm caught in some hypocritical loop of my own. However, I'd also like to point out that this is all just my opinion; take it as seriously as you'd like.
Slashdot Mirror
That point is well taken, but what about Edison and Tesla? Granted these were patent issues, but patents do bear some resemblance with copyrights.
I knew it was only a matter of time before we returned to leeches.
I'm sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but really, why is the moon such a temptation? While I realize that there have been several innovations related to space exploration, some of which can be tied to lunar landings, I just can't justify the exorbitant amounts of money needed to go to the moon. Now we're talking about setting up a permanent colony on the moon? I mean, it's great that people are responding to competition and all, but why do we need to play along with this colossal money pit? I realize that somebody will label me as some troll against humanity due to my lack of jumping aboard the moon wagon, but I just don't see the relevance of another lunar landing or, God help us, a Mars landing (manned). Please, enlighten me if there were significant technologies that were directly related to the lunar landings; technologies that completely compensated the enormous costs involved.
I can't believe you actually think that! Not to sound condescending or anything, but do you actually think that you won't be further pursued if you're initially unable to pay? Have you considered how they can garnish your future wages for the rest of your life if need be? Hell, you might as well try to sell their songs to other people and go for criminal charges as well. Then you might at least live with financial stability with Buba your friendly, ehh, roommate.
The music wouldn't necessarily need to be downloaded from just her. If she distributed it, for say, an average of 2-3 downloads a song and that was the end of the distribution, then yeah, $750 per song is horrendous. However, what stops the person that received a song from redistributing it? If you consider a massive network of millions of users, odds are that the song was copied much more than 2 times. Whether it actually was downloaded 750 or how ever many times is beside the point; it has the potential to be downloaded over and over. It is this potential that the RIAA doesn't like as it also has the potential to sum to massive profit losses on their part. Note that I don't like the RIAA, but they do need to stop threats to their business and it seems that scare tactics have the potential to be cheep and effective. I mean, if going after kids doesn't stop them from suing, what chance would a typical college student have? In the end, its just business as usual; they're trying to fix a problem as cheaply as the can.
Ahh... But I want my computer to function as an industrial pizza oven too.
For example, apparently math isn't that important: $8 per (extra hour) meal * 365 days (who works an entire year) = $2,920 (about $3,000 a year) Perhaps that was 3 meals a day? $8 * 3 * 365 = $8,760 (about $9,000 a year)
Also, a fair amount of this article seems to be aimed at IT professionals. However, unlike desktop users, a considerable amount of work is done with UNIX based systems; even some of those crazy Free Operating Systems are used. It sure is a good thing that those choosing to work with some certain quality software outside of the free domain are getting what they paid for. After all, it's not like there was a security frenzy for both desktop users and ITs last summer or anything.
You see? Obviously this is just a joke or a simple story taken out of context. I'm sure you can find several other examples that would support this claim. (documentation, usability, standardization, etc)
Yeah, or... something.
You've got your agencies mixed up there... I think you were possibly looking for the RIAA. Or has the MPAA expanded recently?
It should be set in a Hypercube!!!
Penguin anyone?
Oh wait, Linux has that one... How about an Ostrich?
Sorry, I got the point of your argument but I just couldn't resist.
Basically, until something tiny with more than 2 card slots and room for upgrades is released, why not just go for a notebook computer? I just don't see these things becoming more than another blip in the relatively short history of computers.
During the campaign, Davis spent much of his time pointing out the flaws of Arnold Schwarzenegger while trying to appear more suitable to remain in office. However, there was, arguably, much more evidence that showed Davis' inability to function correctly and without corruption. In the end, Davis was just defending his status while condemning his opponent. Obviously, this is expected in any similar debate between conflicting parties. However, the (apparent) blaring inadequacy of Davis was enough to nullify most of his defense.
Similarly, Microsoft has been putting forth a supreme effort to make Windows appear more secure than Linux despite a plethora of data to the contrary. (As long as the study wasn't put forth by Microsoft or someone affiliated with Microsoft.)
While I'm not trying to convince anyone that the quality of Windows and Davis or Linux and Schwarzenegger is the same (I don't have anything to say about which candidate was better suited to serve as Governor), the arguments seem very similar, specifically on the Windows and Davis side. Also, it should be noted that Windows is nowhere near the crisis that Davis faced.
Just figured someone my have something else to say about this.
I'm not so sure that I agree with your assumptions. While it is true that we tend to communicate at rates faster than we physically travel, that's just the way that we know the world to be. This observation might be some universal constant, or it might just be the way we're used to our world. Or, even better, it might be essentially none of the above. My point is that the way we observe things might not actually have any relevance outside of our world. I would, however, agree that it is somewhat ludicrous to expect that any or all life outside of our planet did, does, or will communicate through radio signals.
On the contrary, that's the best rate of return. You just managed to manufacture something with 0% return; good job. Failure on the other hand...
Don't forget that many technologies and ideas that were initially developed for war have found applications in furthering everyday life. For example, some concepts behind calculus and classical physics were developed with the intention to kill the enemy. Also, don't forget about that whole nuclear thing... Assuming, of course, that you view nuclear energy as something other than the end of the world.
Anyway, just blathering on... mostly about GEB (or my interpretation at least)
I have never been able to find a Windows user that didn't know that they were using Windows. While it is sometimes true that they might not know that Windows is an OS, they do know that they're using Windows for something. However, I don't think that this ignorance is a reason for constant criticizing. After all, many people don't need to know what an OS is and therefore don't care.
Note that I'm not using this as an argument for or against abortion; this is just what I was able to derive from your comment.
Everything currently involved in copying music (through a P2P network or just by ripping a CD) still involves a physical medium. Therefore, the copyrights still affect you in the exact same manner as before (though nothing has really changed).
While it is true that copyrights are temporary, that's not really the issue at hand. The problem is that a vast amount of copyrighted material was and is pirated within the time restrictions. Thus, those who own the copyrights can react however they see fit. However, I'd like to say that I agree that the steps taken to punish those involved with piracy are far too severe. Regardless of the punishment, I simply believe that sharing music against the explicit wishes of those responsible for making it available, though perhaps not stealing, is immoral.
Anyway, thank you again for your courteous and informative rebuttal.
I don't think that a record label is referring to a factory in which a CD was made, but rather the fact that it is distributing that particular album. I understand what you're saying, but I wouldn't try to use an analogy involving clothes. I buy Nike, Reebok, whatever clothes all the time. All of these clothes are labeled; in fact most of them involve the company as the main label.
Just a minor problem I had with your otherwise interesting post.
No matter how evil they are, companies generally don't enjoy spending money on lots of lawyers to go sue people unless they are losing out due to the impact of something.
I'm not going to refute your claim of corrupt practices in the business world because these things happen every day, news breaking or not. However, if you're trying to establish this as a reason to support your own wrongdoing, then I wouldn't be talking of logic. My point is basically this: if big business jumped of a cliff, would you jump too?
Without spending much time on the piracy of intellectual property (yes I consider music to be IP), as it is one very abstract and loosely defined concept, I'll try to present my own opinion of why it's immoral. The fact is this; you can argue that piracy of anything intellectual isn't wrong at all. In fact, you can make a rather convincing argument that copying isn't even close to stealing. You can also make the argument that murder isn't at all wrong and the idea was only perpetuated by those in power seeking more control. Basically, I believe that some moral issues just have to be established in order to be compatible with the society in which we live.
Note that I'm not claiming to be a saint... I've downloaded my (more than) fair share of stuff, but I don't think that you can make a valid argument supporting piracy while fitting it within the constraints of modern society.
Just my $.02
As for a network comparison, I'd also prefer Linux. However, I'd also realize that perhaps something like BSD would handle things a bit better.
I'd also argue that any OS is what you make of it. Using Linux/Windows/whatever is simply a preference and most comments about which is better is strictly based on an opinion.
Anyway, just blathering away...
Bah, you crazy Linux and Windows users are forgetting about the best OS ever...
GO BEOS!
Oh yeah
I happen to believe that global warming is a reality that has a direct relation to human activity. I believe that findings such as the ones discussed here support the general theory as a whole. However, this is not a proof for global warming; it is basically proof of a short and localized environmental alteration. It appears to me that this evidence, along with other findings, makes the rejection of global warming look stupid. However, that is just my point of view and not some infallible fact. Global warming could simply be our own attempt to aggrandize our own impact on the world; it could simply be a natural process. (I just said that I don't agree with this point of view) Until further evidence, similar to the business week findings, surfaces on a much grander (global) scale, nothing has been proven; one situation is just more plausible than the other. Of course even then it could be some weird anomaly...
Anyway, back to the subject at hand... I don't like your post because you said, "the Bush adminstration was wrong. We are causing global warming. Of course, the Bush administration is also wrong on nearly everything else, but that's not my point." In my mind, at least, this is no different from simply saying Gore sux and that's that; global warming doesn't exist. It appears to me as though you're trying to present your own assumptions as facts.
I'm probably wrong on some points and I would expect that I'm caught in some hypocritical loop of my own. However, I'd also like to point out that this is all just my opinion; take it as seriously as you'd like.