I think i would have to agree with you, and another poster. At 6 pages per minute, that comes to a page every 10 seconds. Any decent book should not be ready that quickly and reasonably. Even books like the Wheel Of Time require more then this...especially since the world is so large in that book series, you have to link one even to 10 other events.:)
in Army ROTC the Sgt (master sgt actually) always taught us gun = pistol, machine gun = automatic weapon, rifle = semi-auto (i.e. m-16, AK, and any other long barrel weapon that is not always fully automatic).
Barring some of the "anomolies" of machine guns/autos...the gun was always the device that is held with one hand is a revolver or clip based (i.e. glocks, desert eagles, etc.)
Why will a.50 cal pistol hurt (i presume you mean hurt you)? I have fired.50 cal long barrel desert eagles and it doesn't hurt at all. The recoil is insane (and hence it makes the weapon harder to shoot) but hey thats what you get for awesome stopping power. The problem with a pistol, not accurate - especially at a creature charging you at around 30mph (i think this is what a brown bear can run at). Plus are you really going to hunt a bear with a pistol...something vastly inaccurate at any distance more then 10-15 feet.
Your computer job analogy is poor. It's not comparing apples to apples by any stretch.
Again, rifles are typically touted for hunting (yes gun makers tout semi-auto only m-16's for hunters...but not pistols)
I am an intelligent pereson (people tell me this all the time..friends, teachers, boss). I read a lot (i read all day). I read complex books (beowulf in old english, socrates translated to english).
My reading, on an average - simple book- (think Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series) is about 1 page every 2-3 minutes. I always hear about people who read 3-6 pages per minute. How does one do this?
Rifles are promoted for hunting, guns are not. As I said in another post, it is rare - extremely rare - to find someone trying to hunt an animal with a gun. The accuracy at a distance is much worse then a rifle...much much worse. In fact it gets dramatically worse every 10-15 feet. Guns are also less powerful then rifles. Do you really want to try and take down a brown bear at 10 feet (assuming you could get that close without him running) with a 9 MM.
Those guns promoted to police/military are sold to anyone - no military/police ID required. The auto-rifles, and non-civilian weapons are sold directly to the military/police departments who sign the weapons out to the individual personnel. So a police officer cannot buy an automatic shotgun - instead, his department will issue him one (assuming he is authorized to have it. Not every police officer is allowed to have an auto-shotty).
You are right in one thing though - guns are not promoted to murder people. But again, how many people need guns to get meat on their table? Not many.
Hunters typically do not carry Glocks with dum-dum bullets, or armor piercing bullets. Also, hand guns generally do not have the stopping power to kill a bear without unloading multiple clips. Hunters typically utilize rifles which allow them to hit a creature at a far distance (which they generally need since the creatures hearing/smell is typically keen enough to pick up human scent). While the gun makers could tout "sport shooting" again - why do they need armor piercing bullets or dum-dums?
If I was building a house (one day when I am older, and after I get married - but before i have kids) I would build a library. This would be a good way to stock your library with many titles. And it probably comes with some kind of digital list so you can sort it in your favorite database management program. Imagine that for a nice library. Honestly, I would get this if I was building a place.
Special Shipping Information: This item is not eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping. See details.
Well, no free shipping, forget them. I am not buying. I wish I would have known about this before I cleared out my condo...i hope I can get my couch back
I totally agree with you, but my two cents (Matter replicater creates my first tin-foil hat).
Small Steps
First make p2p's, that specifically advertise their copyright infringement policies, illegal.
Second take it one step further to p2p's that do not filter copyright infringement content are shut down
Third step force reporting on people who circumvent the filtering software
Forth step force reporting of all p2p users
Fifth step ban all p2p programs
Maybe not in this order, maybe not even complete, but small steps. The ruling the supreme court's made is totally fine with me - well because I agree copyright infringement is wrong. I just get worried about the next steps.
So the gun companies are responsible for all the deaths that have happend? Because I am pretty sure there are not many ways to promote a gun other then to kill people.
If you support such sites (via payments) regularly that is great. For paying to access a site (assuming you are making a reasonable donations) they probably offer ad-free login. You are playing by their rules. If they are not offering ad-free login even after you pay, that is their rules.
In the end, what I am really trying to get at is - If you go to a site voluntarily then you should respect their desires. If I go to your home - wouldn't you want me to respect your rules?
As for getting information from their site and reprinting it somewhere. Just make sure they are OK with this. They may have restrictions about reusing their information w/o explicity getting permission from them. Even if you cite them as a source, this may not be good enough. Just to note, I do not know the restrictions for these sites, but just keep that in mind. Citing a source does not give you the right to copy and reprint their data (educational purposes i believe are exempt from this though).
And it's optional. You do not have to do it. Also, you get "paid" to do it. The currency is in the form of credits.
My highspeed connection costs me the same if i use it or do not use it. It would not be hard for me to set my firewall to allow this program (unless the program already does it), access to the internet when i am at work or when i sleep - but not be on when i am at home.
It's not just a matter of reading the article - its a matter of understanding it.
I think he was referring more to the part where you allow your bandwidth to be used to further redistribute their material. More akin to the mall store owner telling you that even though you bought their goods, you need to drop a box off at their distribution center, and give the employees a ride home.
That said, they are compensating you in the form of free merchandise (earned by credits), so it's a novel ideal, and might be workable.
I appologize for not speaking clearly at all. I meant that, however, from my understanding you have the Option of sharing. So it would be more akin to the store owner asking you help sell his product in return for store credit. If you don't want to do it - then don't, if you do, you get a prize.
Except they are not charging you for your bandwidth - that is a charge from your ISP and you cannot reasonably hold a website accountable for your bandwidth if you go and visit them voluntarily.
It's like driving to the mall, and telling the store owner they need to pay you 35 cents per mile. Ridiculous huh? No offense, but so is your statement about the bandwidth cost.
You forget that all slashdot readers have already paid por their bandwith
Actually, you paid for YOUR bandwidth - which allows you to access websites. Now when you visit someones website you did not pay THEIR bandwidth costs. It's like saying "I paid for my car which got me to your store, so now i get to take products from your store...remember i paid for my car to get here"
I never said it was unethical to get something for free. If the people want it to be truely free then so be it...if they want the cost to be you have to pay money so be it...if they want the cost to be you have to view advertisements so be it. if you do not like any of their terms, leave the website and never return. But that is not what happens - people go back to the site, constantly blocking it. They have the ads in hope that you will view it, and sometimes click-through it. You know this, I know this. So to circumvent them is immoral and they are a victim.
You are essentially saying you should not pay these guys be cause they are trying to make some kind of profit (use loosely). With that argument, I am going to the car dealership and take that ferrari without paying for it. I mean, come on, they are trying to maximize their gain here - so why should i pay for it.
When a store has a loss-leader and you buy the product at a discoutn you are not taking advantage - you are paying their requested price. Taking advantage is going to someone and saying "hey i know you are desperate for $5 so you can feed your baby tonight...so i am going to give you $5 and in return you will give me your car"
Stores typically use loss-leaders to bring people into the store. Staples had a $8 for 100 pack spindle of 16x DVD +R's. Why? Because these don't sell? no...because staples is going out of business? no... because it brings people in and hopefully some of them will buy something else. The $8 covered their cost.
They probably make a profit from these ads, and the more obtrusive the ads the more the profit (i.e. "we will put a static banner for $10, and put a Flash banner for $20")
While you may conveniently say it is "mindless amounts of 'data'" - someone apparantly finds it very valuable because someone is constantly going back to the site to get the information it provides.
Let me state - in case you do not realize this. If you think a website is worthless - you do not visit it (duh) so you don't have to deal with their advertising (double-duh)....if you go to the website to view its content you apparantly think it is worth something . even if that something is a good laugh...but when you block it you are denying them revenue.
When you go to someones site, you should respect their wishes. I can understnad if you were hi-jacked there - but otherwise..it was your choice. And we can all reasonably expect that sites want some kind of revenue.
This statement is really oversimpistic, and childish. There is nothing wrong with the HTTP medium. Why is it the fault of the web site makers - why can't you share in some of the blame?
If they want to force people to view their ads, then they should use a medium where the audience is forced to view the ads, like a physical magazine
Why is it ok for someone to force you to see their ad in a hard medium, but not in a soft medium? I do not see your relevance other then you inadvertantly bashing the value. of soft medium content.
Most people here are saying all ads. They are saying that if the site is worth something it should be a pay site (with micropayments). Someone said he only tolerates static ads - 1) how is his pop-up blocker going to know the difference between a static gif and a motion gif? 2) who is he to determine the ad method of a site that does not belong to him but he is utilizing. That is my point.
My answer - do not frequent abusive sites. Do not buy from abusive sites...it seems much more fair that way. The net is big enough, that if I need some piece of information - there are tons of options.
Really I am not missing the point. Using our current model, or any model - the people who own the site's want to charge. They may not want to charge the end user by demanding cash, but they will charge by demanding you view their advertisements and in return you get unfettered access. That is a fair trade. Why would you prefer a site that you have to pay for....imagine if 80% of the websites on the net were pay only. I prefer the ad method - i just hate those obtrusive, annoying, violent ads (one pop-up i can deal with...non-ending pops are a different story)
If you can make your ad memorable (even if people hate it) then you did your job well. When people are at the store they won't think "Oh look XYZ product, man their commercial sucked." They will think "Oh look XYZ product, I've been hearing alot about it...must be good." Also, people will do things like "DId you see that horrible XYZ commercial." -- they just spread the word. People have fickle memories (sadly). Bad advertising is just as good as good advertising as long as its memorable.
Why is it their responsibility? You are going to their site. You want their product/service. You just don't want to pay for it. If you do not like their advertisements how about you compel yourself to not go to their site?
Great we understand that everyone loves google and their ads...it works for google and probably a few others (though i do not know of any)....but that is their choice.
There may not be a binding reason (though there could be in their terms of service agreement) - but you know, I know, and everyone here on/. knows whwy the ads are there. To generate revenue. So by circumventing it you are essentially sending a message to the makers of the site "I don't really give a shit about you or your desires. Thanks for the free stuff SUCKERS". A moral obligation is definitly in place - give something back to the people who provided you with a free service.
then we should question the value of sites like that.
LOL thats funny. Thats like saying we should question the value of a TV set because some guy decided to steal it instead of paying the cost of the TV.
People will, invariably, try and get things for as cheap as possible....free if they can. Hell people would prefer that when they take the product (be it soft or hard) they get paid for doing the producers of the product a "favor"
Slashdot Mirror
I think i would have to agree with you, and another poster. At 6 pages per minute, that comes to a page every 10 seconds. Any decent book should not be ready that quickly and reasonably. Even books like the Wheel Of Time require more then this...especially since the world is so large in that book series, you have to link one even to 10 other events. :)
;)
Thanks -- at least now I don't feel so slow
in Army ROTC the Sgt (master sgt actually) always taught us gun = pistol, machine gun = automatic weapon, rifle = semi-auto (i.e. m-16, AK, and any other long barrel weapon that is not always fully automatic).
.50 cal pistol hurt (i presume you mean hurt you)? I have fired .50 cal long barrel desert eagles and it doesn't hurt at all. The recoil is insane (and hence it makes the weapon harder to shoot) but hey thats what you get for awesome stopping power. The problem with a pistol, not accurate - especially at a creature charging you at around 30mph (i think this is what a brown bear can run at). Plus are you really going to hunt a bear with a pistol...something vastly inaccurate at any distance more then 10-15 feet.
Barring some of the "anomolies" of machine guns/autos...the gun was always the device that is held with one hand is a revolver or clip based (i.e. glocks, desert eagles, etc.)
Why will a
Your computer job analogy is poor. It's not comparing apples to apples by any stretch.
Again, rifles are typically touted for hunting (yes gun makers tout semi-auto only m-16's for hunters...but not pistols)
3-6 pages a minute
I am an intelligent pereson (people tell me this all the time..friends, teachers, boss). I read a lot (i read all day). I read complex books (beowulf in old english, socrates translated to english).
My reading, on an average - simple book- (think Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series) is about 1 page every 2-3 minutes. I always hear about people who read 3-6 pages per minute. How does one do this?
Guns are promoted to kill animals
Rifles are promoted for hunting, guns are not. As I said in another post, it is rare - extremely rare - to find someone trying to hunt an animal with a gun. The accuracy at a distance is much worse then a rifle...much much worse. In fact it gets dramatically worse every 10-15 feet. Guns are also less powerful then rifles. Do you really want to try and take down a brown bear at 10 feet (assuming you could get that close without him running) with a 9 MM.
Those guns promoted to police/military are sold to anyone - no military/police ID required. The auto-rifles, and non-civilian weapons are sold directly to the military/police departments who sign the weapons out to the individual personnel. So a police officer cannot buy an automatic shotgun - instead, his department will issue him one (assuming he is authorized to have it. Not every police officer is allowed to have an auto-shotty).
You are right in one thing though - guns are not promoted to murder people. But again, how many people need guns to get meat on their table? Not many.
Hunters typically do not carry Glocks with dum-dum bullets, or armor piercing bullets. Also, hand guns generally do not have the stopping power to kill a bear without unloading multiple clips. Hunters typically utilize rifles which allow them to hit a creature at a far distance (which they generally need since the creatures hearing/smell is typically keen enough to pick up human scent). While the gun makers could tout "sport shooting" again - why do they need armor piercing bullets or dum-dums?
If I was building a house (one day when I am older, and after I get married - but before i have kids) I would build a library. This would be a good way to stock your library with many titles. And it probably comes with some kind of digital list so you can sort it in your favorite database management program. Imagine that for a nice library. Honestly, I would get this if I was building a place.
Good job for Amazon marketing.
Special Shipping Information: This item is not eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping. See details.
Well, no free shipping, forget them. I am not buying. I wish I would have known about this before I cleared out my condo...i hope I can get my couch back
I totally agree with you, but my two cents (Matter replicater creates my first tin-foil hat).
Small Steps
First make p2p's, that specifically advertise their copyright infringement policies, illegal.
Second take it one step further to p2p's that do not filter copyright infringement content are shut down
Third step force reporting on people who circumvent the filtering software
Forth step force reporting of all p2p users
Fifth step ban all p2p programs
Maybe not in this order, maybe not even complete, but small steps. The ruling the supreme court's made is totally fine with me - well because I agree copyright infringement is wrong. I just get worried about the next steps.
So a toast to my first tinfoil hat.
So the gun companies are responsible for all the deaths that have happend? Because I am pretty sure there are not many ways to promote a gun other then to kill people.
If you support such sites (via payments) regularly that is great. For paying to access a site (assuming you are making a reasonable donations) they probably offer ad-free login. You are playing by their rules. If they are not offering ad-free login even after you pay, that is their rules.
In the end, what I am really trying to get at is - If you go to a site voluntarily then you should respect their desires. If I go to your home - wouldn't you want me to respect your rules?
As for getting information from their site and reprinting it somewhere. Just make sure they are OK with this. They may have restrictions about reusing their information w/o explicity getting permission from them. Even if you cite them as a source, this may not be good enough. Just to note, I do not know the restrictions for these sites, but just keep that in mind. Citing a source does not give you the right to copy and reprint their data (educational purposes i believe are exempt from this though).
And it's optional. You do not have to do it. Also, you get "paid" to do it. The currency is in the form of credits.
My highspeed connection costs me the same if i use it or do not use it. It would not be hard for me to set my firewall to allow this program (unless the program already does it), access to the internet when i am at work or when i sleep - but not be on when i am at home.
It's not just a matter of reading the article - its a matter of understanding it.
And again, voluntary
I think he was referring more to the part where you allow your bandwidth to be used to further redistribute their material. More akin to the mall store owner telling you that even though you bought their goods, you need to drop a box off at their distribution center, and give the employees a ride home. That said, they are compensating you in the form of free merchandise (earned by credits), so it's a novel ideal, and might be workable.
I appologize for not speaking clearly at all. I meant that, however, from my understanding you have the Option of sharing. So it would be more akin to the store owner asking you help sell his product in return for store credit. If you don't want to do it - then don't, if you do, you get a prize.
Except they are not charging you for your bandwidth - that is a charge from your ISP and you cannot reasonably hold a website accountable for your bandwidth if you go and visit them voluntarily.
It's like driving to the mall, and telling the store owner they need to pay you 35 cents per mile. Ridiculous huh? No offense, but so is your statement about the bandwidth cost.
You forget that all slashdot readers have already paid por their bandwith
Actually, you paid for YOUR bandwidth - which allows you to access websites. Now when you visit someones website you did not pay THEIR bandwidth costs. It's like saying "I paid for my car which got me to your store, so now i get to take products from your store...remember i paid for my car to get here"
I never said it was unethical to get something for free. If the people want it to be truely free then so be it...if they want the cost to be you have to pay money so be it...if they want the cost to be you have to view advertisements so be it. if you do not like any of their terms, leave the website and never return. But that is not what happens - people go back to the site, constantly blocking it. They have the ads in hope that you will view it, and sometimes click-through it. You know this, I know this. So to circumvent them is immoral and they are a victim.
You are essentially saying you should not pay these guys be cause they are trying to make some kind of profit (use loosely). With that argument, I am going to the car dealership and take that ferrari without paying for it. I mean, come on, they are trying to maximize their gain here - so why should i pay for it.
When a store has a loss-leader and you buy the product at a discoutn you are not taking advantage - you are paying their requested price. Taking advantage is going to someone and saying "hey i know you are desperate for $5 so you can feed your baby tonight...so i am going to give you $5 and in return you will give me your car"
Stores typically use loss-leaders to bring people into the store. Staples had a $8 for 100 pack spindle of 16x DVD +R's. Why? Because these don't sell? no...because staples is going out of business? no... because it brings people in and hopefully some of them will buy something else. The $8 covered their cost.
They probably make a profit from these ads, and the more obtrusive the ads the more the profit (i.e. "we will put a static banner for $10, and put a Flash banner for $20")
While you may conveniently say it is "mindless amounts of 'data'" - someone apparantly finds it very valuable because someone is constantly going back to the site to get the information it provides.
Let me state - in case you do not realize this. If you think a website is worthless - you do not visit it (duh) so you don't have to deal with their advertising (double-duh)....if you go to the website to view its content you apparantly think it is worth something . even if that something is a good laugh...but when you block it you are denying them revenue.
When you go to someones site, you should respect their wishes. I can understnad if you were hi-jacked there - but otherwise..it was your choice. And we can all reasonably expect that sites want some kind of revenue.
they have but themselves to blame.
This statement is really oversimpistic, and childish. There is nothing wrong with the HTTP medium. Why is it the fault of the web site makers - why can't you share in some of the blame?
If they want to force people to view their ads, then they should use a medium where the audience is forced to view the ads, like a physical magazine
Why is it ok for someone to force you to see their ad in a hard medium, but not in a soft medium? I do not see your relevance other then you inadvertantly bashing the value. of soft medium content.
Most people here are saying all ads. They are saying that if the site is worth something it should be a pay site (with micropayments). Someone said he only tolerates static ads - 1) how is his pop-up blocker going to know the difference between a static gif and a motion gif? 2) who is he to determine the ad method of a site that does not belong to him but he is utilizing. That is my point.
My answer - do not frequent abusive sites. Do not buy from abusive sites...it seems much more fair that way. The net is big enough, that if I need some piece of information - there are tons of options.
Really I am not missing the point. Using our current model, or any model - the people who own the site's want to charge. They may not want to charge the end user by demanding cash, but they will charge by demanding you view their advertisements and in return you get unfettered access. That is a fair trade. Why would you prefer a site that you have to pay for....imagine if 80% of the websites on the net were pay only. I prefer the ad method - i just hate those obtrusive, annoying, violent ads (one pop-up i can deal with...non-ending pops are a different story)
If you can make your ad memorable (even if people hate it) then you did your job well. When people are at the store they won't think "Oh look XYZ product, man their commercial sucked." They will think "Oh look XYZ product, I've been hearing alot about it...must be good." Also, people will do things like "DId you see that horrible XYZ commercial." -- they just spread the word. People have fickle memories (sadly). Bad advertising is just as good as good advertising as long as its memorable.
Why is it their responsibility? You are going to their site. You want their product/service. You just don't want to pay for it. If you do not like their advertisements how about you compel yourself to not go to their site?
Great we understand that everyone loves google and their ads...it works for google and probably a few others (though i do not know of any)....but that is their choice.
I love the /. system. I had five trolls and one or two overrated...and the reason for this - because I do not have popular opinion.
/. moderaters at their best.
Someone needs to point out how my statements are a troll?
There may not be a binding reason (though there could be in their terms of service agreement) - but you know, I know, and everyone here on /. knows whwy the ads are there. To generate revenue. So by circumventing it you are essentially sending a message to the makers of the site "I don't really give a shit about you or your desires. Thanks for the free stuff SUCKERS". A moral obligation is definitly in place - give something back to the people who provided you with a free service.
then we should question the value of sites like that.
LOL thats funny. Thats like saying we should question the value of a TV set because some guy decided to steal it instead of paying the cost of the TV.
People will, invariably, try and get things for as cheap as possible....free if they can. Hell people would prefer that when they take the product (be it soft or hard) they get paid for doing the producers of the product a "favor"
Sorry your not selling me on that poor reasoning.