Yea they need to improve their click-through calculator. How many of those click-through's came from malware, and how many of those came from actual click-throughs. While I do not have a hard time believing the average FireFox user is less likely to go to a web-ad, I think their numbers are p0wn3d by the malware groups.
Have you seen the latest Nintendo commercial for Metroid? Oh my god - the chick is smokin hot, and so is the way they put the suit on her. Make the movie with a smoking hot babe like that and it will draw in a lot more then just the kiddies.
Kid: "Mom can you take me to see this" showing a picture of shamus to dad and mom
Dad: Piping in "Hubba hubba hubba...hmm I mean, hon it is my turn and only fair since you took the kids to see the last 15 movies. I will sacrifice this time."
RE 1 was good. It is not just an action flick - it is a sci-fi horror action flick... So they got the science down (easy, technology and mad science), they got the action down (ass kicking with lots of cool weapons), and they scared the living crap out of people in the theatre.
RE 2 was poor. They got the action down (ass kicking with lots of cool weapons), they got the science down (same as before), but the movie was about as scary as Peekacho on crack.
The story will be better then FF: The Spirits Within....though the graphics were amazing (the kissing looked fake, but mouths seem to always be a problem for these artists).
New technology - high price. Give it some time and the price comes down. My friend bought a top of the line Dell XPS - cost him 5 grand. I bought it 6 months later - cost me 2 grand.
Two years ago - plasma screens = 6+ grand...now you can get them for 1500+
I LOVED icravetv.com I would do my homework and watch Star Trek (my brother always hogged the living room tv and we could never agree on watching the same shows).
Personally, I think the networks should EMBRACE this medium. They do not to pay cable tv providers AND they can charge more for advertisers....why can they charge more for advertisers you ask? Because each viewer needs an account. With this account you can specify the type of advertising you want to be inundated with (not specifying this will give you the random advertisements...so you might end up seeing a genital herpes commercial while eating a pepperoni pizza)...
Oh its out there. I am not sure of what specific program - but one of my co-workers computer was rocked with spyware (i decided that after hours of adaware, spybot, & giant that it was time to nuke the computer). Before I did that (when I had hope for the machine) I decided to install firefox (i downloaded the program on my clean computer to cd).....when I *first* ran mozilla - it was already p0wn3d and was sent to about 5 different sites (one of which was porn).... I do not know what program it is, but its out there.
Copyright law protects the people who made the the IP. Lets say you download a book and get caught by the authors. Under your model they do not have protection because you didn't sign a contract...what contract is that? The contract to steal? You do not have to sign anything - it is the law - you do not have to agree with it - you have to follow it or suffer the consequences...you can fight the law - but it is highly recommended that you do so in a legal manner.
Now I am hoping you made a typo- i did not say I have the right to control how *I* use *your* own property - I said *I* have the right to control how *you* use *my* property. If you do not like it - don't use it.
I know contract law and copyright law are not the same. Copyright law is out there - sitting and waiting. The creators/owners of a product can either default to the copyright law, or go to contract law (which is what many organizations *like companies that develop open source content* use). Either way, something needs to be stated so there is no confusion.
Why must an author keep his material secret (by not distributing) his product to keep it protected? So if someone writes a book and wants to sell it they can't or otherwise they give up their IP rights? That makes no sense. I wrote a book, I want to sell the book, and I want the book to be utilized ONLY by people who pay me for it. What is so wrong with that?
Copyright law is in existence - unless the owner of the IP decides to utilize a contract, he can default to this at no expense to him (i.e. he doesnt have to pay a lawyer thousands to create a legal document, and doesn't have to have each person sign a piece of paper to buy the book). Thank god we have something like copyright law - at least there is something a person can default to without having to pay a lawyer.
If you think copyright law is amoral - then fight it legally - do not however break the law. Again two wrongs don't make a right. WOrk on having the copyright law modified or removed from law by utilizing the system. I think copyright law helps protect the owners of IP so it helps society. Do I want things free...yes, do I realize people need to make money on their products...yes; so what do I do? I buy what I think is reasonably priced....and if it isn't I look for an alternative product.
I just got the USB/Fireware combo sync/power charger....offcourse their product labeling and description on the box is so freaking terrible - it didn't tell me that it was the fat Fireware style (my laptop uses the 4 pin)....now i gotta buy an adapter. Probably run me 50 bucks for that alone.
The RIAA is screwing over their artists - though not that screwed...these guys are still making millions.
But it is the bands choice to pay the fees.
ANd I agree with you - our best way to fight something we do not like is by not supporting them. Stealing, however, just proves them right - and the law deems it stealing and so does most of society.
Do you believe that it is morally correct to use the law to force people to pay you over and over for something that you should've been paid only once for?
It's a case by case basis. If I create a program - say Half Life. I sell the right to use it. Now I create Half Life expansion pack. If I want to- I have the right to sell it to you.
If I create a program (say finance software) and the terms require you to pay me a monthly fee - if you do not like these terms do not buy it. But just because you are not happy with the terms of a company does not give oyu the right to get the product without paying them. The law is there to protect people - and the law says that if the makers want to charge you through the nose - they can do it...the law is not forcing you to buy the product, they are just saying - that if you want to buy it - you better agree to the terms of the contract or else you will suffer some consequences....I wonder - do you follow or ignore contracts? It seems that if you do not like a contract you probably don't follow it - unless there is some recourse. I bet you if there was a 100% chance of reprisal from you stealing someones program you would not do it. Just admit it - you love the anonymity of the Internet and the freedom it gives. Do not preach some moral high ground. In the end you are utilizing something that is not intended for you unless you pay the fee.
While I agree that the RIAA and MPAA price fix and price gouge - I also agree that it is their choice to do so...they made the product - they can decide on the price.
Seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
I am greedy for wanting to sell my work? Do you work for free? I mean totally for free...going to your 9-5 job and not getting paid? Someone's "9-5" might be sitting home and writing programs or books or whatever. They have the right to protect this investment and then sell it. It has nothing to do with greed. Your extrapolations are very wrong.
No, but this is different. Labor is not the same thing as the fr
Where do you get this nonsense from? I know many artists who base their total income on the work they produce. This has been going on for centuries.
Your breathing air analogy sucks - I won't go into it any further. It wastes my brain cells just thinking about how someone could write something so inane.
If it does not belong to anyone, and it is not a taking in that no one else is deprived of the thing in question, then I think that it is not morally incorrect. It is amoral. I won't go so far as to say that copyright infringement is moral either. Don't impose a simpleminded dichotomy here.
I write a song. I spent the time creating this song. Nobody has one like it. It is my property, and I can protect it how i see fit. Do not demean its value because someone can just copy it.
Your views are naive to say the least. I am done arguing with you - have fun.
It's my property - it is my god-given right to do whatever I damn well please with it. The fact that it can be easily made into replicas should not diminish this. From your statements it sounds like you think that something that can easily be reproduced (or does not have a tangeable aspect to it like a program) should get less protection then say a television set. Just because I will retain my version of the material while you pilfer a copy of it does not make it right. It is called information theft - it happens all the time, even before there was electricity available, let alone the Internet.
I created something. I want to keep it private, or limit distribution. I invested my time and possibly my money - I want to recoup this investment. Someone out there likes my idea - my work - but they do not want to pay for it. I should be able to have my work protected from people like that. Let me put it in another way - -- you go to work everyday (i presume) - would you appreciate it if your boss said "you are not getting paid for your work"?
Copyright infringement is stealing someone elses work - it may not be tangeable like a car - but that should not demean its value. Or do you believe taking something that does not belong to you as morally correct?
Why is Kazaa not a tool? The internet is the medium - the road - the storehouse. Kazaa is the item that gets the information. I see it as: The Internet is a grain silo (like the one in a farm), and Kazaa is a shovel that is used to scoop the grain. A shovel is a tool, Kazaa is a tool. The Internet is the medium.
I can't answer such a question, and I am pretty sure that most of us here can't either. Unless there is an analyst around who has done a qualified study if such an event happend....and I cannot see why since copyright won't be abolished (it is a good law - just needs to be updated correctly for digital formats)
It could work. Betamax defense protects the tool - basically saying it is neither good nor evil, just a tool.. How people use it, on the other hand, can be good or evil... By outlawing kazaa because people can use it for evil - well we should outlaw knives because people can comitt murder with it.
And is quite illegal as well as morally wrong. While the music industry is a price-fixing behemoth - stealing someones copyrighted material is wrong (even more wrong since there is nothing that says a company can't charge through the nose for their product).
Even still, two wrongs do not make a right. I remember when I was young having to choose for our first VCR to be either betamax or vhs.... I chose VHS (i had no idea about which format was better) but I did realize that there was a West Coast Video a mile from my home which only had VHS...
I am hoping you meant that the lake was colder. Snow is, typically, around 30 degrees F...any colder and it becomes ice. Even if it were say 15 degrees F...these guys are going into water that is -100 degrees F. Also, are saunas close to 200 degrees F?
I have always wanted to go to the Russian saunas'. I just wnat to go to Russia - I have some friends there who are always having crazy wild parties.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea they need to improve their click-through calculator. How many of those click-through's came from malware, and how many of those came from actual click-throughs. While I do not have a hard time believing the average FireFox user is less likely to go to a web-ad, I think their numbers are p0wn3d by the malware groups.
Because the Washington Post (an obsolete behemoth in itself) knows what about technology and the gaming industry?
Have you seen the latest Nintendo commercial for Metroid? Oh my god - the chick is smokin hot, and so is the way they put the suit on her. Make the movie with a smoking hot babe like that and it will draw in a lot more then just the kiddies.
Kid: "Mom can you take me to see this" showing a picture of shamus to dad and mom
Dad: Piping in "Hubba hubba hubba...hmm I mean, hon it is my turn and only fair since you took the kids to see the last 15 movies. I will sacrifice this time."
RE 1 was good. It is not just an action flick - it is a sci-fi horror action flick... So they got the science down (easy, technology and mad science), they got the action down (ass kicking with lots of cool weapons), and they scared the living crap out of people in the theatre.
RE 2 was poor. They got the action down (ass kicking with lots of cool weapons), they got the science down (same as before), but the movie was about as scary as Peekacho on crack.
The story will be better then FF: The Spirits Within....though the graphics were amazing (the kissing looked fake, but mouths seem to always be a problem for these artists).
New technology - high price. Give it some time and the price comes down. My friend bought a top of the line Dell XPS - cost him 5 grand. I bought it 6 months later - cost me 2 grand.
Two years ago - plasma screens = 6+ grand...now you can get them for 1500+
I LOVED icravetv.com I would do my homework and watch Star Trek (my brother always hogged the living room tv and we could never agree on watching the same shows).
Personally, I think the networks should EMBRACE this medium. They do not to pay cable tv providers AND they can charge more for advertisers....why can they charge more for advertisers you ask? Because each viewer needs an account. With this account you can specify the type of advertising you want to be inundated with (not specifying this will give you the random advertisements...so you might end up seeing a genital herpes commercial while eating a pepperoni pizza)...
Lets hope these guys get a clue. Oh wait...
In Mother Russia, the people report the news.
Yea but I am looking forward to ditching my archaic exabyte dvd burner.
pr A.L.I.C.E. Almost got her to do some kinky stuff for me once.
Oh its out there. I am not sure of what specific program - but one of my co-workers computer was rocked with spyware (i decided that after hours of adaware, spybot, & giant that it was time to nuke the computer). Before I did that (when I had hope for the machine) I decided to install firefox (i downloaded the program on my clean computer to cd).....when I *first* ran mozilla - it was already p0wn3d and was sent to about 5 different sites (one of which was porn).... I do not know what program it is, but its out there.
Copyright law protects the people who made the the IP. Lets say you download a book and get caught by the authors. Under your model they do not have protection because you didn't sign a contract...what contract is that? The contract to steal? You do not have to sign anything - it is the law - you do not have to agree with it - you have to follow it or suffer the consequences...you can fight the law - but it is highly recommended that you do so in a legal manner.
Now I am hoping you made a typo- i did not say I have the right to control how *I* use *your* own property - I said *I* have the right to control how *you* use *my* property. If you do not like it - don't use it.
I know contract law and copyright law are not the same. Copyright law is out there - sitting and waiting. The creators/owners of a product can either default to the copyright law, or go to contract law (which is what many organizations *like companies that develop open source content* use). Either way, something needs to be stated so there is no confusion.
Why must an author keep his material secret (by not distributing) his product to keep it protected? So if someone writes a book and wants to sell it they can't or otherwise they give up their IP rights? That makes no sense. I wrote a book, I want to sell the book, and I want the book to be utilized ONLY by people who pay me for it. What is so wrong with that?
Copyright law is in existence - unless the owner of the IP decides to utilize a contract, he can default to this at no expense to him (i.e. he doesnt have to pay a lawyer thousands to create a legal document, and doesn't have to have each person sign a piece of paper to buy the book). Thank god we have something like copyright law - at least there is something a person can default to without having to pay a lawyer.
If you think copyright law is amoral - then fight it legally - do not however break the law. Again two wrongs don't make a right. WOrk on having the copyright law modified or removed from law by utilizing the system. I think copyright law helps protect the owners of IP so it helps society. Do I want things free...yes, do I realize people need to make money on their products...yes; so what do I do? I buy what I think is reasonably priced....and if it isn't I look for an alternative product.
I just got the USB/Fireware combo sync/power charger....offcourse their product labeling and description on the box is so freaking terrible - it didn't tell me that it was the fat Fireware style (my laptop uses the 4 pin)....now i gotta buy an adapter. Probably run me 50 bucks for that alone.
No no, that wasn't a chipmunk, it was Michael Jackson you heard singing
The RIAA is screwing over their artists - though not that screwed...these guys are still making millions.
But it is the bands choice to pay the fees.
ANd I agree with you - our best way to fight something we do not like is by not supporting them. Stealing, however, just proves them right - and the law deems it stealing and so does most of society.
Do you believe that it is morally correct to use the law to force people to pay you over and over for something that you should've been paid only once for?
It's a case by case basis. If I create a program - say Half Life. I sell the right to use it. Now I create Half Life expansion pack. If I want to- I have the right to sell it to you.
If I create a program (say finance software) and the terms require you to pay me a monthly fee - if you do not like these terms do not buy it. But just because you are not happy with the terms of a company does not give oyu the right to get the product without paying them. The law is there to protect people - and the law says that if the makers want to charge you through the nose - they can do it...the law is not forcing you to buy the product, they are just saying - that if you want to buy it - you better agree to the terms of the contract or else you will suffer some consequences....I wonder - do you follow or ignore contracts? It seems that if you do not like a contract you probably don't follow it - unless there is some recourse. I bet you if there was a 100% chance of reprisal from you stealing someones program you would not do it. Just admit it - you love the anonymity of the Internet and the freedom it gives. Do not preach some moral high ground. In the end you are utilizing something that is not intended for you unless you pay the fee.
While I agree that the RIAA and MPAA price fix and price gouge - I also agree that it is their choice to do so...they made the product - they can decide on the price.
Seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
I am greedy for wanting to sell my work? Do you work for free? I mean totally for free...going to your 9-5 job and not getting paid? Someone's "9-5" might be sitting home and writing programs or books or whatever. They have the right to protect this investment and then sell it. It has nothing to do with greed. Your extrapolations are very wrong.
No, but this is different. Labor is not the same thing as the fr
Where do you get this nonsense from? I know many artists who base their total income on the work they produce. This has been going on for centuries.
Your breathing air analogy sucks - I won't go into it any further. It wastes my brain cells just thinking about how someone could write something so inane.
If it does not belong to anyone, and it is not a taking in that no one else is deprived of the thing in question, then I think that it is not morally incorrect. It is amoral. I won't go so far as to say that copyright infringement is moral either. Don't impose a simpleminded dichotomy here.
I write a song. I spent the time creating this song. Nobody has one like it. It is my property, and I can protect it how i see fit. Do not demean its value because someone can just copy it. Your views are naive to say the least. I am done arguing with you - have fun.
It's my property - it is my god-given right to do whatever I damn well please with it. The fact that it can be easily made into replicas should not diminish this. From your statements it sounds like you think that something that can easily be reproduced (or does not have a tangeable aspect to it like a program) should get less protection then say a television set. Just because I will retain my version of the material while you pilfer a copy of it does not make it right. It is called information theft - it happens all the time, even before there was electricity available, let alone the Internet.
I created something. I want to keep it private, or limit distribution. I invested my time and possibly my money - I want to recoup this investment. Someone out there likes my idea - my work - but they do not want to pay for it. I should be able to have my work protected from people like that. Let me put it in another way - -- you go to work everyday (i presume) - would you appreciate it if your boss said "you are not getting paid for your work"?
Copyright infringement is stealing someone elses work - it may not be tangeable like a car - but that should not demean its value. Or do you believe taking something that does not belong to you as morally correct?
Why is Kazaa not a tool? The internet is the medium - the road - the storehouse. Kazaa is the item that gets the information. I see it as: The Internet is a grain silo (like the one in a farm), and Kazaa is a shovel that is used to scoop the grain. A shovel is a tool, Kazaa is a tool. The Internet is the medium.
I can't answer such a question, and I am pretty sure that most of us here can't either. Unless there is an analyst around who has done a qualified study if such an event happend....and I cannot see why since copyright won't be abolished (it is a good law - just needs to be updated correctly for digital formats)
It could work. Betamax defense protects the tool - basically saying it is neither good nor evil, just a tool.. How people use it, on the other hand, can be good or evil... By outlawing kazaa because people can use it for evil - well we should outlaw knives because people can comitt murder with it.
And is quite illegal as well as morally wrong. While the music industry is a price-fixing behemoth - stealing someones copyrighted material is wrong (even more wrong since there is nothing that says a company can't charge through the nose for their product).
Even still, two wrongs do not make a right. I remember when I was young having to choose for our first VCR to be either betamax or vhs.... I chose VHS (i had no idea about which format was better) but I did realize that there was a West Coast Video a mile from my home which only had VHS...
Someone had mod points to burn...unfortunately, a sense of humour is not required for mod points...
I am hoping you meant that the lake was colder. Snow is, typically, around 30 degrees F...any colder and it becomes ice. Even if it were say 15 degrees F...these guys are going into water that is -100 degrees F. Also, are saunas close to 200 degrees F?
I have always wanted to go to the Russian saunas'. I just wnat to go to Russia - I have some friends there who are always having crazy wild parties.