I find it interesting that the reviewer here makes absolutely no mention of price. He says twice on the first page that it is "affordable" however there is no dollar amount listed. I researched it, and it looks as if it has a street price of around $130. I would hardly call that "affordable." Granted there are more expensive power supplies around, but considering that I can buy a "premium" power supply at my local computer store for $80, I wouldn't be throwing around the word "affordable" like that, especially when he chooses not to list the price in the article.
I look at this as the thing that we will be laughed at by people in 100 years. Think 100 years ago, people used to wear radioactive radium watches, and 60 years ago, people exposed themselves to harmful amounts of radiation to make sure their shoes fit properly. Hell, Marie Curie, the father (mother) of modern radioactive theory kept a beaker full of radium next to her bed because it made a swell nightlight. Now, nobody is going to accuse her of being stupid, seeing as how she developed the initial scientific theory leading to most of what we know about physics today. It's just that they didn't know any better. Nowadays, we say "She did WHAT?!?"
I think in 100 years they will be saying "They did WHAT?!? They put microwave transmitters RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR BRAINS! What morons!" The cell phone industry can fight it all they want, but the cigarette industry didn't acknowledge that cigarettes were addivtive until the 1990's.
"Blah blah blah Plasmonic shield Light scatter Blah blah blah invisibility camoflauge blah blah blah stealth technology Romulans (ha ha ha) blah blah Oh, and by the way, it can't hide anything larger that a few subatomic particles"
That's hardly groudbreaking. I'm sure the research is fascinating in the small circles that it affects, but not in the real world. They're not even pretending it will ever be able to make anything invisible. I'm sure that the real scientists who invented this never touted it as a cloaking shield, just the sensationalist news outlets that got ahold of the story.
Pardon me for being skeptical, but this almost sounds too good to be true. I'd love to believe it when I hear something like this, but more often than not, it ends up being a whole bunch of hypothetical crap that never ends up coming to fruition. Either that, or it'll be somehow compromised by the large oil companies so that it is either a) willed out of existance or b) cost prohibitive.
1 have an original series Sony SVR2000, and 1 still prefer it to my Dual-tuner HD cable box. Sure, HD is heads and shoulders better than SD, but the cable box (Motorola) is so incredibly sucky as to be nearly worthless as a DVR. Basically, it misses about 20% of all recordings, either because the box locked up (my TiVo has locked up once in 4 years) or the time changed, or the HD signal got screwed up. I have to keep TiVo around just so I don't miss shows. TiVo has a huge opportunity to pounce here, but it all hinges on the support of CableCards. If TiVo came out with a reasonably priced CableCard/HD box, I would buy it tomorrow. (and would have no trouble talking my wife into buying it, which is really saying something.)
Am I reading this wrong, or are these exploits for vulnerabilities that are already patched? As much as I love to hate Microsoft, you can't really hold it against them once they've released a patch (even if it is only a number of days after the patch was released.)
I just need more solid ammunition if I'm going to get in arguments with my Cult-Of-Microsoft coworker zealots.
Althought I hate to give Microsoft any credit at all, I can't really say that, in theory, Microsoft is out of their right to do this. However, with the new Media Player, I have a real legitimate copy of Windows XP, and it was still unable to verify the authenticity of my software. Being optional, of course, I ignored it, but if that 100% legitimate copy stops working some day because Microsoft can't verify its authenticity, what then? Call Microsoft and tell them? I'm sure I don't have the receipt for a copy that I bought 3 years ago. Is Microsoft going to take my word for it that it's legit? What if it happens on a Sunday night before Christmas? Are they going to have operators standing by to get me working again?
I sure hope they think this policy out before implementing it. As a sysadmin of a small business network, I sure as hell hope that nothing goes wrong with our volume licensed copies.
In the immortal works of Han Solo, "I have a really bad feeling about this..."
From what I've been reading lately, we'll have cured death, enabling us to live over 1000 years while simultaneously have turned the entire world into a gray goo by perfecting nanobots.
My guess is it'll be about the same as it is now, except I'll be 15 years older, taxes will be higher, and we'll have a whole bunch more crap that doesn't really make our lives any easier.
Legislation that would have required more direct warnings by spyware companies to consumers and ensured that users could delete the programs made headway in the last session of Congress, despite objections from top computer-security company Symantec Corp. and other software providers
You've got to be kidding me! Objections from Symantec! This is evil! In other words, Congress wanted to make spyware illegal, but Symantec thought that was a bad idea. Am I reading this right? Is this printed right?
I am a computer consultant by trade, does that mean I should be lobbying against these laws? Certainly, I make money, in fact, very good money, from removing spyware from people's PC's; I wouldn't even flinch at an anti-spyware law. I hope for the sake of all that is good and right that I misread this quote, because if Symantec lobbied against spyware laws just so they could make more money on selling anti-spyware software, then we really are headed to hell in a handbasket, and I need to just start screwing as many people over as possible before we arrive at our destination.
I mean, seriously, how about if home builders started lobbying against fire codes, or the funeral home business start lobbying against laws requiring brakes in all automobiles? This is ludicrous, and can not be tolerated!
Downloading either one will get you noticed by the feds. Don't fool yourself. I know TAC is perfectly legal and all, but don't for a second think that every time you download it doesn't go into your "file" somewhere. Hell, this message is going into my file for sure.
Hello Feds! Just going about my business here. Nothing to see.
Not trying to be funny here, but I've seen HACKME and my boss insists that I use his last name so that he can remember it. (Even though it's broadcasted.)
I just hope he doesn't get mad at me when he gets hacked and someone starts downloading child porn and The Anarchist's Cookbook using his broadband connection.
It's not the porn indistry per se that is driving this technology, it's capitalism. The article makes it seem as though the porn industry is lined with visionaries that sit around all day and come up with ways to better society. They're not driving anything. They're reactionaries. While it's true that the porn industry has fuled the emergence of many technologies, they are doing so mostly by accident. They are only in the business of making money. Take DVD's for instance. They are much cheaper to produce, they are more durable, lighter (cheaper distribution) and they don't melt when you leave them paused on one scene for a long period of time. This is clearly a natural fit for the porn industry, so they started producing DVD's. Same goes with the porn explosion in the early days of the Internet. Inexpensive distribution, and people clearly had poor judgement when they were wanking off. (Why do you think they can offer subscriptions for $29.95 a month.)
I know this post comes off as porn bashing, but let's not give those guys (and girls) too much credit. They saw an opportunity and seized it. Same with mass spammers. They aren't trying to ruin the Internet, but where there's a buck to be made...
I am by no means an Apple basher. I did not like Apple until years ago when I worked in a computer store that sold both Macs and x86 PC's. I saw that there were a distinct group of people whose copmuter usage habits dictate that they would be better off with a Mac. While I would personally not prefer a Mac, I grew to respect what they had to offer.
That being said, I think that your post is biased and short-sighted. The Mac platform is not for everyone. While Apple has arguably done more for the computer industry as a whole than any other single company, the fact remains that they are not going to take over a majority of the PC market with their current model. I know it's theit corporate philosophy that they want to be in charge of everything that goes into a Mac (the OS, the software, the add-ins, upgrades, etc.) to maintain quality control over the whole process, but that philosophy doesn't work in our capitalist system. Since they are the pretty much only company that says what goes into a Mac, (I know there are exceptions to this) they don't have as much incentive to decrease prices. Their only motivating factor is making enough profit to keep the company afloat. (which they can do by keeping a small market share and inflating their prices to make a large profit on each unit sold) They will continue to come out with revolutionary products (iMac, iPod, Firewire, etc.) which other companies will eventually copy and bring over to the PC side for half the price. I do not believe that Apple will ever have a majority user base in the PC industry again. The iPod has helped sales, but it's not going to get people to give up their cheaply made PC's.
Doesn't one of the big TV makers have a production-model TV out based on this technology? Unless I'm mistaken (and I might be) I don't see how this is still an experimental technology.
Just to make sure it's apples-to-apples, I'm talking about cable plus HDTV plus the DVR service. My cable company starts at $37 plus $13 for the set-top-box, including the DVR and HDTV enabled.
DirecTV starts at $35, but by the time you add the options I described above, it's around $70/mo. And that doesn't include premium stations.
But really, here, it's the $1000 that put it out of reach for me.
True, but that box costs $1000, and Sattelite service STARTS at $20/mo higher than what I get from cable. Still, if this damn DVR crashes one more time...
OK, TiVo has a huge share in the DVR (or PVR, as my Cable company calls it) market, but didn't Netscape used to have like 92% of the browser market? Name recognition means crap when competing against Microsoft. Sorry, but unless TiVo partners up with cable box makers YESTERDAY, then they're done.
Hey TiVo, you need to call someone over at Motorola. I have a Motorola cable/PVR/HDTV box and it SUCKS. Bad. I've had TiVo for three years, and I love it. The Motorola box crashes all the time, the controls suck, the program guide sucks. Looks like it was programmed in the 80's.
I'll never understand the people who treat China as if it's this big military power eager to invade the US. The US spends ~400 billion dollars per year on the military. China, with an economy half the size of the US's (and gaining fast), spends ~10 billion dollars.
It's like chess, you try to perceive threats before they actually become threats. The one who can anticipate the greatest number of moves in advance wins.
I'm not defending this logic. It's just the way thay are thinking.
What if, and please forgive me, because I know this officially makes me a crazy nut, but what if the outcome of this election was already decided before November. What if Kerry and Bush already had a gentleman's agreement between the two of them that Bush was going to win.
What if Bush said "Sure, John, you can go out and spend a bunch of money making the people think they are in charge. Campaign your heart out. Hell, I'll even make myself look like an idiot in the first debate just to make this more fun! But when it's all said and done, I'm coming out on top. Sorry, it's already been decided. Thanks for playing!"
Now, I'm giving this example as Devil's Advocate. I don't walk around witha tin-foil hat on to keep "them" from reading my thoughts. I don't type all of my Slashdot posts on a computer at the public library so "they" can't figure out who I am. Sure, my nick is a_nonamiss, but that's more to protect myself from identity theft or someone who disagrees with me coming to my house to argue. Any member of the government would have no trouble tracking me down.
My point here is this: I can't say if this is how it went down or not, but is there any evidence that this ISN'T what happened. Say there WAS a global conspiracy to keep Bush in power, and Kerry was in on it. Are we protected from this happening? The answer is no. We need to be more dilligent in protecting ourselves. We need oversight as to how our votes are counted, and most importantly, we need to always be paranoid of losing our rights. People should demand that there be a paper trail. We need to have procedures in place so that the above example could never happen, because the only thing worse than living in a dictatorship is living in a dictatorship and having absolutely no idea that you do.
I would post more, but I have to get out of here. The librarian is looking at me funny. I think she's in on it. I have to leave before she cracks through this tin foil hat and starts reading my thoughts.
Are there any P2P clients out there that are effective in hiding your identity as a sharer? I know I read that when the RIAA started suing people that it was just a matter of time before someone invented a client that protects those who are sharing files, but I wonder if it's even technically possible. The Gnutella protocol effectively made SEARCHING for files anonymous, but actually transferring a file establishes a connection to the IP address, which can always be traced. Any ideas for accomplishing something like this? Is it technically possible? I am familiar with the freenet project, but to my understanding this isn't really for large file sharing. Any thoughts?
Yeah, software piracy is completely due to expensive hardwre. It has nothing whatsoever to do with overprices software. How can we have cheap PC's when the OS costs 25% + of the purcahse price of the PC?
I completely agree that this wanton piracy is destroying industries left and right. But why stop with software pirates? Libraries cost book publishers billions of dollars each year. If you calculated every book that was ever borrowed from a library and multiplied that by the hard-cover price of the book, libraries have cost this country more jobs than any other institution or industry.
Think of all the money that people would be spending on these books instead of just going to the library to pirate them. This is stealing money from hard working authors and publishers, and eventually, it's going to ruin them. I mean, how are publishers supposed to survive this scourge on their profits? Don't they deserve to get paid? And what about the authors? Why do you think people like Edgar Allan Poe died peniless and in the gutter? Obviously, if he had been paid royalties on all those pirated copies of his books, he would have had enough money to live, maybe even write more books! How many more works would Twain have written if people were't stealing food off his table by going to the library to pirate his books? This "Library thing" is killing book publishers! It's stifling creativity! It's ruining society a we know it. We need to advance society and start dismantling these dens of wanton piracy immediately! I call for the destruction of all libraries now!
OK, now how is that argument substantively different from the argument that file sharing hurts music/software/movie sales? Just because file sharing is more convenient? Just because you don't have to "return" the software/book/movie after a few weeks? There have been libraries for thousands of years, and yet people still purcahse books, and authors can still write books and make money. Every time the BSA says that they are losing billions due to file sharing, just think of this argument.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it interesting that the reviewer here makes absolutely no mention of price. He says twice on the first page that it is "affordable" however there is no dollar amount listed. I researched it, and it looks as if it has a street price of around $130. I would hardly call that "affordable." Granted there are more expensive power supplies around, but considering that I can buy a "premium" power supply at my local computer store for $80, I wouldn't be throwing around the word "affordable" like that, especially when he chooses not to list the price in the article.
I look at this as the thing that we will be laughed at by people in 100 years. Think 100 years ago, people used to wear radioactive radium watches, and 60 years ago, people exposed themselves to harmful amounts of radiation to make sure their shoes fit properly. Hell, Marie Curie, the father (mother) of modern radioactive theory kept a beaker full of radium next to her bed because it made a swell nightlight. Now, nobody is going to accuse her of being stupid, seeing as how she developed the initial scientific theory leading to most of what we know about physics today. It's just that they didn't know any better. Nowadays, we say "She did WHAT?!?"
I think in 100 years they will be saying "They did WHAT?!? They put microwave transmitters RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR BRAINS! What morons!" The cell phone industry can fight it all they want, but the cigarette industry didn't acknowledge that cigarettes were addivtive until the 1990's.
"Blah blah blah Plasmonic shield Light scatter Blah blah blah invisibility camoflauge blah blah blah stealth technology Romulans (ha ha ha) blah blah Oh, and by the way, it can't hide anything larger that a few subatomic particles"
That's hardly groudbreaking. I'm sure the research is fascinating in the small circles that it affects, but not in the real world. They're not even pretending it will ever be able to make anything invisible. I'm sure that the real scientists who invented this never touted it as a cloaking shield, just the sensationalist news outlets that got ahold of the story.
Pardon me for being skeptical, but this almost sounds too good to be true. I'd love to believe it when I hear something like this, but more often than not, it ends up being a whole bunch of hypothetical crap that never ends up coming to fruition. Either that, or it'll be somehow compromised by the large oil companies so that it is either a) willed out of existance or b) cost prohibitive.
I hate being such a skeptic.
1 have an original series Sony SVR2000, and 1 still prefer it to my Dual-tuner HD cable box. Sure, HD is heads and shoulders better than SD, but the cable box (Motorola) is so incredibly sucky as to be nearly worthless as a DVR. Basically, it misses about 20% of all recordings, either because the box locked up (my TiVo has locked up once in 4 years) or the time changed, or the HD signal got screwed up. I have to keep TiVo around just so I don't miss shows. TiVo has a huge opportunity to pounce here, but it all hinges on the support of CableCards. If TiVo came out with a reasonably priced CableCard/HD box, I would buy it tomorrow. (and would have no trouble talking my wife into buying it, which is really saying something.)
Am I reading this wrong, or are these exploits for vulnerabilities that are already patched? As much as I love to hate Microsoft, you can't really hold it against them once they've released a patch (even if it is only a number of days after the patch was released.)
I just need more solid ammunition if I'm going to get in arguments with my Cult-Of-Microsoft coworker zealots.
Althought I hate to give Microsoft any credit at all, I can't really say that, in theory, Microsoft is out of their right to do this. However, with the new Media Player, I have a real legitimate copy of Windows XP, and it was still unable to verify the authenticity of my software. Being optional, of course, I ignored it, but if that 100% legitimate copy stops working some day because Microsoft can't verify its authenticity, what then? Call Microsoft and tell them? I'm sure I don't have the receipt for a copy that I bought 3 years ago. Is Microsoft going to take my word for it that it's legit? What if it happens on a Sunday night before Christmas? Are they going to have operators standing by to get me working again?
I sure hope they think this policy out before implementing it. As a sysadmin of a small business network, I sure as hell hope that nothing goes wrong with our volume licensed copies.
In the immortal works of Han Solo, "I have a really bad feeling about this..."
From what I've been reading lately, we'll have cured death, enabling us to live over 1000 years while simultaneously have turned the entire world into a gray goo by perfecting nanobots.
My guess is it'll be about the same as it is now, except I'll be 15 years older, taxes will be higher, and we'll have a whole bunch more crap that doesn't really make our lives any easier.
You've got to be kidding me! Objections from Symantec! This is evil! In other words, Congress wanted to make spyware illegal, but Symantec thought that was a bad idea. Am I reading this right? Is this printed right?
I am a computer consultant by trade, does that mean I should be lobbying against these laws? Certainly, I make money, in fact, very good money, from removing spyware from people's PC's; I wouldn't even flinch at an anti-spyware law. I hope for the sake of all that is good and right that I misread this quote, because if Symantec lobbied against spyware laws just so they could make more money on selling anti-spyware software, then we really are headed to hell in a handbasket, and I need to just start screwing as many people over as possible before we arrive at our destination.
I mean, seriously, how about if home builders started lobbying against fire codes, or the funeral home business start lobbying against laws requiring brakes in all automobiles? This is ludicrous, and can not be tolerated!
Downloading either one will get you noticed by the feds. Don't fool yourself. I know TAC is perfectly legal and all, but don't for a second think that every time you download it doesn't go into your "file" somewhere. Hell, this message is going into my file for sure.
Hello Feds! Just going about my business here. Nothing to see.
Not trying to be funny here, but I've seen HACKME and my boss insists that I use his last name so that he can remember it. (Even though it's broadcasted.)
I just hope he doesn't get mad at me when he gets hacked and someone starts downloading child porn and The Anarchist's Cookbook using his broadband connection.
It's not the porn indistry per se that is driving this technology, it's capitalism. The article makes it seem as though the porn industry is lined with visionaries that sit around all day and come up with ways to better society. They're not driving anything. They're reactionaries. While it's true that the porn industry has fuled the emergence of many technologies, they are doing so mostly by accident. They are only in the business of making money. Take DVD's for instance. They are much cheaper to produce, they are more durable, lighter (cheaper distribution) and they don't melt when you leave them paused on one scene for a long period of time. This is clearly a natural fit for the porn industry, so they started producing DVD's. Same goes with the porn explosion in the early days of the Internet. Inexpensive distribution, and people clearly had poor judgement when they were wanking off. (Why do you think they can offer subscriptions for $29.95 a month.)
I know this post comes off as porn bashing, but let's not give those guys (and girls) too much credit. They saw an opportunity and seized it. Same with mass spammers. They aren't trying to ruin the Internet, but where there's a buck to be made...
I am by no means an Apple basher. I did not like Apple until years ago when I worked in a computer store that sold both Macs and x86 PC's. I saw that there were a distinct group of people whose copmuter usage habits dictate that they would be better off with a Mac. While I would personally not prefer a Mac, I grew to respect what they had to offer.
That being said, I think that your post is biased and short-sighted. The Mac platform is not for everyone. While Apple has arguably done more for the computer industry as a whole than any other single company, the fact remains that they are not going to take over a majority of the PC market with their current model. I know it's theit corporate philosophy that they want to be in charge of everything that goes into a Mac (the OS, the software, the add-ins, upgrades, etc.) to maintain quality control over the whole process, but that philosophy doesn't work in our capitalist system. Since they are the pretty much only company that says what goes into a Mac, (I know there are exceptions to this) they don't have as much incentive to decrease prices. Their only motivating factor is making enough profit to keep the company afloat. (which they can do by keeping a small market share and inflating their prices to make a large profit on each unit sold) They will continue to come out with revolutionary products (iMac, iPod, Firewire, etc.) which other companies will eventually copy and bring over to the PC side for half the price. I do not believe that Apple will ever have a majority user base in the PC industry again. The iPod has helped sales, but it's not going to get people to give up their cheaply made PC's.
Twenty Dollars! But I wanted a Peanut!
Bah... My mistake. I'm thinking of HD-ILA. So much for trying to get in a quick post. At any rate, this is what I was thinking of...
Doesn't one of the big TV makers have a production-model TV out based on this technology? Unless I'm mistaken (and I might be) I don't see how this is still an experimental technology.
If you believe that, then I have a virtual bridge that's for sale, for anybody that's interested.
Just to make sure it's apples-to-apples, I'm talking about cable plus HDTV plus the DVR service. My cable company starts at $37 plus $13 for the set-top-box, including the DVR and HDTV enabled.
DirecTV starts at $35, but by the time you add the options I described above, it's around $70/mo. And that doesn't include premium stations.
But really, here, it's the $1000 that put it out of reach for me.
True, but that box costs $1000, and Sattelite service STARTS at $20/mo higher than what I get from cable. Still, if this damn DVR crashes one more time...
OK, TiVo has a huge share in the DVR (or PVR, as my Cable company calls it) market, but didn't Netscape used to have like 92% of the browser market? Name recognition means crap when competing against Microsoft. Sorry, but unless TiVo partners up with cable box makers YESTERDAY, then they're done.
Hey TiVo, you need to call someone over at Motorola. I have a Motorola cable/PVR/HDTV box and it SUCKS. Bad. I've had TiVo for three years, and I love it. The Motorola box crashes all the time, the controls suck, the program guide sucks. Looks like it was programmed in the 80's.
I'll never understand the people who treat China as if it's this big military power eager to invade the US. The US spends ~400 billion dollars per year on the military. China, with an economy half the size of the US's (and gaining fast), spends ~10 billion dollars.
It's like chess, you try to perceive threats before they actually become threats. The one who can anticipate the greatest number of moves in advance wins.
I'm not defending this logic. It's just the way thay are thinking.
What if, and please forgive me, because I know this officially makes me a crazy nut, but what if the outcome of this election was already decided before November. What if Kerry and Bush already had a gentleman's agreement between the two of them that Bush was going to win.
What if Bush said "Sure, John, you can go out and spend a bunch of money making the people think they are in charge. Campaign your heart out. Hell, I'll even make myself look like an idiot in the first debate just to make this more fun! But when it's all said and done, I'm coming out on top. Sorry, it's already been decided. Thanks for playing!"
Now, I'm giving this example as Devil's Advocate. I don't walk around witha tin-foil hat on to keep "them" from reading my thoughts. I don't type all of my Slashdot posts on a computer at the public library so "they" can't figure out who I am. Sure, my nick is a_nonamiss, but that's more to protect myself from identity theft or someone who disagrees with me coming to my house to argue. Any member of the government would have no trouble tracking me down.
My point here is this: I can't say if this is how it went down or not, but is there any evidence that this ISN'T what happened. Say there WAS a global conspiracy to keep Bush in power, and Kerry was in on it. Are we protected from this happening? The answer is no. We need to be more dilligent in protecting ourselves. We need oversight as to how our votes are counted, and most importantly, we need to always be paranoid of losing our rights. People should demand that there be a paper trail. We need to have procedures in place so that the above example could never happen, because the only thing worse than living in a dictatorship is living in a dictatorship and having absolutely no idea that you do.
I would post more, but I have to get out of here. The librarian is looking at me funny. I think she's in on it. I have to leave before she cracks through this tin foil hat and starts reading my thoughts.
Are there any P2P clients out there that are effective in hiding your identity as a sharer? I know I read that when the RIAA started suing people that it was just a matter of time before someone invented a client that protects those who are sharing files, but I wonder if it's even technically possible. The Gnutella protocol effectively made SEARCHING for files anonymous, but actually transferring a file establishes a connection to the IP address, which can always be traced. Any ideas for accomplishing something like this? Is it technically possible? I am familiar with the freenet project, but to my understanding this isn't really for large file sharing. Any thoughts?
Yeah, software piracy is completely due to expensive hardwre. It has nothing whatsoever to do with overprices software. How can we have cheap PC's when the OS costs 25% + of the purcahse price of the PC?
I completely agree that this wanton piracy is destroying industries left and right. But why stop with software pirates? Libraries cost book publishers billions of dollars each year. If you calculated every book that was ever borrowed from a library and multiplied that by the hard-cover price of the book, libraries have cost this country more jobs than any other institution or industry.
Think of all the money that people would be spending on these books instead of just going to the library to pirate them. This is stealing money from hard working authors and publishers, and eventually, it's going to ruin them. I mean, how are publishers supposed to survive this scourge on their profits? Don't they deserve to get paid? And what about the authors? Why do you think people like Edgar Allan Poe died peniless and in the gutter? Obviously, if he had been paid royalties on all those pirated copies of his books, he would have had enough money to live, maybe even write more books! How many more works would Twain have written if people were't stealing food off his table by going to the library to pirate his books? This "Library thing" is killing book publishers! It's stifling creativity! It's ruining society a we know it. We need to advance society and start dismantling these dens of wanton piracy immediately! I call for the destruction of all libraries now!
OK, now how is that argument substantively different from the argument that file sharing hurts music/software/movie sales? Just because file sharing is more convenient? Just because you don't have to "return" the software/book/movie after a few weeks? There have been libraries for thousands of years, and yet people still purcahse books, and authors can still write books and make money. Every time the BSA says that they are losing billions due to file sharing, just think of this argument.
Information wants to be free!