Generally this means the upper management is completely fucked too, but they want to keep the lower fuck ups around so they have someone to blame for their own incompetence.
Someone took a legitimate complaint and completely invalidated it by inversion. Basically changing OpenOffice (ODF) to Office (OOXML) and Office to OpenOffice.
I'm going to guess the people aren't quite as incompetent as he pretends.
You're either completely foreign to software development or have been ignorantly blessed in the people you've been privileged to work with. The comic strip of Dilbert exists not because its some strange world but because its something most anyone in industry can relate. In fact, most of the jokes in the strip are literally, parodies of true events.
The reality is, in the software industry, the following are truisms: 1) Your boss is likely a PHB promoted well beyond his capabilities. 2) Those managing the project will create a schedule with absolutely no footing in reality while demanding you adhere to it. Worse, its frequently made by marketing for features absolutely no one wants. 3) Releasing a half finished, unusable product, is the norm. 4) Testing and documentation is almost always neglected. 5) Testers are typically treated like the enemy. And should their findings conflict with the schedule, they will likely be ignored.
Basically, the software industry is completely fucked up. Doubly so in the gaming industry. In most other industries, they would all be fired for complete incompetence. One of the responses is the party complaining didn't have realistic expectations. That's certainly one way of looking at it. Realistically though, those saying he has unrealistic expectations are the ones with unrealistic expectations and are only compounding the problems.
Basically, his expectations are unrealistic exactly because the software industry is completely fucked up. Then again, the expectations of the industry are unrealistic, resulting in extremely poor quality, incompetent behavior exactly because the industry is completely fucked up and that's the accepted norm. So its become a catch-22. If you act responsibly, you are bucking the system of incompetence and will likely be censured.
There definitely are some exceptions, but it doesn't change the fact, that this is the software industry at large. In some ways, Microsoft actually help lower the bar for the rest of the industry. So its not exactly surprising Microsoft is reflecting glass; which typifies low quality and way overdue projects as the norm.
One very small scale device that wasn't connected to any generation equipment and ran for only 5 years? That counts as "almost completely unproven" to me.
Not in academic circles. Those who actually fund these projects would consider it validation and fit for small scale deployment. Basically, it technically proven. The next step is to prove practical business feasibility which is entirely different from technological feasibility.
While to you it may be "almost completely unproven", its not to the rest of the world.
From what I understand, Google's patent infringements do not relate to the use of Java as a language or Java byte code to Dalvik conversion,
Agreed. My previous comments were directed at those who seem to believe the problem stems from the fact that java -> dalvic is an issue. My post points out its likely not in the least.
As Google's response to Oracle indicates, Oracle has yet to indicate exactly what is infringing, which legally means, nothing is infringing. So unless Oracle names specific offenses in their response, which they were supposed to do in their initial filing, once again Oracle doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Furthermore, the VM implementations are entirely different beasts so its not likely Oracle even has a basis for complaint. And if they do, its entirely likely prior art exists. Java did nothing new in their VM proper. Really, Java's big improvements have been in garbage collection (to which Dalkvik beats its own path) and in hot spot JIT, which in of itself isn't entirely novel.
So long story short, Oracle has a long, long, long ways to go do establish they are anything other than a spoiled brat demanding the keys to the candy store.
IIRC they kind of do, by using the trademarked Java name in their class heirachy, and that trademark is only allowed to be used by test-suite-passing implementations
Not true in the least. They are referencing a trademarked name an by law, they are required to denote its trademarked. Thusly, legally, when I say, "Java", I should actually be saying, "Java(tm)". I would then add a reference to the bottom saying something like, "Java is trademarked Oracle Corporation." Given that the majority of their documentation is not for general public consumption, but rather developers, a lackadaisical approach is hardly out of the norm.
Its not that they are attempting to claim Java trademark nor confusing use of Java as their own trademark. The fact remains, they are referencing a standardized language, syntax, and specification as well as freely available APIs which are programmed in the Java language. How else would they refer to this body of work without referencing the language in which this body of work is clearly specified, when in fact, you largely code to those same specifications? Exactly.
Perhaps you ought to turn yours in. The suit isn't about destroying Android. The suit is about the fact that Google is using an incompatible VM with the Java language and trying to pass it off as Java. Which it isn't. Java is supposed to be compatible between the various VMs, even if not always perfect.
It can only be incompatible if they actually claim to be java compatible. They don't. They claim to be able to parse the java byte code, which they do. This is like ARM complaining that you can run ARM binaries in an emulator on another platform - only once more removed.
The magic happens in the byte code to byte code recompilation. Basically this means Android uses java's byte code as an object format. So unless there is something magical about providing interoperability and compatibility, which are absolutely, legally allowed, I'm not sure what Oracle is complaining about.
Hell, according to the die hard nutjobs in most IRC #java, they completely deny Android has anything to do with Java and a statement to the contrary will result in a kick/ban. Obviously, that's not legally binding but given how far removed Android's Dalvik is from Java, its difficult to understand the confusion when even Java's supporters don't recognize Android/Dalvik.
#3 they tried deregulation in CA, remember that? Rolling blackouts ring a bell?
Only indirectly related to deregulation. Had far, far more to do with fraud and poor planning. Both can easily be addressed even in a deregulated market. The rest of the US pretty well invalidates the point of contention. Not to mention, so does a fair amount of the rest of the world.
None of those are problems in the least as they are all accounted for in the accounting. Period.
#1 Already receive subsidy to offset most of these costs. Also have liability caps to ensure insurability. Again, everything is already included in their plans. This has zero factor aside what has already been considered.
#2 Not an issue. See #1 above. Not a factor in the least.
#3 Bullshit point which doesn't make sense in the least.
Long story short, as insightful as some moderators believe your post to be for whatever reason, its completely irrelevant and not the least bit insightful.
What a completely bullshit, anti-nuke, trollish article.
So nuclear is in doubt because someone is asking for loans and subsidy the size of a small countries GDP, and with the banks ask for a guarantee, they baulk. This is really a story of a company demanding money and desire to run a sure thing into the ground. With these types of dollars, its hardly the least bit unreasonable to demand some protection of the loan. This seems to hint that they intended to do something insanely poor with the management of the project or the reactor.
Depends. Some parts of the US have no speed limit. Even in some well traveled states the speed limit is as high as 85MPH. Even some highways in Texas have a 80MPH speed limit - which means it doesn't qualify for federal highway funds - despite paying taxes on those same highways.
Regardless, the car is designed for limited distance commutes where high speed and long distances are the exception.
The articles is really a bunch of trollish bullshit. Is it an electric car? Does it run on electric motors? Does it have batteries to allow it to travel non-trivial distances on electric motors. The answer is absolutely yes to all of them. By any meaningful metric, it absolutely is an electric car. Its an electric car which attempts to address the needs whereby the LEAF falls short; and for exactly the same reasons people don't want a LEAF.
As for the MPG rating, this is a fundamental flaw of government standards which has been known to be generally useless for electric/hybrids for over a decade now and highly questionable for even ICE vehicles. Lobbyists have maintained the standard because it makes their MPG numbers appear better than they are, which allows them to road more poor mileage vehicles than would otherwise be possible. As a side benefit, using the government mandated method, it provides completely useless and bogus results for hybrid and electric vehicles.
People are now blaming the Volt for the government's failing in allowing them to be bought and paid for via lobbyists. Long story short, this is nothing but absolutely bullshit. If you are the least bit stirred, aside from anger at the stupidity and ignorance of the article, then you don't know enough of the subject matter to be justified in the first place.
This is the EXACT type of problem Azimov explored with his robots and his three laws!
I post this because every time AI stories appear here, someone always posts that Asimov's three laws will save us; which in turn, very likely implicates public education as having failed to save them.
So far, the only knowledgeable and correct post on the subject.
Everyone spies on everyone. The only real difference is the degree to which one country actively attempts to spy. For example, US and Briton have excellent communication most of the time and share considerable information so little active spying takes place. Notice I didn't say none. "Trust but verify", is the mantra after all.
As for most dangerous, the US is easily at least fifth from the top. And if you want to throw cultural values into the mix, it continues to drop even further.
In this case, we're talking about alcohol suspended in dough, which is in direct contact with an extremely high temperature pan. So we're talking about maybe 30%-40% retention of 1/4 cup. That's roughly 0.1 fluid ounces, assuming 40%, divided amongst eight pieces. Or roughly 0.0125 ouches of alcohol per piece of pie. And if the pie is provided several hours of cooling time it likely has even far less. You likely get more alcohol with your dose of medication.
Basically, if you are concerned about this level of alcohol, you never leave your home.
ReactOS does pull in wine - last I read. But as the wine developers will tell you, Windows basically sucks. There are so many hacks and kludges which have been developed in Windows over the years, the wine guys are forced to constantly re-implement them. Far too many applications actually demand improper behavior from the OS APIs to function properly. Even worse, this behavior can depend on which MS OS variant its running under.
No more digital music *sales*. If you think the artists are going to survive by trying to keep their music a secret you can only listen to at a live performance, you are wrong.
Of course I'm wrong. For a second I forgot where I was. I assumed the reader would draw a conclusion other than the literal, black and white reading. The point was to highlight how IP holders continue to be forced into ever more draconian and/or extreme solutions. It absolutely is not likely recorded music is going away. But it doesn't change the root problem. Party A is taking something to which it has no rights. Party B wants to be compensated, is protected by law, and is actively encouraging additional protections under the law.
Do you know anything about the courts in the rest of the world,
Yes. That's why I said what I did. The majority is not the entire world. Such a distinction seems to cause no end of confusion for absolutely no reason whatsoever. The majority of the world has the same common basis for law. As a result, the details may vary but many share a common ideology and overall process.
Remember, a huge chunk of the world was basically owned by France, Spain, and/or England at any given point in time. The influence is a widely accepted fact.
If the majority decides bank robbery is okay, then you should probably investigate why and will likely have to change the way banks opperate.
Wrong. During the Great Depression, banks were commonly robbed. They were robbed because people didn't have money. Banks did. That doesn't mean the banks are to blame in any way. It means people are breaking the law.
If you look at some of the well known names robbing banks back then, many people actually assisted them because while they were robbing banks, they also destroyed bank documentation which proved debt. Since they were illegally wiping debt, many were willing to look the other way at the robberies. That's hardly a good thing.
No, it doesn't. Many times this WILL be the truth, but you cannot honestly believe that somebody who downloads a dozen movies every week would pay for all those movies if he could not download them. 1 copy != 1 lost sale.
Ultimately, someone didn't get paid - which you came around to admitting. My point remains valid. Which is not to say yours is entirely without merit...but they are not mutually exclusive.
The rest of stuff ignored because its not accurate within context - not in the least and you know it. And of course economics is far more complex. That's the reason neither of us went into great detail and is the reason I deferred others to learn for themselves.
Find me one CEO of a public company who believes the negative valuation of their stock is a good thing as a result of competitive actions. Since that competent CEO doesn't exist, its safe we both agree you don't have a legitimate point in the least.
Oh forgot to add that you mentioned each download devalues the IP, while research shows complete controverse: Every download infact increases the value of the IP.
Sorry, but you're completely wrong. That's not what the research says in least. You're talking about the viral component to piracy. You completely misunderstand.
Let's say 10 units are moved in total. Five are sales. Five are pirated. Of the five pirated, one converts to a sale because of the viral component. That means a total of six sales and four pirated copies. The four pirated copies continue to devalue the IP. Which means, at best, the viral sale is likely a net loss because of the devaluation from the other pirated copies. Which means, we're still talking about something like five sales.
Obviously you can play with the numbers, but the point remains, the viral component absolutely does not increase value, rather, it limits the negative. Those are two completely different things.
Post like yours are interesting but inherently flawed. So your saying their album wasn't pirated. Not one bit? If the answer is yes, please provide some proof because that seems so extremely unlikely. If the answer is no, it doesn't change anything at all. I've never read a single account anywhere which states IP is no longer purchased, ever, and piracy is the sole form of adoption. Is that your position?
Basically, no matter how you look at it, your post is interesting, but hardly a cure in the least. So long as a majority are pirating, the IP holders will continue to look to the law for some form of relief. I honestly have absolutely no idea why you believe your data point addresses the central problem.
Which means we're back to my original post; which was tongue in cheek, but you seem to have missed that too. It means they have two choices. One, continue to create more and more draconian laws. Two, stop attempting release music (you don't seriously believe that would happen - do you...exactly).
The point of my statement was to stress how piracy is forcing extremely behavior. Pirates are leaving no other options. Sure there are some interesting stories of limited success in spite of piracy. There are some examples of massive success even with piracy. But making less money or in many cases, the flat out cause of failure (lack of profit) is directly associated with piracy and no one believes that acceptable.
Tell me, if you worked and never got paid for your efforts, would you be okay with that? That's basically the core problem with piracy. Let's say you work for ten people in a collective. Of those ten people, only four to six actually pay you. The other six to four say, hey, you were already paid - what are you complaining about? And that's the problem with the pro-pirate platform. I've never met a pirate who wasn't fully of hypocrisy on the subject. Piracy isn't a problem unless its happening to them. And only then, it demands immediate action requiring ever more draconian solutions.
If you have to ask, that means the example provided is completely invalid.
I loophole prevents which prevents enforcement of a law means exactly that. It means the law can not be enforced. As such, it will indefinitely prevent enforcement until a new law is created or the existing law is revised.
To say otherwise means we're not talking about a loophole which prevents enforcement. Rather, we're talking about a slightly ambiguous law which the courts (most of the world) need to clarify. Once clarified, anyone attempting to use the loophole is going find themselves in violation of the law.
Which means the posts which were hatefully and shamefully troll moderated was completely valid and legitimate - contrary to the massive ignorance here.
Basically it typically works like this: Loophole identified which might prevent enforcement of the law. Party A refuses to comply because of loophole.
Party A is taken to court. Judge reviews law and reasons party A refuses to comply. The judge can strike down the law on some outright conflicting basis (this wouldn't be a loophole). The judge can agree the meaning is so ambiguous it reaches far beyond its original intent and legally clarify its limits. Or the judge can determine the spirit of the law (its real intent) is fairly clear despite some ambiguity (as in this case - the intent is pretty clear) and demand party A comply. At this point they either must comply or be in contempt of court (arrestable offense - again, in most of the world). Likewise, laws typically have a downside for failure to comply, which would now also be applicable.
Then, for others, the legal precedence would now be fully established. Which means, should the next party fail to comply, as there is now legal clarification, they can move directly to enforcement of law. Again, that's roughly how it works for the majority of the world.
Basically, it as usual, what it means is the idiot that hoped to provide a counter example was completely clueless and provided a completely invalid example - as its not a loophole. They are talking about strikes - not laws with loopholes, which I seriously doubt is a loophole.
Basically this thread has turned into the usual pro-pirate, trolling, ignorance, troll moderation, and generally nothing even close to reality from the pro-pirate-troll user community. For whatever reason, because people disagree with the law, they believe it has created a new reality. Which in of itself, if you stop to thing about it, not only speaks extremely poorly of them, but is down right scary.
As a side note, look at how many of my posts were actively hunted down and troll moderated. To say they go out of their way to hide their shame and ignorance is an understatement.
Look at the irrational posts, the hateful and completely biased troll moderation. My statement is back by all research into the subject. Your post is based on bad logic. My post is negative troll moderated. Your post, which provides absolutely nothing to the thread, is positively moderated. Talk about hiding their shame.
Here's a central FACT: Entitlement is the number one cause of piracy. Period. That's not the sole cause, but it is the primary cause. So to say it is part of the pro-pirate platform, absolutely is valid. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
Not surprising in the least. Especially in the software industry.
Generally this means the upper management is completely fucked too, but they want to keep the lower fuck ups around so they have someone to blame for their own incompetence.
Classic troll.
Someone took a legitimate complaint and completely invalidated it by inversion. Basically changing OpenOffice (ODF) to Office (OOXML) and Office to OpenOffice.
I'm going to guess the people aren't quite as incompetent as he pretends.
You're either completely foreign to software development or have been ignorantly blessed in the people you've been privileged to work with. The comic strip of Dilbert exists not because its some strange world but because its something most anyone in industry can relate. In fact, most of the jokes in the strip are literally, parodies of true events.
The reality is, in the software industry, the following are truisms:
1) Your boss is likely a PHB promoted well beyond his capabilities.
2) Those managing the project will create a schedule with absolutely no footing in reality while demanding you adhere to it. Worse, its frequently made by marketing for features absolutely no one wants.
3) Releasing a half finished, unusable product, is the norm.
4) Testing and documentation is almost always neglected.
5) Testers are typically treated like the enemy. And should their findings conflict with the schedule, they will likely be ignored.
Basically, the software industry is completely fucked up. Doubly so in the gaming industry. In most other industries, they would all be fired for complete incompetence. One of the responses is the party complaining didn't have realistic expectations. That's certainly one way of looking at it. Realistically though, those saying he has unrealistic expectations are the ones with unrealistic expectations and are only compounding the problems.
Basically, his expectations are unrealistic exactly because the software industry is completely fucked up. Then again, the expectations of the industry are unrealistic, resulting in extremely poor quality, incompetent behavior exactly because the industry is completely fucked up and that's the accepted norm. So its become a catch-22. If you act responsibly, you are bucking the system of incompetence and will likely be censured.
There definitely are some exceptions, but it doesn't change the fact, that this is the software industry at large. In some ways, Microsoft actually help lower the bar for the rest of the industry. So its not exactly surprising Microsoft is reflecting glass; which typifies low quality and way overdue projects as the norm.
The generators are proven technology. There is nothing special about them. They are steam turbines attached to a generator.
Your other concerns are exactly why a small site should be built. Until that happens, you can't move forward - ever.
It sounds like we may be round about saying the same things...or differences without a difference.
One very small scale device that wasn't connected to any generation equipment and ran for only 5 years? That counts as "almost completely unproven" to me.
Not in academic circles. Those who actually fund these projects would consider it validation and fit for small scale deployment. Basically, it technically proven. The next step is to prove practical business feasibility which is entirely different from technological feasibility.
While to you it may be "almost completely unproven", its not to the rest of the world.
From what I understand, Google's patent infringements do not relate to the use of Java as a language or Java byte code to Dalvik conversion,
Agreed. My previous comments were directed at those who seem to believe the problem stems from the fact that java -> dalvic is an issue. My post points out its likely not in the least.
As Google's response to Oracle indicates, Oracle has yet to indicate exactly what is infringing, which legally means, nothing is infringing. So unless Oracle names specific offenses in their response, which they were supposed to do in their initial filing, once again Oracle doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Furthermore, the VM implementations are entirely different beasts so its not likely Oracle even has a basis for complaint. And if they do, its entirely likely prior art exists. Java did nothing new in their VM proper. Really, Java's big improvements have been in garbage collection (to which Dalkvik beats its own path) and in hot spot JIT, which in of itself isn't entirely novel.
So long story short, Oracle has a long, long, long ways to go do establish they are anything other than a spoiled brat demanding the keys to the candy store.
IIRC they kind of do, by using the trademarked Java name in their class heirachy, and that trademark is only allowed to be used by test-suite-passing implementations
Not true in the least. They are referencing a trademarked name an by law, they are required to denote its trademarked. Thusly, legally, when I say, "Java", I should actually be saying, "Java(tm)". I would then add a reference to the bottom saying something like, "Java is trademarked Oracle Corporation." Given that the majority of their documentation is not for general public consumption, but rather developers, a lackadaisical approach is hardly out of the norm.
Its not that they are attempting to claim Java trademark nor confusing use of Java as their own trademark. The fact remains, they are referencing a standardized language, syntax, and specification as well as freely available APIs which are programmed in the Java language. How else would they refer to this body of work without referencing the language in which this body of work is clearly specified, when in fact, you largely code to those same specifications? Exactly.
Perhaps you ought to turn yours in. The suit isn't about destroying Android. The suit is about the fact that Google is using an incompatible VM with the Java language and trying to pass it off as Java. Which it isn't. Java is supposed to be compatible between the various VMs, even if not always perfect.
It can only be incompatible if they actually claim to be java compatible. They don't. They claim to be able to parse the java byte code, which they do. This is like ARM complaining that you can run ARM binaries in an emulator on another platform - only once more removed.
Java syntax -> java compiler -> java byte code -> compiled to dalvik byte code -> dalvik VM.
The magic happens in the byte code to byte code recompilation. Basically this means Android uses java's byte code as an object format. So unless there is something magical about providing interoperability and compatibility, which are absolutely, legally allowed, I'm not sure what Oracle is complaining about.
Hell, according to the die hard nutjobs in most IRC #java, they completely deny Android has anything to do with Java and a statement to the contrary will result in a kick/ban. Obviously, that's not legally binding but given how far removed Android's Dalvik is from Java, its difficult to understand the confusion when even Java's supporters don't recognize Android/Dalvik.
#3 they tried deregulation in CA, remember that?
Rolling blackouts ring a bell?
Only indirectly related to deregulation. Had far, far more to do with fraud and poor planning. Both can easily be addressed even in a deregulated market. The rest of the US pretty well invalidates the point of contention. Not to mention, so does a fair amount of the rest of the world.
The problems with your theory:
None of those are problems in the least as they are all accounted for in the accounting. Period.
#1 Already receive subsidy to offset most of these costs. Also have liability caps to ensure insurability. Again, everything is already included in their plans. This has zero factor aside what has already been considered.
#2 Not an issue. See #1 above. Not a factor in the least.
#3 Bullshit point which doesn't make sense in the least.
Long story short, as insightful as some moderators believe your post to be for whatever reason, its completely irrelevant and not the least bit insightful.
The late 1980s and early 1990's want their AI attempts back.
This has already been done. It even received some mainstream press. Guess no news is once again new news on slashdot.
What a completely bullshit, anti-nuke, trollish article.
So nuclear is in doubt because someone is asking for loans and subsidy the size of a small countries GDP, and with the banks ask for a guarantee, they baulk. This is really a story of a company demanding money and desire to run a sure thing into the ground. With these types of dollars, its hardly the least bit unreasonable to demand some protection of the loan. This seems to hint that they intended to do something insanely poor with the management of the project or the reactor.
Depends. Some parts of the US have no speed limit. Even in some well traveled states the speed limit is as high as 85MPH. Even some highways in Texas have a 80MPH speed limit - which means it doesn't qualify for federal highway funds - despite paying taxes on those same highways.
Regardless, the car is designed for limited distance commutes where high speed and long distances are the exception.
The articles is really a bunch of trollish bullshit. Is it an electric car? Does it run on electric motors? Does it have batteries to allow it to travel non-trivial distances on electric motors. The answer is absolutely yes to all of them. By any meaningful metric, it absolutely is an electric car. Its an electric car which attempts to address the needs whereby the LEAF falls short; and for exactly the same reasons people don't want a LEAF.
As for the MPG rating, this is a fundamental flaw of government standards which has been known to be generally useless for electric/hybrids for over a decade now and highly questionable for even ICE vehicles. Lobbyists have maintained the standard because it makes their MPG numbers appear better than they are, which allows them to road more poor mileage vehicles than would otherwise be possible. As a side benefit, using the government mandated method, it provides completely useless and bogus results for hybrid and electric vehicles.
People are now blaming the Volt for the government's failing in allowing them to be bought and paid for via lobbyists. Long story short, this is nothing but absolutely bullshit. If you are the least bit stirred, aside from anger at the stupidity and ignorance of the article, then you don't know enough of the subject matter to be justified in the first place.
This is the EXACT type of problem Azimov explored with his robots and his three laws!
I post this because every time AI stories appear here, someone always posts that Asimov's three laws will save us; which in turn, very likely implicates public education as having failed to save them.
So far, the only knowledgeable and correct post on the subject.
Everyone spies on everyone. The only real difference is the degree to which one country actively attempts to spy. For example, US and Briton have excellent communication most of the time and share considerable information so little active spying takes place. Notice I didn't say none. "Trust but verify", is the mantra after all.
As for most dangerous, the US is easily at least fifth from the top. And if you want to throw cultural values into the mix, it continues to drop even further.
Very informative. Thanks.
It's dangerous for diabetics, pregnants
Current research seems to indicate a drink in moderation is not necessarily bad for pregnant women. Also, the majority of the alcohol does evaporate so we're really talking about minimum levels. For 99.999 percent of the population, its not a health risk. Besides, there are so many foods and medications which do include alcohol, a discussion of minimal levels is a complete misdirection.
In this case, we're talking about alcohol suspended in dough, which is in direct contact with an extremely high temperature pan. So we're talking about maybe 30%-40% retention of 1/4 cup. That's roughly 0.1 fluid ounces, assuming 40%, divided amongst eight pieces. Or roughly 0.0125 ouches of alcohol per piece of pie. And if the pie is provided several hours of cooling time it likely has even far less. You likely get more alcohol with your dose of medication.
Basically, if you are concerned about this level of alcohol, you never leave your home.
ReactOS does pull in wine - last I read. But as the wine developers will tell you, Windows basically sucks. There are so many hacks and kludges which have been developed in Windows over the years, the wine guys are forced to constantly re-implement them. Far too many applications actually demand improper behavior from the OS APIs to function properly. Even worse, this behavior can depend on which MS OS variant its running under.
No more digital music *sales*. If you think the artists are going to survive by trying to keep their music a secret you can only listen to at a live performance, you are wrong.
Of course I'm wrong. For a second I forgot where I was. I assumed the reader would draw a conclusion other than the literal, black and white reading. The point was to highlight how IP holders continue to be forced into ever more draconian and/or extreme solutions. It absolutely is not likely recorded music is going away. But it doesn't change the root problem. Party A is taking something to which it has no rights. Party B wants to be compensated, is protected by law, and is actively encouraging additional protections under the law.
Do you know anything about the courts in the rest of the world,
Yes. That's why I said what I did. The majority is not the entire world. Such a distinction seems to cause no end of confusion for absolutely no reason whatsoever. The majority of the world has the same common basis for law. As a result, the details may vary but many share a common ideology and overall process.
Remember, a huge chunk of the world was basically owned by France, Spain, and/or England at any given point in time. The influence is a widely accepted fact.
If the majority decides bank robbery is okay, then you should probably investigate why and will likely have to change the way banks opperate.
Wrong. During the Great Depression, banks were commonly robbed. They were robbed because people didn't have money. Banks did. That doesn't mean the banks are to blame in any way. It means people are breaking the law.
If you look at some of the well known names robbing banks back then, many people actually assisted them because while they were robbing banks, they also destroyed bank documentation which proved debt. Since they were illegally wiping debt, many were willing to look the other way at the robberies. That's hardly a good thing.
No, it doesn't.
Many times this WILL be the truth, but you cannot honestly believe that somebody who downloads a dozen movies every week would pay for all those movies if he could not download them.
1 copy != 1 lost sale.
Ultimately, someone didn't get paid - which you came around to admitting. My point remains valid. Which is not to say yours is entirely without merit...but they are not mutually exclusive.
The rest of stuff ignored because its not accurate within context - not in the least and you know it. And of course economics is far more complex. That's the reason neither of us went into great detail and is the reason I deferred others to learn for themselves.
Find me one CEO of a public company who believes the negative valuation of their stock is a good thing as a result of competitive actions. Since that competent CEO doesn't exist, its safe we both agree you don't have a legitimate point in the least.
Oh forgot to add that you mentioned each download devalues the IP, while research shows complete controverse: Every download infact increases the value of the IP.
Sorry, but you're completely wrong. That's not what the research says in least. You're talking about the viral component to piracy. You completely misunderstand.
Let's say 10 units are moved in total. Five are sales. Five are pirated. Of the five pirated, one converts to a sale because of the viral component. That means a total of six sales and four pirated copies. The four pirated copies continue to devalue the IP. Which means, at best, the viral sale is likely a net loss because of the devaluation from the other pirated copies. Which means, we're still talking about something like five sales.
Obviously you can play with the numbers, but the point remains, the viral component absolutely does not increase value, rather, it limits the negative. Those are two completely different things.
Your argument is wrong, plain and simply wrong.
Post like yours are interesting but inherently flawed. So your saying their album wasn't pirated. Not one bit? If the answer is yes, please provide some proof because that seems so extremely unlikely. If the answer is no, it doesn't change anything at all. I've never read a single account anywhere which states IP is no longer purchased, ever, and piracy is the sole form of adoption. Is that your position?
Basically, no matter how you look at it, your post is interesting, but hardly a cure in the least. So long as a majority are pirating, the IP holders will continue to look to the law for some form of relief. I honestly have absolutely no idea why you believe your data point addresses the central problem.
Which means we're back to my original post; which was tongue in cheek, but you seem to have missed that too. It means they have two choices. One, continue to create more and more draconian laws. Two, stop attempting release music (you don't seriously believe that would happen - do you...exactly).
The point of my statement was to stress how piracy is forcing extremely behavior. Pirates are leaving no other options. Sure there are some interesting stories of limited success in spite of piracy. There are some examples of massive success even with piracy. But making less money or in many cases, the flat out cause of failure (lack of profit) is directly associated with piracy and no one believes that acceptable.
Tell me, if you worked and never got paid for your efforts, would you be okay with that? That's basically the core problem with piracy. Let's say you work for ten people in a collective. Of those ten people, only four to six actually pay you. The other six to four say, hey, you were already paid - what are you complaining about? And that's the problem with the pro-pirate platform. I've never met a pirate who wasn't fully of hypocrisy on the subject. Piracy isn't a problem unless its happening to them. And only then, it demands immediate action requiring ever more draconian solutions.
Why would they stop them indefinitely ?
If you have to ask, that means the example provided is completely invalid.
I loophole prevents which prevents enforcement of a law means exactly that. It means the law can not be enforced. As such, it will indefinitely prevent enforcement until a new law is created or the existing law is revised.
To say otherwise means we're not talking about a loophole which prevents enforcement. Rather, we're talking about a slightly ambiguous law which the courts (most of the world) need to clarify. Once clarified, anyone attempting to use the loophole is going find themselves in violation of the law.
Which means the posts which were hatefully and shamefully troll moderated was completely valid and legitimate - contrary to the massive ignorance here.
Basically it typically works like this:
Loophole identified which might prevent enforcement of the law. Party A refuses to comply because of loophole.
Party A is taken to court. Judge reviews law and reasons party A refuses to comply. The judge can strike down the law on some outright conflicting basis (this wouldn't be a loophole). The judge can agree the meaning is so ambiguous it reaches far beyond its original intent and legally clarify its limits. Or the judge can determine the spirit of the law (its real intent) is fairly clear despite some ambiguity (as in this case - the intent is pretty clear) and demand party A comply. At this point they either must comply or be in contempt of court (arrestable offense - again, in most of the world). Likewise, laws typically have a downside for failure to comply, which would now also be applicable.
Then, for others, the legal precedence would now be fully established. Which means, should the next party fail to comply, as there is now legal clarification, they can move directly to enforcement of law. Again, that's roughly how it works for the majority of the world.
Basically, it as usual, what it means is the idiot that hoped to provide a counter example was completely clueless and provided a completely invalid example - as its not a loophole. They are talking about strikes - not laws with loopholes, which I seriously doubt is a loophole.
Basically this thread has turned into the usual pro-pirate, trolling, ignorance, troll moderation, and generally nothing even close to reality from the pro-pirate-troll user community. For whatever reason, because people disagree with the law, they believe it has created a new reality. Which in of itself, if you stop to thing about it, not only speaks extremely poorly of them, but is down right scary.
As a side note, look at how many of my posts were actively hunted down and troll moderated. To say they go out of their way to hide their shame and ignorance is an understatement.
Look at the irrational posts, the hateful and completely biased troll moderation. My statement is back by all research into the subject. Your post is based on bad logic. My post is negative troll moderated. Your post, which provides absolutely nothing to the thread, is positively moderated. Talk about hiding their shame.
Here's a central FACT: Entitlement is the number one cause of piracy. Period. That's not the sole cause, but it is the primary cause. So to say it is part of the pro-pirate platform, absolutely is valid. Period.