What annoys me is when I informally send one person an email in response to a problem that they have created only to have them turn around and send a formal email to God and the world in response to a "problem" I created. CYA my ass - some people use it for politics.
That said, telephones have the overall immediacy and presence akin to instant messaging. It's good when the situation is really critical but most of the time it's not. Email most often has the proper distance factor. It lets people know they have a situation that needs to be resolved and gives them time to compose their thoughts.
A different thing entirely. He's talking about repetitive stress injury that comes from performing the same movement over and over again without pause, not how physcically demanding the labor is. Unless your sight impaired, you'd probably sit at arms length away from the screen. That would require you to fully extend your elbow, wrist and shoulder to reach it. Imagine being graphics artist and having to hold your arm like that for hours at a time.
All the occupations you mentioned can have the same problem albeit in different ways. I am in IT for a manufacturing company and we require our shop floor employees to attend a training class specifically on this subject.
This is just my observation, but I've been out looking for a Wii after playing one my niece got for Christmas. After stopping at about 25 stores, I was unable to find one; However, at about ten of the stores I could find a Playstation 3. What's remarkable is a few of the clerks I spoke to told me that Wii's are being delivered faster and in larger quantity that PS3's but they still can't keep them in stock.
I didn't buy a PS3 because their are no games out that want and I could not justify the cost. It seems others are doing the same, and going for the Wii instead. By the time it is worthwhile to buy as PS3, how many family types will buy one if they already have Wii ? From what I've seen, they're won't be any worthwhile games for almost a year.
The point is PS3 can't help drive the blu-ray market if they have a limited market themself.
What about vigilante sites like http://platewire.com, as reported in this article, or www.womansavers.com. These sights tend to encourage posts which on the face of it are libelous if unfounded, if not a whole lot more (IANAL).
It seems to me that sights like these should not only be ethically bound but legally bound to provide an active means to challenge and remove posts which contain false or misleading statements since they more or less directly identify individuals involved. At the very least, they should not benefit from a ruling like because they encouraged the behavior from the start.
It's not the same as a craiglist here there is no such vigalante intention. Even they have rules and systems to challenge defamatory posts.
Wait a minute. There are reasons other than religion why certain types of gambling are wrong and should be restricted. State lotteries are a good example because they take advantage of the poor, desparate and ill-informed. The odds of winning a typical state lottery are thirteen million to one. For the multi-state lotteries, it's in the 145 million to one. While I am sure there are some people who play on a whim, there are a lot more who succumb to emotional reasoning or gambling addition to play when the practical reality is they will never win. Practically any other way they spend their money would be more useful.
As far as online poker, your average person might stand a better chance than with the lottery but not much. With the use of poker bots, the odds for Joe Smith are greatly dimished unless he knows how to utilize poker bots himself or he's sharp enough a card player to recognize when he's facing bots and get out of the game accordingly.
I recently subscribed to Blockbuster online so that I could catch up with the current season of the Sopranos. Being impatient, I also started going to the store to get other episodes to piggy back between the arrival times of the ones I ordered online. Now I could have done the same thing with Netflix, but why would I choose to do that when I would not get any of the in store rebates ?
That aside, one thing I don't get it how Blockbuster handles their online orders. My understanding is that they are shipped from the closest brick and mortar store having the dvd. That seems terribly inefficient and error prone for them, even if it does make delivery times quicker. Of course, they have the advantage of being able to satisfy the walk-in customer and the online customer from the same stock. If they can continue to make it work, in the long run they will have the advantage over Netflix until such time as we can legally get movies over the 'net.
When that occurs, I would not expect Blockbuster to dissapear though. Nearly six years back they had already begun exploring online content delivery however the project fell through with the failure of Enron broadband.
In my version of morality, two wrongs don't make a right.
Aside from that, none of the evidence shown in the article gives me any compelling justification for the outright theft of creative works going on with p2p or any other application. I have never seen a patent convey a stake in ownership of goods produced from it, so I cannot see how Edison ever had a stake in film produced by a motion picture camera illegal or not. The article goes on to discuss current and former problems in copyright laws without drawing any tangible correlation to the development of today's movie or music industries which supposedly is what this article is about. Lastly when discussing cable TV, it fails to mention the fact that cable companies were required to carry local broadcasters signals prior to the same act which allowed local broadcasters to begin charging for their service.
The collective arguments of this article are nearly as tepid as the expedient reasoning that IP theft is just reward for perceived corporate transgressions against artists and consumers alike. If a CD/DVD/Ticket or whatever is to expensive, don't buy it. If enough people do, the content producers will lower the price. I have yet to hear an artist request the public steal their work because of all the bad things a producer has done to them.
What gets me most about people decrying the RIAA or the MPAA for trying to put a stop to Internet based theft is that no one can suggest a logical alternative way for artists to make a fair amount of money, something required if consumers expect to continue receiving the wide array of choices and possibilities available today. Considering a Hollywood blockbuster can easily cost $100 million or more, can we really expect studios to sell enough T-shirts and toys to cover it ?
Perhaps I am the only one to think about it like this but I see a twisted parallel between free-trade economists espousing the benefits the U.S's rapidly outsourcing IT and service industries and the p2p barkers shouting the creative benefits of stealing artist's work. Being in IT and due to be "freed up to pursue other interests" soon, like artists I am wondering just what that will be.
Lastly, there is another part. Outside the U.S. government or the U.S. military, no other U.S. industry has had near the influence on the outside world as that of the movie and music industries. For years, they have helped spread the American way of life in a form not even the government or military could convey. Both industries are still major exporters for the U.S., in dollars, influence and good will. I realize not every one who reads Slashdot is a U.S. Citizen but as an American (as we U.S. citizens like to call ourselves) , I find IMHO that helping to eviscerate these industries is un-American.
BTW, I am a UNIX administrator and C/C++ programmer, not a Windoze admin. I do not hate Microsoft because they are big but rather because they steal other people's ideas and call them their own, kind of like some people using p2p networks to download stolen music and movies.
Slashdot Mirror
What annoys me is when I informally send one person an email in response to a problem that they have created only to have them turn around and send a formal email to God and the world in response to a "problem" I created. CYA my ass - some people use it for politics.
That said, telephones have the overall immediacy and presence akin to instant messaging. It's good when the situation is really critical but most of the time it's not. Email most often has the proper distance factor. It lets people know they have a situation that needs to be resolved and gives them time to compose their thoughts.
A different thing entirely. He's talking about repetitive stress injury that comes from performing the same movement over and over again without pause, not how physcically demanding the labor is. Unless your sight impaired, you'd probably sit at arms length away from the screen. That would require you to fully extend your elbow, wrist and shoulder to reach it. Imagine being graphics artist and having to hold your arm like that for hours at a time.
All the occupations you mentioned can have the same problem albeit in different ways. I am in IT for a manufacturing company and we require our shop floor employees to attend a training class specifically on this subject.
This is just my observation, but I've been out looking for a Wii after playing one my niece got for Christmas. After stopping at about 25 stores, I was unable to find one; However, at about ten of the stores I could find a Playstation 3. What's remarkable is a few of the clerks I spoke to told me that Wii's are being delivered faster and in larger quantity that PS3's but they still can't keep them in stock.
I didn't buy a PS3 because their are no games out that want and I could not justify the cost. It seems others are doing the same, and going for the Wii instead. By the time it is worthwhile to buy as PS3, how many family types will buy one if they already have Wii ? From what I've seen, they're won't be any worthwhile games for almost a year.
The point is PS3 can't help drive the blu-ray market if they have a limited market themself.
What about vigilante sites like http://platewire.com, as reported in this article, or www.womansavers.com. These sights tend to encourage posts which on the face of it are libelous if unfounded, if not a whole lot more (IANAL).
It seems to me that sights like these should not only be ethically bound but legally bound to provide an active means to challenge and remove posts which contain false or misleading statements since they more or less directly identify individuals involved. At the very least, they should not benefit from a ruling like because they encouraged the behavior from the start.
It's not the same as a craiglist here there is no such vigalante intention. Even they have rules and systems to challenge defamatory posts.
Wait a minute. There are reasons other than religion why certain types of gambling are wrong and should be restricted. State lotteries are a good example because they take advantage of the poor, desparate and ill-informed. The odds of winning a typical state lottery are thirteen million to one. For the multi-state lotteries, it's in the 145 million to one. While I am sure there are some people who play on a whim, there are a lot more who succumb to emotional reasoning or gambling addition to play when the practical reality is they will never win. Practically any other way they spend their money would be more useful.
As far as online poker, your average person might stand a better chance than with the lottery but not much. With the use of poker bots, the odds for Joe Smith are greatly dimished unless he knows how to utilize poker bots himself or he's sharp enough a card player to recognize when he's facing bots and get out of the game accordingly.
I recently subscribed to Blockbuster online so that I could catch up with the current season of the Sopranos. Being impatient, I also started going to the store to get other episodes to piggy back between the arrival times of the ones I ordered online. Now I could have done the same thing with Netflix, but why would I choose to do that when I would not get any of the in store rebates ?
That aside, one thing I don't get it how Blockbuster handles their online orders. My understanding is that they are shipped from the closest brick and mortar store having the dvd. That seems terribly inefficient and error prone for them, even if it does make delivery times quicker. Of course, they have the advantage of being able to satisfy the walk-in customer and the online customer from the same stock. If they can continue to make it work, in the long run they will have the advantage over Netflix until such time as we can legally get movies over the 'net.
When that occurs, I would not expect Blockbuster to dissapear though. Nearly six years back they had already begun exploring online content delivery however the project fell through with the failure of Enron broadband.
In my version of morality, two wrongs don't make a right. Aside from that, none of the evidence shown in the article gives me any compelling justification for the outright theft of creative works going on with p2p or any other application. I have never seen a patent convey a stake in ownership of goods produced from it, so I cannot see how Edison ever had a stake in film produced by a motion picture camera illegal or not. The article goes on to discuss current and former problems in copyright laws without drawing any tangible correlation to the development of today's movie or music industries which supposedly is what this article is about. Lastly when discussing cable TV, it fails to mention the fact that cable companies were required to carry local broadcasters signals prior to the same act which allowed local broadcasters to begin charging for their service. The collective arguments of this article are nearly as tepid as the expedient reasoning that IP theft is just reward for perceived corporate transgressions against artists and consumers alike. If a CD/DVD/Ticket or whatever is to expensive, don't buy it. If enough people do, the content producers will lower the price. I have yet to hear an artist request the public steal their work because of all the bad things a producer has done to them. What gets me most about people decrying the RIAA or the MPAA for trying to put a stop to Internet based theft is that no one can suggest a logical alternative way for artists to make a fair amount of money, something required if consumers expect to continue receiving the wide array of choices and possibilities available today. Considering a Hollywood blockbuster can easily cost $100 million or more, can we really expect studios to sell enough T-shirts and toys to cover it ? Perhaps I am the only one to think about it like this but I see a twisted parallel between free-trade economists espousing the benefits the U.S's rapidly outsourcing IT and service industries and the p2p barkers shouting the creative benefits of stealing artist's work. Being in IT and due to be "freed up to pursue other interests" soon, like artists I am wondering just what that will be. Lastly, there is another part. Outside the U.S. government or the U.S. military, no other U.S. industry has had near the influence on the outside world as that of the movie and music industries. For years, they have helped spread the American way of life in a form not even the government or military could convey. Both industries are still major exporters for the U.S., in dollars, influence and good will. I realize not every one who reads Slashdot is a U.S. Citizen but as an American (as we U.S. citizens like to call ourselves) , I find IMHO that helping to eviscerate these industries is un-American. BTW, I am a UNIX administrator and C/C++ programmer, not a Windoze admin. I do not hate Microsoft because they are big but rather because they steal other people's ideas and call them their own, kind of like some people using p2p networks to download stolen music and movies.