Whose fault is it that your browser can't display TIFFs? Last I checked, TIFF was a very universal format. Check out internetiff or alternatiff for free tiff viewers that work in Firefox.
Maybe, just maybe, it means that when hit with the radiation women are more likely to develop breast and ovarian cancer than women who are not exposed to the radiation. Thus, "[women] are more susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer [than women who haven't been exposed]" RATHER than [than men].
A machine gun has a strong potential for misuse. Thats why we train people to use it properly. If used properly, this "non-lethal" weapon may be a way to avoid using a deadly machine gun by using a weapon with a much much much lower chance for killing or seriously injuring someone. I'd imagine that every day there is someone shot with a machine gun in Iraq in a situation in which a non-lethal weapon COULD have been used.
Just because it makes price-fixing possible, doesn't make it price-fixing. Now, if you could prove that Microsoft did collude with some monitor maker's you'd have a case... But to re-iterate, making collusion easier doesn't make it collusion.
They will need to get a converter to convert the digital signal to analog. This shouldn't cost more than 20$, but who knows with the instant demand and all.
no, frankly the business should decide whats right. If they want to have a preview day where they invite the first 1000 people to check out the museum for free, let them. If they want to charge 1000$ a person to see the museum which has one steel door and they let one person in at a time followed by a guard, let them, its their choice and they get to have recourse if you kill the guard and sneak in.
Agreed...excellent comments. I think that the analogy helps people realize that it isn't completely different than other issues that we've dealt with for many years (trespassing).
Maybe I'm just in it to break even and get my 2million + operating expenses back, but because people are sneaking in the back door when they would have otherwise paid I'm not covering my expenses. Some people would have paid just like some people would have purchased a software program that they downloaded as warez.
Thanks, but I was looking for a little more of an explanation as to why he paid for it when he was already in posession of it? Does he consider his payment a donation? Did he feel bad continuing to use software for which he hadn't paid? Was he looking to have the software supported?
I'm acutely aware of the legal differences between theft, copyright infringement, trespassing, fraud, and whatever other crimes you might want to discuss. However, this isn't a legal argument. It hardly is even about what the law says, because its pretty clear what the law's stance is on this subject. It is a discussion about what is "right" and what the law should be.
Bottom line, when you sneak in and view the art, you are stealing something. You have taken something, with no intention (or ability to give it back), from the artist. Just because it isn't a physical thing doesn't make it any less stealing. Just because you haven't deprived the person of any physical posession doesn't make it any less stealing (especially since, you are depriving the person of a payment for their services anyway). This was never meant to be a pedagogical discussion about the law, it is a discussion of reality. I say using warez is theft and gave reasons why, you say its not...so be it
Maybe those people should look to Adobe's elements version that only is 99$. Also, it looks like the full version of Photoshop is currently 599$ not 999$ (still very high, but its not designed for the average consumer to pick up to piddle around with).
I build a museum of fine art. It costs 1 million dollars worth of construction crew time. It costs another 1 million dollars of artist time (this is all new art). I decide that I'm going to charge 50$ a head to let people in the door. If you find a way to sneak in through the back door and view the art, aren't you really stealing. Further, if I realize that people are sneaking in, I may have to charge 80$ from everyone else to cover the sneakers loss of sales. If I don't, I want be able to cover the monthly bills. As a person who is not willing to sneak in, I get screwed by higher prices. As a business owner I get screwed by having to raise prices and piss people off. As a sneaker, I have the mild inconveince of using the back door and the possibility of getting caught.
Ignoring the trespassing aspects, isn't this essentially the same thing as taking intellectual property without paying?
I agree and I generally support allowing people to compete over allowing them to sue. BUT, if I make something and decide its worth 50$, why do you get to come by and say, here's nothing I'm going to take it. Maybe 50$ is an outrageous price to ask for my something, but thats what I want and thats what I should get. If you don't want to buy it, fine, don't buy it, but that doesn't give you the right to just take it.
Except in this case, software companies are affected by the "theft" of copyrighted materials. Sure, you can argue that not everyone who gets the software from a warez channel would have bought the software, but certainly some would have. All your arguments proves is that software has no physical product, does that mean that it should be free?
Maybe its best to think of software as a service. Maybe a good analogy is this: You go into a barber shop and say give me a good trim. Once the barber finishes, you dash out the front door with your new do and don't pay a cent. Sure, the barber still has as many combs and scissors as before, but you've still taken something from him: his time. Software is a little different in that all of the time is put in before you see any of the results, but why should that make it any different?
People put in time to develop software, a business calculates that the time is worth x$ per sale, if you take the software and pay (x-x)$ you have stolen something...Anyway, now you can go back to justifying this "theft."
Slashdot Mirror
Whose fault is it that your browser can't display TIFFs? Last I checked, TIFF was a very universal format. Check out internetiff or alternatiff for free tiff viewers that work in Firefox.
Then slashdot came around and got rid of the necessity for read access.
so it can land
Maybe, just maybe, it means that when hit with the radiation women are more likely to develop breast and ovarian cancer than women who are not exposed to the radiation. Thus, "[women] are more susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer [than women who haven't been exposed]" RATHER than [than men].
A machine gun has a strong potential for misuse. Thats why we train people to use it properly. If used properly, this "non-lethal" weapon may be a way to avoid using a deadly machine gun by using a weapon with a much much much lower chance for killing or seriously injuring someone. I'd imagine that every day there is someone shot with a machine gun in Iraq in a situation in which a non-lethal weapon COULD have been used.
What was bogus about the tickets?
hmm, I was expecting you to follow that up with the always intellectual argument: I know you are but what am I?
ooooh, burned. Did you learn that "not" comeback comment in third or fourth grade?
Isn't this off-topic? Why is the parent talking about fish??
Just because it makes price-fixing possible, doesn't make it price-fixing. Now, if you could prove that Microsoft did collude with some monitor maker's you'd have a case... But to re-iterate, making collusion easier doesn't make it collusion.
They will need to get a converter to convert the digital signal to analog. This shouldn't cost more than 20$, but who knows with the instant demand and all.
Cause they look prettier.
I take that as a compliment. Thanks!
no, frankly the business should decide whats right. If they want to have a preview day where they invite the first 1000 people to check out the museum for free, let them. If they want to charge 1000$ a person to see the museum which has one steel door and they let one person in at a time followed by a guard, let them, its their choice and they get to have recourse if you kill the guard and sneak in.
Your disclaimer is great!
Maybe I'm just in it to break even and get my 2million + operating expenses back, but because people are sneaking in the back door when they would have otherwise paid I'm not covering my expenses. Some people would have paid just like some people would have purchased a software program that they downloaded as warez.
Thanks, but I was looking for a little more of an explanation as to why he paid for it when he was already in posession of it? Does he consider his payment a donation? Did he feel bad continuing to use software for which he hadn't paid? Was he looking to have the software supported?
Essentially the same != =
I'm acutely aware of the legal differences between theft, copyright infringement, trespassing, fraud, and whatever other crimes you might want to discuss. However, this isn't a legal argument. It hardly is even about what the law says, because its pretty clear what the law's stance is on this subject. It is a discussion about what is "right" and what the law should be.
Bottom line, when you sneak in and view the art, you are stealing something. You have taken something, with no intention (or ability to give it back), from the artist. Just because it isn't a physical thing doesn't make it any less stealing. Just because you haven't deprived the person of any physical posession doesn't make it any less stealing (especially since, you are depriving the person of a payment for their services anyway). This was never meant to be a pedagogical discussion about the law, it is a discussion of reality. I say using warez is theft and gave reasons why, you say its not...so be it
We're talking about software.
Maybe those people should look to Adobe's elements version that only is 99$. Also, it looks like the full version of Photoshop is currently 599$ not 999$ (still very high, but its not designed for the average consumer to pick up to piddle around with).
haha, thanks!
As a serious question, what made you buy it?
I build a museum of fine art. It costs 1 million dollars worth of construction crew time. It costs another 1 million dollars of artist time (this is all new art). I decide that I'm going to charge 50$ a head to let people in the door. If you find a way to sneak in through the back door and view the art, aren't you really stealing. Further, if I realize that people are sneaking in, I may have to charge 80$ from everyone else to cover the sneakers loss of sales. If I don't, I want be able to cover the monthly bills. As a person who is not willing to sneak in, I get screwed by higher prices. As a business owner I get screwed by having to raise prices and piss people off. As a sneaker, I have the mild inconveince of using the back door and the possibility of getting caught.
Ignoring the trespassing aspects, isn't this essentially the same thing as taking intellectual property without paying?
I agree and I generally support allowing people to compete over allowing them to sue. BUT, if I make something and decide its worth 50$, why do you get to come by and say, here's nothing I'm going to take it. Maybe 50$ is an outrageous price to ask for my something, but thats what I want and thats what I should get. If you don't want to buy it, fine, don't buy it, but that doesn't give you the right to just take it.
Maybe its best to think of software as a service. Maybe a good analogy is this: You go into a barber shop and say give me a good trim. Once the barber finishes, you dash out the front door with your new do and don't pay a cent. Sure, the barber still has as many combs and scissors as before, but you've still taken something from him: his time. Software is a little different in that all of the time is put in before you see any of the results, but why should that make it any different?
People put in time to develop software, a business calculates that the time is worth x$ per sale, if you take the software and pay (x-x)$ you have stolen something...Anyway, now you can go back to justifying this "theft."