Unfortunately that's not true; the proof is not in the pudding, and never was.
Evidently you missed out on high school English class. Language creates environment and environment creates language. In other words if enough people use language in a certain way then that way, by definition, becomes correct usage. The corrupted proverb that "the proof is in the pudding" has been in published use since at least the 1920s and entered popular usage during the1950s. Chances are you weren't even born until after it became a standard part of the language.
Bullshit. Jobs sits on the board of directors at Disney and he has a less than 10 percent share of Disney stock. As such, he's not even in control of Pixar anymore.
Sitting on the board of directors does not disempower him in any way.
Furthermore, he is the single largest shareholder in Disney. His control over the company is enough to make sure that the majority of Disney programming is available on itunes, its not a leap to expect that he could change the company's requirement for DRM on itunes either.
Sorry, I haven't bothered to memorize any of them, just laughed when I noticed. But here's one of his vanity cards that air after the credit of every episode that mentions it:
If anything, the way this will change is if people buy the hardware, use it, and put pressure on the vendors to get rid of the DRM. It eventually worked on Apple and Amazon for music.
That is a misread of what happened with Apple and music DRM.
The reason we have DRM-free music now is because Apple had a monopoly on DRM. Apple categorically refuses to license their "fairplay" DRM to any other company. Since they had a near monopoly on mp3 players (over 90% marketshare) the music labels were faced with a choice:
1) Keep DRM and let Apple dictate pricing 2) (Temporarily) give up on DRM so that they could sell without Apple.
The music labels chose #2 probably because they are such massive control freaks that being under Apple's thumb was just too much for them.
If wide-spread adoption of DRM encumbered products actually helped, it is highly unlikely that we would have seen the continuing DRM on DVD war that has escalated way past CSS to things like Sony's ARccOS system.
Even though you didn't say it, many people who hold similar beliefs about what happened with music DRM also believe that Apple is anti-DRM. Unfortunately that's not true and the proof is in the pudding - Jobs is now effectively in control of Disney (Buena Vista Pictures, ABC Televsion, etc) and if he wanted DRM to stop on video, he could do it on itunes for any Disney production. That he hasn't done so is pretty strong evidence that Apple embraces DRM just as much as any of the studios.
FWIW, another big hollywood name dropped out of the CoS a few years back. He's the writer/producer for shows like "The Big Bang Theory" (and "Two and a Half Men", "Dharma & Greg", "Cybill", "Grace Under Fire", "Roseanne") and if you pay close attention to the dialog in that show, you'll notice that he occasionally slips in a veiled reference to scientology craziness.
I don't see the word "all" in his post. Just "the". As we've seen, doing anything that antagonizes "the muslims" will get you targeted by the violent muslims,...
Which, again, makes them like almost all religions. There are a few religions that don't have as much violence to them.
I was about to mod you up for being able to distinguish between the extremists and the regular people. But then I went back and read the original post, the guy may have said "the" but he also capitalised "Muslims" and given the context it sure seems like he wasn't distinguishing between extremists and the regular folk.
Why should I do that? Copyright is fundamentally a non-libertarian concept. Sure, some Libertarians have been fooled by the conflation of real property rights and "intellectual property" rights, but they just haven't thought about it deeply enough to notice the inherent contradiction of trying to own ideas.
I also don't bother hiding my real identity online; anyone with enough time on their hands and nothing better to do could correlate my accounts across different sites.
There is a significant difference between an individual being manually singled out as a subject of nefarious designs and the automated population of a database of personally identifiable information. In the former, it takes a lot of legwork for minimal payback, in the later all the legwork is automated and abuse now becomes a simple crime of opportunity - just put together a few searches with the right criteria and you can pull hundreds or even thousands of potential targets.
We will never be able to prevent one-off events, but we can stop systemic abuse by preventing the development of systems that enable it.
Constantly changing my identity and browsing habits just to throw off marketers.
Marketers are the least of our worries. The problems come from those who would use the marketers' databases for purposes other than marketing. Things like blackmail - such as a "straight" married politician who frequents a lot of gay websites. Or barratry (which is generally not illegal) such as Sony trying to subpoena youtube's records of everybody who has viewed a video on how to crack the PS3. Or the police state gone awry where they use the data from those gps services that record your position to back-fit cases to people who have done nothing more suspicious than be within a few blocks of a crime.
The list of potential abuses of this sort of information is practically infinite - you may never be personally bothered by it, but then again relatively few people are ever assaulted or robbed or had their car stolen, but we still take precautions against all of those too.
All you've done is link to things you think describe my viewpoint but you've done jackshit to show that what you've linked to is wrong - calling it "astrology" is not in anyway meaningful -- nor have you have done jackshit to counter my original point that harnessing the human impulse for self-interested action is a reasonable basis for an economic system.
In fact, all that you have done is assume an absolutist belief on my part and then hand-wave that real life isn't absolutist. Gee whiz boy, I already knew that. But it isn't about absolutism, its about dealing with the common case.
The belief that we are inherently selfish and nothing else
There's your problem - your entire argument is a strawman.
I never said the "and nothing else" part. Of course humans are altruistic - but much of it is just long-view selfishness - especially "civilization."
Please come back to the discussion when you have an insight that isn't based on putting words in my mouth. kaithxbye
Of course it's a stupid idea. But what did they expect? They hired a former MS exec to be their CEO. Of course he would make them dependent on MS - that's the only thing the fool can be expected to know.
It's like SGI hiring a former HP exec to be their CEO and then killing off MIPS to move to Itanium - totally and utterly predictable because these guys only know the bubble they've been in for most of their corporate career. They can't "think outside of the box" because they are the box.
Assuming you think there's anything to libertarianism. I certainly think libertarians have started from a flawed position, and their logic goes off the rails because of their bad starting point.
And what do you think that flawed position is?
I think libertarianism starts from the belief that people are inherently selfish and that rather than try to outright fight human nature - a war that has been and apparently will be fought and lost countless times - we should channel it for the best possible good. But maybe I don't understand the basis of libertarianism, so perhaps you could explain it to me.
TFA is built on the premise that crime would pay if there weren't patents on the crime methods.
Your response is built on the exact same premise. IP laws are government enforced restrictions on freedom of expression. And yes, the freedom to say what someone else has said is a fundamental component of the freedom of expression.
So crime already is paying because of the violation of basic civil liberties.
Oh, "But wait!" you say, eager to point out that the situation is not the same because we as a society have decided to permit IP laws so, by definition, using them is not a crime. Well, right back at you -- TFA is saying that we as a society need to change those laws.
Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the Saudi's to give the opposite impression (IE, tell everyone there's lower supply than there really is to hike up prices)?
No. It's because of the way OPEC is structured. OPEC's goal is to restrict supply to increase prices. They set the limit for each country as a percentage of that country's oil reserves. So the larger a country's reserves, the more oil it is allowed to sell under OPEC rules. The problem is that OPEC doesn't use independent evaluations of oil reserves, they use each country's official numbers. So there is plenty of incentive for each country to overstate the size of their reserves so as to sell more oil.
I'd argue (as Apple probably would as well) that they might be losing out due to the infringing behavior - anyone who buys the pirated version is paying less than someone buying the actual version, so Apple is losing their cut of the higher cost version.
That might be plausible, except that the lower price-point could result in a higher number of total sales dollars. In practice though, I doubt a court would give any credence to that argument because the DMCA qualifications aren't relative - receiving less money is still receiving money.
You have every right to make that choice, but don't blame Google for providing options when you're actively preventing the ability for your selections to be persisted.
There's nothing stopping google from enabling a bookmarkable URL that defaults to turning instant search off. I can add &safe=off to the URL to disable safe-search without the use of cookies. They could do it like that, or even do a subdomain like simple.google.com.
I guess you're one of those people who never pay attention to search settings? For example, the little button to the immediate right of the search button which toggles instant...
Are you telling me to stop blocking google's cookies?
If start typing and several pages fly by per second, this increases the garbage to information ratio, is inefficient, and disruptive.
That's what noscript is for. I turned it off once to see what all the "instant" fuss was and immediately turned noscript back on and haven't had to deal with that shit since.
Yes individual organizations need good cyber security response plans--but as we realized during the last economic crisis, just because an organization is critical to society doesn't mean it is acting in such a manner. Nor should they necessarily have to bare the cost of behaving as such.
Then we should be taking the opposite approach. Instead of increasing centralisation because parts of the system are "too big to fail" we should be encouraging decentralisation - encouraging more players to get involved and build up redundancy so that if some are compromised we can still maintain functionality in the face of damage.
How easy is it for a government official to get away with erasing documents of this nature?
Do what Bush did and arrange for a conversion from Lotus to Exchange or vice versa and let the inconvenient bits get dropped on the floor in the process.
Or, just do what Palin did and use non-audited email accounts like yahoo or hotmail for government business too. Fortunately alaskan sunshine laws don't have enough lumens to shine on those and aren't strong enough to make using them illegal either.
it seems you missed the part later on in the article where it describes him after the cult of celeb makeovers. the description is both first impressions and counterpoint to his later transformation to a well groomed media star.
Oh, I got that. I also found it to be presented in the same sort of deliberately snide style: "Assange was transformed by his outlaw celebrity" and "He became a kind of cult figure for the European young and leftish" - reinforcing the common criticism that Assange is just a fame-hound. Since it seemed to be just more of the same snarkiness, I didn't think it was very standout, storytelling conceit or not.
it is worth noting that "the writer" you speak of is Bill Keller, the friggin Executive Editor of the NY... someone in a unique position to have their own opinion on the matter, agree with it or not
I think he's also in a "unique position" to be biased since he was right there in the middle of the action - bumping egos with Assange - and thus a personification of the chinese proverb that, âoeMen in the game are blind to what men looking on see clearly.â
a veiled attempt to make Assange look bad is really the last thing it could be.
It seems you missed the earlier sentence, the one that says he "slouched into the office" and looked like "a bag lady." Both of those comparisons are explicitly uncomplimentary. I read the entire article when it was first published and what I took away from it was a writer who has some personal issues with Assange trying his damndest to wrap up his insults in a thin veneer of professional neutrality and wordsmithing.
For example, he took a shot at Assange for describing wikileak's goal as "scientific journalism" - which is the term wikileaks has been using for the practice of providing all source materials for a story to the reader along with the story itself. The writer hand-waved that the the NYT has been doing just that for years now, when as reader of the NYT online for years now, I can't recall them ever providing full sources and have frequently been frustrated by their lack of any sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately that's not true; the proof is not in the pudding, and never was.
Evidently you missed out on high school English class. Language creates environment and environment creates language. In other words if enough people use language in a certain way then that way, by definition, becomes correct usage. The corrupted proverb that "the proof is in the pudding" has been in published use since at least the 1920s and entered popular usage during the1950s. Chances are you weren't even born until after it became a standard part of the language.
Bullshit. Jobs sits on the board of directors at Disney and he has a less than 10 percent share of Disney stock. As such, he's not even in control of Pixar anymore.
Sitting on the board of directors does not disempower him in any way.
Furthermore, he is the single largest shareholder in Disney. His control over the company is enough to make sure that the majority of Disney programming is available on itunes, its not a leap to expect that he could change the company's requirement for DRM on itunes either.
Sorry, I haven't bothered to memorize any of them, just laughed when I noticed.
But here's one of his vanity cards that air after the credit of every episode that mentions it:
http://www.chucklorre.com/index-mnm.php?p=293
If anything, the way this will change is if people buy the hardware, use it, and put pressure on the vendors to get rid of the DRM. It eventually worked on Apple and Amazon for music.
That is a misread of what happened with Apple and music DRM.
The reason we have DRM-free music now is because Apple had a monopoly on DRM. Apple categorically refuses to license their "fairplay" DRM to any other company. Since they had a near monopoly on mp3 players (over 90% marketshare) the music labels were faced with a choice:
1) Keep DRM and let Apple dictate pricing
2) (Temporarily) give up on DRM so that they could sell without Apple.
The music labels chose #2 probably because they are such massive control freaks that being under Apple's thumb was just too much for them.
If wide-spread adoption of DRM encumbered products actually helped, it is highly unlikely that we would have seen the continuing DRM on DVD war that has escalated way past CSS to things like Sony's ARccOS system.
Even though you didn't say it, many people who hold similar beliefs about what happened with music DRM also believe that Apple is anti-DRM. Unfortunately that's not true and the proof is in the pudding - Jobs is now effectively in control of Disney (Buena Vista Pictures, ABC Televsion, etc) and if he wanted DRM to stop on video, he could do it on itunes for any Disney production. That he hasn't done so is pretty strong evidence that Apple embraces DRM just as much as any of the studios.
FWIW, another big hollywood name dropped out of the CoS a few years back. He's the writer/producer for shows like "The Big Bang Theory" (and "Two and a Half Men", "Dharma & Greg", "Cybill", "Grace Under Fire", "Roseanne") and if you pay close attention to the dialog in that show, you'll notice that he occasionally slips in a veiled reference to scientology craziness.
I don't see the word "all" in his post. Just "the".
As we've seen, doing anything that antagonizes "the muslims" will get you targeted by the violent muslims,...
Which, again, makes them like almost all religions. There are a few religions that don't have as much violence to them.
I was about to mod you up for being able to distinguish between the extremists and the regular people. But then I went back and read the original post, the guy may have said "the" but he also capitalised "Muslims" and given the context it sure seems like he wasn't distinguishing between extremists and the regular folk.
Explain why copyrights past death
Why should I do that? Copyright is fundamentally a non-libertarian concept. Sure, some Libertarians have been fooled by the conflation of real property rights and "intellectual property" rights, but they just haven't thought about it deeply enough to notice the inherent contradiction of trying to own ideas.
I also don't bother hiding my real identity online; anyone with enough time on their hands and nothing better to do could correlate my accounts across different sites.
There is a significant difference between an individual being manually singled out as a subject of nefarious designs and the automated population of a database of personally identifiable information. In the former, it takes a lot of legwork for minimal payback, in the later all the legwork is automated and abuse now becomes a simple crime of opportunity - just put together a few searches with the right criteria and you can pull hundreds or even thousands of potential targets.
We will never be able to prevent one-off events, but we can stop systemic abuse by preventing the development of systems that enable it.
Constantly changing my identity and browsing habits just to throw off marketers.
Marketers are the least of our worries. The problems come from those who would use the marketers' databases for purposes other than marketing. Things like blackmail - such as a "straight" married politician who frequents a lot of gay websites. Or barratry (which is generally not illegal) such as Sony trying to subpoena youtube's records of everybody who has viewed a video on how to crack the PS3. Or the police state gone awry where they use the data from those gps services that record your position to back-fit cases to people who have done nothing more suspicious than be within a few blocks of a crime.
The list of potential abuses of this sort of information is practically infinite - you may never be personally bothered by it, but then again relatively few people are ever assaulted or robbed or had their car stolen, but we still take precautions against all of those too.
All you've done is link to things you think describe my viewpoint but you've done jackshit to show that what you've linked to is wrong - calling it "astrology" is not in anyway meaningful -- nor have you have done jackshit to counter my original point that harnessing the human impulse for self-interested action is a reasonable basis for an economic system.
In fact, all that you have done is assume an absolutist belief on my part and then hand-wave that real life isn't absolutist. Gee whiz boy, I already knew that. But it isn't about absolutism, its about dealing with the common case.
The belief that we are inherently selfish and nothing else
There's your problem - your entire argument is a strawman. I never said the "and nothing else" part. Of course humans are altruistic - but much of it is just long-view selfishness - especially "civilization." Please come back to the discussion when you have an insight that isn't based on putting words in my mouth. kaithxbye
Of course it's a stupid idea. But what did they expect? They hired a former MS exec to be their CEO. Of course he would make them dependent on MS - that's the only thing the fool can be expected to know.
It's like SGI hiring a former HP exec to be their CEO and then killing off MIPS to move to Itanium - totally and utterly predictable because these guys only know the bubble they've been in for most of their corporate career. They can't "think outside of the box" because they are the box.
Assuming you think there's anything to libertarianism. I certainly think libertarians have started from a flawed position, and their logic goes off the rails because of their bad starting point.
And what do you think that flawed position is?
I think libertarianism starts from the belief that people are inherently selfish and that rather than try to outright fight human nature - a war that has been and apparently will be fought and lost countless times - we should channel it for the best possible good. But maybe I don't understand the basis of libertarianism, so perhaps you could explain it to me.
TFA is built on the premise that crime would pay if there weren't patents on the crime methods.
Your response is built on the exact same premise. IP laws are government enforced restrictions on freedom of expression. And yes, the freedom to say what someone else has said is a fundamental component of the freedom of expression.
So crime already is paying because of the violation of basic civil liberties.
Oh, "But wait!" you say, eager to point out that the situation is not the same because we as a society have decided to permit IP laws so, by definition, using them is not a crime. Well, right back at you -- TFA is saying that we as a society need to change those laws.
Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the Saudi's to give the opposite impression (IE, tell everyone there's lower supply than there really is to hike up prices)?
No. It's because of the way OPEC is structured. OPEC's goal is to restrict supply to increase prices. They set the limit for each country as a percentage of that country's oil reserves. So the larger a country's reserves, the more oil it is allowed to sell under OPEC rules. The problem is that OPEC doesn't use independent evaluations of oil reserves, they use each country's official numbers. So there is plenty of incentive for each country to overstate the size of their reserves so as to sell more oil.
I'd argue (as Apple probably would as well) that they might be losing out due to the infringing behavior - anyone who buys the pirated version is paying less than someone buying the actual version, so Apple is losing their cut of the higher cost version.
That might be plausible, except that the lower price-point could result in a higher number of total sales dollars. In practice though, I doubt a court would give any credence to that argument because the DMCA qualifications aren't relative - receiving less money is still receiving money.
You have every right to make that choice, but don't blame Google for providing options when you're actively preventing the ability for your selections to be persisted.
There's nothing stopping google from enabling a bookmarkable URL that defaults to turning instant search off. I can add &safe=off to the URL to disable safe-search without the use of cookies. They could do it like that, or even do a subdomain like simple.google.com.
I guess you're one of those people who never pay attention to search settings? For example, the little button to the immediate right of the search button which toggles instant...
Are you telling me to stop blocking google's cookies?
Google instant drove me out.
If start typing and several pages fly by per second, this increases the garbage to information ratio, is inefficient, and disruptive.
That's what noscript is for. I turned it off once to see what all the "instant" fuss was and immediately turned noscript back on and haven't had to deal with that shit since.
He's selling the idea of a multiverse, but if he can't tell us how to get to Tanelorn nobody should take him seriously.
Yes individual organizations need good cyber security response plans--but as we realized during the last economic crisis, just because an organization is critical to society doesn't mean it is acting in such a manner. Nor should they necessarily have to bare the cost of behaving as such.
Then we should be taking the opposite approach. Instead of increasing centralisation because parts of the system are "too big to fail" we should be encouraging decentralisation - encouraging more players to get involved and build up redundancy so that if some are compromised we can still maintain functionality in the face of damage.
How easy is it for a government official to get away with erasing documents of this nature?
Do what Bush did and arrange for a conversion from Lotus to Exchange or vice versa and let the inconvenient bits get dropped on the floor in the process.
Or, just do what Palin did and use non-audited email accounts like yahoo or hotmail for government business too.
Fortunately alaskan sunshine laws don't have enough lumens to shine on those and aren't strong enough to make using them illegal either.
it seems you missed the part later on in the article where it describes him after the cult of celeb makeovers. the description is both first impressions and counterpoint to his later transformation to a well groomed media star.
Oh, I got that. I also found it to be presented in the same sort of deliberately snide style: "Assange was transformed by his outlaw celebrity" and "He became a kind of cult figure for the European young and leftish" - reinforcing the common criticism that Assange is just a fame-hound. Since it seemed to be just more of the same snarkiness, I didn't think it was very standout, storytelling conceit or not.
it is worth noting that "the writer" you speak of is Bill Keller, the friggin Executive Editor of the NY ... someone in a unique position to have their own opinion on the matter, agree with it or not
I think he's also in a "unique position" to be biased since he was right there in the middle of the action - bumping egos with Assange - and thus a personification of the chinese proverb that, âoeMen in the game are blind to what men looking on see clearly.â
a veiled attempt to make Assange look bad is really the last thing it could be.
It seems you missed the earlier sentence, the one that says he "slouched into the office" and looked like "a bag lady." Both of those comparisons are explicitly uncomplimentary. I read the entire article when it was first published and what I took away from it was a writer who has some personal issues with Assange trying his damndest to wrap up his insults in a thin veneer of professional neutrality and wordsmithing.
For example, he took a shot at Assange for describing wikileak's goal as "scientific journalism" - which is the term wikileaks has been using for the practice of providing all source materials for a story to the reader along with the story itself. The writer hand-waved that the the NYT has been doing just that for years now, when as reader of the NYT online for years now, I can't recall them ever providing full sources and have frequently been frustrated by their lack of any sources.
You can't vote on pre-stories - clicking the +/- buttons just jumps to a "help" page.