The AP is also reporting that China is creating a Confucius Peace Prize to be given out the day before the Nobel Prize.
Like the Party's massive focus on Beijing Opera that mimicked the west while using a thin veneer of native culture as a pretense of not copying the west, the Chinese autocracy proves that they still suffer from a serious inferiority complex.
So most leechers (who make up the majority on any file sharing network) are, in fact, motivated by money. Most seeders are not, however (duh).
I think that's a simplification that misses the point. It's not that they want it for free, it's that they want it only enough to download it. If it were not available via piracy, most would never bother. That may seem like a fine point, but the distinction is meaningful - the price/demand curve for entertainment is extremely elastic.
The price of the implied contract is too high, neither party wants to enter into it.
I think the root of the problem is that we do not have any other currency besides ad impressions. None of the "electronic cash" and micropayment ventures have taken root, so advertising has become the defacto micropayment system.
I think that if we had a practical "electronic cash" system that was reasonably anonymous with effectively no per-transaction cost we would see the end of a lot of advertising on the net. I think that many people would be happy to pay $5-$20 per month for all of the websites that they browse, but right now, advertising is the only form of micropayments that are flexible enough to handle each individual user's personal choice of websites.
I'm not sure explicit consent is required as much as a singular, easy-to-find method of opting out.
A very important addendum to opting out is that it needs to actually be opting out from being tracked. To the best of my knowledge, all of the various tracker-specific "opt out" methods do not stop them from tracking you. All they do is stop them from showing you advertisements based on the tracking information that they still collect. You aren't really opting out from being tracked, you are opting out from being reminded that you are being tracked.
(recall that airplanes can survive instant conversion into a convertible).
Specific example being Aloha Airlines Flight 243 - the photos prove that dr2chase's words do not exaggerate what happened. Of the over 90 people on board, the only one who died was a stewardess who got swept out
Who is the house owner and why this amount of explosives?
One thing is for sure, he's definitely not muslim. Else the country would be at "red" threat level and the 24-hour news channels would have live coverage on site since the minute anybody found out about it and the politicians like Gingrich and Giuliani would be preening on camera.
Put words in my mouth if you want. Even by putting words in my mouth
You can't have it both ways dude, either you agree with me or you claim I'm wrong but refuse to back it up with evidence. That's a coward move. A loud, self-righteous, but ultimately empty coward move.
you've failed to sufficiently address my original point:
I explained it clearly and reasonably, all you've done is pull the coward's move of saying "I disagree therefore you are wrong" without a shred of supporting evidence. The irony here is everything you accuse me of, you've done worse. That really isn't very convincing.
The corporation is taxed. And then IF there is any money left over, and IF it's passed to the owners in the form of dividends, then it is taxed AGAIN.
Yes corporate tax law is precisely that simple and straightforward. That's why GE paid negative $1.1B in taxes on $10.3B in income in 2009, and Ford paid $69M on $3B in income
Are you arguing that poor people do not purchase anything that comes from out of state or out of the country?
I'm arguing that the poor don't generate an income from those services. We are talking about income tax aren't we?
Learn something about corporate structure and tax law and go get some stats. Otherwise you are just spewing venomous nonsense.
That's a coward's argument. How about you pull up the numbers to prove your claims. Furthermore you will have to explain how all of those services to the poor don't provide a profit to the businesses they source from - like medicare's drug purchases or the dept of corrections' privatization of prisons, the welfare department's reimbursement of food stamps, etc.
Not many people are denied clearance. Especially regular "secret" level clearance which practically any citizen without a criminal history or substantial money problems can get.
If people with clearance are ordinary people and anyone can get one shouldn't anyone be able to get a federal government job? Clearly thats not the case.
I can't quite parse that. Sounds like you think a regular federal job requires a clearance, That's not true. Only positions which require access to classified information require security clearances. Most federal employees do not have and do not need a clearance.
You named a bunch of unrelated institutions to justify theft of wealth. Want me to counter your meaningless arguments?
So, in your mind, consumption of government services paid for with tax money are completely unrelated to taxation levels. What the hell was I thinking?! Thanks for showing me just how wrong I was!!!
People with security clearance fear the law and follow it ruthlessly.
Spoken like someone who has never been around anyone with a security clearance. People with clearances are like everybody else except they try to not to talk about some parts of their work. You take two people working for the same organization with roughly the same background and responsibilities but one has a clearance and the other doesn't, you aren't going to find a significant variation except the one with the clearance is more reticent about talking about their job. Ain't nothing 'ruthless' about it.
That's not irony. It would be ironic if I _didn't_ do that. What's the first word I used... "everyone"?
Everyone as in yourself too? You admit that you are part of the problem, no wiser than the people you accuse of being stupid?
Then why the hell should we even care what you think?
Look around the world. China, Russia, Iran, Brazil.. anywhere. Do you really think, if only, if only they were more transparent, they would change? Is there some big ultra-dark secret behind them that would change things if it came to light?
So let me ask the question another way: What would be public space, in this new paradigm?
I'm stelling you that it is not such a binary distinction any more. It isn't just public anything-goes versus private nothing-goes anymore. All the changes named in my first post have combined to create a sort of "super public" which did not exist prior.
Slashdot Mirror
The AP is also reporting that China is creating a Confucius Peace Prize to be given out the day before the Nobel Prize.
Like the Party's massive focus on Beijing Opera that mimicked the west while using a thin veneer of native culture as a pretense of not copying the west, the Chinese autocracy proves that they still suffer from a serious inferiority complex.
So most leechers (who make up the majority on any file sharing network) are, in fact, motivated by money. Most seeders are not, however (duh).
I think that's a simplification that misses the point.
It's not that they want it for free, it's that they want it only enough to download it.
If it were not available via piracy, most would never bother.
That may seem like a fine point, but the distinction is meaningful - the price/demand curve for entertainment is extremely elastic.
One would hold up in court, while the other would get thrown out, and possibly cause sanctions against an attorney.
Lol. You are such a coward. Fancies himself a lawyer does he? Court of yer mom's basement is it?
The price of the implied contract is too high, neither party wants to enter into it.
I think the root of the problem is that we do not have any other currency besides ad impressions. None of the "electronic cash" and micropayment ventures have taken root, so advertising has become the defacto micropayment system.
I think that if we had a practical "electronic cash" system that was reasonably anonymous with effectively no per-transaction cost we would see the end of a lot of advertising on the net. I think that many people would be happy to pay $5-$20 per month for all of the websites that they browse, but right now, advertising is the only form of micropayments that are flexible enough to handle each individual user's personal choice of websites.
I'm not sure explicit consent is required as much as a singular, easy-to-find method of opting out.
A very important addendum to opting out is that it needs to actually be opting out from being tracked.
To the best of my knowledge, all of the various tracker-specific "opt out" methods do not stop them from tracking you.
All they do is stop them from showing you advertisements based on the tracking information that they still collect.
You aren't really opting out from being tracked, you are opting out from being reminded that you are being tracked.
That needs to change.
Then why don't they try, I dunno, maybe writing their own games instead of leeching off the work of others!
They aren't necessarily more skilled than game developers in general, they are just more skilled in the area of DRM.
(recall that airplanes can survive instant conversion into a convertible).
Specific example being Aloha Airlines Flight 243 - the photos prove that dr2chase's words do not exaggerate what happened.
Of the over 90 people on board, the only one who died was a stewardess who got swept out
Who is the house owner and why this amount of explosives?
One thing is for sure, he's definitely not muslim.
Else the country would be at "red" threat level and the 24-hour news channels would have live coverage on site since the minute anybody found out about it and the politicians like Gingrich and Giuliani would be preening on camera.
No, I don't have to agree with you or claim that you are wrong. I claimed that you are citing a point that is irrelevant.
If you think its irrelevant why did you challenge me to providing supporting evidence? How could proof that it was true make it any more relevant?
Oh, add in some mis-quoting when logic fails. That's always a good move too.
Yes paraphrasing that make the point clear is total failure.
Lol your hypocritical self-righteousness continues to make me chuckle.
It's like you are trolling yourself.
Ah, so we're back to name calling.
You mean like "pathetic?" Get outta the kitchen ya coward.
Put words in my mouth if you want. Even by putting words in my mouth
You can't have it both ways dude, either you agree with me or you claim I'm wrong but refuse to back it up with evidence. That's a coward move. A loud, self-righteous, but ultimately empty coward move.
you've failed to sufficiently address my original point:
I explained it clearly and reasonably, all you've done is pull the coward's move of saying "I disagree therefore you are wrong" without a shred of supporting evidence. The irony here is everything you accuse me of, you've done worse. That really isn't very convincing.
Everyone needs a boogie man,
Yeah that's what I've been saying all along.
Show me where I claimed that businesses aren't the primary benefactor (or even any benefactor) of government services. Quote me. Find it.
So you agree that they are the primary benefactor.
Thanks for clearing that up.
So where is the extra appeal of Android to men coming from?
Uh, its right there in the name - android as in greek for man.
If they wanted chicks to buy them they should have called then gynoids.
What's changed, other than how far and how long recordings can be kept?
Oh you got me. Nothing has changed. Technology is not an enabler.
No, I don't have the burden of proof there. I never claimed that businesses don't make a profit from those services.
Right. You just claimed that they aren't the primary benefactor of government services.
Coward.
but until men change the law, it is what it is.
the law has not caught up yet
it's time for the law to catch up
It's time for a re-evaluation
The corporation is taxed. And then IF there is any money left over, and IF it's passed to the owners in the form of dividends, then it is taxed AGAIN.
Yes corporate tax law is precisely that simple and straightforward. That's why GE paid negative $1.1B in taxes on $10.3B in income in 2009, and Ford paid $69M on $3B in income
Are you arguing that poor people do not purchase anything that comes from out of state or out of the country?
I'm arguing that the poor don't generate an income from those services. We are talking about income tax aren't we?
Learn something about corporate structure and tax law and go get some stats. Otherwise you are just spewing venomous nonsense.
That's a coward's argument. How about you pull up the numbers to prove your claims. Furthermore you will have to explain how all of those services to the poor don't provide a profit to the businesses they source from - like medicare's drug purchases or the dept of corrections' privatization of prisons, the welfare department's reimbursement of food stamps, etc.
Then why are so many people denied clearance?
Not many people are denied clearance. Especially regular "secret" level clearance which practically any citizen without a criminal history or substantial money problems can get.
If people with clearance are ordinary people and anyone can get one shouldn't anyone be able to get a federal government job? Clearly thats not the case.
I can't quite parse that. Sounds like you think a regular federal job requires a clearance, That's not true. Only positions which require access to classified information require security clearances. Most federal employees do not have and do not need a clearance.
But that's not a new legal reality.
Legal "reality" is whatever man defines it to be.
You named a bunch of unrelated institutions to justify theft of wealth. Want me to counter your meaningless arguments?
So, in your mind, consumption of government services paid for with tax money are completely unrelated to taxation levels.
What the hell was I thinking?! Thanks for showing me just how wrong I was!!!
People with security clearance fear the law and follow it ruthlessly.
Spoken like someone who has never been around anyone with a security clearance.
People with clearances are like everybody else except they try to not to talk about some parts of their work. You take two people working for the same organization with roughly the same background and responsibilities but one has a clearance and the other doesn't, you aren't going to find a significant variation except the one with the clearance is more reticent about talking about their job. Ain't nothing 'ruthless' about it.
This is silliness! You are trying to make excuses to justify theft of personal property from others, to clear your own conscience. Nice try.
Is that all you've got?
You can't dispute the argument I've layed out, so you go off on some juvenile rant?
Who do you think you will convince with that approach?
You are saying that all rich people deal with international trade and corporate law?
Yes I am and many other areas in which they receive government support.
How? The stock market.
That's not irony. It would be ironic if I _didn't_ do that. What's the first word I used... "everyone"?
Everyone as in yourself too? You admit that you are part of the problem, no wiser than the people you accuse of being stupid?
Then why the hell should we even care what you think?
Look around the world. China, Russia, Iran, Brazil.. anywhere. Do you really think, if only, if only they were more transparent, they would change? Is there some big ultra-dark secret behind them that would change things if it came to light?
No.
That's a rationale for dictatorship.
So let me ask the question another way: What would be public space, in this new paradigm?
I'm stelling you that it is not such a binary distinction any more.
It isn't just public anything-goes versus private nothing-goes anymore.
All the changes named in my first post have combined to create a sort of "super public" which did not exist prior.