bullshit. I have an issue with people taking my hard work for free.
Tough shit. The world doesn't owe you squat. And as long as you are stuck in an emotional response to an economic problem you will NEVER come to a successful solution. NEVER. Enjoy your anger, because no one else gives a damn.
Say, that word, nazi, what does it mean again ? Oh right... it translates to "socialist".
It doesn't "translate" it is a contraction for "National Socialist."
Here's an interesting quote for you - "Nazism makes out is is subversive. The most terrible white terror against people and socialism the world has ever seen takes on a socialist disguise. To this end its propaganda must develop a revolutionary facade with trappings of the Paris Commune."
Looks like their pseudo-revolutionary cover suckered you right in, even 60 years later.
Yeah, there's also never been a randomized, blinded clinical trial that shows gunshot wounds to the head cause death.
Never say never. A surprising amount of our current medical knowledge about how the human body reacts to specific circumstances is derived from nazi human experimentation. While I can't point at a specific gunshot experiment by the nazis, I am not familiar with the complete scope of their trials either.
TV is enough, It's providing artificial friends and relatives to lonely people, What it is are recurrent families, Same friends and relatives come back Week after week after week after week, And they're wittier and they're better looking And much more interesting and they are richer Than your real friends and relatives
Well, since you're giving a negative review of the game here, it seems they were correct. Of course, you'd likely give a similar review even if had bought the game.
That is not necessarily true. People have a natural inclination to more highly value something which was 'expensive' to them. That is the reason behind fraternity hazing - if the pledge has to 'pay' to join the frat by going through all that hazing, then they end up valuing membership in the frat much more highly which builds team spirit, group loyalty, etc, etc.
It is entirely possible that if he had actually paid real money for the product, he would have put more effort in to 'liking' it to justify the personal cost and might have come up with a positive review instead.
Personally, I would consider a positive review under those circumstances to be false. Others might disagree.
So do you take the same approach with movies? ie, sneak in and watch the whole movie, then maybe flip some coins to the till on the way out? After all, you can't trust trailers can you.
Ignoring the issue of consumption of physical resources (at a minimum, a seat at the theater), then yes. It is definitely in your best interests to get something for free if you can. That is not a moral issue, it is an economic one. If the business model is such that freeloaders make it unprofitable, then the business model is flawed, which is why your suggestion to "maybe flip some coints to the till on the way out" sounds so trite.
The CueCat business model was flawed, yet nobody seriously felt that we had an obligation to conform to it. What CueCat should have done, and the movie industry needs to do, is change their business model such that either it is not possible for freeloaders to get their product, or harness the freeloaders to actually increase revenue. I am in favor of variations on the ransom model, like subscriptions, which use freeloaders as free advertising and at the same time reduces risk to the creators. But there are other options too, it is a matter of evaluating the constraints of the current marketplace - not the marketplace of 100 years ago - and figuring out what models make sense given those constraints.
Face facts, people pirate because they want to take stuff for free and don't care about the developer. it has fuck all to do with the nature of the demo.
Yes and no. People do want stuff for free, that is human nature and you will never change that. But "fake" demos are just the flipside of the same coin - they are an example of developers wanting stuff for free (advertising) and not caring about the customer. If you have a moral issue with piracy, then you should also have the exact same moral issue with "fake" demos.
So what you are saying is that because it is the smart thing to do it, pirating is right?
Yes.
To prevent piracy, one would have to make it not smart then. Like making the risk so big that it is not smart. 20 years in jail and personal bankrupcy seems like it would do it. To further increase the risk, a high sum could be paid to people who tell on others.
No. You've heard of the carrot and the stick? Your solution is all stick and no carrot.
I completely agree. Trailers and even a large number of bought-and-sold reviews. Its not in any movie-goer's best interests to pay based on hype and false hopes. Just because a lot of people act against their own best interests, doesn't mean it is the smart thing to do.
They also sell "MySQL boxes" - that their engineering group has tuned specifically to squeeze every ounce of performance out of the hardware and give it to the database. Schwartz talks about doubling the performance of MySQL on certain equivalent hardware platforms. Presumably anybody could do that, or they could pay for the MySQL engineering team to do it and get it right. Schwartz is banking on it being more cost effective for customers to rely on the MySQL engineering team to do the optimizations than to do it themselves.
there is no way -- I mean NO WAY -- that I will accept advertising on my business documents.
That is not even close to what Schwartz is planning. In his blog he compares how Sun gets paid for the optional bundling of the Google Search Bar with the Java installer. He then goes on to say that he plans on selling that kind of 'space' to other companies. He makes the point that Sun distributed 60 million java runtimes last MONTH - that is a lot of eyeballs to advertise to and that's what he as apparently monetized even further with microsoft in addition to or instead of google.
As for similar bundling with OpenOffice, he's talking about including links (not just URLs) to services, similar to the Google searchbar - e.g. fax services, place kinkos for bulk printing, sign printing, cloud-based document storage, and database hosting, etc. It is the same thing we are used to with free software, the software is one a time cost so make it free once its paid for, but the individual, optional but useful services around the software have ongoing costs so use them as a source of income.
You won't have to use any of the "cobranded" services, but if you want to, Sun will make it really, really easy for you to do so, and in return they get a cut of whatever you spend in the services.
On the surface, at least, it seems to be a good thing that these guys are doing this sort of empirical analysis. But it seems to me that it isn't the rate of piracy that matters, it is the rate of actual sales. That is hard to control for because you have to take into account the sukekekeness of the game - but in theory you should have to account for teh sukeke when evaluating piracy stats too.
Here's an odd question: What is so horribly wrong with the demo that you refused to download it?
Because you can't trust demos. Over the years, demos have been the subject of just about every anti-consumer dirty trick you can think of from polished demos for hastily finished games to significantly different game play. If the real thing is available, why even bother with a potentially misleading demo?
Classmates worked this time. Get over it. Is it politically correct to have classmates be a bad guy here?
It is scientifically incorrect to use the words "not possible" when its not been proven or even provable. You could have said "unlikely" or "more difficult" but your word choice (and your subsequent "politically correct" freak-out) suggest a bias for classmates. If you really are biased for them, then that calls into question your entire story, what other parts of it would a biased teller exaggerate? If you want people to take your story at face-value, don't give a critical reader reason to doubt it.
So it shouldn't be legal for the gov't (city or state cop) to exceed the speed limit in order to catch a criminal flying down the highway at 100mph?
Personally, I think that's true. They should shoot out the tires, and if they can't do that, shoot out the driver. To go 120 mph to catch up to someone going 80 in a 70 to give them a ticket is absurd. If it's safe for them to go that fast, how can it be unsafe for the person only going 10 over the limit?
(a) The police car is running sirens and lights warning other drivers that they need to take special care because the vehicle is exceeding the normal limits. All too frequently that is NOT the case, which is despicable and people frequently are killed because of it. (b) The driver of the vehicle is well trained (and current) in high speed defensive driving.
As long as those two requirements are satisfied, then I believe it is valid for police and others with legitimate reason to speed. Certainly shooting at the tires and the driver brings significant risks which can endanger other people present. Also, shooting the driver should almost never be an option - extra-judicial killings are a huge opportunity for civil rights violations.
In both cases, the positive conclusions would not have been possible without classmates.com.
I doubt that. It isn't like you tried all other possible methods of doing those searches. You just used the option that seemed most obvious to you. Your stories are certainly not unique, people have been finding each other across long distances and times for centuries.
the supporters of Prop 8 realized that they could just amend the constitution so that there would be no wiggle room for judges to interpret it in any other way.
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." --James Bovard
The fact that many of the CDS agreements were just "bets" is immaterial if the failure of those that aren't still causes catastrophic failure. It would be nice to be able to hurt the people who were just betting while rescuing the people who were hedging, but it doesn't work that way, so you have to pick one.
The issue is that, due to the poor reporting requirements for CDS's, no one really knows how many are just "bets" and how many are "legitimate." But:
1) CDS's were around for many before the exponential growth in their trading took off, which suggests, but does not prove, that it was their use as a method of unregulated gambling that comprised much of that growth.
2) So far, we've only seen a bank "break the buck" once and it seems unlikely to happen again in the near term. As insurance against that kind of bank failure has apparently been the primary purpose of legitimate CDS's it appears to me that letting the insurance fail is unlikely to have the predicted doomsday results as the banks are expected to remain solvent and thus the insurance against them defaulting will be immaterial.
Which is why I believe that letting the market fail and recover on its own would not be the apocalyptic event it has been reported to be in the nightly news. Perhaps I am wrong, but until its over, no one can prove it and my way saves a shit load of taxpayer money.
Even when it is all over,I doubt we will see any actual proof either way, the actual source materials will all be deleted, shredded or lost and all we will have left are the opinions of those with a vested interest one way or another.
And thus you completely sidestep the point I actually made. Here, let me reiterate:
No, you show that you don't understand CDS's and are probably just echoing what you've read by biased authors - let me emphasize "IG underwrites an extremely large number of assets"
No, AIG was leveraged out the ass on CDS's many of them for 3rd parties. In those cases there are no "assets" just bets.
Meanwhile, you just say "you're wrong", and that's it.
You haven't been reading what I wrote, you are just rah-rahing for your team and accusing me of irrational fears.
bunch of economists who all seem to agree that, yup, AIG failing would be bad.
No one is disputing that it would be bad for AIG to fail. Just that the alternative is worse in the long term.
So you're saying the reference to a "command economy" wasn't an allusion to communism? Well, my apologies, I must've misunderstood.
You really think communisim is the only kind of command economy? Do fascism and corporatism ring a bell? Are you qualified to have this discussion?
No, they believe it's true because they realize that, thanks to the unregulated CDS market, AIG underwrites an extremely large number of assets that, should AIG fail, would be written down by their holding entities, resulting in massive institutional failures due to insolvency dwarfing anything we've seen so far.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, the worst CDS's were written for 3rd parties - they were essentially bets on the outcome of an unrelated transaction. While it may not have occurred to those gamblers that there was a third option, AIG's default on the CDS, I don't see defaulting on those as being particularly serious for the nation.
Or do you perhaps actually have a counterargument to this position, as opposed to simply disregarding the idea based on the messenger?
Your messenger is biased. If you really speak the truth, surely you can find an educated and neutral messenger to support your claims. Or is it more about your "team" winning even if the country loses?
So it can be sold off in a controlled manner, as opposed to an uncontrolled implosion.
Or did you miss that part of the bailout plan?
How does that contradict my point that COST of the bailout is not just the dollars, it is the aftermath on the market infrastructure?
So, OOC, did you have any *reasonable* objections to the bailout plan, as opposed to ones based on an irrational fear of communism?
Gee, is singapore a communist state? Two ad-hominem attacks now, I really am begining to think that you are a team player.
Slashdot Mirror
It is also important to point out that it is "caught" with a piss-poor requirement for quality of evidence.
bullshit. I have an issue with people taking my hard work for free.
Tough shit. The world doesn't owe you squat. And as long as you are stuck in an emotional response to an economic problem you will NEVER come to a successful solution. NEVER. Enjoy your anger, because no one else gives a damn.
Say, that word, nazi, what does it mean again ? Oh right ... it translates to "socialist".
It doesn't "translate" it is a contraction for "National Socialist."
Here's an interesting quote for you - "Nazism makes out is is subversive. The most terrible white terror against people and socialism the world has ever seen takes on a socialist disguise. To this end its propaganda must develop a revolutionary facade with trappings of the Paris Commune."
Looks like their pseudo-revolutionary cover suckered you right in, even 60 years later.
Yeah, there's also never been a randomized, blinded clinical trial that shows gunshot wounds to the head cause death.
Never say never. A surprising amount of our current medical knowledge about how the human body reacts to specific circumstances is derived from nazi human experimentation. While I can't point at a specific gunshot experiment by the nazis, I am not familiar with the complete scope of their trials either.
TV is enough,
It's providing artificial friends and relatives to lonely people,
What it is are recurrent families,
Same friends and relatives come back
Week after week after week after week,
And they're wittier and they're better looking
And much more interesting and they are richer
Than your real friends and relatives
Well, since you're giving a negative review of the game here, it seems they were correct. Of course, you'd likely give a similar review even if had bought the game.
That is not necessarily true. People have a natural inclination to more highly value something which was 'expensive' to them. That is the reason behind fraternity hazing - if the pledge has to 'pay' to join the frat by going through all that hazing, then they end up valuing membership in the frat much more highly which builds team spirit, group loyalty, etc, etc.
It is entirely possible that if he had actually paid real money for the product, he would have put more effort in to 'liking' it to justify the personal cost and might have come up with a positive review instead.
Personally, I would consider a positive review under those circumstances to be false. Others might disagree.
So do you take the same approach with movies? ie, sneak in and watch the whole movie, then maybe flip some coins to the till on the way out?
After all, you can't trust trailers can you.
Ignoring the issue of consumption of physical resources (at a minimum, a seat at the theater), then yes.
It is definitely in your best interests to get something for free if you can. That is not a moral issue, it is an economic one. If the business model is such that freeloaders make it unprofitable, then the business model is flawed, which is why your suggestion to "maybe flip some coints to the till on the way out" sounds so trite.
The CueCat business model was flawed, yet nobody seriously felt that we had an obligation to conform to it. What CueCat should have done, and the movie industry needs to do, is change their business model such that either it is not possible for freeloaders to get their product, or harness the freeloaders to actually increase revenue. I am in favor of variations on the ransom model, like subscriptions, which use freeloaders as free advertising and at the same time reduces risk to the creators. But there are other options too, it is a matter of evaluating the constraints of the current marketplace - not the marketplace of 100 years ago - and figuring out what models make sense given those constraints.
Face facts, people pirate because they want to take stuff for free and don't care about the developer. it has fuck all to do with the nature of the demo.
Yes and no. People do want stuff for free, that is human nature and you will never change that. But "fake" demos are just the flipside of the same coin - they are an example of developers wanting stuff for free (advertising) and not caring about the customer. If you have a moral issue with piracy, then you should also have the exact same moral issue with "fake" demos.
The pyramids and the chineese wall were both built using the stick only. They are really great accomplishments.
Shows what little you know.
The game happens to be the carrot. People steal the carrot. The carrot does not work.
Lol. Your lack of imagination -- particularly when surrounded by so many contrary examples -- is only your failure, not the rest of the world's.
So what you are saying is that because it is the smart thing to do it, pirating is right?
Yes.
To prevent piracy, one would have to make it not smart then. Like making the risk so big that it is not smart. 20 years in jail and personal bankrupcy seems like it would do it. To further increase the risk, a high sum could be paid to people who tell on others.
No. You've heard of the carrot and the stick? Your solution is all stick and no carrot.
I completely agree. Trailers and even a large number of bought-and-sold reviews.
Its not in any movie-goer's best interests to pay based on hype and false hopes.
Just because a lot of people act against their own best interests, doesn't mean it is the smart thing to do.
They also sell "MySQL boxes" - that their engineering group has tuned specifically to squeeze every ounce of performance out of the hardware and give it to the database. Schwartz talks about doubling the performance of MySQL on certain equivalent hardware platforms. Presumably anybody could do that, or they could pay for the MySQL engineering team to do it and get it right. Schwartz is banking on it being more cost effective for customers to rely on the MySQL engineering team to do the optimizations than to do it themselves.
there is no way -- I mean NO WAY -- that I will accept advertising on my business documents.
That is not even close to what Schwartz is planning. In his blog he compares how Sun gets paid for the optional bundling of the Google Search Bar with the Java installer. He then goes on to say that he plans on selling that kind of 'space' to other companies. He makes the point that Sun distributed 60 million java runtimes last MONTH - that is a lot of eyeballs to advertise to and that's what he as apparently monetized even further with microsoft in addition to or instead of google.
As for similar bundling with OpenOffice, he's talking about including links (not just URLs) to services, similar to the Google searchbar - e.g. fax services, place kinkos for bulk printing, sign printing, cloud-based document storage, and database hosting, etc. It is the same thing we are used to with free software, the software is one a time cost so make it free once its paid for, but the individual, optional but useful services around the software have ongoing costs so use them as a source of income.
You won't have to use any of the "cobranded" services, but if you want to, Sun will make it really, really easy for you to do so, and in return they get a cut of whatever you spend in the services.
On the surface, at least, it seems to be a good thing that these guys are doing this sort of empirical analysis. But it seems to me that it isn't the rate of piracy that matters, it is the rate of actual sales. That is hard to control for because you have to take into account the sukekekeness of the game - but in theory you should have to account for teh sukeke when evaluating piracy stats too.
Here's an odd question: What is so horribly wrong with the demo that you refused to download it?
Because you can't trust demos. Over the years, demos have been the subject of just about every anti-consumer dirty trick you can think of from polished demos for hastily finished games to significantly different game play. If the real thing is available, why even bother with a potentially misleading demo?
All I know for sure is that the EULA for Windows prohibits using it to control a nuclear reactor, or at least it used to, and it bloody well should.
But voting machines, that can ultimately send hundreds of thousands to war, no problemo!
Classmates worked this time. Get over it. Is it politically correct to have classmates be a bad guy here?
It is scientifically incorrect to use the words "not possible" when its not been proven or even provable. You could have said "unlikely" or "more difficult" but your word choice (and your subsequent "politically correct" freak-out) suggest a bias for classmates. If you really are biased for them, then that calls into question your entire story, what other parts of it would a biased teller exaggerate? If you want people to take your story at face-value, don't give a critical reader reason to doubt it.
So it shouldn't be legal for the gov't (city or state cop) to exceed the speed limit in order to catch a criminal flying down the highway at 100mph?
Personally, I think that's true. They should shoot out the tires, and if they can't do that, shoot out the driver. To go 120 mph to catch up to someone going 80 in a 70 to give them a ticket is absurd. If it's safe for them to go that fast, how can it be unsafe for the person only going 10 over the limit?
(a) The police car is running sirens and lights warning other drivers that they need to take special care because the vehicle is exceeding the normal limits. All too frequently that is NOT the case, which is despicable and people frequently are killed because of it.
(b) The driver of the vehicle is well trained (and current) in high speed defensive driving.
As long as those two requirements are satisfied, then I believe it is valid for police and others with legitimate reason to speed. Certainly shooting at the tires and the driver brings significant risks which can endanger other people present. Also, shooting the driver should almost never be an option - extra-judicial killings are a huge opportunity for civil rights violations.
In both cases, the positive conclusions would not have been possible without classmates.com.
I doubt that. It isn't like you tried all other possible methods of doing those searches. You just used the option that seemed most obvious to you. Your stories are certainly not unique, people have been finding each other across long distances and times for centuries.
They didn't consider the science at all.
Didn't consider it, or didn't spell out their deliberations in the ruling?
Merits, addressed in deliberations and deemed irrelevant do not merit attention in the written ruling.
Are you trying to say that the science behind the claims is irrelevant?
A non-redundant array of expensive non-disk things.
A whorehouse?
Oh, I thought you said "non-dick things."
the supporters of Prop 8 realized that they could just amend the constitution so that there would be no wiggle room for judges to interpret it in any other way.
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
--James Bovard
The fact that many of the CDS agreements were just "bets" is immaterial if the failure of those that aren't still causes catastrophic failure. It would be nice to be able to hurt the people who were just betting while rescuing the people who were hedging, but it doesn't work that way, so you have to pick one.
The issue is that, due to the poor reporting requirements for CDS's, no one really knows how many are just "bets" and how many are "legitimate." But:
1) CDS's were around for many before the exponential growth in their trading took off, which suggests, but does not prove, that it was their use as a method of unregulated gambling that comprised much of that growth.
2) So far, we've only seen a bank "break the buck" once and it seems unlikely to happen again in the near term. As insurance against that kind of bank failure has apparently been the primary purpose of legitimate CDS's it appears to me that letting the insurance fail is unlikely to have the predicted doomsday results as the banks are expected to remain solvent and thus the insurance against them defaulting will be immaterial.
Which is why I believe that letting the market fail and recover on its own would not be the apocalyptic event it has been reported to be in the nightly news. Perhaps I am wrong, but until its over, no one can prove it and my way saves a shit load of taxpayer money.
Even when it is all over ,I doubt we will see any actual proof either way, the actual source materials will all be deleted, shredded or lost and all we will have left are the opinions of those with a vested interest one way or another.
And thus you completely sidestep the point I actually made. Here, let me reiterate:
No, you show that you don't understand CDS's and are probably just echoing what you've read by biased authors - let me emphasize "IG underwrites an extremely large number of assets "
No, AIG was leveraged out the ass on CDS's many of them for 3rd parties. In those cases there are no "assets" just bets.
Meanwhile, you just say "you're wrong", and that's it.
You haven't been reading what I wrote, you are just rah-rahing for your team and accusing me of irrational fears.
bunch of economists who all seem to agree that, yup, AIG failing would be bad.
No one is disputing that it would be bad for AIG to fail. Just that the alternative is worse in the long term.
So you're saying the reference to a "command economy" wasn't an allusion to communism? Well, my apologies, I must've misunderstood.
You really think communisim is the only kind of command economy? Do fascism and corporatism ring a bell?
Are you qualified to have this discussion?
No, they believe it's true because they realize that, thanks to the unregulated CDS market, AIG underwrites an extremely large number of assets that, should AIG fail, would be written down by their holding entities, resulting in massive institutional failures due to insolvency dwarfing anything we've seen so far.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, the worst CDS's were written for 3rd parties - they were essentially bets on the outcome of an unrelated transaction. While it may not have occurred to those gamblers that there was a third option, AIG's default on the CDS, I don't see defaulting on those as being particularly serious for the nation.
Or do you perhaps actually have a counterargument to this position, as opposed to simply disregarding the idea based on the messenger?
Your messenger is biased. If you really speak the truth, surely you can find an educated and neutral messenger to support your claims. Or is it more about your "team" winning even if the country loses?
So it can be sold off in a controlled manner, as opposed to an uncontrolled implosion.
Or did you miss that part of the bailout plan?
How does that contradict my point that COST of the bailout is not just the dollars, it is the aftermath on the market infrastructure?
So, OOC, did you have any *reasonable* objections to the bailout plan, as opposed to ones based on an irrational fear of communism?
Gee, is singapore a communist state? Two ad-hominem attacks now, I really am begining to think that you are a team player.
With a name like that you would think he would be working for Special Operations Division of the British Library.