You missed the detail where I said "fast food" you know - buy it and leave.
Once they are on an airplane, they are probably out of reach of the law or at least out of the jurisdiction of the police there.
Not on a domestic flight which is the only case under discussion.
There actually is a much better example to use in trying to make your point, I leave you to it.
Fuck examples and analogies, you can't read them anyway. What it boils down to is that society does not exist to make police enforcement easier. You want to make life easy for the police - you get a police state.
As a sufferer of obsessive-compulsive disorder, it is worth almost ten grand to not have to spend my entire day worrying if I did, indeed, leave the oven on.
Ten grand will buy a lot of restaurant meals. Just sell your regular oven and take that money, plus the ten grand and buy take-out food instead.
Well for one if you've recently comitted a crime they can pull you to the side
Well, why don't we start requiring ID for purchases at all fast food restaurants? I'm sure it would catch a hell of a lot more criminals with outstanding warrants than just checking at the airport.
Why should a guild be limited to GLBT? What if someone tried to make a "whites-only" guild?
This is a role-playing game. Just because you join the GLBT guild doesn't mean you are a giblet. Nor does joining a "whites-only" guild require that you be a white - it just means you play one on tv, er, WoW.
Few people, myself included, debate that we need as much intel as possible to try and curb future terrorist attacks.
Well then MORE people ought to be debating that point.
All the 9/11 guys were known about. We even had reports of some of them getting training on how to take of but not land jumbo jets. The point is - we had more than enough "intel" to stop 9/11 but nobody stopped it.
Now, with this pervasive surveillence culture - various government agencies are even more overloaded with "intel" but they still lack the means to shift through it and find useful information. In fact, because of the increase in data, it is now harder to find the useful information buried within the noise.
Furthermore, a lot of these massive data-mining operations are bass-ackwards. You can't reliably identify terrorists by their spending habits, or their travel plans, or the like. You get way too many false positives to be even close to useful. They are only good for "after the fact" analysis, when it is too late because they have already done the dirty deed, you can go back and say "yep, look at that, the guy called Pakistan every day for a year" we should have known he was a terrorist! Problem is, 10,000 other people called Pakistan every day for a year too and you could not have investigated them all.
Are you familiar with the phrase "opportunity cost?"
Killing itanium is nowhere near free. You may not personally see them, but HP sells a lot of high-end systems and itanium is the only viable option for them going forward -- no way they could switch to Power, and FP performance of all the other commodity cpus isn't even close, even if they were to spend that $10B on brand new infrastructure for some x86 derivative.
A pledge to spend $10 billion more? How does this make sense again?
That ain't hard at all understand. Are you familiar with the term "minimizing your losses?"
Intel and HP clearly believe that in spending $10B they will generate more than $10B in revenue. In other words, if they spent no more money at all, they would lose $X, now they expect to lose $(X+10B-Y) where Y is some number larger than $10B.
Wow a personal anecdote. What a stunningly perceptive analysis of human nature and market forces. NOT
Here's how it works - as long as people can get a product for a lower total cost they will do so, individual non-rational actors notwithstanding. So as long as software, or any digital product for that matter, is available through easy to find (i.e. low cost) illicit venues, then people will use those venues instead of purchasing it legitimately for a higher total price.
The trick is to figure out how make money by charging for the work of creation, not the work of distribution (i.e. making copies) which, with the pervasive internet, is now a zero-margin - and thus effectively a zero cost - operation.
Or, in the case of the arts, copyrights are the only things ensuring artists make any profit whatsoever.
Bullshit.
Your post is so full of crap it is amazing. It sure must have felt good to take an intellectual dump of such enormous proportions. You want to criticize the phrase "copyright monopoly" as being redundant? You go right ahead, I learned it from a SCOTUS ruling - where did you get your definition from? Either way, you have accepted that government granted monopoly is at the heart of the market, thus you have also acknowledged the fact that the market, by definition, is not free - any other similarities to truly free markets notwithstanding.
As for the load of steaming bullshit that is your claim about copyrights being the only way for artists to make any profit - let me ask you - just how the fuck do you think they made any money before copyright? Yeah, it is called commission. Ain't no reason artists - and not just musicians - can not work on commission today, except that it is not commonly done. And the only reason it is not commonly done is because copyright came to be the dominate economic model when copying was still a marginally expensive process. That has all changed with the rise of the internet.
Commission has the substantial benefit over copyright in that it transfers the risk of production costs to the buyer instead of the creator as it is today. It is precisely that risk which has lead to the creation of the middlemen known as "studios" - they hoard capital in order to cover production risk in exchange for copyright.
But if the end buyer, the ones who actually care about the quality of the product, instead of a middleman for whom the art is simply a generic commodity, assume the risk then there is no need for middlemen any more. The ancillary functions of middlemen like promotion and distribution become services that the artist hires out, or in the case of distribution, can be a service that secondary buyers hire directly.
Right now you are thinking, this is all a pipe-dream, with no basis in reality. I've heard it before, small minds like yours are a dime a dozen and I've explained the concepts a dozen times before. What you and all the other small minds can't comprehend is that it is exactly the same features of the Internet that make it easy to pirate content world-wide for a marginal cost of zero which also make it easy to collect a commission from a world-wide group of buyers for a marginal cost of zero too. Think a streamlined version of paypal that goes into an escrow account where the escrowed funds are only released to the artist when he releases the results of his creative labors into the public domain.
He gets paid, buyers get their content and no copyright is required.
A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame.
Sounds like he is saying that video games try to cater to the lowest common denominator.
1) Such video games, will almost certainly suck.
2) If catering to the lowest common denominator is sufficient to disqualify a creation as art, then most of hollywood's productions are not art either.
Telecoms are public utilities. This is not capitalism at all, it is the abuse of a government granted monopoly.
Kinda funny how that other government granted monopoly, copyright, is also being used to attack the usefulness of the internet. Perhaps there is a pattern here.
If they're "too expensive", don't buy them and let the free market do it's work.
Don't for a second believe that the market for music and movies is a "free market." At the very least it is dominated by one gynormous bit of government interference, generally known as the copyright monopoly. You may believe that claptrap about copyright being the only way to "promote progress in science and the arts" but don't pretend that a "free market" has anything to do with it. It is a very tightly controlled market.
If this was about oil, it was a damned stupid financial decision.
Yep, fucked the country over good and half of the voting public willingly bent over for another reaming too.
It wasn't about oil - it was about oil infrastructure. Most of the oilfields in Texas are dry (or too expensive to extract from, even at $70/barrell) but what Texas has a lot of are the companies that build rigs, build pipelines, do geo-petrol exploration, etc. Those companies have made a killing since the Iraqi invasion.
Let me give you an example with a little less hyperbole.
Let me give you an example with a little more insight. If I were to say that all slashdot posters are liars, and you were to say that all slashdot posters are truth-tellers. The real answer is right down the middle -- some slashdot posters are satirical.
My mod points expired last night, else you would have got one.
Google thoroughly understands the concept of "enlightened self-interest" but to pretend that it is not "self-interest" in the first place is to ignore the realities of life.
Furthermore, this fighting the subpoena has nothing to do with "don't be evil" - it has to do with maintaining the trust of their users. If we know that google will sell out our porn search results to be used against us (by trying to make porn access more difficult) then maybe we might start looking elsewhere for a search engine that is beyond the reach of the idelogical witch-hunts from from the US DoJ.
Even users who are not pro-porn might have the same thoughts, there are plenty of other controversial subjects that could just as easily become subject to abusive governmental attempts at control.
Fingerprint scanner locks are totally bogus security anyway. Employers that use them are just stupid technology suckers.
That said, here's some documentation for that claim, some of which include suggestions for how to easily bypass such systems, perhaps one of them will work for you, although I don't recommend the first one:
Forget Otter Ping-Ping - I want to know if Thai beaver really can shoot ping-pong balls! I knew a girl with a half-thai beaver, but I could never convince her to give it a shot, so clearly this is a job for mythbusters!
Slashdot Mirror
Because after they eat they are still there.
You missed the detail where I said "fast food" you know - buy it and leave.
Once they are on an airplane, they are probably out of reach of the law or at least out of the jurisdiction of the police there.
Not on a domestic flight which is the only case under discussion.
There actually is a much better example to use in trying to make your point, I leave you to it.
Fuck examples and analogies, you can't read them anyway. What it boils down to is that society does not exist to make police enforcement easier. You want to make life easy for the police - you get a police state.
As a sufferer of obsessive-compulsive disorder, it is worth almost ten grand to not have to spend my entire day worrying if I did, indeed, leave the oven on.
Ten grand will buy a lot of restaurant meals. Just sell your regular oven and take that money, plus the ten grand and buy take-out food instead.
Well for one if you've recently comitted a crime they can pull you to the side
Well, why don't we start requiring ID for purchases at all fast food restaurants? I'm sure it would catch a hell of a lot more criminals with outstanding warrants than just checking at the airport.
Why should a guild be limited to GLBT? What if someone tried to make a "whites-only" guild?
This is a role-playing game. Just because you join the GLBT guild doesn't mean you are a giblet. Nor does joining a "whites-only" guild require that you be a white - it just means you play one on tv, er, WoW.
Few people, myself included, debate that we need as much intel as possible to try and curb future terrorist attacks.
Well then MORE people ought to be debating that point.
All the 9/11 guys were known about. We even had reports of some of them getting training on how to take of but not land jumbo jets. The point is - we had more than enough "intel" to stop 9/11 but nobody stopped it.
Now, with this pervasive surveillence culture - various government agencies are even more overloaded with "intel" but they still lack the means to shift through it and find useful information. In fact, because of the increase in data, it is now harder to find the useful information buried within the noise.
Furthermore, a lot of these massive data-mining operations are bass-ackwards. You can't reliably identify terrorists by their spending habits, or their travel plans, or the like. You get way too many false positives to be even close to useful. They are only good for "after the fact" analysis, when it is too late because they have already done the dirty deed, you can go back and say "yep, look at that, the guy called Pakistan every day for a year" we should have known he was a terrorist! Problem is, 10,000 other people called Pakistan every day for a year too and you could not have investigated them all.
Which holds about as much truth as your editorial opinion above.
Perhaps you should quote the part where I cite well understood principles of economics instead of just smarting over being called ignorant.
Are you familiar with the phrase "opportunity cost?"
Killing itanium is nowhere near free. You may not personally see them, but HP sells a lot of high-end systems and itanium is the only viable option for them going forward -- no way they could switch to Power, and FP performance of all the other commodity cpus isn't even close, even if they were to spend that $10B on brand new infrastructure for some x86 derivative.
A pledge to spend $10 billion more? How does this make sense again?
That ain't hard at all understand. Are you familiar with the term "minimizing your losses?"
Intel and HP clearly believe that in spending $10B they will generate more than $10B in revenue. In other words, if they spent no more money at all, they would lose $X, now they expect to lose $(X+10B-Y) where Y is some number larger than $10B.
I buy games used for my consoles all the time.
Wow a personal anecdote. What a stunningly perceptive analysis of human nature and market forces. NOT
Here's how it works - as long as people can get a product for a lower total cost they will do so, individual non-rational actors notwithstanding. So as long as software, or any digital product for that matter, is available through easy to find (i.e. low cost) illicit venues, then people will use those venues instead of purchasing it legitimately for a higher total price.
The trick is to figure out how make money by charging for the work of creation, not the work of distribution (i.e. making copies) which, with the pervasive internet, is now a zero-margin - and thus effectively a zero cost - operation.
if software was reasonably priced, there would be very little piracy
Where "reasonably priced" is roughly equal to "Free" that is.
(Yes, children, there was software piracy back in the days of 5.25" floppy disks.)
However, even further back, in the days of 8" floppy disks there was hardly any piracy because it was mostly all Free Software to begin with.
blah blah blah self-important close-minded blah
Or, in the case of the arts, copyrights are the only things ensuring artists make any profit whatsoever.
Bullshit.
Your post is so full of crap it is amazing. It sure must have felt good to take an intellectual dump of such enormous proportions. You want to criticize the phrase "copyright monopoly" as being redundant? You go right ahead, I learned it from a SCOTUS ruling - where did you get your definition from? Either way, you have accepted that government granted monopoly is at the heart of the market, thus you have also acknowledged the fact that the market, by definition, is not free - any other similarities to truly free markets notwithstanding.
As for the load of steaming bullshit that is your claim about copyrights being the only way for artists to make any profit - let me ask you - just how the fuck do you think they made any money before copyright? Yeah, it is called commission. Ain't no reason artists - and not just musicians - can not work on commission today, except that it is not commonly done. And the only reason it is not commonly done is because copyright came to be the dominate economic model when copying was still a marginally expensive process. That has all changed with the rise of the internet.
Commission has the substantial benefit over copyright in that it transfers the risk of production costs to the buyer instead of the creator as it is today. It is precisely that risk which has lead to the creation of the middlemen known as "studios" - they hoard capital in order to cover production risk in exchange for copyright.
But if the end buyer, the ones who actually care about the quality of the product, instead of a middleman for whom the art is simply a generic commodity, assume the risk then there is no need for middlemen any more. The ancillary functions of middlemen like promotion and distribution become services that the artist hires out, or in the case of distribution, can be a service that secondary buyers hire directly.
Right now you are thinking, this is all a pipe-dream, with no basis in reality. I've heard it before, small minds like yours are a dime a dozen and I've explained the concepts a dozen times before. What you and all the other small minds can't comprehend is that it is exactly the same features of the Internet that make it easy to pirate content world-wide for a marginal cost of zero which also make it easy to collect a commission from a world-wide group of buyers for a marginal cost of zero too. Think a streamlined version of paypal that goes into an escrow account where the escrowed funds are only released to the artist when he releases the results of his creative labors into the public domain.
He gets paid, buyers get their content and no copyright is required.
Put that in your smipe and poke it.
Oh but I do agree that plenty of Hollywood films also cant really be considered as art.
Then you are in disagreement with Roger Ebert who is the one who originally started this public debate by saying video games can not be art.
I'm sure most of us have seen scenery in a game before and thought it was beautiful.
Since when is art about beauty?
Is a pretty girl "art?" Is a scenic view "art?" Are some mandlebrot's "art?" If so, who are the artists?
A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame.
Sounds like he is saying that video games try to cater to the lowest common denominator.
1) Such video games, will almost certainly suck.
2) If catering to the lowest common denominator is sufficient to disqualify a creation as art, then most of hollywood's productions are not art either.
This is capitalism on the internet at its finest.
Telecoms are public utilities. This is not capitalism at all, it is the abuse of a government granted monopoly.
Kinda funny how that other government granted monopoly, copyright, is also being used to attack the usefulness of the internet. Perhaps there is a pattern here.
it is like asking my mom to pay for a phone call when I call her - absolutely stupid.
You mean, like when you call her on her cell phone?
If they're "too expensive", don't buy them and let the free market do it's work.
Don't for a second believe that the market for music and movies is a "free market." At the very least it is dominated by one gynormous bit of government interference, generally known as the copyright monopoly. You may believe that claptrap about copyright being the only way to "promote progress in science and the arts" but don't pretend that a "free market" has anything to do with it. It is a very tightly controlled market.
If this was about oil, it was a damned stupid financial decision.
Yep, fucked the country over good and half of the voting public willingly bent over for another reaming too.
It wasn't about oil - it was about oil infrastructure. Most of the oilfields in Texas are dry (or too expensive to extract from, even at $70/barrell) but what Texas has a lot of are the companies that build rigs, build pipelines, do geo-petrol exploration, etc. Those companies have made a killing since the Iraqi invasion.
Let me give you an example with a little less hyperbole.
Let me give you an example with a little more insight. If I were to say that all slashdot posters are liars, and you were to say that all slashdot posters are truth-tellers. The real answer is right down the middle -- some slashdot posters are satirical.
My mod points expired last night, else you would have got one.
Google thoroughly understands the concept of "enlightened self-interest" but to pretend that it is not "self-interest" in the first place is to ignore the realities of life.
Furthermore, this fighting the subpoena has nothing to do with "don't be evil" - it has to do with maintaining the trust of their users. If we know that google will sell out our porn search results to be used against us (by trying to make porn access more difficult) then maybe we might start looking elsewhere for a search engine that is beyond the reach of the idelogical witch-hunts from from the US DoJ.
Even users who are not pro-porn might have the same thoughts, there are plenty of other controversial subjects that could just as easily become subject to abusive governmental attempts at control.
That said, here's some documentation for that claim, some of which include suggestions for how to easily bypass such systems, perhaps one of them will work for you, although I don't recommend the first one:
Malaysia car thieves steal finger
DHS and UK ID card biometric vendor in false ID lawsuit
Unsupervised biometric scanners more toys than serious security
Impact of Artificial Gummy Fingers on Fingerprint Systems
... But on slashdot you get to have a second and even a third chance to get it right!
Forget Otter Ping-Ping - I want to know if Thai beaver really can shoot ping-pong balls! I knew a girl with a half-thai beaver, but I could never convince her to give it a shot, so clearly this is a job for mythbusters!
Sounds like a business method to me. Think I'll patent it!
Too late, there is prior art - we've all received the spam "Make Money Fast!"