And you are cherry picking your studies to suit your own bias.
Some studies have found it does not damage sales of some art. Others have found the opposite.
And whether some artists have made money outside "the biz" or not is irrelevant. The question is whether they would have made more money, been more successful, if their product was never pirated.
Naturally, if they have been giving their art away for free then that's fine. That's their choice and if it works for them, great. But others should be free to make their living in other ways. It's not a one-solution-fits-all world. What makes a living for one type of artist may not work for another. But pirates remove that option, not because they know better what works for the artist than the artist themselves, but on the basis that they can and no-one can stop them. How is that fair?
So by extension we don't give a crap about the employees of the multinational conglomerates we don't give a crap about?
I've never encountered a pirate site that draws any distinction between "huge multinational conglomerate" and "cottage industry that supports three staff". Pirates really don't give a crap. So your definition of the victim may be comforting, but factually groundless.
But people like to console themselves by thinking they're not really doing any hurt to anyone. Not really. Just faceless conglomerates, they imagine, and that's ok. It's convenient that people get to decide for themselves where the moral line is drawn here. Can't imagine why all laws aren't left to personal interpretation. "Yes Judge, I did steal this TV. But the shop ran a profit of $501k last year, and that's over my $500k "fair game" threshold. So I'm ok with it and so should you. Don't you have more serious crimes to be worrying about?"
They are not stopping people copying data. They are stopping people copying data without payment to the people that created said data, giving the data a value. If the people who created the data want paid for their time, resources and effort, then why should they not be?
And there are no tax dollars used in the City Of London.
Which is a red herring of an argument. Who says they are putting overt effort into enforcing one law and neglecting others?
The police's resources, like anything else, are finite. They cannot concentrate on all crime, all the time. So initiatives like this, across all laws, are not uncommon. The hope is that the publicity and focussed effort staves off similar crime for a while.
Why is killing and eating cow acceptable if killing and eating non-threatened whale species is not?
The cow's very existence is purely a result our intention to eat it. If we didn't eat beef the cow would not exist. Nor would its mother or father. Nor would it be any thing like its current breed, shape or form. Individually, it had a relatively easy and stress free life. Collectively, the species survival is practically guaranteed.
None of this is the case for any whale.
It may be a distinction that matters more to us than to the cow or whale, and who gets the better deal is open to debate, but it is a very clear distinction.
You are missing the point. Being triggered by sound or light means the malware can be activate by a global hack on the world's TV stations, just like happens on bad sci-fi series.
Android devices world wide will rise up and take over when the call to arms comes over the airwaves. I'm imagining a nightmarishly robotic and shadowy figure flickering across billions of TV screens, screaming "ACTIVATE! ACTIVATE!"
At that point the malware Android army will simultaneously post inane and vague status updates onto everyone's Facebook, then self destruct. No-one will be able to reply except for users of Apple and Windows, and all Android users will wither and die alone in a desert of dis-communication.
That's the nightmare scenario the writers of this dumb study had in mind, isn't it?
The only justification I can see for hunting is that you are exhibiting a skill. You may have stacked things in your favor by using a gun rather than running up and attacking with your teeth, but there is still, I suppose, some sense of satisfaction in perfecting your shooting skills. The same satisfaction a craftsman gets in perfecting use of their tools.
But this just removes even this. There is no satisfaction to be had here. You are simply killing something.
Yes, from the prey's point of view it's an irrelevant distinction how they were killed. By a skilled marksman, or a noob with a lot of tech. But I'm thinking about the person at the trigger here. What possible satisfaction is there to be had using this device other than "Cool, I just killed something" ? Is that really the kind of gratification this is marketed at?
That doesn't negate its use for hunting for food, or even military or criminal use, where the whole purpose is to kill. But most hunters who are ever likely to afford this kit are not hunting for food. It's a leisure pursuit and that's just sick.
There are also issues that arise when using small screens. Some developers assume your screen will be of a certain dimension, and therefore do not add scroll bars to their windows. You need to tab through the window as there is no other way to get to the items off screen. If they haven't implemented tabbing correctly then you're at an impasse.
But seriously, this is trivial detail in comparison to the core fact; iTunes on Windows is total crap, always has been. The fact that it installs needless CPU hogging services should come as no surprise to anyone. It's one of those applications that installs with the self-important expectation that it can take over your OS for its own purposes, screw any other software you might want to use.
If I wanted to scan screens worth of colored squares to find things, I'd put everything on the desktop as an icon. I don't because there is no hierarchical structure to it.
If she didn't read it out, it would not stop the Government setting out to do it. It would just ensure that next year one of the things on the list would be; put a stop to "Queen opens parliament" tradition.
Yeah, cos no-one else would dream of infecting the community members of Demonoid. And every single person who wandered within snatching distance of that data, as it was pushed from one backstreet ISP to another, all have impeccably highest of high morals. It must be the feds or the evil record companies. No doubt.
Want to run a command by typing its name name? Win+R, type away
I don't know its name. I can't remember. I'm not even sure this program exists. I'll know it when I see/find it. All situations where this method totally fails to be any use.
The actual hierarchical start menu? Worthless legacy cruft that has been more or less replaced by search anyway.
No it hasn't. I have a logical mind. I like to gather related applications together in groups so I know where I'm likely to find things when I next need them. Search just bungs into a big pile that I need to know exactly what I'm looking for before I even start looking. Ordering things this way also introduces me to new stuff I see in my start menu. I am not going to search for things I don't know about and don't even know I might find useful.
And another one to bring up the charms bar.
Charms bar, don't make me laugh. That'll be the fugly bar that appears from the side when you position your cursor in the corner. Very intuitive. Not a charm.
Windows 8 totally hides everything from sight, with the exception of the damn metro crap, which we all know is simply there to scream "Come to our app shop and buy stuff!"
Try that when you have a strong password and you can't be totally sure what keys you're pressing.
QFT.
I have no problems with passwords and encryption keys on a keyboard. But entering them on a touch screen (especially if the input is hidden) is a slow, tedious and error-strewn process.
You seem oblivious to the value of misinformation. You may be, but I doubt the FBI are.
A FBI agent may have many reasons for publicising misleading information. Some of them may even be morally justifiable. A former FBI agent with a NDA and a job/book to publicise has even more reasons. Some of them may also be morally justifiable.
You also don't seem to know how to differentiate between known secrets and unknown secrets (known knowns, and unknowns knowns, if you like). Everyone knows there is an Airforce One. Everyone knows it has a pilot. Those who do know his name are generally agreed on the reasons for keeping it secret. Those who don't know, understand why they don't.
These are totally different to secrets where it isn't publicly known there is a secret being kept, and where the reasons for keeping it are likely to be disputed.
You like having armed criminals come into your house and rob you? Then live in an armed area. Prefer they don't have to fear getting shot, and so don't arm themselves as nervy trigger happy maniacs? Then live in a disarmed area.
You seem to advocate the former where it becomes a escalation of who has the better armoury. I hope you don't have a family.
Those who inherit from you won't ever listen to most of your music. There might be a areas where your tastes coincide, and there might be a few tracks that they particularly remember you by. But if they cared enough about they music they'd already have a copy (legally or otherwise). If they cared enough about remembering you they'd go purchase a copy.
And failing that, who's going to stop you taking a copy off your Mom's iPod after the funeral? We don't (yet) have trojans that wipe devices when the user dies.
" keeping the guns in the hands of only the police, army, and the criminals well-connected enough to access a shadowy underworld of illegal imports and stolen guns."
Why would anyone else need or want one? Apart from the psychos and criminals not well-connected enough? This is not a "gun-hobby" item. Not even the most fanatic of gun owners has any use for a gun that lasts just a couple of firings. This is either the ultimate disposable crime tool, or a poor and unreliable gun for people that regulations have already decided (usually for good reason) are not to be trusted with a gun.
"and download a model file."
Possession of which can just as easily be made illegal without the proper permit. It is possible to make owning a collection of computer bits arranged in a particular way illegal. We have laws like this already.
Well that's kind of the point. If they were obvious fakes he maybe wouldn't be so concerned. If you want to pose as someone else in facebook and lace it with false statements, you don't go full out and put a stupid profile photo up and lead with the description "i am a moron".
Indeed. Europeans read these stories and think "Really? They don't have that right in the U.S. ??" I'm not intending to sound smug or sarcastic, but this is such a basic of EU legislation it seems bizarre that other developed countries are still struggling with this.
If you look at most "attacks" you'll find that the individuals are usually part of a relatively small group and are, in most people's opinion, insane.
Yet you are happy to group them all together on what you suspect their religion may be. Terrorism is an economic crime. People become "terrorists" because, rightly or wrongly, they believe they are oppressed/wronged and they do not have the finances to set up their own country and/or army to peruse a war. Terrorism seems a good option to them because it can have a large impact with much lower costs. (Other than lives, and as insane fanatics they don't value them as much.)
Their god-dammed religion is only a convenient handle for them to give their action a 'higher' justification and an illusion of wider support, and idiots like you grasping that handle play right into their hands.
Slashdot Mirror
And you are cherry picking your studies to suit your own bias.
Some studies have found it does not damage sales of some art. Others have found the opposite.
And whether some artists have made money outside "the biz" or not is irrelevant. The question is whether they would have made more money, been more successful, if their product was never pirated.
Naturally, if they have been giving their art away for free then that's fine. That's their choice and if it works for them, great. But others should be free to make their living in other ways. It's not a one-solution-fits-all world. What makes a living for one type of artist may not work for another. But pirates remove that option, not because they know better what works for the artist than the artist themselves, but on the basis that they can and no-one can stop them. How is that fair?
So by extension we don't give a crap about the employees of the multinational conglomerates we don't give a crap about?
I've never encountered a pirate site that draws any distinction between "huge multinational conglomerate" and "cottage industry that supports three staff". Pirates really don't give a crap. So your definition of the victim may be comforting, but factually groundless.
But people like to console themselves by thinking they're not really doing any hurt to anyone. Not really. Just faceless conglomerates, they imagine, and that's ok. It's convenient that people get to decide for themselves where the moral line is drawn here. Can't imagine why all laws aren't left to personal interpretation. "Yes Judge, I did steal this TV. But the shop ran a profit of $501k last year, and that's over my $500k "fair game" threshold. So I'm ok with it and so should you. Don't you have more serious crimes to be worrying about?"
Why?
They are not stopping people copying data. They are stopping people copying data without payment to the people that created said data, giving the data a value. If the people who created the data want paid for their time, resources and effort, then why should they not be?
And there are no tax dollars used in the City Of London.
Which is a red herring of an argument. Who says they are putting overt effort into enforcing one law and neglecting others?
The police's resources, like anything else, are finite. They cannot concentrate on all crime, all the time. So initiatives like this, across all laws, are not uncommon. The hope is that the publicity and focussed effort staves off similar crime for a while.
Why is killing and eating cow acceptable if killing and eating non-threatened whale species is not?
The cow's very existence is purely a result our intention to eat it. If we didn't eat beef the cow would not exist. Nor would its mother or father. Nor would it be any thing like its current breed, shape or form. Individually, it had a relatively easy and stress free life. Collectively, the species survival is practically guaranteed.
None of this is the case for any whale.
It may be a distinction that matters more to us than to the cow or whale, and who gets the better deal is open to debate, but it is a very clear distinction.
Sorry. Anyone who seriously proposes a solution to a parenting problem as an armed dual is deserving of all the ridicule coming to them.
Article summary should be re-written;
Console market isn't profitable in the way that some gamers would like.
You are missing the point. Being triggered by sound or light means the malware can be activate by a global hack on the world's TV stations, just like happens on bad sci-fi series.
Android devices world wide will rise up and take over when the call to arms comes over the airwaves. I'm imagining a nightmarishly robotic and shadowy figure flickering across billions of TV screens, screaming "ACTIVATE! ACTIVATE!"
At that point the malware Android army will simultaneously post inane and vague status updates onto everyone's Facebook, then self destruct. No-one will be able to reply except for users of Apple and Windows, and all Android users will wither and die alone in a desert of dis-communication.
That's the nightmare scenario the writers of this dumb study had in mind, isn't it?
The only justification I can see for hunting is that you are exhibiting a skill. You may have stacked things in your favor by using a gun rather than running up and attacking with your teeth, but there is still, I suppose, some sense of satisfaction in perfecting your shooting skills. The same satisfaction a craftsman gets in perfecting use of their tools.
But this just removes even this. There is no satisfaction to be had here. You are simply killing something.
Yes, from the prey's point of view it's an irrelevant distinction how they were killed. By a skilled marksman, or a noob with a lot of tech. But I'm thinking about the person at the trigger here. What possible satisfaction is there to be had using this device other than "Cool, I just killed something" ? Is that really the kind of gratification this is marketed at?
That doesn't negate its use for hunting for food, or even military or criminal use, where the whole purpose is to kill. But most hunters who are ever likely to afford this kit are not hunting for food. It's a leisure pursuit and that's just sick.
There are also issues that arise when using small screens. Some developers assume your screen will be of a certain dimension, and therefore do not add scroll bars to their windows. You need to tab through the window as there is no other way to get to the items off screen. If they haven't implemented tabbing correctly then you're at an impasse.
But seriously, this is trivial detail in comparison to the core fact; iTunes on Windows is total crap, always has been. The fact that it installs needless CPU hogging services should come as no surprise to anyone. It's one of those applications that installs with the self-important expectation that it can take over your OS for its own purposes, screw any other software you might want to use.
If I wanted to scan screens worth of colored squares to find things, I'd put everything on the desktop as an icon. I don't because there is no hierarchical structure to it.
And what would that achieve?
If she didn't read it out, it would not stop the Government setting out to do it. It would just ensure that next year one of the things on the list would be; put a stop to "Queen opens parliament" tradition.
Yeah, cos no-one else would dream of infecting the community members of Demonoid. And every single person who wandered within snatching distance of that data, as it was pushed from one backstreet ISP to another, all have impeccably highest of high morals. It must be the feds or the evil record companies. No doubt.
Want to run a command by typing its name name? Win+R, type away
I don't know its name. I can't remember. I'm not even sure this program exists. I'll know it when I see/find it. All situations where this method totally fails to be any use.
The actual hierarchical start menu? Worthless legacy cruft that has been more or less replaced by search anyway.
No it hasn't. I have a logical mind. I like to gather related applications together in groups so I know where I'm likely to find things when I next need them. Search just bungs into a big pile that I need to know exactly what I'm looking for before I even start looking. Ordering things this way also introduces me to new stuff I see in my start menu. I am not going to search for things I don't know about and don't even know I might find useful.
And another one to bring up the charms bar.
Charms bar, don't make me laugh. That'll be the fugly bar that appears from the side when you position your cursor in the corner. Very intuitive. Not a charm.
Windows 8 totally hides everything from sight, with the exception of the damn metro crap, which we all know is simply there to scream "Come to our app shop and buy stuff!"
Try that when you have a strong password and you can't be totally sure what keys you're pressing.
QFT.
I have no problems with passwords and encryption keys on a keyboard. But entering them on a touch screen (especially if the input is hidden) is a slow, tedious and error-strewn process.
You seem oblivious to the value of misinformation. You may be, but I doubt the FBI are.
A FBI agent may have many reasons for publicising misleading information. Some of them may even be morally justifiable. A former FBI agent with a NDA and a job/book to publicise has even more reasons. Some of them may also be morally justifiable.
You also don't seem to know how to differentiate between known secrets and unknown secrets (known knowns, and unknowns knowns, if you like). Everyone knows there is an Airforce One. Everyone knows it has a pilot. Those who do know his name are generally agreed on the reasons for keeping it secret. Those who don't know, understand why they don't.
These are totally different to secrets where it isn't publicly known there is a secret being kept, and where the reasons for keeping it are likely to be disputed.
it's going to be used a couple times and that's it
I'm sure that will come as a great comfort to those at the business end of those couple of times.
You like having armed criminals come into your house and rob you? Then live in an armed area. Prefer they don't have to fear getting shot, and so don't arm themselves as nervy trigger happy maniacs? Then live in a disarmed area.
You seem to advocate the former where it becomes a escalation of who has the better armoury. I hope you don't have a family.
If I'm dead, why do I care?
Those who inherit from you won't ever listen to most of your music. There might be a areas where your tastes coincide, and there might be a few tracks that they particularly remember you by. But if they cared enough about they music they'd already have a copy (legally or otherwise). If they cared enough about remembering you they'd go purchase a copy.
And failing that, who's going to stop you taking a copy off your Mom's iPod after the funeral? We don't (yet) have trojans that wipe devices when the user dies.
Thanks. I'm guessing the blog has a few allegations that The Register weren't prepared to repeat for legal reasons.
Usual rule applies; be wary of assigning to conspiracy that which could be simple incompetence.
" keeping the guns in the hands of only the police, army, and the criminals well-connected enough to access a shadowy underworld of illegal imports and stolen guns."
Why would anyone else need or want one? Apart from the psychos and criminals not well-connected enough? This is not a "gun-hobby" item. Not even the most fanatic of gun owners has any use for a gun that lasts just a couple of firings. This is either the ultimate disposable crime tool, or a poor and unreliable gun for people that regulations have already decided (usually for good reason) are not to be trusted with a gun.
"and download a model file."
Possession of which can just as easily be made illegal without the proper permit. It is possible to make owning a collection of computer bits arranged in a particular way illegal. We have laws like this already.
They were not obvious fake accounts
Well that's kind of the point. If they were obvious fakes he maybe wouldn't be so concerned. If you want to pose as someone else in facebook and lace it with false statements, you don't go full out and put a stupid profile photo up and lead with the description "i am a moron".
Any chance of someone not a work giving us a SFW summary of the NSFW blog post?
Otherwise this is a pretty pointless story, telling us nothing. What is this guy's response to The Register's story?
Indeed. Europeans read these stories and think "Really? They don't have that right in the U.S. ??" I'm not intending to sound smug or sarcastic, but this is such a basic of EU legislation it seems bizarre that other developed countries are still struggling with this.
If you look at most "attacks" you'll find that the individuals are usually part of a relatively small group and are, in most people's opinion, insane.
Yet you are happy to group them all together on what you suspect their religion may be. Terrorism is an economic crime. People become "terrorists" because, rightly or wrongly, they believe they are oppressed/wronged and they do not have the finances to set up their own country and/or army to peruse a war. Terrorism seems a good option to them because it can have a large impact with much lower costs. (Other than lives, and as insane fanatics they don't value them as much.)
Their god-dammed religion is only a convenient handle for them to give their action a 'higher' justification and an illusion of wider support, and idiots like you grasping that handle play right into their hands.