I guess that's because the net population has diluted in terms of technical know-how.
And given that people are generally happy with services like Amazon, eBay and PayPal, they see no reason why services like Amaz0n, eBäy and PayPa1 should be any different.
The OP said that there is a certain percentage people spend each week, part of which is spent on music. If it is not spent on music, it will be spent on something else.
What if there is nothing else that people want? By using P2P services, they wouldn't need to spend that money and could save it.
It is purely an assumption that people would spend on something if they didn't spend on music. And if they did spend on something else, it would mean that the RIAA were right - that by using P2P services, money was flowing away from the music industry to other industries, i.e. that the RIAA were losing money because of P2P.
Perhaps....
on
Voom No More
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
if their traditional business model was failing, they could have tried an online business model based on BitTorrent.
I regularly see thousands of peers on torrents for TV shows. If Voom offered HDTV rips of popular shows, they could have had a viable business model - a TV/media form of the clicks-and-bricks model.
Re:/. can influence this one.
on
Dell Might do AMD
·
· Score: 5, Funny
And thus began the Slashcall effect.
People would have to post torrents of mp3s of Skype calls after Dell's tech support in Bangalore goes down.
If we had Y amount of money which we spent on music, and we didn't have to, because of p2p services, why would we necessarily spend it on anything else?
We could spend it, but it is not a certainty. In any case, if we did spend it anyway, the chances of it going to the RIAA or CRIA are minimal.
I don't believe the RIAA when they say p2p has hurt the music industry. But I don't agree with the OP's logic that people want to spend a certain portion of their weekly income.
Not everyone spends left-over cash. Some like to save for a rainy day.
Although personal savings are on a serious decline around the Western world, you can be sure that those who save money by using peer-to-peer apps instead of buying music, are putting some of it in banks for future use.
Force those teachers to read the Hacker's Manifesto. It'll take them 2 minutes, but they'll understand.
If teachers believe that hacking is the same as computer crime, it is the responsibility of those who know to teach them what it really means. They believe it is computer crime because that is the disinformation that the media spreads.
I've had teachers who taught IT ethics courses generalize hacking as computer crime, using faulty logic and falsities. After arguing in class, I emailed her later explaining my position with plenty of references.
Just as it our responsibility to help others learn about F/OSS and other technology, because we know, it is our responsibility to teach them about hacking, and what it means.
So because they act like other CEOs and because their company is public, therefore they will follow in the footsteps of others and do something evil? I don't buy that.
As for doing 'evil', if they believed patents were not evil, and thus applied for them, are they evil? If so, who defines what is evil? The public? The government? The Pope?
We have illegals coming into Hong Kong daily, from China. We've been having this problem for decades now, especially as many Southern Chinese see Hong Kong in the same way that many Mexicans see the US.
As for our future, our liberties are far less at stake than that of the citizens of the US.
The USA has a much larger tax base than HK does, and at one point had trillions of dollars in surplus.
I wasn't, in any case, comparing HK to the US. I was comparing implementations, which is quite fair. HK and Singapore seem to provide welfare services far better than NYC, Chicago or LA do.
As I already said, even if you pay an ample amount of taxes, the government would still be forced to prioritize, but welfare would still get a cut of it, as opposed to being completely cut out of the budget.
I do believe the government is better equipped to handle money than most individuals are. Not everyone is George Soros, which is why they vote for people who know about economics and finances and so on. You can only look out for yourself, but the government, by its very nature (assuming we are speaking about democracy here), is bound to look for all of its citizens.
I never said the government had a right to your money. What I did say was that the government can serve people better if it wasn't forced to make cuts.
Yes, the article was talking about US taxes, but there is no difference between paying taxes in the US and paying taxes in Sweden, for example, except for how taxes are used.
I actually never said increasing taxes was a good thing. I said paying less taxes made it worse as it forced the government to prioritize its expenses, and welfare usually lost out to security, which is a bad thing.
Or perhaps I come from a different country, where government-supported welfare services work?
Where I live, taxes are progressive, but still quite low. For most people the tax rate is about 1% of income, and we don't have any sales tax. The government provides education, infrastructure and health care, for the most part. And it works.
If the US government's implementation of the system is flawed, that's a case against changing the government, not against paying less taxes.
In many countries, governments are doing quite well at providing these welfare services (Canada, Europe, Singapore, Hong Kong, amongst others). Just because the US is lagging behind isn't a reason for the free market to take over.
To Google, evil means ruining the web experience for its customers and users. Given that Google defines evil as such, it is doing a marvelous job of living up to its promise.
Evil is a subjective concept. To you, and others, perhaps, patents are wrong. But to Google, the sole criterion for evil is the user experience. Therefore, patent issues do not apply.
Paying less taxes only forces the hand of the government to choose between security (armed services, intelligence, defense) and general welfare (health care, education, infrastructure).
Of course, if you pay more taxes, some of it will end up supporting things you don't like, such as war or abstinence education, but it also helps to pay for the welfare of the state.
Visual Studio uses native DLL calls and hooks, which is why it's faster. Java VMs tend to be memory hogs (especially Java 5), but that's a point against the use of Java rather than Eclipse.
I don't see Eclipse changing from the use of Java anytime soon however, as IBM backs Java, for its portability and support for open standards, as well as its extensive developer community.
However, comparing Eclipse and Visual Studio on other facets, such as extensibility, support and price, Eclipse trumps the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
More like -1, Redundant.
I'm more worried about Roland's patent submissions.
They should have a Slashdot-like moderation system.
Prior art submissions would be like comments, and volunteers with good karma could check prior art submission. And then you have meta-moderation.
Of course, any patent dupes would be noticed in the first 5 minutes, with 6 different posts.
just zip down to the Grauman's Chinese Theater and tell these folks?
I guess that's because the net population has diluted in terms of technical know-how.
And given that people are generally happy with services like Amazon, eBay and PayPal, they see no reason why services like Amaz0n, eBäy and PayPa1 should be any different.
Linux + biometrics = optional
The OP said that there is a certain percentage people spend each week, part of which is spent on music. If it is not spent on music, it will be spent on something else.
What if there is nothing else that people want? By using P2P services, they wouldn't need to spend that money and could save it.
It is purely an assumption that people would spend on something if they didn't spend on music. And if they did spend on something else, it would mean that the RIAA were right - that by using P2P services, money was flowing away from the music industry to other industries, i.e. that the RIAA were losing money because of P2P.
If they licensed it for online use, why not?
The only difference would be ad revenue, which they could overcome with increased subscription fees, and lower setup and maintenance fees.
First post?
if their traditional business model was failing, they could have tried an online business model based on BitTorrent.
I regularly see thousands of peers on torrents for TV shows. If Voom offered HDTV rips of popular shows, they could have had a viable business model - a TV/media form of the clicks-and-bricks model.
And thus began the Slashcall effect.
People would have to post torrents of mp3s of Skype calls after Dell's tech support in Bangalore goes down.
I don't follow your logic.
If we had Y amount of money which we spent on music, and we didn't have to, because of p2p services, why would we necessarily spend it on anything else?
We could spend it, but it is not a certainty. In any case, if we did spend it anyway, the chances of it going to the RIAA or CRIA are minimal.
I don't believe the RIAA when they say p2p has hurt the music industry. But I don't agree with the OP's logic that people want to spend a certain portion of their weekly income.
Not everyone spends left-over cash. Some like to save for a rainy day.
Although personal savings are on a serious decline around the Western world, you can be sure that those who save money by using peer-to-peer apps instead of buying music, are putting some of it in banks for future use.
Force those teachers to read the Hacker's Manifesto. It'll take them 2 minutes, but they'll understand.
If teachers believe that hacking is the same as computer crime, it is the responsibility of those who know to teach them what it really means. They believe it is computer crime because that is the disinformation that the media spreads.
I've had teachers who taught IT ethics courses generalize hacking as computer crime, using faulty logic and falsities. After arguing in class, I emailed her later explaining my position with plenty of references.
Just as it our responsibility to help others learn about F/OSS and other technology, because we know, it is our responsibility to teach them about hacking, and what it means.
So because they act like other CEOs and because their company is public, therefore they will follow in the footsteps of others and do something evil? I don't buy that.
As for doing 'evil', if they believed patents were not evil, and thus applied for them, are they evil? If so, who defines what is evil? The public? The government? The Pope?
We have illegals coming into Hong Kong daily, from China. We've been having this problem for decades now, especially as many Southern Chinese see Hong Kong in the same way that many Mexicans see the US.
As for our future, our liberties are far less at stake than that of the citizens of the US.
The USA has a much larger tax base than HK does, and at one point had trillions of dollars in surplus.
I wasn't, in any case, comparing HK to the US. I was comparing implementations, which is quite fair. HK and Singapore seem to provide welfare services far better than NYC, Chicago or LA do.
As I already said, even if you pay an ample amount of taxes, the government would still be forced to prioritize, but welfare would still get a cut of it, as opposed to being completely cut out of the budget.
I do believe the government is better equipped to handle money than most individuals are. Not everyone is George Soros, which is why they vote for people who know about economics and finances and so on. You can only look out for yourself, but the government, by its very nature (assuming we are speaking about democracy here), is bound to look for all of its citizens.
I never said the government had a right to your money. What I did say was that the government can serve people better if it wasn't forced to make cuts.
Hong Kong, if you must know.
Yes, the article was talking about US taxes, but there is no difference between paying taxes in the US and paying taxes in Sweden, for example, except for how taxes are used.
I actually never said increasing taxes was a good thing. I said paying less taxes made it worse as it forced the government to prioritize its expenses, and welfare usually lost out to security, which is a bad thing.
Google would take over, with a crappy interface.
Or perhaps I come from a different country, where government-supported welfare services work?
Where I live, taxes are progressive, but still quite low. For most people the tax rate is about 1% of income, and we don't have any sales tax. The government provides education, infrastructure and health care, for the most part. And it works.
If the US government's implementation of the system is flawed, that's a case against changing the government, not against paying less taxes.
After Steve sues you, you'd be making minimum wage after getting one of them Mc.Jobs
Who would you suggest take over? The free market?
In many countries, governments are doing quite well at providing these welfare services (Canada, Europe, Singapore, Hong Kong, amongst others). Just because the US is lagging behind isn't a reason for the free market to take over.
To Google, evil means ruining the web experience for its customers and users. Given that Google defines evil as such, it is doing a marvelous job of living up to its promise.
Evil is a subjective concept. To you, and others, perhaps, patents are wrong. But to Google, the sole criterion for evil is the user experience. Therefore, patent issues do not apply.
Paying less taxes only forces the hand of the government to choose between security (armed services, intelligence, defense) and general welfare (health care, education, infrastructure).
Of course, if you pay more taxes, some of it will end up supporting things you don't like, such as war or abstinence education, but it also helps to pay for the welfare of the state.
Pay less taxes, and everyone loses.
Visual Studio uses native DLL calls and hooks, which is why it's faster. Java VMs tend to be memory hogs (especially Java 5), but that's a point against the use of Java rather than Eclipse.
I don't see Eclipse changing from the use of Java anytime soon however, as IBM backs Java, for its portability and support for open standards, as well as its extensive developer community.
However, comparing Eclipse and Visual Studio on other facets, such as extensibility, support and price, Eclipse trumps the latter.