My point of view is that copyright infringement (which is not theft), should warrant, at most, a bill for the goods copied and, at most, a 50% penalty fee on top of that. Getting kicked out of your home for downloading a movie is grossly out of line with the actual damages that occurred (and most copyright infringement penalties are... such as $700 for a $1 song).
I haven't had any problems with my leases either. However, my university had a legal service to its students where you could bring a lease contract in and have a lawyer look it over, so maybe my experience doesn't extend to the rest of the population.
Right, except you really have no proof of shilling, and stating this is just a intellectually dishonest/lazy way of throwing aside someone's argument without addressing their points.
In fact, nearly every claim of shilling is intellectually dishonest. Either put up some evidence or shut up.
Except the morality of God changes along with the morality of scientists. Back in the slavery days, a lot of slave owners were "good Christians" who felt that they were doing black men a favor by giving them room and board. The Christian bible doesn't exactly condemn slavery. It also encourages a lot of other things that are seen by our society as immoral. But Christians just pull the "Jesus is the fulfillment of the Jewish law, so we don't have to follow it anymore," despite the fact that Jesus himself said that it was still in effect. In that way, they are able to adapt their religious beliefs to match the larger societies.
In short, if God is supposed to provide an absolute moral frame of reference, then he's failing miserably. And we seem to be doing better without God's absolute morality than with.
I don't know how many games I'm going to download over XBox Live, PSN, and Steam (and yes, I use all three) in a given month, and I don't know how many hours of Hulu I'm going to watch in a given month. I also used to use an MSDN account quite extensively. So no, I don't know how much internet I'm going to be using. The ISP doesn't really give me a convenient way to find out, either (since they'd rather hit me with overage fees).
My problem with tiers is that they're inevitably structured so that its inconvenient or impossible to use my connection for entertainment without hitting their overage fees. In other words, the point of the tiers always seems to be to prevent or discourage me from using services that compete with the cable companies', and that justifiably pisses me off.
That's not what net neutrality is about. That's QoS or usage tiers. What net neutrality is about is making sure that toll road owners are not charging more for trucks carrying company A's stuff than trucks driving company B's stuff. ISPs want to be able to degrade performance from certain internet services, such as Skype and Hulu, in order to "encourage" you to use their own services. That is, unless those services pay your ISP an extortion fee.
In other word, net neutrality is about not discriminating against the source of the traffic. It says nothing about discriminating based on the type of traffic and amount. Comcast should not arbitrarily degrade my Skype traffic because they prefer me to use their VOIP service and Skype refuses to pay them a kickback. I should be able to choose how I use my connection, so long as I am not infringing upon other users.
s/women/people/g and its still true. What women want from a computer isn't significantly different from men. My fiance was more worried whether she could hook a tablet to it and run photoshop than whether it was cute (and she likes cute things).
I don't think anyone really realizes how impacted you are by advertising until you are divorced from it. Back in my high-school years, my dad was stationed at Lajes Air Force Base, which had very little in the way of advertising. My family only had the base-provided military channel, which had no commercials other than announcements and "military facts and history" style announcements. When you're in that kind of environment, your desire to buy things plummets. We found ourselves spending very little, and wanting very little compared to our buying habits in the United States. Moving back to the states and being exposed to advertising was quite a shock.
In many ways I miss the environment. I missed having access to a lot of US goods, but at the same time I didn't miss feeling like I *needed* to keep buying stuff to be happy. Its a subtle feeling that gets into your subconscious, and I don't think most people realize they have it.
Re:The Achilles heel of this...
on
Phoenix BIOSOS?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That point of view is all well and good if you don't aim to improve marketshare of your OS. If you want people to actually use your OS, then yes, it becomes your problem. You simply can't expect users to jump through hoops in order to be able to use your OS.
No its not. This is only banned under Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle, which means you only care about this if you're following those set of development guidelines. Its still in the language. And you can always use memcopy_s:
Developers who want to be SDL compliant will instead have to replace memcpy() functions with memcpy_s, a newer command that takes an additional parameter delineating the size of the destination buffer.
Re:The Achilles heel of this...
on
Phoenix BIOSOS?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
A driver missing on an OS isn't the OS developers' fault, but it is their problem. There is a difference. They're not responsible for making the drivers, so its not their fault. Users still don't want to use an OS where they can't use their electronics, though, so it is a problem for the OS developers.
The solution to that problem may be intractable in some cases (a manufacturer refuses to divulge drivers under any circumstances, and no-one is willing to put in the effort to reverse engineer). However, Linux has done remarkably well, and things are only getting better driver-side.
But you're right its not a Linux-exclusive problem. My current printer doesn't work with my Mac, and older equipment may not work with newer versions of Windows.
Well despite the fact that Amendment #4 is generally taken to cover privacy of your person as well, a right doesn't have to be in the Constitution to be a right. Your line of reasoning is exactly the reason why the Federalists did not want to put in the Bill of Rights in the first place. Fortunately for us, when they put in the Bill of Rights, they also put in the 9th Amendment as a compromise:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Lighten up, Francis, it was a joke. It plays to the stereotype of skiing/snowboarding/mountain biking trending towards middle/upper class. I ski myself, so I wasn't trying to be derisive.
Agreed. A better word in this case might be the freedom to do a thing. The idea still stands: unless there is a very good reason against doing a thing, and that reason is properly codified into law, I have the freedom to do that thing.
Apparently REI's loss-prevention personal stepped in to help harass the man, and he had to sign a form saying that he was banned from REI for a year, so REI absolutely is responsible.
It is the reason MMORPG's don't happen on the console.
Well, they have done MMORPGs on consoles. See FFXI for an example. But you're right in that there are severe limitations to console MMORPGs. FFXI, in particular, didn't have a lot of variety in textures and even enemy models.
Since he never explained the rational for the "fix," and instead preferred to spam "Do not reopen this, this is not a bug," instead, I would say he is not. A bug comment discussion like that would get me reprimanded or fired.
Except if you look at the rate of foreclosures from banks covered by the CRA and the rate of foreclosures of CRA loans, they are not at a higher risk of foreclosing. The CRA did not mandate risky loans, only that banks not redline. It did not require banks to lend to people with low income or bad credit.
The CRA is a scapegoat for free-market advocates, but there isn't any evidence that it contributed to the financial crisis.
If you actually read that, the CRA did not require or force banks to make risky loans. They could deny an applicant based on income, credit rating, or any other relevant factors. What it forbid was red-lining, which was denying loans based on the current living location (used as a proxy for the applicant's race). A person's race and living location does have correlation with risk of defaulting, but a responsible financial institution would have a person's credit and income information. This information points to causitive factors behind the correlation, which means that a person's living location is useless for anything other than discrimination.
The actual CRA law does not require high-risk loans, and the evidence bears this out. CRA loans were given out for three decades with no problems, and all current evidence points to CRAs having little to do with the current financial situation. The citations in Wikipedia article you posted bear this out, in addition to the seven citations the other posters gave.
Furthermore, the criticism in the Wikipedia article you cited is mostly just "he said she said," accusations, devoid of any facts. It would be more convincing if the detractors could point to actual evidence that the CRA loans were a problem as opposed to speculating. How detractors imagine the CRA works in theory is not very interesting to me. What I am concerned with is reality, and the reality seems to be that the CRA makes a convenient scapegoat for free-market advocates, given that they can't give any objective evidence to support their point of view.
If you were hoping to change anyone's opinion, you failed.
Slashdot Mirror
My point of view is that copyright infringement (which is not theft), should warrant, at most, a bill for the goods copied and, at most, a 50% penalty fee on top of that. Getting kicked out of your home for downloading a movie is grossly out of line with the actual damages that occurred (and most copyright infringement penalties are... such as $700 for a $1 song).
And me without my mod points...
I haven't had any problems with my leases either. However, my university had a legal service to its students where you could bring a lease contract in and have a lawyer look it over, so maybe my experience doesn't extend to the rest of the population.
Thanks for proving my point.
Right, except you really have no proof of shilling, and stating this is just a intellectually dishonest/lazy way of throwing aside someone's argument without addressing their points.
In fact, nearly every claim of shilling is intellectually dishonest. Either put up some evidence or shut up.
s/scientists/society/g. Brain fart.
Except the morality of God changes along with the morality of scientists. Back in the slavery days, a lot of slave owners were "good Christians" who felt that they were doing black men a favor by giving them room and board. The Christian bible doesn't exactly condemn slavery. It also encourages a lot of other things that are seen by our society as immoral. But Christians just pull the "Jesus is the fulfillment of the Jewish law, so we don't have to follow it anymore," despite the fact that Jesus himself said that it was still in effect. In that way, they are able to adapt their religious beliefs to match the larger societies.
In short, if God is supposed to provide an absolute moral frame of reference, then he's failing miserably. And we seem to be doing better without God's absolute morality than with.
I don't know how many games I'm going to download over XBox Live, PSN, and Steam (and yes, I use all three) in a given month, and I don't know how many hours of Hulu I'm going to watch in a given month. I also used to use an MSDN account quite extensively. So no, I don't know how much internet I'm going to be using. The ISP doesn't really give me a convenient way to find out, either (since they'd rather hit me with overage fees).
My problem with tiers is that they're inevitably structured so that its inconvenient or impossible to use my connection for entertainment without hitting their overage fees. In other words, the point of the tiers always seems to be to prevent or discourage me from using services that compete with the cable companies', and that justifiably pisses me off.
That's not what net neutrality is about. That's QoS or usage tiers. What net neutrality is about is making sure that toll road owners are not charging more for trucks carrying company A's stuff than trucks driving company B's stuff. ISPs want to be able to degrade performance from certain internet services, such as Skype and Hulu, in order to "encourage" you to use their own services. That is, unless those services pay your ISP an extortion fee.
In other word, net neutrality is about not discriminating against the source of the traffic. It says nothing about discriminating based on the type of traffic and amount. Comcast should not arbitrarily degrade my Skype traffic because they prefer me to use their VOIP service and Skype refuses to pay them a kickback. I should be able to choose how I use my connection, so long as I am not infringing upon other users.
s/women/people/g and its still true. What women want from a computer isn't significantly different from men. My fiance was more worried whether she could hook a tablet to it and run photoshop than whether it was cute (and she likes cute things).
I don't think anyone really realizes how impacted you are by advertising until you are divorced from it. Back in my high-school years, my dad was stationed at Lajes Air Force Base, which had very little in the way of advertising. My family only had the base-provided military channel, which had no commercials other than announcements and "military facts and history" style announcements. When you're in that kind of environment, your desire to buy things plummets. We found ourselves spending very little, and wanting very little compared to our buying habits in the United States. Moving back to the states and being exposed to advertising was quite a shock.
In many ways I miss the environment. I missed having access to a lot of US goods, but at the same time I didn't miss feeling like I *needed* to keep buying stuff to be happy. Its a subtle feeling that gets into your subconscious, and I don't think most people realize they have it.
That point of view is all well and good if you don't aim to improve marketshare of your OS. If you want people to actually use your OS, then yes, it becomes your problem. You simply can't expect users to jump through hoops in order to be able to use your OS.
No its not. This is only banned under Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle, which means you only care about this if you're following those set of development guidelines. Its still in the language. And you can always use memcopy_s:
Developers who want to be SDL compliant will instead have to replace memcpy() functions with memcpy_s, a newer command that takes an additional parameter delineating the size of the destination buffer.
A driver missing on an OS isn't the OS developers' fault, but it is their problem. There is a difference. They're not responsible for making the drivers, so its not their fault. Users still don't want to use an OS where they can't use their electronics, though, so it is a problem for the OS developers.
The solution to that problem may be intractable in some cases (a manufacturer refuses to divulge drivers under any circumstances, and no-one is willing to put in the effort to reverse engineer). However, Linux has done remarkably well, and things are only getting better driver-side.
But you're right its not a Linux-exclusive problem. My current printer doesn't work with my Mac, and older equipment may not work with newer versions of Windows.
Well despite the fact that Amendment #4 is generally taken to cover privacy of your person as well, a right doesn't have to be in the Constitution to be a right. Your line of reasoning is exactly the reason why the Federalists did not want to put in the Bill of Rights in the first place. Fortunately for us, when they put in the Bill of Rights, they also put in the 9th Amendment as a compromise:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Lighten up, Francis, it was a joke. It plays to the stereotype of skiing/snowboarding/mountain biking trending towards middle/upper class. I ski myself, so I wasn't trying to be derisive.
REI is a sporting goods store for what I call the "yuppie sports": skiing, snowboarding, mountain biking, hiking, camping, etc.
Agreed. A better word in this case might be the freedom to do a thing. The idea still stands: unless there is a very good reason against doing a thing, and that reason is properly codified into law, I have the freedom to do that thing.
Apparently REI's loss-prevention personal stepped in to help harass the man, and he had to sign a form saying that he was banned from REI for a year, so REI absolutely is responsible.
If there isn't a law against it then I do have the right. Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?
It is the reason MMORPG's don't happen on the console.
Well, they have done MMORPGs on consoles. See FFXI for an example. But you're right in that there are severe limitations to console MMORPGs. FFXI, in particular, didn't have a lot of variety in textures and even enemy models.
It is if you're stuck in a crowded, narrow tube for 5 hours, little to keep your mind off the situation.
Since he never explained the rational for the "fix," and instead preferred to spam "Do not reopen this, this is not a bug," instead, I would say he is not. A bug comment discussion like that would get me reprimanded or fired.
Except if you look at the rate of foreclosures from banks covered by the CRA and the rate of foreclosures of CRA loans, they are not at a higher risk of foreclosing. The CRA did not mandate risky loans, only that banks not redline. It did not require banks to lend to people with low income or bad credit.
The CRA is a scapegoat for free-market advocates, but there isn't any evidence that it contributed to the financial crisis.
If you actually read that, the CRA did not require or force banks to make risky loans. They could deny an applicant based on income, credit rating, or any other relevant factors. What it forbid was red-lining, which was denying loans based on the current living location (used as a proxy for the applicant's race). A person's race and living location does have correlation with risk of defaulting, but a responsible financial institution would have a person's credit and income information. This information points to causitive factors behind the correlation, which means that a person's living location is useless for anything other than discrimination.
The actual CRA law does not require high-risk loans, and the evidence bears this out. CRA loans were given out for three decades with no problems, and all current evidence points to CRAs having little to do with the current financial situation. The citations in Wikipedia article you posted bear this out, in addition to the seven citations the other posters gave.
Furthermore, the criticism in the Wikipedia article you cited is mostly just "he said she said," accusations, devoid of any facts. It would be more convincing if the detractors could point to actual evidence that the CRA loans were a problem as opposed to speculating. How detractors imagine the CRA works in theory is not very interesting to me. What I am concerned with is reality, and the reality seems to be that the CRA makes a convenient scapegoat for free-market advocates, given that they can't give any objective evidence to support their point of view.
If you were hoping to change anyone's opinion, you failed.