equivocating is when you don't want to render a firm judgment or make or firm statement about something. "this president is like other presidents who were both good and bad in some ways, but he's better than some of them and worse than others."
Many have been tested, but its a whole spiral world from there. Willow bark infusion is worthless for infections. Don't bother with it. However it does wonders with aches and pains. Aspirin does even better. The willow bark will ease the pain from the infection, but if you stop there you could easily die. If you do drop dead, are we to conclude that willow bark is deadly, or ineffective, or that you fell on a symptomatic cure, but not a real one?
Naturopathy is using unrefined naturally occurring herbs to cure illness. It isn't terribly effective, but it is scientific, if only at a rudimentary level. Pick and herb, see if it works, pick another if it doesn't. Use as much as needed until problem solved.
Homeopathy is based on some notion of sympathetic vibrations with the body's own natural frequencies or some crap like that. Mystical pseudo-scientific hogwash. That is why the homeopaths always hyper-dilute everything with water. The idea is that your body only needs a small sample of "the right stuff" in order to "remember" how to heal itself. Of course, at that dilution, it is indistinguishable from non-existence, but that never seems to mean anything to the mystics.
Right, because it's going to be photographed with flash photography by a hundred thousand looters in a year.
Hmmm... Louvre museum. Mona Lisa. Lets say 100 visitors per hour, 10 hours per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year... 250,000 visitors per year. If 1 in 3 of them takes a flash photo, that is 83,333 flashes. Maybe a few take an extra just to be sure, so there's your 100,000 flashes. Or were you not following the thread of the conversation, again? Got to work on those reading comprehension skills.
Do you really think it not possible for the Louvre and the Mona Lisa to get that many visitors? Or do you just think people are like yourself, and wouldn't get out of the house to save their lives?
One flash doesn't do *much* damage. A hundred thousand over the course of a year will ruin it. We're talking filesharing and torrents here, not an individual passing a single file to a buddy.
And should I even comment on the, "Seriously, did you even *think* before you posted that?" ?
Bits in a computer are not cash. Just because a computer terminal ATM spits it out should not confuse you.
There isn't nearly enough physical currency to cover all the perceived value that everyone thinks they really own. At least not in an automated society like the US. You may have heard of a thing called a "run" on a bank. That means people are trying to make real cash withdrawals against all of their recorded deposits. No real bank can withstand them. Generally they have less than 10% cash on hand. Go see the first half hour of Its A Wonderful Life.
In any case, your money is just bits in an electronic ledger. It isn't a pile of cash in the vault.
Your ownership of a home, or anything else for that matter, is just an agreement between people that they will recognize your right to control it. If they decide to NOT agree, you don't own it anymore. Your opinions about the disposition of the thing no longer matters, unless you have the force to rip it from the hands of the crowd. If that happens, you may fee it was stolen from you. Much like CD artists, and their record companies, feel about losing control of their ripped CDs. Since bits on a CD can't be grabbed back, and they have lost control of those bits and where they go, it has been stolen from them, even though they still have a physical one to hold in their hands.
Stealing requires taking of physical goods, thus depriving the original owner of them.
Not at all. If I hack your bank account and move the bits to mine, you are poorer and I am richer. No physical currency has moved, but you are definitely deprived of something. I've only taken the idea, the Intellectual Property, of money from your account, but you feel real world effects all the same.
Much the same could be said about your home or apartment. If I can convince the local sheriff and judge that my scrap of paper that says I own it is more valid than your scrap of paper that say you do, I get the house or apartment. And you might have to pay me on top of it. Did I not steal it from you, only by cleverly manipulating some digital data (in the county clerk's office). Certainly the building didn't actually move anywhere. Just the sense of who is entitled to possess and use it.
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
(you did set it up after all)
Clearly, anyone that participated had some part in the infringement. How much part is the question. A little, a lot, most? In the case of the stoning you propose, if one person is killed, should all the participants get life? If there are many dozens of participants, should they all get just a few months? The proportionality isn't necessarily linear. There should be component for simply knowing they were participating in a crime, and another for how much part they took in it.
How much is it worth if you can't sell it? Corollary to the fundamental theory of commerce: If you can't find a buyer at any price, the thing is worthless.
If the copies destroyed the market by satisfying the potentially willing buyers and removing them from that market, the copying has destroyed something of value. In the case, the goods cannot be sold.
And by the way, they don't allow flash photography in museums, because all the UV from the flashes destroys the pigment in the paints. It really isn't a neutral activity.
Looting removes physical goods, this is just breaking of a monopoly.
People say that a lot, but it doesn't wash. At best its just a fig leaf of saying you weren't violent when you stole the stuff. Very few people buy CDs because they like shiny polycarbonate and aluminum.
To put it on a completely equal basis, lets say you had a real shop selling real goods. I open one next door and give away equivalent goods (I stole mine, so my actual cost is minimal). People can still buy yours, or they can take mine away for free. For some reason, a large number of people come to me in preference to you. Clearly I'm the better competitor and you deserve to go under. Your monopoly was justifiedly broken. I stay one skip ahead of the law, usually, so I keep this up indefinitely.
People just can't get past the notion that if something is easy and convenient, and makes life cheaper or better for them, they must have some kind of right to it. Even if it sucks the life and earnings out of the rightful owner of the thing. Even if the rightful owner is an evil, vicious old coot with a bad business model and overpriced products sold in musty old stores. None of that changes the fact that copyright violation by file sharing is pretty much like looting. Someone, maybe not you but someone, broke into the store, and now all the goods are available. You steal the product and destroy the business for your own benefit, happy in the relative anonymity of the crowd.
But people just can't see themselves as being wrong in doing it, because they benefit, and that *can't* be wrong, can it?
I think I don't buy the black and white argument, but the logic does strongly bias towards teh first seeder. Quite literally, to borrow from Will Smith, "If you don't start nothin', there won't be nothin'!" No seeders, no sharing, no infringements.
Obviously the sharers have a piece of the liability too, since if they didn't request and didn't hang around the seeders wouldn't be sharing with anyone. But that is much that same as the drug dealer and the drug user problem, or looking for who started and participated in a bar brawl. They are in a symbiotic relationship, but the "offenses" of each party are somewhat different.
To put a number on it, I'd say the relationship is a declining harmonic progression, with the seeder carrying weight 1, and each successive participant in the torrent carrying weight 1/n. The millionth guy, Tenenbaum, may be the straw that broke the RIAA's back, but his actual contribution is near meaningless.
If the App store offered some kind of seal of approval it might have done better. Say what you will about DRM at Apple, the app store at least gives the impression that all the apps there will work seamlessly together.
OSS may be the greatest development model, bug fixes better and faster, blah blah blah, but really what people want to know is that it is going to work. If a knowledgeable, trusted, third party says it will, people value ($$$) that highly. No one likes to waste time on crappy apps, hoping a fix will come along RSN.
Audi, specifically Audi Quattros, have been rally car favorites for years. Big engine, good tranny, four wheel drive. There are a lot of people that know how to get them running well, and the cars are built well to do the job.
Rapid reaction time, good slide slip sensors, and some great counterintuitive steering routines are all going to be essential if this is going to be "at race speeds". Good trained drivers screw this kind of thing up all the time. A robot can be programmed to be repeatable, but is this one flexible enough to conditions to be fast AND safe?
If you have self-coding software, or a self-developing project, I think we'd all like to know more about it. Otherwise some real life person has to take it over and do the actual work.
It just proves that more Mac users are terrorists / spies / hackers / stock swindlers / generic-euroaccented-bad-guys than Windows users. They even disguise the computer case to make it look like just another PC. You can't trust them!
I *WANT* a display that works like the ones in the movies. Fast updates, screen wipes, keyboard and mouse functionality fully integrated, projection capability, contextually and dramatically appropriate sound effects. And of course, spark effects as appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
equating. As in, "this thing is like that thing".
equivocating is when you don't want to render a firm judgment or make or firm statement about something. "this president is like other presidents who were both good and bad in some ways, but he's better than some of them and worse than others."
Were the Jedi Homeopaths?
Darth Vader: Your powers are weak, old man.
Obi-Wan: You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Many have been tested, but its a whole spiral world from there. Willow bark infusion is worthless for infections. Don't bother with it. However it does wonders with aches and pains. Aspirin does even better. The willow bark will ease the pain from the infection, but if you stop there you could easily die. If you do drop dead, are we to conclude that willow bark is deadly, or ineffective, or that you fell on a symptomatic cure, but not a real one?
Naturopathy is using unrefined naturally occurring herbs to cure illness. It isn't terribly effective, but it is scientific, if only at a rudimentary level. Pick and herb, see if it works, pick another if it doesn't. Use as much as needed until problem solved.
Homeopathy is based on some notion of sympathetic vibrations with the body's own natural frequencies or some crap like that. Mystical pseudo-scientific hogwash. That is why the homeopaths always hyper-dilute everything with water. The idea is that your body only needs a small sample of "the right stuff" in order to "remember" how to heal itself. Of course, at that dilution, it is indistinguishable from non-existence, but that never seems to mean anything to the mystics.
Huge difference.
Except to NBC
Losing money by the tens of millions in a selfless act of colossal commercial miscalculation.
all the time, everywhere. We are the IOC.
We are the Voice of Control.
You will respect our Authoritay.
The gas would evaporate from the tank faster than that! I think someone needs to check their figures. Unit conversion FTW??
Right, because it's going to be photographed with flash photography by a hundred thousand looters in a year.
Hmmm... Louvre museum. Mona Lisa. Lets say 100 visitors per hour, 10 hours per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year... 250,000 visitors per year. If 1 in 3 of them takes a flash photo, that is 83,333 flashes. Maybe a few take an extra just to be sure, so there's your 100,000 flashes. Or were you not following the thread of the conversation, again? Got to work on those reading comprehension skills.
Do you really think it not possible for the Louvre and the Mona Lisa to get that many visitors? Or do you just think people are like yourself, and wouldn't get out of the house to save their lives?
One flash doesn't do *much* damage. A hundred thousand over the course of a year will ruin it. We're talking filesharing and torrents here, not an individual passing a single file to a buddy.
And should I even comment on the, "Seriously, did you even *think* before you posted that?" ?
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Bits in a computer are not cash. Just because a computer terminal ATM spits it out should not confuse you.
There isn't nearly enough physical currency to cover all the perceived value that everyone thinks they really own. At least not in an automated society like the US. You may have heard of a thing called a "run" on a bank. That means people are trying to make real cash withdrawals against all of their recorded deposits. No real bank can withstand them. Generally they have less than 10% cash on hand. Go see the first half hour of Its A Wonderful Life.
In any case, your money is just bits in an electronic ledger. It isn't a pile of cash in the vault.
Your ownership of a home, or anything else for that matter, is just an agreement between people that they will recognize your right to control it. If they decide to NOT agree, you don't own it anymore. Your opinions about the disposition of the thing no longer matters, unless you have the force to rip it from the hands of the crowd. If that happens, you may fee it was stolen from you. Much like CD artists, and their record companies, feel about losing control of their ripped CDs. Since bits on a CD can't be grabbed back, and they have lost control of those bits and where they go, it has been stolen from them, even though they still have a physical one to hold in their hands.
Stealing requires taking of physical goods, thus depriving the original owner of them.
Not at all. If I hack your bank account and move the bits to mine, you are poorer and I am richer. No physical currency has moved, but you are definitely deprived of something. I've only taken the idea, the Intellectual Property, of money from your account, but you feel real world effects all the same.
Much the same could be said about your home or apartment. If I can convince the local sheriff and judge that my scrap of paper that says I own it is more valid than your scrap of paper that say you do, I get the house or apartment. And you might have to pay me on top of it. Did I not steal it from you, only by cleverly manipulating some digital data (in the county clerk's office). Certainly the building didn't actually move anywhere. Just the sense of who is entitled to possess and use it.
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
(you did set it up after all)
Clearly, anyone that participated had some part in the infringement. How much part is the question. A little, a lot, most? In the case of the stoning you propose, if one person is killed, should all the participants get life? If there are many dozens of participants, should they all get just a few months? The proportionality isn't necessarily linear. There should be component for simply knowing they were participating in a crime, and another for how much part they took in it.
How much is it worth if you can't sell it? Corollary to the fundamental theory of commerce: If you can't find a buyer at any price, the thing is worthless.
If the copies destroyed the market by satisfying the potentially willing buyers and removing them from that market, the copying has destroyed something of value. In the case, the goods cannot be sold.
And by the way, they don't allow flash photography in museums, because all the UV from the flashes destroys the pigment in the paints. It really isn't a neutral activity.
Looting removes physical goods, this is just breaking of a monopoly.
People say that a lot, but it doesn't wash. At best its just a fig leaf of saying you weren't violent when you stole the stuff. Very few people buy CDs because they like shiny polycarbonate and aluminum.
To put it on a completely equal basis, lets say you had a real shop selling real goods. I open one next door and give away equivalent goods (I stole mine, so my actual cost is minimal). People can still buy yours, or they can take mine away for free. For some reason, a large number of people come to me in preference to you. Clearly I'm the better competitor and you deserve to go under. Your monopoly was justifiedly broken. I stay one skip ahead of the law, usually, so I keep this up indefinitely.
People just can't get past the notion that if something is easy and convenient, and makes life cheaper or better for them, they must have some kind of right to it. Even if it sucks the life and earnings out of the rightful owner of the thing. Even if the rightful owner is an evil, vicious old coot with a bad business model and overpriced products sold in musty old stores. None of that changes the fact that copyright violation by file sharing is pretty much like looting. Someone, maybe not you but someone, broke into the store, and now all the goods are available. You steal the product and destroy the business for your own benefit, happy in the relative anonymity of the crowd.
But people just can't see themselves as being wrong in doing it, because they benefit, and that *can't* be wrong, can it?
I think I don't buy the black and white argument, but the logic does strongly bias towards teh first seeder. Quite literally, to borrow from Will Smith, "If you don't start nothin', there won't be nothin'!" No seeders, no sharing, no infringements.
Obviously the sharers have a piece of the liability too, since if they didn't request and didn't hang around the seeders wouldn't be sharing with anyone. But that is much that same as the drug dealer and the drug user problem, or looking for who started and participated in a bar brawl. They are in a symbiotic relationship, but the "offenses" of each party are somewhat different.
To put a number on it, I'd say the relationship is a declining harmonic progression, with the seeder carrying weight 1, and each successive participant in the torrent carrying weight 1/n. The millionth guy, Tenenbaum, may be the straw that broke the RIAA's back, but his actual contribution is near meaningless.
If the App store offered some kind of seal of approval it might have done better. Say what you will about DRM at Apple, the app store at least gives the impression that all the apps there will work seamlessly together.
OSS may be the greatest development model, bug fixes better and faster, blah blah blah, but really what people want to know is that it is going to work. If a knowledgeable, trusted, third party says it will, people value ($$$) that highly. No one likes to waste time on crappy apps, hoping a fix will come along RSN.
Audi, specifically Audi Quattros, have been rally car favorites for years. Big engine, good tranny, four wheel drive. There are a lot of people that know how to get them running well, and the cars are built well to do the job.
Now you know. And Knowing is half the battle.
Rapid reaction time, good slide slip sensors, and some great counterintuitive steering routines are all going to be essential if this is going to be "at race speeds". Good trained drivers screw this kind of thing up all the time. A robot can be programmed to be repeatable, but is this one flexible enough to conditions to be fast AND safe?
Look out below!
Small breasts beat big breasts any day.
This is demonstrably untrue. No matter how we may feel about it, the big girls win every time.
If you have self-coding software, or a self-developing project, I think we'd all like to know more about it. Otherwise some real life person has to take it over and do the actual work.
It just proves that more Mac users are terrorists / spies / hackers / stock swindlers / generic-euroaccented-bad-guys than Windows users. They even disguise the computer case to make it look like just another PC. You can't trust them!
I *WANT* a display that works like the ones in the movies. Fast updates, screen wipes, keyboard and mouse functionality fully integrated, projection capability, contextually and dramatically appropriate sound effects. And of course, spark effects as appropriate.