This raises the question: are these technologies and laws really meant to stop piracy - are they really meant to benefit creators - or are they intended to consolidate the power of the monopoly and cartel positions of certain publishers and technology companies?
These laws do intend to stop piracy. The fact that they don't (and can't) do so is ignored by politician and citizen alike. The politician needs money to get elected (thus pandering to special, moneyed interests), and the citizen elected the politician because they didn't want to pay attention in the first place. This is only exacerbated by the relationship between the media and politicians--the conflict of interest that arises when the latter accepts the money of the former, not to mention the price of advertisement.
IMHO, the consolidation of power is not the primary interest of these actors. It is natural that any social order, whether corporate or governmental, grows in power and control. The people in power--commonly not elected officials, but appointees and liberal radicals--desire power to rid themselves of a perceived threat. This continues until someone else sees those liberal radical elements as a threat and eliminates them, replacing the radicals they didn't like with their own. These radicals feel they need additional power, and the cycle continues.
On occasion, the radicals feel that the power structure has become too large, and they work to replace or limit it. However, in doing so, they must reach for power--the power to repeal or rebuild--as well. Much like an economic exchange, the power isn't lost, merely shifted, transformed, and justified. Consolidation (of power or otherwise) is the most efficient means to their ends, particularly for an organization that functions, by and large, via totalitarian principles in the first place.
Given today's economy, that would be the exception, not the rule. Money not spent is invested, either by a bank (via loans) or in a company. In either case, it's spent by other people many times over.
That's not what's really at stake in your example, though. It's not money, but a web developer's time that would be put to better use. They could deliver additional value in their present product(s) or deliver additional products to new customers. (or extra cooler time, but those that abuse it do so already. No loss there).
If anything, the bugs in IE contribute to the economy, as more money is required to move through the system to account for them.
While superficially correct, this is a case of the broken window fallacy. The money spent working around IE bugs could be spent better elsewhere (for instance, QA, usability, etc.).
Annotating a book is common among many readers, but it's also something you don't miss until you don't have it.
On the other hand it's also harder to support, Each person has their own form of annotation. Highlighting would use one e-ink solution. Underlining, another. I prefer to "doodle" my annotations, inventing symbols that express what I'd like. How do you support people who like to write on their books? Should annotations be searchable? Should you preserve the original handwriting? What about different colors? What mechanisms, if any, are there to retrieve annotation? What about removing annotations?
I can see why Amazon didn't include it, but, in addition to the hefty price tag and DRM, it'll keep me away from the Kindle.
Another potential solution is to create different ePaper books for different purposes, instead of saying "What people REALLY want is...". That's what you want, which is cool, but not necessarily salable.
Personally, I'd love 4 or so low-cost, safari-enabled, 7"x9" ePaper solutions myself (the website, not the web browser). Couple it with a tabletop computer (ala Microsoft Surface), and I'd be in heaven. Unfortuntely that's not necessarily salable either.
Yasunori Mitsuda. Some dislike him, but he has a certain style that can really draw the listener in. Xenosaga's orchestral pieces are very ambitious for a game. Notable scores: Chrono Cross, Xenosaga Episode 1
Those may be what he's most known for, but both blown out of the water by their predecessors, Chrono Trigger and Xenogears, respectively (on counts of score, gameplay, and story). As was mentioned above, To Far Away Times is stellar (same link).
I'm not sure if it's the song, the game, or both, but "To Far Away Times" nearly brings me to tears when I hear it (no joke). It's a travesty to not mention that song on the top 10.
As a side note, it's interesting to see video game music re-imagined. There's a lot of tripe, but OC Remix is a great place to find video game music, from old to new.
The rub would be receiving upwards of 3 separate mail deliveries each day. That means an increase of street congestion caused by extra stop-and-go deliveries. Plus, there's extra road maintenance in suburban & rural areas, etc.
Netflix called me recently for a customer service interview. During the conversation, they noted that they're working on streaming to Macs. Not sure if it'd PPC, x86, or both, though.
In addition, they didn't let you play with several hyped features, particularly weapons modding. That royally annoyed me.
I found that Mass Effect has delivered on what Hellgate attempted to sell, sans multiplayer support and dynamically generated levels. (Weapons modding, tons of story lines, a similar seeming combat system (albeit almost wholly ranged combat), with downloadable content on the way.
The same ideology that states "if you don't like the Terms of Service, don't buy it" also states "if Apple doesn't want people fucking with the hardware they sell, then they should stop selling it to people."
Apple doesn't give a rats ass about what you do with the iPhone once you've bought it. Note, they're not suing people who unlock their phones, intentionally bricking phones, or doing anything particularly nefarious. In fact, they provide warnings that mention "This update could brick your phone". Apple's stance is, after it's hacked, we don't support it. This stance is perfectly acceptable, and is in fact the norm for embedded systems.
You don't trust your kid? You don't think you would have done a good enough job raising them?
Don't be so naïve. It's not about trust, it's about authority. If the console is in the main room, it's like a warning label that screams "You're gonna get caught if you try". And they will (one way or another), and they'll meet your authority. If a child wants their own game system, they can earn it by demonstrating responsibility in one way or another. In other words, it's part of raising them.
I guess the examples eclipsed my point. I wasn't focusing on solutions to no personal space, but the behavior of the employees. The GGP noted "It will be interesting to see how removing any sense of personal ownership in the office space works out for the companies that try this." I responded "It all depends upon how competitive and proprietary the community is." The examples illustrated several possibilities of communal response. (That's what I get for getting carried away).
voice mail || (also voicemail) noun a centralized electronic system that can store messages from telephone callers.
visual |vi zh ol|
adjective
of or relating to seeing or sight : visual perception.
noun (usu. visuals)
a picture, piece of film, or display used to illustrate or accompany something.
So, while you cannot see voice, you can see your voicemail. Particularly, you can interact with it visually rather than audibly. I understand that it's fashionable to poke fun at marketing, particularly Apple's... but please do so with a modicum of common sense regarding the language.
If all opinions are equally valid, then the opinion that that opinion is bullshit is equally valid, so what are you complaining about?
A common mistake of objectivist logic is to assume that a relative statement should support objective principles, such as that of truth and, thus, logic. The opinion that a relative opinion is invalid is just as valid as his opinion.
The relativist argues that this new logic should also be given a voice, insofar as its validity enables it to. The volume of its voice, the power behind it, exists relative to others who wish to listen. Higher volume comes not through an approximation of objective truth, but via the relative regard that opinion is held in. The esteem of a given idea, if you will.
Truth, within this framework, is at least one of the following: mutable, moot, or irrelevant. In many cases, truth is also true, but only insofar as the veracity of its fundamental axioms can take it. Thus, objectivity is also a relative viewpoint, merely a highly regarded and repeatable one. The trouble in this argument arises when the objectivist attempts to apply reason to the relativist's argument. If relativity is true, than it must also be relative, thus some objective truths exist. But, within the context of relativity, this objective reasoning is also relative--relative to the framework of objectivity. And the argument continues...
Given this epistemological framework, your question:
Or did you mean: "All opinions are equally valid as long as they coincide with mine" ?
is not invalid, but it does take the OPs argument out of context. His opinion of a particular topic is no more valid than any other, but the stature attributed to it varies depending on its social context. (For instance, it appears that slashdot may not be the most constructive place to espouse this POV). He's more likely to support perspectives similar to his own. That shouldn't be interpreted as another opinion being less valid, just less vocal.
I did about the same thing when I needed to get work done in college. My primary hangout was a large lounge frequented by many, noisy people. The familiar environment helped me work, but I needed some isolation from the common goings-on. The headphones combined with a pair of sunglasses worked wonders. (As to the sunglasses, it made the background dim out so I could pay attention to my computer screen while sending a message to everyone else not to bother me.)
Unfortunately, I eventually had to leave the lounge. It seems that noisy people are always louder than what you do to blot them out. I'd raise the volume on my headphones, they'd hype the volume of their argument to match. Still, it was good for the year or so that I could get away with it.
Books could be feasibly stored in a common library or shelf system. I could see the paper-bound elements of the workforce allocating one or more of the conference/etc rooms as their bin. If management doesn't like that, then their desk is also convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
These laws do intend to stop piracy. The fact that they don't (and can't) do so is ignored by politician and citizen alike. The politician needs money to get elected (thus pandering to special, moneyed interests), and the citizen elected the politician because they didn't want to pay attention in the first place. This is only exacerbated by the relationship between the media and politicians--the conflict of interest that arises when the latter accepts the money of the former, not to mention the price of advertisement.
IMHO, the consolidation of power is not the primary interest of these actors. It is natural that any social order, whether corporate or governmental, grows in power and control. The people in power--commonly not elected officials, but appointees and liberal radicals--desire power to rid themselves of a perceived threat. This continues until someone else sees those liberal radical elements as a threat and eliminates them, replacing the radicals they didn't like with their own. These radicals feel they need additional power, and the cycle continues.
On occasion, the radicals feel that the power structure has become too large, and they work to replace or limit it. However, in doing so, they must reach for power--the power to repeal or rebuild--as well. Much like an economic exchange, the power isn't lost, merely shifted, transformed, and justified. Consolidation (of power or otherwise) is the most efficient means to their ends, particularly for an organization that functions, by and large, via totalitarian principles in the first place.
Given today's economy, that would be the exception, not the rule. Money not spent is invested, either by a bank (via loans) or in a company. In either case, it's spent by other people many times over.
That's not what's really at stake in your example, though. It's not money, but a web developer's time that would be put to better use. They could deliver additional value in their present product(s) or deliver additional products to new customers. (or extra cooler time, but those that abuse it do so already. No loss there).
While superficially correct, this is a case of the broken window fallacy. The money spent working around IE bugs could be spent better elsewhere (for instance, QA, usability, etc.).
Then it gets executed by electrons? No--no, it gets executed by turtles.
Annotating a book is common among many readers, but it's also something you don't miss until you don't have it.
On the other hand it's also harder to support, Each person has their own form of annotation. Highlighting would use one e-ink solution. Underlining, another. I prefer to "doodle" my annotations, inventing symbols that express what I'd like. How do you support people who like to write on their books? Should annotations be searchable? Should you preserve the original handwriting? What about different colors? What mechanisms, if any, are there to retrieve annotation? What about removing annotations?
I can see why Amazon didn't include it, but, in addition to the hefty price tag and DRM, it'll keep me away from the Kindle.
Another potential solution is to create different ePaper books for different purposes, instead of saying "What people REALLY want is...". That's what you want, which is cool, but not necessarily salable.
Personally, I'd love 4 or so low-cost, safari-enabled, 7"x9" ePaper solutions myself (the website, not the web browser). Couple it with a tabletop computer (ala Microsoft Surface), and I'd be in heaven. Unfortuntely that's not necessarily salable either.
Those may be what he's most known for, but both blown out of the water by their predecessors, Chrono Trigger and Xenogears, respectively (on counts of score, gameplay, and story). As was mentioned above, To Far Away Times is stellar (same link).
I'm not sure if it's the song, the game, or both, but "To Far Away Times" nearly brings me to tears when I hear it (no joke). It's a travesty to not mention that song on the top 10.
As a side note, it's interesting to see video game music re-imagined. There's a lot of tripe, but OC Remix is a great place to find video game music, from old to new.
The rub would be receiving upwards of 3 separate mail deliveries each day. That means an increase of street congestion caused by extra stop-and-go deliveries. Plus, there's extra road maintenance in suburban & rural areas, etc.
Netflix called me recently for a customer service interview. During the conversation, they noted that they're working on streaming to Macs. Not sure if it'd PPC, x86, or both, though.
In addition, they didn't let you play with several hyped features, particularly weapons modding. That royally annoyed me.
I found that Mass Effect has delivered on what Hellgate attempted to sell, sans multiplayer support and dynamically generated levels. (Weapons modding, tons of story lines, a similar seeming combat system (albeit almost wholly ranged combat), with downloadable content on the way.
Apple doesn't give a rats ass about what you do with the iPhone once you've bought it. Note, they're not suing people who unlock their phones, intentionally bricking phones, or doing anything particularly nefarious. In fact, they provide warnings that mention "This update could brick your phone". Apple's stance is, after it's hacked, we don't support it. This stance is perfectly acceptable, and is in fact the norm for embedded systems.
My theory is that we can't stand needing their help all of ~200 years ago. America has self-esteem problems.
Don't be so naïve. It's not about trust, it's about authority. If the console is in the main room, it's like a warning label that screams "You're gonna get caught if you try". And they will (one way or another), and they'll meet your authority. If a child wants their own game system, they can earn it by demonstrating responsibility in one way or another. In other words, it's part of raising them.
Quite possibly because the DOJ is controlled by one or more Republicans at the moment.
I guess the examples eclipsed my point. I wasn't focusing on solutions to no personal space, but the behavior of the employees. The GGP noted "It will be interesting to see how removing any sense of personal ownership in the office space works out for the companies that try this." I responded "It all depends upon how competitive and proprietary the community is." The examples illustrated several possibilities of communal response. (That's what I get for getting carried away).
From the Oxford American Dictionary:
So, while you cannot see voice, you can see your voicemail. Particularly, you can interact with it visually rather than audibly. I understand that it's fashionable to poke fun at marketing, particularly Apple's... but please do so with a modicum of common sense regarding the language.
Sperm are quite sensitive to temperature fluctuation.
It could just as easily be a hamper, backpack, briefcase, or basket. :-p
Completely OT, I know. (look at the post title).
I disagree. It leads to some rather entertaining arguments.
A common mistake of objectivist logic is to assume that a relative statement should support objective principles, such as that of truth and, thus, logic. The opinion that a relative opinion is invalid is just as valid as his opinion.
The relativist argues that this new logic should also be given a voice, insofar as its validity enables it to. The volume of its voice, the power behind it, exists relative to others who wish to listen. Higher volume comes not through an approximation of objective truth, but via the relative regard that opinion is held in. The esteem of a given idea, if you will.
Truth, within this framework, is at least one of the following: mutable, moot, or irrelevant. In many cases, truth is also true, but only insofar as the veracity of its fundamental axioms can take it. Thus, objectivity is also a relative viewpoint, merely a highly regarded and repeatable one. The trouble in this argument arises when the objectivist attempts to apply reason to the relativist's argument. If relativity is true, than it must also be relative, thus some objective truths exist. But, within the context of relativity, this objective reasoning is also relative--relative to the framework of objectivity. And the argument continues...
Given this epistemological framework, your question:
is not invalid, but it does take the OPs argument out of context. His opinion of a particular topic is no more valid than any other, but the stature attributed to it varies depending on its social context. (For instance, it appears that slashdot may not be the most constructive place to espouse this POV). He's more likely to support perspectives similar to his own. That shouldn't be interpreted as another opinion being less valid, just less vocal.
No, but the trolls did. Apparently defacing wikipedia is a TCP/IP traffic violation.
I did about the same thing when I needed to get work done in college. My primary hangout was a large lounge frequented by many, noisy people. The familiar environment helped me work, but I needed some isolation from the common goings-on. The headphones combined with a pair of sunglasses worked wonders. (As to the sunglasses, it made the background dim out so I could pay attention to my computer screen while sending a message to everyone else not to bother me.)
Unfortunately, I eventually had to leave the lounge. It seems that noisy people are always louder than what you do to blot them out. I'd raise the volume on my headphones, they'd hype the volume of their argument to match. Still, it was good for the year or so that I could get away with it.
Books could be feasibly stored in a common library or shelf system. I could see the paper-bound elements of the workforce allocating one or more of the conference/etc rooms as their bin. If management doesn't like that, then their desk is also convenient.