But now imagine this, entire television shows on a single disc, you could purchase every season of LOST, every episode, on a single disc. Or The Sopranos, The Office, South Park, or even Anime shows on a single disc. Futurama entire series on a single disc? Please sign me up, immediately.
I accept that this is an improvement, but I really don't think it is anything more than a tiny one. Besides which this is something that storing media on the system achieves and would do better, just imagine not having to change discs when you finished watching an episode of Futurama and now want to play Gears of War...
Bluray is great if you like JRPGs with loads of CG cutscenes, otherwise the majority of games devs are having very little issue sticking to DVD size limits.
I agree the call for 100% is idiotic but I don't see it being a government forced initiative only that they'd like to see it.
This is the same government that is bringing in voluntary ID cards. The definition of voluntary appears to be you are free not to get a card, but then you can't work at Manchester airport... how long until you won't be able to get CRB check without having an ID card? There definition of voluntary is swiftly shifting from free choice, to ability to choose to starve on the streets (as long as you don't get arrested) if you don't get one.
Internet filtering will go the same way. The government must love the work the IWF is doing here, as it gets to claim credit for any improvements and say it is taking in action, but when the IWF cocks up the government can wash it hands and point out it is an independent body. I find it incredible that people find the idea of this organisation covertly removing content acceptable.
The problem isn't bundling. The problem is using an OS monopoly as leverage to foist an inferior Web browser on consumers.
Bollocks. Some people want to hurt Microsoft, and are using the same weak excuse they always use to justify it. I have no issue with the idea that windows shouldn't be distributed with a browser, as long as all operating systems have to play by the same rules.
Just so you know that I'm not a hypocrite: if Apple were in the same position, of having an OS monopoly and using it for nefarious purposes, I would equally support an EU decision against them.
As you say you're not a hypocrite, why do you think Apple shouldn't be forced to unbundle safari? Surely it will encourage competition.
Re:You can't win if you don't play
on
Linked In Or Out?
·
· Score: 1
The OP was quoting from TPB's trial where the prosecutor used the acronym IRL during proceedings and the defendant said that they would use AFK.
The state should pay for the immediate fixing of any damages, the criminals should then have to pay that, plus an additional fee as punishment and the interest on this back.
I finally got around to watching The Usual Suspects... sucked because I pretty much already knew the major catch
I accept that the film is better not knowing what is going on, but mainly it is a good film because of Kevin Spacey's performance. I have enjoyed watching this film a couple of times after I first saw it exactly because it is a good film regardless.
I'm glad to see a pragmatic assessment of the issue. I like to think of myself as a strongly moral person, and have on a number of occasions taken a position against the position of those I am with when I believe they are wrong. However, I could never say with absolute confidence that I would never do something that I would currently define as evil/inhumane etc. This is because there have been so many examples of supposedly good people doing unforgivable things, and I don't understand why, and if they can do it how do I know I won't until placed in that situation?
I actually think torture should be legal, which given my abhorrence of the act may seem hypocritical. My reason for this is that I can imagine a situation in which torturing someone may be sufficiently likely to save lives that given the choice I would authorise it. I would much rather that the torture of people was openly regulated than hidden. I would for example like for it to be made explicit who could authorise it, and for the fact it took place to be announced openly.
Minimal Logistics - Television is dissimilar to Newspaper in many respects, whereas the Web can perform the functions of both, FOR FREE.
Considering that the provider must pay for an internet connection to upload information and the consumer must pay for an internet connection to download the information I really can't understand where the idea that internet media is free comes from. I don't think many people consider cable TV channels to be free, as they are only paying for access not content.
I get a weekly local paper delivered to my door, it costs me nothing. As far as I am aware in the US there are public broadcast TV channels that can be received without paying?
The internet provides numerous advantages with regards to media, mostly due to the fact that each user has an individual connection with the content provider. This individual connection is also the reason why current broadcast media can be far more efficient, when American Idol is shown they only have to produce one data stream to distribute it doing the same as an on demand internet service would be much more costly.
I don't understand why people get so up in arms about this stuff.
Of course you don't understand, the moment you asserted that CCTV had never been abused in the UK you showed you didn't comprehend the concept that you might not know everything that ever happened.
Regardless, even if CCTV hasn't been abused ever it doesn't mean expanding it is a wise idea. It would be hard to argue that implanting people with tracking chips, recording all biometrics yearly and installing ubiquitous CCTV wouldn't cause less crime if the system was used correctly. The arguement against monitoring at that scale is that as the monitoring expands it becomes easier for the system to be used to silence political dissent etc and harder for people to resist.
When you're in public anyone can see you and you'd expect people to be able to see you.
It's the same distinction that makes taking someone's picture legal but sticking a camera up their skirt illegal.
Actually, what you said implied that covert filming in public should be legal as "you'd expect people to be able to see you.". Fortunately this isn't actually the distinction used to make that filming illegal.
I don't think the number of people shot by police shows 'corruption' although I am very glad that the Police and population in the UK have resisted most attempts to expand the deployment of armed officers. Ultimately, there is going to be more people shot by the police in a country that has more people with guns and a much higher number of killings with guns in general.
Because you didn't read it correctly. The point OP was making was that either TPB are guilty of all crimes committed by the makers of torrents shared on their site or they are guilty of none. Saying they aren't responsible for paedophilic material, but are responsible for copyrighted material, when the process by which the materials.torrent gets onto there system is the same is nonsensical.
Corporal punishment changes attitudes quickly, and efficiently.
Yes it does, it shows children that the correct response to behavior you disagree with is violence. Used for minor offenses it also leaves little ability to link cause and effect, unless you advocate breaking bones when children are really naughty
Corporal punishment is not a simple issue, but you'd be aware of that if you hadn't decided on what answer you liked without investigating the matter first.
Depending on what you're looking for, the links you get from wikipedia are likely to be more relevant than whatever Google
Unfortunately the links you get from Google are likely to be exactly as relevant, because Google is so heavily infected with Wikipedia that it tops no end of search terms.
I remember a time when "legal" meant "law abiding".
I can't help but think of that time as a time when "legal" meant the man you beat was black, that the woman you assaulted was your wife or that you happened to be friendly with the local police.
The downside of a less formal legal system is that although it 'could' work much better than a system based on formal well defined rules it is also more likely to lead to abuses. I haven't done a study, and I don't know of one that shows either system as better but I think a lot of the nostalgia for the days when policing is personal ignores a lot of the unpleasant truths that come with.
So you are suggesting that a significant flaw in Linux has lasted so long, even though it is "just a matter of someone contributing a suitable patch"? Hardly a good arguement.
Pointing out there are possible fixes doesn't absolve it from blame.
With all due respect, you are basing your opinion of the CCA on the experience you had as a child and anecdotal evidence like this is very rarely worth much, he is making the valid point of questioning whether you would of preferred to be protected from other forms of media in the same way.
Your last response shows you have not fully grasped the key to the argument anyway.
When I read Lolita as a high school senior, my grandmother was quite upset, at first, but didn't stop me, because she knew it was "literature", and that at age 16 I was "old enough" to read such books.
If something like the CCA had existed for books then you wouldn't have been able to buy Lolita at all because it would have been blocked. Why do you think that a child's access to books without pictures should be controlled by parental consent, but books with pictures should be banned entirely if inappropriate for young children? Why was it ok for your Gran to decide if you could read Lolita, but it wouldn't be ok for her to decide if you could of read the times equivalent of The Watchmen (I'm not a comic reader so I really can't think of a relevant example)?
Not an expert in biology, but unless these contaminated areas have been contaminated for a very long time (read tens of thousands of years), and are quite large, the chances for life to have sprung up seem very, very slim.
Actually area available for life to live in is not really what we should be comparing. Most scientific theories regarding the creation of a life are based upon a very particular requirements, life will not for example simply spring up in the middle of your back yard. If these 'contaminated' areas contain a higher concentration of locations where life could form then this could skew results.
Regardless, even if the odds are astonishingly small (or appear to be) I don't see the harm in looking. A life form based on an entirely different structure than our own may have a far more pronounced effect on our understanding of life than any number of discoveries based on the same structure as our own.
Considering the owners of traditional media often has certain parts of their business model dependent on copyright it's hard to find any sources that aren't biased.
Which doesn't change the fact that the view on copyright and media sharing presented on/. is massively biased, and doesn't reflect the general consensus of the wider population, which is exactly what the OP was saying.
For example, you could put a sales-tax on any material or revenue derived from sales or reproduction of works, with the proceeds going directly to the creators and artists.
Which would pay artists for cases of internet piracy where there is no sale how? Any solution that revolves around a tax on reproduction would require methods like DRM to stop reproduction that doesn't pay the tax, or are we going on the basis that people will not subvert a mandatory tax (even though they choose to ignore a mandatory cost of purchase)?
I mean, can you imagine what we're losing in the current system? How many artists we could pay if it was structured so more of the revenue went directly to them?
Why do you expect we would pay for more artists, when the reason for the majority of piracy at the moment is to either to avoid paying, to get a digital copy of something you already own or at best "to trial material that you may buy if you like it"? The % of piracy which is committed due to idealistic concerns is almost certainly statistically insignificant.
For years people have argued the reasons for breaking the current system of media distribution, and although I agree with many of the points made during this entire time the arguments are almost always founded on the basic premise that people 'want' to pay, and any argument based on such a naive foundation isn't going to cut it.
Re:Chumby homepage stinks, article OK
on
Inside Factory China
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Pff, he must be one of those communists. How can the free market and private property possibly survive if people are allowed to own what they buy?
No one is stopping people from buying things that conform to there required interpretation of 'freedom'. How would it be a free market if the government legislated to control how a company is allowed to build physical devices? Sadly, sometimes it is exactly because a market is free that people choose to make choices that we as individuals may wish they wouldn't.
I think it stands as a testamant to the WINE folks.
Absolutely. WINE tends to get quite a lot of negativity directed towards it, which is a shame because it strikes me as an important tool in making Linux more widely marketable. Expecting software developers to start developing native apps for an OS that doesn't have sufficient market share is naive, WINE makes the transition from Windows easier for many users and it is this transition that holds many people back.
What fucktards. Either they believe the rhetoric that they spew or they expect us to believe it, and either way it makes them look like assholes.
Of course they believe what they are saying, do you think they'd be trying to kill the used market if they thought it actually made them more money? Regardless of whether it does, asking whether they think it is a redundant question.
Outright assuming that the used market does make them more money also limits the value of the opinion. Most of the time when people make the case for second hand games benefiting the market they base the arguement on so many assumptions that it means nothing:
1/ Some proportion of money raised from the sale of used games is used to buy new games. This proportion, along with the related figures on how much is spent on other things and how much is spent on other used games does not appear to be known, and is vital to understanding whether the used market is beneficial.
2/ Systems like Steam and subscription based games seem to do very well among more technical users who are the most likely to care about companies restricting re-sale, if that is the case then do none technical users really care.
3/ Used sales provide another form of competition against new game sales. Figures on how much effect this has in bringing down prices of new games is something that would effect whether used games sales are more profitable for games distributors. Certainly looking at controlled channels like Xbox arcade, Steam and the Wiis equivalent it seems prices stay higher for longer due to lack of competition from re-sale.
I don't like the idea of used games sales being blocked, but I know better than to think that choosing to blindly believe that it is a bad idea for the games producers to do it will somehow stop it happening.
No, for most people, it's really about free as in beer.
Parent poster is right, I don't know anyone who uses TPB due to the issue of 'freedom', the vast majority of media piracy is cost related. If it was about 'freedom' not 'free' then people would spend the same amount of money as they would have spent buying the material they are pirating on supporting open media.
Slashdot Mirror
I accept that this is an improvement, but I really don't think it is anything more than a tiny one. Besides which this is something that storing media on the system achieves and would do better, just imagine not having to change discs when you finished watching an episode of Futurama and now want to play Gears of War...
Bluray is great if you like JRPGs with loads of CG cutscenes, otherwise the majority of games devs are having very little issue sticking to DVD size limits.
This is the same government that is bringing in voluntary ID cards. The definition of voluntary appears to be you are free not to get a card, but then you can't work at Manchester airport... how long until you won't be able to get CRB check without having an ID card? There definition of voluntary is swiftly shifting from free choice, to ability to choose to starve on the streets (as long as you don't get arrested) if you don't get one.
Internet filtering will go the same way. The government must love the work the IWF is doing here, as it gets to claim credit for any improvements and say it is taking in action, but when the IWF cocks up the government can wash it hands and point out it is an independent body. I find it incredible that people find the idea of this organisation covertly removing content acceptable.
Bollocks. Some people want to hurt Microsoft, and are using the same weak excuse they always use to justify it. I have no issue with the idea that windows shouldn't be distributed with a browser, as long as all operating systems have to play by the same rules.
As you say you're not a hypocrite, why do you think Apple shouldn't be forced to unbundle safari? Surely it will encourage competition.
The OP was quoting from TPB's trial where the prosecutor used the acronym IRL during proceedings and the defendant said that they would use AFK.
The state should pay for the immediate fixing of any damages, the criminals should then have to pay that, plus an additional fee as punishment and the interest on this back.
I accept that the film is better not knowing what is going on, but mainly it is a good film because of Kevin Spacey's performance. I have enjoyed watching this film a couple of times after I first saw it exactly because it is a good film regardless.
I'm glad to see a pragmatic assessment of the issue. I like to think of myself as a strongly moral person, and have on a number of occasions taken a position against the position of those I am with when I believe they are wrong. However, I could never say with absolute confidence that I would never do something that I would currently define as evil/inhumane etc. This is because there have been so many examples of supposedly good people doing unforgivable things, and I don't understand why, and if they can do it how do I know I won't until placed in that situation?
I actually think torture should be legal, which given my abhorrence of the act may seem hypocritical. My reason for this is that I can imagine a situation in which torturing someone may be sufficiently likely to save lives that given the choice I would authorise it. I would much rather that the torture of people was openly regulated than hidden. I would for example like for it to be made explicit who could authorise it, and for the fact it took place to be announced openly.
Considering that the provider must pay for an internet connection to upload information and the consumer must pay for an internet connection to download the information I really can't understand where the idea that internet media is free comes from. I don't think many people consider cable TV channels to be free, as they are only paying for access not content.
I get a weekly local paper delivered to my door, it costs me nothing. As far as I am aware in the US there are public broadcast TV channels that can be received without paying?
The internet provides numerous advantages with regards to media, mostly due to the fact that each user has an individual connection with the content provider. This individual connection is also the reason why current broadcast media can be far more efficient, when American Idol is shown they only have to produce one data stream to distribute it doing the same as an on demand internet service would be much more costly.
Of course you don't understand, the moment you asserted that CCTV had never been abused in the UK you showed you didn't comprehend the concept that you might not know everything that ever happened.
Regardless, even if CCTV hasn't been abused ever it doesn't mean expanding it is a wise idea. It would be hard to argue that implanting people with tracking chips, recording all biometrics yearly and installing ubiquitous CCTV wouldn't cause less crime if the system was used correctly. The arguement against monitoring at that scale is that as the monitoring expands it becomes easier for the system to be used to silence political dissent etc and harder for people to resist.
Actually, what you said implied that covert filming in public should be legal as "you'd expect people to be able to see you.". Fortunately this isn't actually the distinction used to make that filming illegal.
I don't think the number of people shot by police shows 'corruption' although I am very glad that the Police and population in the UK have resisted most attempts to expand the deployment of armed officers. Ultimately, there is going to be more people shot by the police in a country that has more people with guns and a much higher number of killings with guns in general.
I think the point was that if crime is still high then crime evidently hasn't been taken off the street.
Because you didn't read it correctly. The point OP was making was that either TPB are guilty of all crimes committed by the makers of torrents shared on their site or they are guilty of none. Saying they aren't responsible for paedophilic material, but are responsible for copyrighted material, when the process by which the materials .torrent gets onto there system is the same is nonsensical.
Yes it does, it shows children that the correct response to behavior you disagree with is violence. Used for minor offenses it also leaves little ability to link cause and effect, unless you advocate breaking bones when children are really naughty
Corporal punishment is not a simple issue, but you'd be aware of that if you hadn't decided on what answer you liked without investigating the matter first.
Unfortunately the links you get from Google are likely to be exactly as relevant, because Google is so heavily infected with Wikipedia that it tops no end of search terms.
I can't help but think of that time as a time when "legal" meant the man you beat was black, that the woman you assaulted was your wife or that you happened to be friendly with the local police.
The downside of a less formal legal system is that although it 'could' work much better than a system based on formal well defined rules it is also more likely to lead to abuses. I haven't done a study, and I don't know of one that shows either system as better but I think a lot of the nostalgia for the days when policing is personal ignores a lot of the unpleasant truths that come with.
So you are suggesting that a significant flaw in Linux has lasted so long, even though it is "just a matter of someone contributing a suitable patch"? Hardly a good arguement.
Pointing out there are possible fixes doesn't absolve it from blame.
No. Just the only one reading this article that thinks anyone else cares.
Your last response shows you have not fully grasped the key to the argument anyway.
If something like the CCA had existed for books then you wouldn't have been able to buy Lolita at all because it would have been blocked. Why do you think that a child's access to books without pictures should be controlled by parental consent, but books with pictures should be banned entirely if inappropriate for young children? Why was it ok for your Gran to decide if you could read Lolita, but it wouldn't be ok for her to decide if you could of read the times equivalent of The Watchmen (I'm not a comic reader so I really can't think of a relevant example)?
Actually area available for life to live in is not really what we should be comparing. Most scientific theories regarding the creation of a life are based upon a very particular requirements, life will not for example simply spring up in the middle of your back yard. If these 'contaminated' areas contain a higher concentration of locations where life could form then this could skew results.
Regardless, even if the odds are astonishingly small (or appear to be) I don't see the harm in looking. A life form based on an entirely different structure than our own may have a far more pronounced effect on our understanding of life than any number of discoveries based on the same structure as our own.
Which doesn't change the fact that the view on copyright and media sharing presented on /. is massively biased, and doesn't reflect the general consensus of the wider population, which is exactly what the OP was saying.
Which would pay artists for cases of internet piracy where there is no sale how? Any solution that revolves around a tax on reproduction would require methods like DRM to stop reproduction that doesn't pay the tax, or are we going on the basis that people will not subvert a mandatory tax (even though they choose to ignore a mandatory cost of purchase)?
Why do you expect we would pay for more artists, when the reason for the majority of piracy at the moment is to either to avoid paying, to get a digital copy of something you already own or at best "to trial material that you may buy if you like it"? The % of piracy which is committed due to idealistic concerns is almost certainly statistically insignificant.
For years people have argued the reasons for breaking the current system of media distribution, and although I agree with many of the points made during this entire time the arguments are almost always founded on the basic premise that people 'want' to pay, and any argument based on such a naive foundation isn't going to cut it.
No one is stopping people from buying things that conform to there required interpretation of 'freedom'. How would it be a free market if the government legislated to control how a company is allowed to build physical devices? Sadly, sometimes it is exactly because a market is free that people choose to make choices that we as individuals may wish they wouldn't.
Absolutely. WINE tends to get quite a lot of negativity directed towards it, which is a shame because it strikes me as an important tool in making Linux more widely marketable. Expecting software developers to start developing native apps for an OS that doesn't have sufficient market share is naive, WINE makes the transition from Windows easier for many users and it is this transition that holds many people back.
Of course they believe what they are saying, do you think they'd be trying to kill the used market if they thought it actually made them more money? Regardless of whether it does, asking whether they think it is a redundant question.
Outright assuming that the used market does make them more money also limits the value of the opinion. Most of the time when people make the case for second hand games benefiting the market they base the arguement on so many assumptions that it means nothing:
1/ Some proportion of money raised from the sale of used games is used to buy new games. This proportion, along with the related figures on how much is spent on other things and how much is spent on other used games does not appear to be known, and is vital to understanding whether the used market is beneficial.
2/ Systems like Steam and subscription based games seem to do very well among more technical users who are the most likely to care about companies restricting re-sale, if that is the case then do none technical users really care.
3/ Used sales provide another form of competition against new game sales. Figures on how much effect this has in bringing down prices of new games is something that would effect whether used games sales are more profitable for games distributors. Certainly looking at controlled channels like Xbox arcade, Steam and the Wiis equivalent it seems prices stay higher for longer due to lack of competition from re-sale.
I don't like the idea of used games sales being blocked, but I know better than to think that choosing to blindly believe that it is a bad idea for the games producers to do it will somehow stop it happening.
Parent poster is right, I don't know anyone who uses TPB due to the issue of 'freedom', the vast majority of media piracy is cost related. If it was about 'freedom' not 'free' then people would spend the same amount of money as they would have spent buying the material they are pirating on supporting open media.