My wife is a big proponent of breast-feeding, as am I. The problem as I understand is that due to malnutrition, the mothers in developing nations sometimes have trouble producing breast milk, but if they can, they certainly should be breast feeding.
We actually get dictated by the corporate team exactly what hardware and software we are allowed to purchase. Part of that is due to strict government regulations. The state wants to make sure they get their money, so the government is very strict in regulating our software. If we want to make a small change, often we need regulatory permission to do as such. Having consistent standards across the brand is very important, even in sub-brands like Caesar's, Rio, Showboat, Harveys, Horseshoe, etc.
That being said, you raise a good point. I'm sure a good portion of the cost is "support" from Dell. However, why pay both local IT and corporate IT and then pay Dell as well? Oddly enough, in the rare instances I have had to contact them (hardware replacement such as this RAID array that keeps consistently going down on a new server cluster) Dell won't give you the time of day until you transfer five times and keep giving them serial numbers and service express codes. They want to make sure you're paying them, and that you are supposed to get tech support.
It's great when the array goes down and 200 slot machines don't work, which means regulatory problems and massive income lost, but Dell won't even let you talk to them for close to 2 hours. Man, I'm sure glad we're paying good money for that support!
I find it odd that I made the same point that while we debate the ethics, the reality is that this isn't very different from what we do already, and how this might save the lives of real children dying all over the world. Every time I made that post, I did so without yelling and not a single time did it get modded up. You insult the poster above you, act like a troll and get modded to a 5.
The lesson here is that the tactic will get you heard, and then you will get modded up or down depending on whether or not the mod agrees with you in the end.
We're all speaking English here, so we should be using the same terms. He has chosen to redefine a universally accepted word to suit his view of the universe. That is denial.
Understand, I'm not arguing whether or not he should download music. I'm just arguing the rhetoric of whether or not to call this behavior stealing. I'm advocating that we make willing, conscience decisions. If we don't like the music industry and wish to steal from them to spite them, then so be it. If we choose to purchase certain CDs to support artists, so be it. But why lie to ourselves about what we are doing?
The product is purchased by charity organizations in place of their usual food purchases.
The product is sold directly to developing nations in somewhat exploitative fashion.
Any of the above three options, however instead of purchasing said product over and over again, it is a one time purchase and then the people are given the means to grow the rice themselves.
Some companies are in fact using US dollars to help Africa become self-sufficient, because not only is it humane, but in the end, it is cheaper for us to help them become self-sufficient than to give them money every year.
The article mentions specifically it is being developed for developing nations. Whether or not it will be donated, purchased by charities, or sold in more exploitative fashion I don't know.
The letter of the law is often muddled. Legal and right are rarely one in the same. It is clearly illegal, while you can argue whether or not it is right.
Why is there a distinction? We feel that humans should be separated from other critters. Perhaps we should. However, taking one particular gene makes me question what it is we are discussing. Does one gene make a human? Does one gene define what separates a human from a primate for instance? If we used genetic material from frogs, would anyone care?
If we're worried about robbing the thunder of the heavens of what makes humans special, then I don't think we've infringed on that. Perhaps we are walking in that direction, but I'm not sure this actually infringes there.
And we can just share the bank's money as well? Making an illegal copy, distributing and downloading it is stealing. The reason that people don't have a problem with it usually is that they feel it is "okay" to steal from certain sources. For instance, stealing from a casino is acceptable. Stealing from the recording industry is acceptable. However, saying that isn't stealing bothers me from a purely rhetorical standpoint. I don't mind stealing music. I'm not arguing against the behavior. I'm arguing against what we call the behavior.
Can I ask you a question? Are you a parent? Have you ever held a young child in your arms? Have you ever dealt with poverty?
I see where there might be ethical questions worth asking, but I have been homeless. And I have a small baby. If I had to choose between eating rice with human genes or not, I might first consider what I consider to be a greater issue. Will this help save the life of my child?
I know that plenty of the people here locally in the University of Nebraska work on developing crops that grow in developing nations and help these people to cultivate the land and become more self-sustaining. I imagine that the intent here isn't to try and sell rice to Africa, but rather find a type of rice to grow in Africa. And dehydration may not seem like much to you, but in Africa believe it or not infant mortality from dehydration is very serious. They use cheap formula watered down with bad water to begin with, and then they get sick on top of that, which causes worse dehydration.
If this saves lives of babies, then I'm for it.
Did you read the article? This genetically modified rice is destined for the developing world. Many of them have meager means. Allowing them to just grow rice that can save lives (children die of dehydration there) is pretty worthwhile.
We genetically alter plants all the time. Placing genetic code into plants to create a favorable result is very common practice. Is there truly a line being crossed if the genetic material belonged to humans?
I'm not entirely sure. However, crapping my pants sucks and if they can make rice to help with that, I'm not sure I mind in the least bit.
I don't care to continue this discussion. This isn't remotely a fair analogy.
Evian doesn't produce your tapwater. By pulling water out of the tap, you haven't removed a product from Evian.
Using a VCR to record what was freely broadcast in your homes is different from making an illegal copy of a song, uploading to the internet and sharing it with others. If you can't see the difference, then either you are in denial or quite frankly a bit dense. When someone sells a CD, it clearly says you cannot make copies and distribute them. This is against the law. When you download these copies, you are downloading illegal music.
Willingly taking in stolen property is against the law. You can remain in denial all day long if you wish. (I prefer to assume denial over stupidity). However sarcasm and piss-poor analogies don't make you in the least bit right.
I haven't quoted thin clients recently, but another user in response to my post said that Sun thin clients go for $299 without a monitor. I guess I could Google it, but it sounds right and for once I have work to do at work rather than just read Slashdot. For a small business who can get a PC at a decent price, a $300 thin client plus the cost of a monitor seems hefty. But when you have a contract and you're locked into certain models of PCs at certain prices (the reality at every major corporation I've worked for) then PCs become more pricey.
My point however is simply that companies don't always pick the best product. I've yet to see a major company that uses Firefox on company computers. The official corporate IT policy here is that Firefox is specifically blacklisted for being dangerous software which will destroy our entire domain. Over half the PCs on our domain across the globe still use Win2k, no hosts file, a limited firewall, IE, limited patches, no popup blocker, etc. etc. etc.
I could go on about major security vulnerabilities but that is besides the point. Companies go with what they are sold on, not what the best product us. Those who make such decisions rarely have any real knowledge in technology. The employee others to "make it work".
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with corporate contracts. Dell signs a contract with company X. For instance, I work for Harrahs Casinos. We are a huge multi-billion dollar company. We are the largest gaming company in the world. Yet, the cheapest PC we are allowed to purchase with our HUGE DISCOUNT is $1,200, yet I could build the same PC for $600.
I get moderator points from time to time, as I do now. And I try to take those whole whopping 5 points very seriously. Unfortunately, I can't mod in a thread I have posted in, but I do try to keep an eye out for those who actually add valuable information to a thread.
Sarcasm and trolling is always abundant. I try to use my points to help good comments rise above the rest.
Do you work in an IT department for a huge corporation
We have an exclusive contract with Dell. We get a "HUGE DISCOUNT" from Dell. However, for every PC we purchase, we buy a copy of Office Pro (whether or not the PC will use it) and XP Pro. And for some strange reason, our discount amounts to a baseline PC costing us $1,200 a pop, despite the fact that I could build it with parts from NewEgg for $600. The PCs are not cheaper than thin clients, and even if they do have more features, it is pretty standard for us to use a PC for only application and lock the rest completely down. I love big, corporate IT.
I've seen legal arguements going both ways on this issue. Some say downloading alone is illegal. Some say you must distribute. Some say you must copy to another device.
However, when we were all kids we were taught right from wrong. If you're telling me that downloading music from the internet that you didn't pay for isn't stealing, then I don't know what to say. I can't say I haven't done it. Sure, I've stolen music. And I also make the decision to purchase CDs from certain labels and artists. I consider it a willing decision to support certain companies, and to screw the music industry on the whole when I do decide to steal. I don't understand those who are for some reason in denial that this is stealing.
Ideally, artists should provide a few tracks online just like they release singles for radio stations. We can sample their music and decide if we want to buy it. But quick searches on P2P networks and BitTorrents will show you that fairly often people are sharing full movies, full albums, hell, full collections. The spirit there is not to promote by samples, but to steal and circumvent the companies that want to sell these things to you.
People break laws all the time. They jaywalk, litter, speed, etc. Downloading music is stealing. As much as I hate the RIAA, that doesn't change the fact that stealing remains stealing.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Often people intentionally invoke Godwin's Law early, throwing out the Nazi card where it doesn't belong to call down moderators. It is a tactic used to close down threads online before people can respond, or just a means of curtailing conversation. I thought that is what you were attempting.
Either way, I'm tired of seeing Nazis brought up in every other thread on the magical intrawebs.
The best answer is to talk with your kids, and encourage them to make good decisions. The internet is full of plenty of content easily-accessed that you probably don't want your kids to see. Either the computer is kept in a public place, or you have to educate your kids and trust them. Software programs are too easily bypassed.
What? The RIAA ran out of 14 year olds, and non-PC owning soccer moms to sue?
This is plain silly. First off, they aren't upset at XM Service. They are upset at hardware that works like a radio-Tivo. However, TV companies aren't suing Tivo. They're adapting advertising to Tivo.
The RIAA is barking up the wrong tree, and pretty soon everyone and I mean everyone will turn on the RIAA. Many artists in the industry hate their tactics. Having a portion of the radio recorded Tivo like is not the same as illegally downloading music from the internet.
And last time I checked, people were doing recordings from radio for ages.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife is a big proponent of breast-feeding, as am I. The problem as I understand is that due to malnutrition, the mothers in developing nations sometimes have trouble producing breast milk, but if they can, they certainly should be breast feeding.
That being said, you raise a good point. I'm sure a good portion of the cost is "support" from Dell. However, why pay both local IT and corporate IT and then pay Dell as well? Oddly enough, in the rare instances I have had to contact them (hardware replacement such as this RAID array that keeps consistently going down on a new server cluster) Dell won't give you the time of day until you transfer five times and keep giving them serial numbers and service express codes. They want to make sure you're paying them, and that you are supposed to get tech support.
It's great when the array goes down and 200 slot machines don't work, which means regulatory problems and massive income lost, but Dell won't even let you talk to them for close to 2 hours. Man, I'm sure glad we're paying good money for that support!
The lesson here is that the tactic will get you heard, and then you will get modded up or down depending on whether or not the mod agrees with you in the end.
Understand, I'm not arguing whether or not he should download music. I'm just arguing the rhetoric of whether or not to call this behavior stealing. I'm advocating that we make willing, conscience decisions. If we don't like the music industry and wish to steal from them to spite them, then so be it. If we choose to purchase certain CDs to support artists, so be it. But why lie to ourselves about what we are doing?
- The product is donated as is.
- The product is purchased by charity organizations in place of their usual food purchases.
- The product is sold directly to developing nations in somewhat exploitative fashion.
- Any of the above three options, however instead of purchasing said product over and over again, it is a one time purchase and then the people are given the means to grow the rice themselves.
Some companies are in fact using US dollars to help Africa become self-sufficient, because not only is it humane, but in the end, it is cheaper for us to help them become self-sufficient than to give them money every year.The article mentions specifically it is being developed for developing nations. Whether or not it will be donated, purchased by charities, or sold in more exploitative fashion I don't know.
Fair enough. I think we both see where each other are coming from.
The letter of the law is often muddled. Legal and right are rarely one in the same. It is clearly illegal, while you can argue whether or not it is right.
If we're worried about robbing the thunder of the heavens of what makes humans special, then I don't think we've infringed on that. Perhaps we are walking in that direction, but I'm not sure this actually infringes there.
And we can just share the bank's money as well? Making an illegal copy, distributing and downloading it is stealing. The reason that people don't have a problem with it usually is that they feel it is "okay" to steal from certain sources. For instance, stealing from a casino is acceptable. Stealing from the recording industry is acceptable. However, saying that isn't stealing bothers me from a purely rhetorical standpoint. I don't mind stealing music. I'm not arguing against the behavior. I'm arguing against what we call the behavior.
I see where there might be ethical questions worth asking, but I have been homeless. And I have a small baby. If I had to choose between eating rice with human genes or not, I might first consider what I consider to be a greater issue. Will this help save the life of my child?
In developing countries, the answer may be yes.
I know that plenty of the people here locally in the University of Nebraska work on developing crops that grow in developing nations and help these people to cultivate the land and become more self-sustaining. I imagine that the intent here isn't to try and sell rice to Africa, but rather find a type of rice to grow in Africa. And dehydration may not seem like much to you, but in Africa believe it or not infant mortality from dehydration is very serious. They use cheap formula watered down with bad water to begin with, and then they get sick on top of that, which causes worse dehydration. If this saves lives of babies, then I'm for it.
Did you read the article? This genetically modified rice is destined for the developing world. Many of them have meager means. Allowing them to just grow rice that can save lives (children die of dehydration there) is pretty worthwhile.
I'm not entirely sure. However, crapping my pants sucks and if they can make rice to help with that, I'm not sure I mind in the least bit.
Evian doesn't produce your tapwater. By pulling water out of the tap, you haven't removed a product from Evian.
Using a VCR to record what was freely broadcast in your homes is different from making an illegal copy of a song, uploading to the internet and sharing it with others. If you can't see the difference, then either you are in denial or quite frankly a bit dense. When someone sells a CD, it clearly says you cannot make copies and distribute them. This is against the law. When you download these copies, you are downloading illegal music.
Willingly taking in stolen property is against the law. You can remain in denial all day long if you wish. (I prefer to assume denial over stupidity). However sarcasm and piss-poor analogies don't make you in the least bit right.
My point however is simply that companies don't always pick the best product. I've yet to see a major company that uses Firefox on company computers. The official corporate IT policy here is that Firefox is specifically blacklisted for being dangerous software which will destroy our entire domain. Over half the PCs on our domain across the globe still use Win2k, no hosts file, a limited firewall, IE, limited patches, no popup blocker, etc. etc. etc.
I could go on about major security vulnerabilities but that is besides the point. Companies go with what they are sold on, not what the best product us. Those who make such decisions rarely have any real knowledge in technology. The employee others to "make it work".
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with corporate contracts. Dell signs a contract with company X. For instance, I work for Harrahs Casinos. We are a huge multi-billion dollar company. We are the largest gaming company in the world. Yet, the cheapest PC we are allowed to purchase with our HUGE DISCOUNT is $1,200, yet I could build the same PC for $600.
Sarcasm and trolling is always abundant. I try to use my points to help good comments rise above the rest.
We have an exclusive contract with Dell. We get a "HUGE DISCOUNT" from Dell. However, for every PC we purchase, we buy a copy of Office Pro (whether or not the PC will use it) and XP Pro. And for some strange reason, our discount amounts to a baseline PC costing us $1,200 a pop, despite the fact that I could build it with parts from NewEgg for $600. The PCs are not cheaper than thin clients, and even if they do have more features, it is pretty standard for us to use a PC for only application and lock the rest completely down. I love big, corporate IT.
However, when we were all kids we were taught right from wrong. If you're telling me that downloading music from the internet that you didn't pay for isn't stealing, then I don't know what to say. I can't say I haven't done it. Sure, I've stolen music. And I also make the decision to purchase CDs from certain labels and artists. I consider it a willing decision to support certain companies, and to screw the music industry on the whole when I do decide to steal. I don't understand those who are for some reason in denial that this is stealing.
Ideally, artists should provide a few tracks online just like they release singles for radio stations. We can sample their music and decide if we want to buy it. But quick searches on P2P networks and BitTorrents will show you that fairly often people are sharing full movies, full albums, hell, full collections. The spirit there is not to promote by samples, but to steal and circumvent the companies that want to sell these things to you.
People break laws all the time. They jaywalk, litter, speed, etc. Downloading music is stealing. As much as I hate the RIAA, that doesn't change the fact that stealing remains stealing.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Often people intentionally invoke Godwin's Law early, throwing out the Nazi card where it doesn't belong to call down moderators. It is a tactic used to close down threads online before people can respond, or just a means of curtailing conversation. I thought that is what you were attempting.
Either way, I'm tired of seeing Nazis brought up in every other thread on the magical intrawebs.
When my phone contract is up, I sure hope that Sprint can sell me one of these.
Konquerer also passed the ACID2 test. Can we please get some fact-checking before articles go public?
The best answer is to talk with your kids, and encourage them to make good decisions. The internet is full of plenty of content easily-accessed that you probably don't want your kids to see. Either the computer is kept in a public place, or you have to educate your kids and trust them. Software programs are too easily bypassed.
This is plain silly. First off, they aren't upset at XM Service. They are upset at hardware that works like a radio-Tivo. However, TV companies aren't suing Tivo. They're adapting advertising to Tivo.
The RIAA is barking up the wrong tree, and pretty soon everyone and I mean everyone will turn on the RIAA. Many artists in the industry hate their tactics. Having a portion of the radio recorded Tivo like is not the same as illegally downloading music from the internet.
And last time I checked, people were doing recordings from radio for ages.