Do you really want to hang your moral compass on the law of the land?
So now it's moral to sleep with your neighbors wife, but immoral to circumvent a copy protection technique?
If you think that people are actually killing each other religion you are sadly misinformed. Sure it's easy for CNN to pitch it that way in nice short monosyllables, but if you look at what is going on, people aren't actually killing each other over their religious beliefs, their killing each other over the same things people have always killed for: power, money and land.
How many Iraqi's have American soldiers killed? Remind me again, are we trying to convert the heathen swarm? Was Saddam before us concerned that the thousands of Kurds he gassed, and the thousands of his own people he put in torture chambers weren't living up to Allah's expectations?
Religion provides a convenient excuse, as does race, or ethnicity, or nationality for one group to exert its power over and subjugate another group. Subjugation isn't about saving eternal souls, subjugation is about taxes, natural resources, and arable land.
You cannot connect morality to evolution, without embarking on the slippery slope that is social darwinism. Evolution involves individuals possessing a competitive advantage which they can pass genetically to their offspring. Morality does not benefit the individual, but rather the group, and is not inherited.
Some group social dynamics may benefit the individual and the group, such as schooling, and this behavior can be connected to evolution, because fish who are not adept at schooling will find themselves eaten. Morality is different in kind because acting amorally often times imparts a competitive advantage, but is kept in check due to pressure imparted on the amoral from the evolutionary less fit moral masses.
But even if morality as a behavior could be shown to be a desirable trait, it still couldn't be connected to evolution because it is not an inherited trait.
Funny, I thought that atheism was a recent development, and that the Babylonians believed in various gods
On average it makes sense for a society to follow the same moral code. In practice, this means that codified rules and punishments provide an advantage for a society. However, on the individual level, without a religiously inspired moral guide, this degenerates to a kind of ruthless pragmatism, where everything is moral, provided you don't get caught.
Religiously derived moral codes avoid this problem, because the omniscient deity will always catch you.
In case anyone is wondering (like I was) evaporative emissions are essentially unburned gasoline vapors. Or, what every other industry refers to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
I think you're interpreting the statistics properly, and that the cost of the average lawsuit does in fact increase. But that is probably ok, because now a larger portion of the people suing probably actually deserve some compensation, whereas before there were a larger number of piddly lawsuits where the plaintiff doesn't actually deserve jack.
I agree whole heartedly. I'd also like to add even if he was "deliberately disrespectful", or doing something "to prove he could," neither of those are arrestable offenses, as far as I'm aware.
I'm a bit ambivalent on the store searching the bags, it is private property, they likely have signs posted (like my work does) that the belongings of any persons entering the premises are subject to search - which is their right on their property. However, if you do not comply, short of making a citizen's arrest, they should not be able to detain you, and both the manager and the security guy should know this.
As for the police officer, I have no sympathy. He should know that he can't compel random people to produce ID, and that he apparently doesn't indicates to me that his superiors should be held accountable. According to this man's account he was quite civil, but even if he weren't police officers should be trained to diffuse tense situations without violating civil rights.
No that's not what I'm saying, as much as there is no thing as a 100% free market, there is also no such thing as a 100% command economy.
I thought I saw an opportunity to take a shot at a laissez faire capitalist, and I took it - apologies if what you wrote isn't what I thought I read.
At any rate though, supply and demand are a long way from the only factors dictating the price in the music industry. Otherwise one would have expected prices to decline a few years after the introduction of the CD due to economies of scale (which didn't happen), a modest rise in the '90s with the growing popularity of the medium (which, surprisingly, probably didn't happen - possibly due to the WalMart effect), and a further, marked, and continuing decline starting in the early 2000s due to falling record sales (which, aside from this one store in Canada, isn't happening either.)
In a free market the laws of supply and demand dictate the price point.
However, there never has been, and never will be any such thing as a free market. Free markets are intellectual constructs. If there ever were a free market it would be the market furthest removed from music, movies, and communication.
Except that only you, and maybe a few other misinformed people, think Pepsi have any right over the Pepsi Cola recipe.
Well it really depends. If you've gone out and figured it out on your own, you're right, Pepsi wouldn't likely win an injunction against you. However, you still couldn't label it as the Pepsi formula, that'd be a trademark violation.
Also, it's pretty unlikely you'd get it exactly right, even if you performed all kinds of sophisticated analytical chemistry - chemistry isn't currently accurate enough to get the quantities just right. If you did get it precisely right (or even really close), that would be a pretty big indicator that you did something improper to get Pepsi's trade secrets, and they'd sue you on the basis that you got your information illicitly. During discovery, they'd find out how you figured out their recipe, and if it were with the aid of secret information, you'd get you in serious legal trouble. Even if you had legitimately reversed engineered the formula they wouldn't drop the suit, and you'd have to spend an awful lot of money defending your case.
I think that's a pretty good case in point of how the major labels are colluding.
How many major publishers are there? Hundreds? The author gets to pick and choose, and gains bargaining power.
I believe there are five major record labels. And they are in bed together. If you want to make a deal with a major record label you are almost certainly going to deal on their terms.
I'm guessing the only viable buisness model in such a situation is Braaaains 'R Us
In all seriousness though, this is a two sided issue, it's not just decreased workforce, it is also decreased customer base - which no one seems to be considering.
According to a quick google there are ~3.4 million truckers in the US. There are also 1.4 million active duty military personnel.
What this means that if there were an pandemic flu, and 30% of everybody were unable to work, even if every single non-sick member of the military were put to work driving trucks (generals, intelligence, computer specialists, etc.) they'd only just be able to keep the number of truckers constant. Now when you take into account that a large portion of the military isn't in the US, and the fact that it takes a while to learn to handle a big rig, I don't think the military is going to be able to take over trucking in the event of a pandemic.
So if MediaSentry circumvented this protection method using the technique you describe, in order to "monitor" copyright infringement, we could sue them under the DMCA?
You don't need cheating or collusion to get screwed at online poker, run of the mill incompetence will do just fine. For instance, if the pseudo random number generator is poorly implemented one player might know what cards everyone is holding. If that code is closed, proprietary, and not subject to regulation you can't tell if the guy across the table has it figured out. I'm not that familiar with the business, but are any of the poker houses running open code? If not, that seems like a pretty good reason to require regulation.
It's not the liquor store or corner mart that makes huge profits, it's the distilleries breweries. The only reason to make the liquor stores state run is to (slightly) increase state revenue. Here on the US east coast states like Pennsylvania only sell liquor in state run stores. It costs the same as in a private store.
What if the legal system's tiers were set up so each level could compel an increasing penalty. After a verdict either party could appeal the ruling or could offer a settlement up to the limit the next court could award. If the upper court judge dismisses a lower courts ruling, the losing party is responsible for all the victors legal fees, on the other hand, if the judge upholds the ruling of the lower court, the loser is still responsible for only the victors legal fees, but only for the last round, on the third hand, if the upper court judge increases the lower courts penalty, everyone is responsible for their own legal fees.
In this case it might play out like this:
The crackpot sues the critic in the lowest civil court, which can award up to $500. The critic need not even defend himself due to the small potential damage (but he may if he wishes). Regardless of who wins, both parties decide (independently), if they want to raise the stakes.
This would encourage the victor to get out while the getting's good, and not to continue litigating in hopes of a massive payday.
What we need, and another poster pointed out, is an intermediate rating. How about 'R'? Nice and easy to understand, but reserve AO for the legitimately pornographic games.
You know one of the holes that I feel was left unanswered by Jared Diamond is why is the American Buffalo unsuitable as a beast of burden. There might be a good reason, but as a city person I don't see any glaringly obvious why cows and oxen are suitable, but not bison.
Advertising works, or companies wouldn't do it. They might not know how it works, or how well it works, but it does work. Advertising isn't about getting you to buy a product now, advertising is about having you remember their product should you be interested in something similar in the future.
Look at VitaminWater for a case in point. The only reason anybody buys the stuff is because they've seen the ads.
Slashdot Mirror
and Hammurabi's code is >3700 years old, which makes the GP's statement that "Moral codes existed long before the gods," very false.
Atheism is derived from theism, which is why theists aren't called anihilists.
Do you really want to hang your moral compass on the law of the land?
So now it's moral to sleep with your neighbors wife, but immoral to circumvent a copy protection technique?
If you think that people are actually killing each other religion you are sadly misinformed. Sure it's easy for CNN to pitch it that way in nice short monosyllables, but if you look at what is going on, people aren't actually killing each other over their religious beliefs, their killing each other over the same things people have always killed for: power, money and land.
How many Iraqi's have American soldiers killed? Remind me again, are we trying to convert the heathen swarm? Was Saddam before us concerned that the thousands of Kurds he gassed, and the thousands of his own people he put in torture chambers weren't living up to Allah's expectations?
Religion provides a convenient excuse, as does race, or ethnicity, or nationality for one group to exert its power over and subjugate another group. Subjugation isn't about saving eternal souls, subjugation is about taxes, natural resources, and arable land.
You cannot connect morality to evolution, without embarking on the slippery slope that is social darwinism. Evolution involves individuals possessing a competitive advantage which they can pass genetically to their offspring. Morality does not benefit the individual, but rather the group, and is not inherited.
Some group social dynamics may benefit the individual and the group, such as schooling, and this behavior can be connected to evolution, because fish who are not adept at schooling will find themselves eaten. Morality is different in kind because acting amorally often times imparts a competitive advantage, but is kept in check due to pressure imparted on the amoral from the evolutionary less fit moral masses.
But even if morality as a behavior could be shown to be a desirable trait, it still couldn't be connected to evolution because it is not an inherited trait.
Funny, I thought that atheism was a recent development, and that the Babylonians believed in various gods
On average it makes sense for a society to follow the same moral code. In practice, this means that codified rules and punishments provide an advantage for a society. However, on the individual level, without a religiously inspired moral guide, this degenerates to a kind of ruthless pragmatism, where everything is moral, provided you don't get caught.
Religiously derived moral codes avoid this problem, because the omniscient deity will always catch you.
In case anyone is wondering (like I was) evaporative emissions are essentially unburned gasoline vapors. Or, what every other industry refers to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
I think you're interpreting the statistics properly, and that the cost of the average lawsuit does in fact increase. But that is probably ok, because now a larger portion of the people suing probably actually deserve some compensation, whereas before there were a larger number of piddly lawsuits where the plaintiff doesn't actually deserve jack.
I agree whole heartedly. I'd also like to add even if he was "deliberately disrespectful", or doing something "to prove he could," neither of those are arrestable offenses, as far as I'm aware.
I'm a bit ambivalent on the store searching the bags, it is private property, they likely have signs posted (like my work does) that the belongings of any persons entering the premises are subject to search - which is their right on their property. However, if you do not comply, short of making a citizen's arrest, they should not be able to detain you, and both the manager and the security guy should know this.
As for the police officer, I have no sympathy. He should know that he can't compel random people to produce ID, and that he apparently doesn't indicates to me that his superiors should be held accountable. According to this man's account he was quite civil, but even if he weren't police officers should be trained to diffuse tense situations without violating civil rights.
No that's not what I'm saying, as much as there is no thing as a 100% free market, there is also no such thing as a 100% command economy.
I thought I saw an opportunity to take a shot at a laissez faire capitalist, and I took it - apologies if what you wrote isn't what I thought I read.
At any rate though, supply and demand are a long way from the only factors dictating the price in the music industry. Otherwise one would have expected prices to decline a few years after the introduction of the CD due to economies of scale (which didn't happen), a modest rise in the '90s with the growing popularity of the medium (which, surprisingly, probably didn't happen - possibly due to the WalMart effect), and a further, marked, and continuing decline starting in the early 2000s due to falling record sales (which, aside from this one store in Canada, isn't happening either.)
In a free market the laws of supply and demand dictate the price point.
However, there never has been, and never will be any such thing as a free market. Free markets are intellectual constructs. If there ever were a free market it would be the market furthest removed from music, movies, and communication.
Well it really depends. If you've gone out and figured it out on your own, you're right, Pepsi wouldn't likely win an injunction against you. However, you still couldn't label it as the Pepsi formula, that'd be a trademark violation.
Also, it's pretty unlikely you'd get it exactly right, even if you performed all kinds of sophisticated analytical chemistry - chemistry isn't currently accurate enough to get the quantities just right. If you did get it precisely right (or even really close), that would be a pretty big indicator that you did something improper to get Pepsi's trade secrets, and they'd sue you on the basis that you got your information illicitly. During discovery, they'd find out how you figured out their recipe, and if it were with the aid of secret information, you'd get you in serious legal trouble. Even if you had legitimately reversed engineered the formula they wouldn't drop the suit, and you'd have to spend an awful lot of money defending your case.
I think that's a pretty good case in point of how the major labels are colluding.
How many major publishers are there? Hundreds? The author gets to pick and choose, and gains bargaining power.
I believe there are five major record labels. And they are in bed together. If you want to make a deal with a major record label you are almost certainly going to deal on their terms.
I'm guessing the only viable buisness model in such a situation is Braaaains 'R Us
In all seriousness though, this is a two sided issue, it's not just decreased workforce, it is also decreased customer base - which no one seems to be considering.
According to a quick google there are ~3.4 million truckers in the US. There are also 1.4 million active duty military personnel.
What this means that if there were an pandemic flu, and 30% of everybody were unable to work, even if every single non-sick member of the military were put to work driving trucks (generals, intelligence, computer specialists, etc.) they'd only just be able to keep the number of truckers constant. Now when you take into account that a large portion of the military isn't in the US, and the fact that it takes a while to learn to handle a big rig, I don't think the military is going to be able to take over trucking in the event of a pandemic.
My HS history teacher used to say that the best way to start major civil unrest in the US was to organize a trucker strike.
Once food stops showing up in grocery stores people get fighting mad awful quick.
I'm gonna go ahead and right Japan off right now.
So if MediaSentry circumvented this protection method using the technique you describe, in order to "monitor" copyright infringement, we could sue them under the DMCA?
You don't need cheating or collusion to get screwed at online poker, run of the mill incompetence will do just fine. For instance, if the pseudo random number generator is poorly implemented one player might know what cards everyone is holding. If that code is closed, proprietary, and not subject to regulation you can't tell if the guy across the table has it figured out. I'm not that familiar with the business, but are any of the poker houses running open code? If not, that seems like a pretty good reason to require regulation.
It's not the liquor store or corner mart that makes huge profits, it's the distilleries breweries. The only reason to make the liquor stores state run is to (slightly) increase state revenue. Here on the US east coast states like Pennsylvania only sell liquor in state run stores. It costs the same as in a private store.
Hear hear.
Not only did I have no problem beating the machine, I then proceeded to beat c6gunners sister.
I just had a thought.
What if the legal system's tiers were set up so each level could compel an increasing penalty. After a verdict either party could appeal the ruling or could offer a settlement up to the limit the next court could award. If the upper court judge dismisses a lower courts ruling, the losing party is responsible for all the victors legal fees, on the other hand, if the judge upholds the ruling of the lower court, the loser is still responsible for only the victors legal fees, but only for the last round, on the third hand, if the upper court judge increases the lower courts penalty, everyone is responsible for their own legal fees.
In this case it might play out like this:
The crackpot sues the critic in the lowest civil court, which can award up to $500. The critic need not even defend himself due to the small potential damage (but he may if he wishes). Regardless of who wins, both parties decide (independently), if they want to raise the stakes.
This would encourage the victor to get out while the getting's good, and not to continue litigating in hopes of a massive payday.
Yeah, I'm an idiot, I had completely forgotten about M...
I guess the system is just plain old broken.
What we need, and another poster pointed out, is an intermediate rating. How about 'R'? Nice and easy to understand, but reserve AO for the legitimately pornographic games.
You know one of the holes that I feel was left unanswered by Jared Diamond is why is the American Buffalo unsuitable as a beast of burden. There might be a good reason, but as a city person I don't see any glaringly obvious why cows and oxen are suitable, but not bison.
Advertising works, or companies wouldn't do it. They might not know how it works, or how well it works, but it does work. Advertising isn't about getting you to buy a product now, advertising is about having you remember their product should you be interested in something similar in the future.
Look at VitaminWater for a case in point. The only reason anybody buys the stuff is because they've seen the ads.
I thought you had to sue someone to become rich from copying their idea?
Or do you have venture capitalists lining up to finance your plan. If so could you spare one or two?