Don't forget about porn, which accounts for something like 60% of all P2P traffic. By far, porn is the most pirated form of IP, yet does not seem to be in any danger of disappearing.
Yeah, Netscape burned me on my account, too. I did have a couple old things that I was a little pissed off about losing, but in the end, it taught a valuable lesson: Don't count on a third party to secure any data you might care about, and doubly so if you're not paying them any money.
I just recently tried Evolution on Debian, and my biggest gripe is that I set it up to use a regular POP/SMTP mailbox which I access with Thunderbird on other machines. It allows you to not delete the messages off the server after retrieval (so your other mail clients can retrieve all messages), but it doesn't have any mechanism to NOT keep downloading the same messages as duplicates every time you check for mail. That is very basic email functionality that is in every other email client (most of them free) I've used in the past 10 years, rendering it useless for my purposes.
Thunderbird is a bit bloated for a mail client, IMO, but it does do the job without issue.
I think the movie industry is really overstating their case here. A recent study claims that P2P downloads are 60% porn, 20% TV shows, and only 5% full-length movies.
So what are they so worried about? Consider the fact that porn is by far the most downloaded copyrighted content, and it's probably safe to assume that pirated porn represents a much, much larger percentage of porn consumed in comparison to "legitimate" movies, and thus their "losses" are far higher. Can anyone honestly claim that porn is dying from piracy?
Good point. Thinking about it, I'd say that scenario probably *is* the majority of the 22%.
But there are a lot more people using pirated Windows than just cheap/. geeks. Windows piracy is reportedly rampant among businesses in places like China, and I doubt many of those installations ever talk to WGA. I don't think the 22% is in any way an accurate picture of how much piracy there really is.
Yeah, but those same geeky pirates probably know enough to sidestep validation.
Excellent point. That was the first thing I thought of...of all the people who pirate Windows, how many ever subject themselves to WGA? I suspect it is a relative small fraction of them. And then there is the reciprocal question, of the 22% that report as non-genuine, how many are really valid installs that raise a false positive? If it's even 10%, that puts the false positive rate at around 2%, which would be unacceptably high in my opinion.
Imagine an idiot posts something he or she later regrets to the web. It's foreseable that some of them would wish to recall/revoke/delete what they posted to the Internet. Today there is no way to put the "genie" back in the bottle.
And guess what? There has *never* in human history been a way to retract an idiotic statement once it made in public, whether via speech, print, or electronic communication. This is not due to any law of man, but due to the laws of nature.
So what now makes it imperative to defy the laws of nature by attempting to control ideas?
It'd be like it was before technology, in the sense that the artist'd control all aspects of their fruits.
How did the "pre-technology" musician prevent anyone from copying their work? Mind control?
So basically, computers should stop getting faster so that you won't feel bad because you bought one?
Did I say that? Uh no.
Computers do not lose capability over time.
Did I say that they did? Uh no.
Did you offer any justification of your initial comment which describes "engineered obsolescence" as meaning that something is designed to *fail*, showing that you don't understand the difference between "obsolescence" and "failure?" Uh no.
Three strikes and you're out.
Look up "obsolescence" in the dictionary. It has nothing to do with failure, nor does it imply losing capability over time (other than through becoming outdated in comparison to newer better products).
How does one engineer a product to work properly through the warranty period, but magically fail when it's out of warranty? Certainly, some manufacturers use inexpensive parts when they think they can, and sometimes those parts fail, but it's hard to imagine that's an intended effect.
What you are describing is not "engineered obsolescence" but "engineered failure," and indeed is hard to imagine manufacturer's doing. Obsolescence != failure.
Engineered obsolescence means that the manufacturer's product roadmap is such that the product bought today is superceded by better products in a relatively short timeframe, enticing people to keep buying over and over again.
66 km^2 is about 2% of Rhode Island since it is about 3,144 km^2. But if you are trying to make it sound big, your measuring stick should definitely be _smaller_ than what your measuring.
A better "island" for comparison would be Manhattan, which is 51 km^2 (making the broken ice shelf around 25-30% larger than Manhattan Island). Not only is it a unit which is quite close to the area in question, it is also a place where many people actually might have a decent feel for how big that is.
Sy Borg, the model XQJ-37 Nuclear Powered Pan-Sexual Roto-Plooker, says you are oppresing eirs rights with that kind of anti-robot negative body image hate speech.
Re:"Two most powerful brands"?
on
The Google Phone?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
What surprises me is that no one had yet commented that there may soon be a valid comparison between Apples and Oranges.
I didn't say anyone was forcing me to do anything. I'm just trying to understand by what authority you are making the claim that the NT outflanks the OT. As far as I can tell, you are making it up.
Is there somewhere in "the word of God" that lays out this order of precedence? Or are we supposed to accept the word of a mortal human as to how to interpet "the word of God"?
However, I hear Christians say all the time that the Bible is "the word of God", and last time I checked, the Bible is comprised of both the Old and New Testaments. But I've never seen a Bible with a "God's word order of precedence" page, enabling one to tell with certainty which parts of God's word are or aren't to be taken literally.
By your interpretation, a Christian need not take the Ten Commandments literally, as they are in the OT.
Being that my post pretty explicitly avoids any argument as to Google being a monopoly (or not), I have no idea why you're replying to it. To sum my point, I don't think Google is a monopoly, nor do I think that, even if the allegations of TFA are true, are illegal. However, if in fact Google does game ad placement or (worse) search results in their favor, then they are *not* providing a level playing field and their customers should be duly concerned about that.
I don't care if they hold on to the top spot... I just care that the playing field remains level.
Actually, my only concern about this is, assuming these allegations are true, is whether Google *is* a level playing field.
In my view, Google AdWords is much the same as a stock market. Such a market needs to perceived as fair, level and transparent in order to have the confidence of those who will invest in that market. If the owners of the market are perceived to tilt that market to their own benefit, that will erode confidence in that market.
The other, and I'd say larger, concern is whether Google games the actual search results to their own advantage, since Google explicitly *does not* sell search result placement. That policy is a large part of the confidence people place in Google, that though they take bids on *ad* placement, search results are only supposed to reflect the results of their search algorhythms. If they are bending that policy to their exclusive benefit, then the market should rightly question its confidence in Google as a level playing field.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean this?
Don't forget about porn, which accounts for something like 60% of all P2P traffic. By far, porn is the most pirated form of IP, yet does not seem to be in any danger of disappearing.
And if Microsoft ported IIS to Solaris (cringe) you could have SIMP.
And if someone ported UltiDev Cassini Web Server to HP-UX, you could have HUMP.
Oh boy, this is fun!!
Even worse, that crap pops up even if you have Adblock on.
Despite that, I hope whoever invented Adblock is on the list. My vote for best technology of the "Web 2.0" era, by far.
Yeah, Netscape burned me on my account, too. I did have a couple old things that I was a little pissed off about losing, but in the end, it taught a valuable lesson: Don't count on a third party to secure any data you might care about, and doubly so if you're not paying them any money.
I just recently tried Evolution on Debian, and my biggest gripe is that I set it up to use a regular POP/SMTP mailbox which I access with Thunderbird on other machines. It allows you to not delete the messages off the server after retrieval (so your other mail clients can retrieve all messages), but it doesn't have any mechanism to NOT keep downloading the same messages as duplicates every time you check for mail. That is very basic email functionality that is in every other email client (most of them free) I've used in the past 10 years, rendering it useless for my purposes.
Thunderbird is a bit bloated for a mail client, IMO, but it does do the job without issue.
I'd say so, too...unless they are counting porn.
I think the movie industry is really overstating their case here. A recent study claims that P2P downloads are 60% porn, 20% TV shows, and only 5% full-length movies.
So what are they so worried about? Consider the fact that porn is by far the most downloaded copyrighted content, and it's probably safe to assume that pirated porn represents a much, much larger percentage of porn consumed in comparison to "legitimate" movies, and thus their "losses" are far higher. Can anyone honestly claim that porn is dying from piracy?
Good point. Thinking about it, I'd say that scenario probably *is* the majority of the 22%.
But there are a lot more people using pirated Windows than just cheap /. geeks. Windows piracy is reportedly rampant among businesses in places like China, and I doubt many of those installations ever talk to WGA. I don't think the 22% is in any way an accurate picture of how much piracy there really is.
BTW, great sig.
Excellent point. That was the first thing I thought of...of all the people who pirate Windows, how many ever subject themselves to WGA? I suspect it is a relative small fraction of them. And then there is the reciprocal question, of the 22% that report as non-genuine, how many are really valid installs that raise a false positive? If it's even 10%, that puts the false positive rate at around 2%, which would be unacceptably high in my opinion.
or being "the prettiest Denny's waitress." (apologies to Doug Stanhope)
And guess what? There has *never* in human history been a way to retract an idiotic statement once it made in public, whether via speech, print, or electronic communication. This is not due to any law of man, but due to the laws of nature.
So what now makes it imperative to defy the laws of nature by attempting to control ideas?
How did the "pre-technology" musician prevent anyone from copying their work? Mind control?
And if you apply that phenomenon to the obligitory car analogy, you get this.
Did I say that? Uh no.
Did I say that they did? Uh no.
Did you offer any justification of your initial comment which describes "engineered obsolescence" as meaning that something is designed to *fail*, showing that you don't understand the difference between "obsolescence" and "failure?" Uh no.
Three strikes and you're out.
Look up "obsolescence" in the dictionary. It has nothing to do with failure, nor does it imply losing capability over time (other than through becoming outdated in comparison to newer better products).
What you are describing is not "engineered obsolescence" but "engineered failure," and indeed is hard to imagine manufacturer's doing. Obsolescence != failure.
Engineered obsolescence means that the manufacturer's product roadmap is such that the product bought today is superceded by better products in a relatively short timeframe, enticing people to keep buying over and over again.
A better "island" for comparison would be Manhattan, which is 51 km^2 (making the broken ice shelf around 25-30% larger than Manhattan Island). Not only is it a unit which is quite close to the area in question, it is also a place where many people actually might have a decent feel for how big that is.
Sy Borg, the model XQJ-37 Nuclear Powered Pan-Sexual Roto-Plooker, says you are oppresing eirs rights with that kind of anti-robot negative body image hate speech.
What surprises me is that no one had yet commented that there may soon be a valid comparison between Apples and Oranges.
If you want obscure, my calculations say that the limit comes out to about one third of a firkin of ale per fortnight.
Cheers!
Sure, the iPod may be more popular, but the brown Zune is more poopular.
I didn't say anyone was forcing me to do anything. I'm just trying to understand by what authority you are making the claim that the NT outflanks the OT. As far as I can tell, you are making it up.
Is there somewhere in "the word of God" that lays out this order of precedence? Or are we supposed to accept the word of a mortal human as to how to interpet "the word of God"?
However, I hear Christians say all the time that the Bible is "the word of God", and last time I checked, the Bible is comprised of both the Old and New Testaments. But I've never seen a Bible with a "God's word order of precedence" page, enabling one to tell with certainty which parts of God's word are or aren't to be taken literally.
By your interpretation, a Christian need not take the Ten Commandments literally, as they are in the OT.
And the case cited above used nitroglycerin as an explosive, also known as glyceryl trinitrate. Hence the statement why it would be easily detected.
Being that my post pretty explicitly avoids any argument as to Google being a monopoly (or not), I have no idea why you're replying to it. To sum my point, I don't think Google is a monopoly, nor do I think that, even if the allegations of TFA are true, are illegal. However, if in fact Google does game ad placement or (worse) search results in their favor, then they are *not* providing a level playing field and their customers should be duly concerned about that.
Actually, my only concern about this is, assuming these allegations are true, is whether Google *is* a level playing field.
In my view, Google AdWords is much the same as a stock market. Such a market needs to perceived as fair, level and transparent in order to have the confidence of those who will invest in that market. If the owners of the market are perceived to tilt that market to their own benefit, that will erode confidence in that market.
The other, and I'd say larger, concern is whether Google games the actual search results to their own advantage, since Google explicitly *does not* sell search result placement. That policy is a large part of the confidence people place in Google, that though they take bids on *ad* placement, search results are only supposed to reflect the results of their search algorhythms. If they are bending that policy to their exclusive benefit, then the market should rightly question its confidence in Google as a level playing field.