"They are paying the money for the services that tax money would go to"
No, they are paying for some of the services that the tax revenue would go to. Will Google be running, or paying the feds to run, a school system? The number one municipal expense, nation-wide, is local school systems. What is the primary source of funding for local school systems? Property taxes.
By allowing Google to not pay property taxes, the residents of Santa Clara will be taxed higher, proportionately, in order to pay for the school system.
Look at McCarthyism, for example. That was a situation where politicians did the wrong thing, knowingly in many cases, because they were afraid that McCarthy would raise public outrage and keep them from being re-elected.
Who is to blame? McCarthy, who used all the tools at his disposal to put into action what he believed?
The politicians, who did not stand up to him for fear of having their careers destroyed?
The people, who allowed McCarthy to stroke their fears of communism into a frenzy?
Ultimately, it is the people who are responsible. We allow government to function because we have a need for government. If that government 'acts badly' then we are responsible for its actions, since the government is just an extension of us -- whether or not we feel that the government represents our personal values.
"I really have no idea why people keep holding to this idea. The "super mega ultra rich" are by no means the powerhouse they once were. Today's society instead revolves around the needs of the middle class. If the middle class will be unable to afford it in the near future, the "super mega ultra rich" aren't going to be able to afford it (or even have it available) now.
"
I think your view of middle-class is skewed. Let's add some more comparisons (and change some slightly):
Expensive Sports Car -> Affordable Sports Car -> Used sedan
$3000 Cell Phone -> $100-$500 Cell Phone ->
Jet Plane -> Cessna -> Model Airplane
Mansion -> Spacious Home -> 2-bedroom 800 sqft condo
Ming Vase -> A Vase that you can use -> OK, this one works fine.
The middle class can no longer afford a spacious home; hell, according to the US government I'm upper class and I can barely afford a 2-BR condo with a 100-minute commute (not even in California, either).
The "middle class" you refer to is the upper class, and in no way encompasses anything close to the middle third of the population, which is what I'd consider to be "middle class."
Did you read my post? IF the recording industry wants to maximize their profits, they will price according to a demand curve -- which would mean that low-demand music would be cheaper.
" Nintendo is trying to achieve 75% online penetration of the DS and Revolution market, and they're making good strides."
Um, you mean 75% penetration of the DS & Revolution user base. The DS & Revolution markets are everyone that plays video games on a hand-held or a console... If Nintendo were to achieve 75% of that market, I'd be a little surprised.
"This just another attempt of theirs to eschew their customers and get a bigger slice of the pie. Methinks their egos have grown too big for their britches."
They don't just want a bigger slice of the pie... they also want the pie to be bigger.
I say, let them set the prices at iTunes... let them figure out the price point to maximize profits for each song. All the less popular, but good, music will be cheaper than $0.99. They still need to compete against the black market, which will swallow a ton of profits unless they keep prices down.
Don't get your panties all in a bunch. I'm not saying that it's unpossible for someone to point a server at a non-DNS root server.
I am saying simply that this is a government issue, because the government is involved with it. OP said it is not a government issue, I was simply pointing out that it is one. Although you are correct, it is only a government issue because we agree to let it be one.
I'm well aware of that, but society still considers it taboo for children to view pornography.
"Most of them do not suffer harm or damage from this."
This, however, is conjecture, and could be due to the limits of how much they see. If allowed unlimited access, would this still be true? What about the affects on body image for the kids?
A problem is that 'harm' is hard to define; it is often considered by the anti-porn people to be any negative affect, such as limiting the person's ability to be well-adjusted in a "normal" society. The logic isn't always there, since "normal" is arbitrarily defined, but that's the crux of the issue as I see it.
"IT is ultimately those who provide the infrastructure who will decide what needs to be organized and by whom. This isn't a government issue.. it's an ISP issue."
Except, of course, that the government currently has its finger in the pie. The US Dept of Commerce authorizes or denies changes to the DNS proposed by ICANN.
It's the same as mail order, or telephone orders. The state where the goods are delivered gets the tax.
Did you know that if you purchase an item from a catalogue and are not assessed sales tax (because the seller is in a different state), you are supposed to file and pay the sales tax in your state?
My point was that any intelligent reader would be able to ignore that sentence, since it has nothing to do with what the studies claim, but is rather the idiotic interpretation of the article writer.
Every "insightful" post at the time I wrote the comment was harping on the correlation != causation issue, which is of course important, but discussion of the studies themselves was not apparent.
FTA: "Programmers have built their business models on a freedom from responsibility which would be considered wholly unacceptable in almost any other sphere of activity, public or private. [1]
We all pay the cost in wasted time, lost files, hacked systems and reduced productivity [2]. Our children spend time in lessons waiting for interactive whiteboards to be repaired [3] while businesses around the world suffer from crashes and security breaches. [4]
"
Hey, you know what, Bill? You don't like the fact that you accept the responsibility and risk when you use the software? Then don't use it.
I bank online, not because I need to, but because it is convenient. I accept that there is a slight risk involved. If I only banked brick-and-mortar, and my banking information was hacked, who is liable? The bank, because they CHOSE to use software that is insecure, KNOWING that it is potentially insecure, is who I hold liable.
I enjoy using the internet. Do I need to use it? No. But because I want to use it, I accept that there is risk, and do my best to protect myself.
[1] Not so. How many stunt shows always start with a disclaimer that no one should try the stunt at home? Fore-warned is fore-armed.
[2] We all also reap the rewards of the software. Do our kids ride bikes, Bill? When they fall and scrape their hands, do we send the medical bill to the bike distributor, manufacturer, or retailer? We accept a certain level of risk. If the bike design is faulty, that is a different issue -- but then again, we never signed a usage agreement that disclosed that there might be problems.
[3] Why doesn't that classroom have a dry-erase board or a chalkboard? Why is the teacher incapable of instruction without it?
[4] Businesses would suffer more if there were no innovation in software due to possible lawsuits. Businesses would be better off putting systems in place to prevent hackjobs, to make sensitive information secure even if their system is compromised, to prevent extreme loss of business due to system downtime.
I think it is ridiculous for every tomdickandharry to want someone else to be responsible for the risk that they voluntarily took on.
Software is not a necessity. It is a tool that we use to help us do things more efficiently. The tradeoff for that efficiency is risk.
"Personally, I would put cell phones in the CD category - Legitimate posession of the physical device should (but all to often doesn't) count as an implied, irrevokeably license to use the copyrighted content contained therein, including the right to change that content at will. If a company doesn't want customers to use feature-X of their product, they need to leave feature-X out rather than just disabling it in software."
What if you sign an EULA as part of your purchase agreement that states you are not allowed to enable feature-X at any time? This would be separate from the service contract, which expires after a certain date.
TFA:" The effect of the piracy, however, does not stop at just music or movies, suggests a study from another polling firm."
This is the only sentence in the article that implies a cause/effect relationship.
Despite tons of people on/. apparently misreading TFA and info from the studies, nowhere other than there does it suggest that piracy causes people to shoplift and/or cheat.
Yes, the studies were sponsored by the CRIA. But that does not necessarily make them invalid.
Furthermore, I am not surprised at all by the results of the studies. Tons of people will shoplift, cheat, or pirate IP if the risk of, and punishment for, getting caught is low enough.
"When every object we posess contains some amount of copyrighted material, will companies successfully argue that we don't actually "own" anything? "
The solution I see would be to mandate that any copyrighted part of a non-copyrighted object be made removable. If I don't use the copyrighted part, then no problem, correct?
One of the reasons the Titanic was supposed to be unsinkable is that the hull was designed in partitions that extended the entire depth of the ship.
However, in order to cut costs and finish construction on time, the design was changed so that the partition dividers were not built all the way to the top, but stopped just a few feet above the waterline.
I think Windows Vistanic has had some design changes over the past couple years... But who is the iceberg?
"'What about power? I seem to recall that one of the problems with magnetic microprocessors is that when you shut off the power, you lose your data...
Not mentioned in TFA. '
What the heck? What happens then when you power down a conventional microprocessor? The whole point of magnetic is that you DON'T lose data (look up Core Memory)."
Damn... I knew I should have had my coffee before even thinking about posting...
Most PHBs are never going to go for switching to StarOffice. There is a definite advantage from the business perspective of a single-source vendor for office software. For one thing, interoperability between different software functions at a company. For another, better forecasting of costs.
Sure, StarOffice may be cheaper in the long run... but I don't know how much it will cost me to change over. I know that I'll be under or at budget with MSOffice. The risk of going over budget (for many in management) precludes switching to another *Office package. It's not about total cost in many companies, except at the very top -- managers don't want to stick their neck out.
What about power? I seem to recall that one of the problems with magnetic microprocessors is that when you shut off the power, you lose your data...
Not mentioned in TFA.
On the plus side, no heat generation = no fans = much less noise.
But, we know this research is cutting edge and inherently valuable, because: "This use of magnetism, rather than that of electricity has potential of being exploited further.The team is working in the rapidly growing field of nanotechnology, harnessing the magnetic properties of electrons, rather than their electrical charge on which conventional electronics is based. Nanotechnology involves working with materials at an extremely microscopic level. A nanometre is one thousand millionth of a metre - about the width of five atoms.This harnessing the capability of magnetic properties of electrons[1] could mean a sea-change in the field of electronics. "
It's Nanotech!!!111
It deserves more venture capital funding! Here's some contact info for the research group so you too can invest your savings!
I was just responding to the OP, who misunderstood the law ex parte Grokster.
Hopefully, the SCOTUS will realize that the current interpretation of the law has this effect, and will review their stance in the next few years when someone appeals; or, less likely, the legislature changes the law to prevent this situation.
I thought about it. The original Cochran quote was, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." The quote has been changed, even in Conchran's memoirs, to "If the glove doesn't..."
I shortened "doesn't" to "don't" because "don't" is better for comedic flow, and because I wanted to drop a syllable to make up for the extra syllable in "transmit."
"Ask them [members of the younger generation] HOW the things work, and they have no idea. They are really riding on the backs of the 'old folks' like us that built the goodies they enjoy.""
1. Invent useful, "it just works" tech using specialized knowledge.
2. Get useful, "it just works" tech adopted by tons of people who lack the specialized knowledge.
3. Profit.
4. Complain that the users to whom you marketed the useful "it just works" tech don't know how it works.
5. ???
6. ???
7. ???
8. What was I talking about, sonny?
Slashdot Mirror
"They are paying the money for the services that tax money would go to"
No, they are paying for some of the services that the tax revenue would go to. Will Google be running, or paying the feds to run, a school system? The number one municipal expense, nation-wide, is local school systems. What is the primary source of funding for local school systems? Property taxes.
By allowing Google to not pay property taxes, the residents of Santa Clara will be taxed higher, proportionately, in order to pay for the school system.
Look at McCarthyism, for example. That was a situation where politicians did the wrong thing, knowingly in many cases, because they were afraid that McCarthy would raise public outrage and keep them from being re-elected.
Who is to blame? McCarthy, who used all the tools at his disposal to put into action what he believed?
The politicians, who did not stand up to him for fear of having their careers destroyed?
The people, who allowed McCarthy to stroke their fears of communism into a frenzy?
Ultimately, it is the people who are responsible. We allow government to function because we have a need for government. If that government 'acts badly' then we are responsible for its actions, since the government is just an extension of us -- whether or not we feel that the government represents our personal values.
"a stand-alone device that allows users a striped down laptop/inflated PDA (without a screen included!) for internet surfing. "
Striped down? Sounds fashionable, soft, and warm.
Inflated? Sounds like my 'date' last night.
I see a bright future for this product, do they ship in discreet brown paper packaging?
"I really have no idea why people keep holding to this idea. The "super mega ultra rich" are by no means the powerhouse they once were. Today's society instead revolves around the needs of the middle class. If the middle class will be unable to afford it in the near future, the "super mega ultra rich" aren't going to be able to afford it (or even have it available) now. "
I think your view of middle-class is skewed. Let's add some more comparisons (and change some slightly):
Expensive Sports Car -> Affordable Sports Car -> Used sedan
$3000 Cell Phone -> $100-$500 Cell Phone -> Jet Plane -> Cessna -> Model Airplane
Mansion -> Spacious Home -> 2-bedroom 800 sqft condo
Ming Vase -> A Vase that you can use -> OK, this one works fine.
The middle class can no longer afford a spacious home; hell, according to the US government I'm upper class and I can barely afford a 2-BR condo with a 100-minute commute (not even in California, either).
The "middle class" you refer to is the upper class, and in no way encompasses anything close to the middle third of the population, which is what I'd consider to be "middle class."
Did you read my post? IF the recording industry wants to maximize their profits, they will price according to a demand curve -- which would mean that low-demand music would be cheaper.
Is our children listening (to their iPods)?
" I read that as 'MS Expects Half of All 360 Owners To Live'
That's one harsh console."
Actually, that's a pretty sweet console. If MS only expects half of 360 owners to die... half of 360 owners become immortal?
I'll buy two 360 bundles to get a 75% chance!
" Nintendo is trying to achieve 75% online penetration of the DS and Revolution market, and they're making good strides."
Um, you mean 75% penetration of the DS & Revolution user base. The DS & Revolution markets are everyone that plays video games on a hand-held or a console... If Nintendo were to achieve 75% of that market, I'd be a little surprised.
"This just another attempt of theirs to eschew their customers and get a bigger slice of the pie. Methinks their egos have grown too big for their britches."
They don't just want a bigger slice of the pie... they also want the pie to be bigger.
I say, let them set the prices at iTunes... let them figure out the price point to maximize profits for each song. All the less popular, but good, music will be cheaper than $0.99. They still need to compete against the black market, which will swallow a ton of profits unless they keep prices down.
By authorizing/denying changes proposed by ICANN.
Don't get your panties all in a bunch. I'm not saying that it's unpossible for someone to point a server at a non-DNS root server.
I am saying simply that this is a government issue, because the government is involved with it. OP said it is not a government issue, I was simply pointing out that it is one. Although you are correct, it is only a government issue because we agree to let it be one.
I'm well aware of that, but society still considers it taboo for children to view pornography.
"Most of them do not suffer harm or damage from this."
This, however, is conjecture, and could be due to the limits of how much they see. If allowed unlimited access, would this still be true? What about the affects on body image for the kids?
A problem is that 'harm' is hard to define; it is often considered by the anti-porn people to be any negative affect, such as limiting the person's ability to be well-adjusted in a "normal" society. The logic isn't always there, since "normal" is arbitrarily defined, but that's the crux of the issue as I see it.
"IT is ultimately those who provide the infrastructure who will decide what needs to be organized and by whom. This isn't a government issue.. it's an ISP issue."
Except, of course, that the government currently has its finger in the pie. The US Dept of Commerce authorizes or denies changes to the DNS proposed by ICANN.
US Dept of Commerce announced in July that it would not relinquish this control:
http://www.circleid.com/article/1130_0_1_0_C/
Like any major infrastructure in the US, the government will always ensure that it has the final authority on what is and isn't allowed.
The problem, in this case, is that US Government control affects the infrastructure for other countries as well.
It's the same as mail order, or telephone orders. The state where the goods are delivered gets the tax.
Did you know that if you purchase an item from a catalogue and are not assessed sales tax (because the seller is in a different state), you are supposed to file and pay the sales tax in your state?
My point was that any intelligent reader would be able to ignore that sentence, since it has nothing to do with what the studies claim, but is rather the idiotic interpretation of the article writer.
Every "insightful" post at the time I wrote the comment was harping on the correlation != causation issue, which is of course important, but discussion of the studies themselves was not apparent.
FTA: "Programmers have built their business models on a freedom from responsibility which would be considered wholly unacceptable in almost any other sphere of activity, public or private. [1]
We all pay the cost in wasted time, lost files, hacked systems and reduced productivity [2]. Our children spend time in lessons waiting for interactive whiteboards to be repaired [3] while businesses around the world suffer from crashes and security breaches. [4] "
Hey, you know what, Bill? You don't like the fact that you accept the responsibility and risk when you use the software? Then don't use it.
I bank online, not because I need to, but because it is convenient. I accept that there is a slight risk involved. If I only banked brick-and-mortar, and my banking information was hacked, who is liable? The bank, because they CHOSE to use software that is insecure, KNOWING that it is potentially insecure, is who I hold liable.
I enjoy using the internet. Do I need to use it? No. But because I want to use it, I accept that there is risk, and do my best to protect myself.
[1] Not so. How many stunt shows always start with a disclaimer that no one should try the stunt at home? Fore-warned is fore-armed.
[2] We all also reap the rewards of the software. Do our kids ride bikes, Bill? When they fall and scrape their hands, do we send the medical bill to the bike distributor, manufacturer, or retailer? We accept a certain level of risk. If the bike design is faulty, that is a different issue -- but then again, we never signed a usage agreement that disclosed that there might be problems.
[3] Why doesn't that classroom have a dry-erase board or a chalkboard? Why is the teacher incapable of instruction without it?
[4] Businesses would suffer more if there were no innovation in software due to possible lawsuits. Businesses would be better off putting systems in place to prevent hackjobs, to make sensitive information secure even if their system is compromised, to prevent extreme loss of business due to system downtime.
I think it is ridiculous for every tomdickandharry to want someone else to be responsible for the risk that they voluntarily took on.
Software is not a necessity. It is a tool that we use to help us do things more efficiently. The tradeoff for that efficiency is risk.
"Personally, I would put cell phones in the CD category - Legitimate posession of the physical device should (but all to often doesn't) count as an implied, irrevokeably license to use the copyrighted content contained therein, including the right to change that content at will. If a company doesn't want customers to use feature-X of their product, they need to leave feature-X out rather than just disabling it in software."
What if you sign an EULA as part of your purchase agreement that states you are not allowed to enable feature-X at any time? This would be separate from the service contract, which expires after a certain date.
TFA:" The effect of the piracy, however, does not stop at just music or movies, suggests a study from another polling firm."
/. apparently misreading TFA and info from the studies, nowhere other than there does it suggest that piracy causes people to shoplift and/or cheat.
This is the only sentence in the article that implies a cause/effect relationship.
Despite tons of people on
Yes, the studies were sponsored by the CRIA. But that does not necessarily make them invalid.
Furthermore, I am not surprised at all by the results of the studies. Tons of people will shoplift, cheat, or pirate IP if the risk of, and punishment for, getting caught is low enough.
"When every object we posess contains some amount of copyrighted material, will companies successfully argue that we don't actually "own" anything? "
The solution I see would be to mandate that any copyrighted part of a non-copyrighted object be made removable. If I don't use the copyrighted part, then no problem, correct?
This analogy is very apt.
One of the reasons the Titanic was supposed to be unsinkable is that the hull was designed in partitions that extended the entire depth of the ship.
However, in order to cut costs and finish construction on time, the design was changed so that the partition dividers were not built all the way to the top, but stopped just a few feet above the waterline.
I think Windows Vistanic has had some design changes over the past couple years... But who is the iceberg?
"'What about power? I seem to recall that one of the problems with magnetic microprocessors is that when you shut off the power, you lose your data...
Not mentioned in TFA. '
What the heck? What happens then when you power down a conventional microprocessor? The whole point of magnetic is that you DON'T lose data (look up Core Memory)."
Damn... I knew I should have had my coffee before even thinking about posting...
Most PHBs are never going to go for switching to StarOffice. There is a definite advantage from the business perspective of a single-source vendor for office software. For one thing, interoperability between different software functions at a company. For another, better forecasting of costs.
Sure, StarOffice may be cheaper in the long run... but I don't know how much it will cost me to change over. I know that I'll be under or at budget with MSOffice. The risk of going over budget (for many in management) precludes switching to another *Office package. It's not about total cost in many companies, except at the very top -- managers don't want to stick their neck out.
So, magnetic logic gates? Great.
.The team is working in the rapidly growing field of nanotechnology, harnessing the magnetic properties of electrons, rather than their electrical charge on which conventional electronics is based. Nanotechnology involves working with materials at an extremely microscopic level. A nanometre is one thousand millionth of a metre - about the width of five atoms.This harnessing the capability of magnetic properties of electrons[1] could mean a sea-change in the field of electronics. "
What about power? I seem to recall that one of the problems with magnetic microprocessors is that when you shut off the power, you lose your data...
Not mentioned in TFA.
On the plus side, no heat generation = no fans = much less noise.
But, we know this research is cutting edge and inherently valuable, because:
"This use of magnetism, rather than that of electricity has potential of being exploited further
It's Nanotech!!!111
It deserves more venture capital funding! Here's some contact info for the research group so you too can invest your savings!
Yes, and I agree.
I was just responding to the OP, who misunderstood the law ex parte Grokster.
Hopefully, the SCOTUS will realize that the current interpretation of the law has this effect, and will review their stance in the next few years when someone appeals; or, less likely, the legislature changes the law to prevent this situation.
I thought about it. The original Cochran quote was, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." The quote has been changed, even in Conchran's memoirs, to "If the glove doesn't..."
I shortened "doesn't" to "don't" because "don't" is better for comedic flow, and because I wanted to drop a syllable to make up for the extra syllable in "transmit."
"Ask them [members of the younger generation] HOW the things work, and they have no idea. They are really riding on the backs of the 'old folks' like us that built the goodies they enjoy.""
1. Invent useful, "it just works" tech using specialized knowledge.
2. Get useful, "it just works" tech adopted by tons of people who lack the specialized knowledge.
3. Profit.
4. Complain that the users to whom you marketed the useful "it just works" tech don't know how it works.
5. ???
6. ???
7. ???
8. What was I talking about, sonny?