Your post was very trollish, and I was pointing out why.
"As an adult, then it is completely legal for me to view porn of two other adults. The only laws that come into play are access issues when it comes to children viewing such porn. There is no debate here, although you are attempting to create one. "
Not true. In many places it is illegal to so in public places, due to public decency laws -- which is a restriction. You also cannot view snuff films, which are often considered porn.
"Interesting because I did not, you did."
You ascribed fascist values, then related it to an Islamic state -- though you did substitute that with Christian. Don't pussyfoot around and said you didn't.
"The fact is these people are Christians, regardless of your attempts to label them otherwise. The believe in the same Jesus as other Christians. However, their attempts at moralizing are not limited to their own actions. They want everyone else around them to believe the same things that they do. This is no different from less aggressive Christian sects sending missionaries to third world countries attempting to "save the heathens". Their targets are just a little closer to home."
My point is that we should not allow them to justify their non-Christian actions by putting them under the umbrella of "Christian values." While they may be Christians, the "family values" movement is not a Christian movement, except by thir labels.
"Excuse me?! It has never been proven scientifically that porn does any damage, so how is it thus "violating scientific principle" for me to say so? If you have proof that it causes damage, then show your proof. You are the one making that claim, so back it up."
You did not say "it has never been proven that it causes harm." You said that it is harmless. It has never been proven that it does NOT cause damage, though it has been theorized that it does -- and some studies have supported it. You started with making a claim that cannot be supported -- lack of proof against does not prove your point. If that's all you need to claim something as true, maybe you should support ID.
"The government should not be in the business of regulating, monitoring, or prosecuting something that causes no harm to society. This is particularly true if the alleged harm is merely the result of religious distaste. "
Again, you claim it is harmless without any proof whatsoever. The alleged harm is not only the result of religious distaste -- consider the numerous examples of life imitating art. Can this not be extended to pornography? How about some deviant porn, like rape fantasy?
"Interesting that you attempt to equate porn with assault and murder. The difference would be that there is no victim when porn is created or viewed. In this case, no, the government has no right attempting to criminalize porn."
Interesting that you totally misread my entire post -- my point is exactly what you are saying -- it is NOT the government's responsibility to regulate something that is not part of the common law that is the foundation of our legal system. The contrast between porn and assault, etc was exactly what I was pointing out.
You assumed that I disagreed with you -- I do not. But your message was insensitve, not thought out, and not defensible.
I happen to agree with you, but your logic in backing up your opinion is way off.
First, you need to state your assumptions, which are many. A lot of your assumptions are the opinions that drive the debate over porn. Second, some of your logical jumps don't quite make sense.
"Okay, how about this: Porn is a harmless[1] outlet for naturally-occurring urges (the urge to mate with subjectively attractive mates) that are incompatible with modern society[2] and with others' freedom not to be raped by horny males[3]"
[1] You can't use the conclusion of your argument as a basis for your argument; this is circular reasoning.
[2] The urge to mate is not incompatible with modern society.
[3] You jump to the conclusion that denying access to porn will increase the frequency of rapes. This may make sense to you, but almost any psychologist will agree that rapes are not typically about sexual release, but about power and establishing dominance. Furthermore, you assume that porn is necessary to help people get their sexual release. Finally, it is quite likely that viewing porn of this nature will stimulate the desire to enact the situation in real life.
"Since you haven't demonstrated that porn created [1] with consenting actors is in fact harmful in any way [2], the benefit as a discharge of sexual energy[3] should automatically tilt the debate in porn's favor[3]."
[1] The debate is not about creation of the porn so much as the viewing of the porn.
[2] There have been demonstrations of the harm -- the problem is that further study is needed. Also, saying that the counter-argument to your stance hasn't been proven does not mean that your stance is correct. As an example, the ID proponents are not correct just because abiogenesis hasn't been demonstrated.
[3] You assume that sexual discharge is beneficial. Some people disagree -- they believe that sexual discharge for purposes other than procreation is harmful. Some medical studies have shownthat life expectancy is longer and incidence of non-STD related illnesses are lower among those who have more frequent sexual release, but this correlation has not been shown to be causative. For example, people who have housepets show much of the same benefits, and I highly doubt it is due to sexual release.
"There are also many people who have deviant sexualities that they may not be able to find a consenting partner for. Aside from mandating that anyone with a deviant sexuality self-castrate[1], how exactly should they relieve those urges?[2] Again, since porn as defined above is not harmful in and of itself[3], there is no reason to deny a potential outlet to these sort of folks that may very well help them[4] keep their urges in check[5] with respect to other citizens."
[1] Nice straw man.
[2] There are plenty of ways to seek out partners for deviant sexual behavior while not publishing porn. It is easier than ever to find a partner, and doing so is not against the law in most places.
[3] Just because it is assumed or stated does not make it true.
[4] It may also very well harm them, depending on your point of view -- perhaps it will encourage them to continue their deviant thoughts, which some people consider harmful?
[5] Alternatively, it could encourage them to seek out these experiences in real life.
"Of course, this is not to mention that porn (and the resultant wanking) is a form of expression, the prohibition of which would be both absurdly authoritation and impossible to enforce."
We prohibit certain forms of expression all the time, the question is where to draw the line. I am prohibited from inciting a riot, for example.
"No, you may not like porn[1] and wish that people didn't need it to control themselves or whatever[2], but from a sociological perspective, we are a better society for having ethically produced porn available[3]."
[1] On the contrary, I like it very much.
[2] You are assuming that people use
"Exactly right. To do business in China you must abide by their rules. Pretty much the same thing here in America. I assume that Yahoo holds a corporate charter (or some such statement that says they can do business within the nation of P.R.C.) and said charter binds them to operate within the laws of the land and says that they are more of a "peoples" company than anything else. Really, American corporate charters phrase the legal paperwork as the corporation doing a service for the people of their state (and beyond) and grants them the right to incorporate"
Except that a lot of the multi-national coporations wield sufficient clout to get governments to change their laws. This is the laughable truth in the US, since politicians are dependent upon corporations to get elected.
From the parent of your post: "Moreso, we cannot really fault companies who give in to China's demands. Companies operating within China's shores, or otherwise targetting the Chinese people will have to submit to Chinese law. If Yahoo or MSN did otherwise, then it is their company that would be in violation of the law."
But we can fault the people who have the power to affect the actions of Yahoo or MSN, who chose profits over ideals. These people are the customers of those companies, the shareholders in those companies, and the decision-makers in those companies.
We, as conscientious members of society, cannot apologize for corporate actions by just saying, "Well, profit is their only motive, so it's OK." We don't do that for polluters (even US companies who pollute outside the US), we don't do that for companies that utilize underage labor in miserable conditions, we don't do that for companies that perpetuate other human rights violations -- even if the governments of the countries where it is being done allow it.
You can draw a distinction between the company itself choosing to "do the deed," and the company being forced to as terms of doing business within a country. And yes, this distinction is important -- but it does not exonerate company X, who are providing the tools of enforcement to China.
Finally, I think it is naive to assume that eventually American companies will affect change from within China, because some of China's laws will hurt their profits. Chinese government bannination of those companies will hurt their profits even more. There is something to be said for cultural rub-off, but China's measures against free speech severely limit that rub-off.
Not taking action to affect positive change, when it is within your power, just because you think eventually the change will happen anyway? Isn't this the kind of apathy that has led the US into a lot of the problems we face today?
"Nevermind that porn with two consenting adults is completely legal and does absolutely no harm to society. It's just another step towards turning America into a Islamic... -oops!- Christian Republic."
First, porn with two consenting adults is not completely legal -- after all, there are some laws against it, or restricting it, no? Whether or not it should be legal does not mean that it is legal.
Second, do not equate an Islamic $GOVERNMENT with a fascist government -- the two are not the same. Just because a lot of Islamic government are fascist does not mean that all are, nor does it mean that it would not be possible to have an open, Freedom-loving(R) Islamic government. Statements like yours do a lot to fuel the hatred of Islam that is undeserved and unhealthy. "Fundamentalist Islamic" would be much better.
Third, do not grant the agressive moralists the title of "Christians," since that is not what their actions are, despite what they say.
Fourth, do not assume that pornography does no harm to society. To say so would violate scientific principle (since it has not been established as the best competing theory). Just because there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary does not mean it is true -- especially since there is no conslusive evidence that it is so. Also, you are stating as fact what is really an opinion. Porn does have effects on society -- but it is opinion that determines whether that effect is harmful or not. This is a moral judgment.
The real question is not whether porn is harmful to society, but whether government should or should not be regulating it, monitoring it, or prosecuting it.
Is it the government's right or responsibility to criminalize issues of a moral nature, that are not part of the common law (murder, assault, deprivation of property, etc)?
"We have legitimate crime issues. Murder, theft, terrorism (at some level), and pornography is our new focus. Wonderful."
Yes, but there are elections coming up. The current administration can't let Hillary get all the press for thinking of the children, can they?
This isn't a troll, I'm just postulating that the War on Obscenity is escalating...
Our government doesn't exist to benefit the people; it exists to perpetuate itself. What matters to most politicians, at the end of the day, is whether they, and/or their friends, get elected. It doesn't matter if the people are benefited, it only matters that they think they have.
" They have a pretty weird definition of science fiction"
The media industry, in deciding what genre a show is, can't slice the pie too fine, or the definitions become useless. They are more likely to define the genres according to audience, since that's what advertisers want to see. So, no Horror-fantasy, Horror, High Fantasy, or Historical Fantasy genre labels for us.
Given that the media industry has so much influence on public perception of things, is it surprising that people slowly change how they label things to fit the media labels?
"There is some ambiguity as to what exactly "science fiction" covers in terms of television. In recent years, the term has come to cover any programme that deals in the fantastical or even merely the horrific, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed or Angel. More accurately these programmes are not science fiction as they don't involve any real scientific element, and are perhaps more comfortably covered under the generic term "telefantasy"."
"You miss the point. When there is not free market competition (reminder: the major record labels have been found guilty of collusion more than once), the price is set by the producers. They look at the prices consumers are willing to pay and restrict supply to the level of sales which will maximise their profits."
First, we have laws against collusion, which IMO can and should be enforced should they try this -- as has happened in the past. Second, restricting supply is not so easy when the method of distribution is electronic file transmission. Third, should they decide to restrict supply of all music, and succeed at it, another company will come into existence to undercut them. If you can't get the latest White Stripes single, so what? There is other music you could get cheaper, or for free.
"Competition is a wonderful thing. Without it, the market can be a distorted place."
I never disputed this, and it's meaningless to add it to the discussion, even if it looks pretty at the end of your post.
I think you are missing my point -- there is competition, between artists, and between labels. Assuming we can prevent collaboration, free market economics would still apply within the context of music availability.
It seems to me that you're upset that you can only buy a specific song from a specific company. Without getting into the debate of whether IP is valid, how is this different from any other product?
" If you don't like it, don't use them. You do have a choice, you know."
Sure, we have that choice... for now. But what happens when all available choices are doing the same thing? The only reason a large company would not submit to China's demands is if doing so would make them lose more business elsewhere. The size of the Chinese market and the relative indifference of consumers preclude this.
Assuming that Chinese policy is wrong, wouldn't it be best for China to change their policy? As more and more companies give in to China's demands, their restrictions on free speech on the internet are becoming a foregone conclusion. Simply not using Yahoo isn't going to change Yahoo's policy, nor China's.
If you want change in China, be proactive. Don't just not use Yahoo -- pass the word to people who are unaware. Let Yahoo know how much business they are losing. Investigate who else bends to the Chinese government, boycott and spread the word.
You may feel like you're doing something by not using Yahoo, and you are. But it's not enough. Have you forwarded the article to your non-Slashdot reading friends who might be concerned about speech limitations in China, asking them to boycott Yahoo?
Have you contacted your legislators about this, to make them aware that you are concerned? Whether or not government can or will do anything about it, public officials need to know.
You should also contact your state legislators -- I could see Massachusetts (for example) disallowing Yahoo use in government offices if enough residents do so.
Have you written a letter to Yahoo demanding change, explaining why you are boycotting them and organizing others to do so?
"Sometimes, I wonder if market economy can success in a totalitarian country. It would be a huge blow in face of economist's theories if this is the case."
(1) Communism != totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a method of administering government, not economy. Here's a question for you: is it possible to have a communist economy with a democratic government?
(2) China does not have a purely communist economy; many reforms have occurred to foster (somewhat) free markets.
By accepted definition, capitalism cannot exist within communism -- they are two faces of a coin. Perhaps the subject of your post should have been, "Can capitalism exist under a totalitarian government?"
Or perhaps, "Can capitalism and communism co-exist in one political system?"
"'Can you bring the table downstairs?' (The asking party is to stay upstairs.)
To me, the grammar is still wanting here and wrong; the party should have said, 'Can you take the table downstairs?'"
The grammar is the same in both cases. The difference is the vocabulary used. "to bring" has replaced "to take." Your discomfort with their usage helps affirm what the researchers are doing -- multiple people from the same population subset use vocabulary differently.
Imagine if the asking party had said "Downstairs, the table can you bring?"
Other than on Dagobah, this syntax (part of grammar) would be unacceptable to most English speakers. However, in an isolated population, this could conceivably become common usage -- which is why the researchers are using grammar to study the Papuan language family.
"Let the market decide? Oh give me a freaking break. There is no market, not in the free market economics sense of the word anyway."
Restricted supply of a single branded product != no market.
If the music industry wants market economics to apply (which I believe is a good thing, if done properly), they need to stop negotiating as a single entity. Let all the record companies out there negotiate their own deals with Apple. Would it be a PITA? Of course, but since iTMS has such a large market share, well, they could set the terms, if not the rates.
"Rather than supply and demand setting the price of the music, V2 can simply mandate it and then it will be so. The market becomes distorted and everybody loses except the labels."
Not so -- if the labels set the price too high, then they lose out because sales are low.
"The consumer only has one choice: buy it, or don't buy it."
Or, you could buy someone else's music -- that's where there IS competition.
Plus, enough people not buying a song sends a very strong message to the label, be it V2 or anyone else. You can be sure they would drop prices after a while to capture people who aren't willing to pay the high price.
My concern with your argument in general is that you view the product as one song -- e.g., the new single from The White Stripes. The product is music singles, and that single is in competition with every other single on the market. It's like toasters -- only DeLonghi supplies the model that's in my kitchen, but I compared to many other toasters on the market before I purchased it. Was I pissed that only DeLonghi makes the exact model I bought? No. Was I pissed that every store had the same price on the model I bought? No. I chose my toaster because it offered the feature set, quality,and price that I wanted.
All that is required for market economics to apply is for the labels to be able to set the prices on their songs. You can bet your bottom dollar that the prices will be set at a level to maximize profits (including promotional sales, and the competition from the black market), which means that some songs will be cheaper than $0.99 in order to generate sales. I'd also be willing to bet that if you waited three months to buy that White Stripes single, the price would be lower.
The only problem is if the market, for some reason, has the mindset that $0.99 is a resonable minimum.
The music industry is way off base -- iTMS is a distribution channel for music.
As such, Apple deserves to get a cut of the revenue; after all, they are doing the work of selling it.
If the music industry were to act as a distribution channel for iPods, maybe they could claim a right to some of the revenue.
Regarding the market setting the price for songs -- I totally agree, with one caveat: There must be a minimum amount the artist gets per download.
If the market sets the price, I'll bet we see less popular songs drop into the $0.25 range, or cheaper. And I'll bet that the market will explore the artists that cost less.
Not hard to do
on
Name That Worm
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Why don't we just use the Linnean system?
I'm all about latin names for malware -- for one thing, malware creators won't feel so cool when their piece of code gets designated "Caenorhabditis Crapiticus" of the phylum Nematoda.
"Moore commented the new device would 'bring people in that, as Iwata-san said, are either lapsed gamers or gamers that are intimidated by the complexity of the controller."
Wow, they make it seem like not gaming is an addiction or something... is a lapsed gamer like the opposite of a lapsed alcoholic?
"I'm pretty sure the value of the defence contract for Lucent isn't any kind of secret..."
That's funny.
For one thing, they haven't specified the department. Second, there is tons of gray money in the US budget that just kinda "disappears" in the name of national security.
"...so the courts should award a *fair* share of that ammount to the plaintiff if it is found that Lucent infringed their IP."
Unfortunately, without the full details of the contract (and possibly even with), we have no way of knowing what share of the contract payments are for the IP in question. Figuring out what portion of that portion should belong to the inventors is just as hard.
This is ridiculous. What information is relevant to the patent, and possible patent litigation, that the inventors do not already have access to?
How much the government is paying Lucent? What the end use of the technology is?
The US Government should either allow the lawsuit to proceed, in a closed setting, with NDAs all around (provided security checks pan out), or pay the inventors.
Is the not the purpose of the patent to allow dissemination of knowledge while protecting revenue sources for the inventor?
If the knowledge is not being disseminated, Lucent should not be protected by a patent.
"What kind of warrenty do you have that you have to pay for your repairs? Generally speaking, when a repair is costing you cash warrenty isn't an issue any longer.""
Routine maintenance isn't covered under a lot of warranties. Some warranties don't cover non-drive train repairs after a certain period.
"That's a very valid point, sometimes the "do it yourself" attitude costs more than it was worth if you're not honest to yourself about your abilities."
Or, if there are barriers such as equipment (I don't have a lift or all the right tools, for example). A lot of the time, the infrequency of repairs means that it's not worth investing in the tools -- although, if it's a hobby, that's a different matter.
My time is more valuable to me than that. I'm not going to spend an entire weekend day just to save a couple hundred bucks, especially when doing so will violate my warranty.
I pay someone to repair a machine because I value their expertise and experience dealing with things that are over my head. If it's brake pads or something else easy, I do it myself.
Besides, it was a tongue-in-cheek post, did you leave your sense of humor at home today, or did you just want to brag that you fix your own stuff?
"Also, I highly doubt people will ever grow complacent during my lifetime. September 11 is so infamous it far overshadows even Pearl Harbor, and people still obsess over Pearl Harbor to this very day."
First, 9/11 only overshadows Pearl Harbor because it was recent and totally unexpected by the public, and because it was televised.
Second, tradegies are generational memories. Eventually they become a part of history, or lore, but you can't possibly believe that a child born today will not be more complacent about 9/11 than someone who witnessed the video.
"It will be one hundred years before this memory begins to fade (possibly much more)"
No, it has begun to fade already. It began to fade days after it happened. The question is the rate at which the memory is fading, and how far it has to fade before people grow complacent.
"and by then I suspect that the situation in the Middle East will be changed one way or the other""
The Middle East is not the only source of terrorists, nor will it be in the future. Look to the Pacific Rim (including SE Asia), Africa, and Central Asia for future hotbeds of terrorism. American imperialistic policy creates massive ill-will in these places, and when these regions are economically more developed, watch out.
The root of the discussion though, is whether the article's subject is not worth investment in the program. My take on it is that this could be done cheaply, so in terms of Cost/Benefit, it's worth doing -- even if the benefit is slight. One of the other benefits is confidence, and while not nearly so quantitative as number of hijackings stopped, is still very important. The things you suggested in your previous post are also worth doing, but very expensive.
"4. It assumes their monopoly is somehow threatened and it's not. Even if they lose 10-30% of their desktop marketshare, they've still got a monopoly.
"
Umm, no. IF MS were to lose 30%, they'd be left with less than 65% marketshare -- not a monopoly. Technically, 95% is not a monopoly, although in practice, most would consider it to be one.
Would MS still be in a strong market position? Yes. Could they even remotely be considered to have a monopoly? No.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post was very trollish, and I was pointing out why.
"As an adult, then it is completely legal for me to view porn of two other adults. The only laws that come into play are access issues when it comes to children viewing such porn. There is no debate here, although you are attempting to create one. "
Not true. In many places it is illegal to so in public places, due to public decency laws -- which is a restriction. You also cannot view snuff films, which are often considered porn.
"Interesting because I did not, you did."
You ascribed fascist values, then related it to an Islamic state -- though you did substitute that with Christian. Don't pussyfoot around and said you didn't.
"The fact is these people are Christians, regardless of your attempts to label them otherwise. The believe in the same Jesus as other Christians. However, their attempts at moralizing are not limited to their own actions. They want everyone else around them to believe the same things that they do. This is no different from less aggressive Christian sects sending missionaries to third world countries attempting to "save the heathens". Their targets are just a little closer to home."
My point is that we should not allow them to justify their non-Christian actions by putting them under the umbrella of "Christian values." While they may be Christians, the "family values" movement is not a Christian movement, except by thir labels.
"Excuse me?! It has never been proven scientifically that porn does any damage, so how is it thus "violating scientific principle" for me to say so? If you have proof that it causes damage, then show your proof. You are the one making that claim, so back it up."
You did not say "it has never been proven that it causes harm." You said that it is harmless. It has never been proven that it does NOT cause damage, though it has been theorized that it does -- and some studies have supported it. You started with making a claim that cannot be supported -- lack of proof against does not prove your point. If that's all you need to claim something as true, maybe you should support ID.
"The government should not be in the business of regulating, monitoring, or prosecuting something that causes no harm to society. This is particularly true if the alleged harm is merely the result of religious distaste. "
Again, you claim it is harmless without any proof whatsoever. The alleged harm is not only the result of religious distaste -- consider the numerous examples of life imitating art. Can this not be extended to pornography? How about some deviant porn, like rape fantasy?
"Interesting that you attempt to equate porn with assault and murder. The difference would be that there is no victim when porn is created or viewed. In this case, no, the government has no right attempting to criminalize porn."
Interesting that you totally misread my entire post -- my point is exactly what you are saying -- it is NOT the government's responsibility to regulate something that is not part of the common law that is the foundation of our legal system. The contrast between porn and assault, etc was exactly what I was pointing out.
You assumed that I disagreed with you -- I do not. But your message was insensitve, not thought out, and not defensible.
I happen to agree with you, but your logic in backing up your opinion is way off.
First, you need to state your assumptions, which are many. A lot of your assumptions are the opinions that drive the debate over porn. Second, some of your logical jumps don't quite make sense.
"Okay, how about this: Porn is a harmless[1] outlet for naturally-occurring urges (the urge to mate with subjectively attractive mates) that are incompatible with modern society[2] and with others' freedom not to be raped by horny males[3]"
[1] You can't use the conclusion of your argument as a basis for your argument; this is circular reasoning.
[2] The urge to mate is not incompatible with modern society.
[3] You jump to the conclusion that denying access to porn will increase the frequency of rapes. This may make sense to you, but almost any psychologist will agree that rapes are not typically about sexual release, but about power and establishing dominance. Furthermore, you assume that porn is necessary to help people get their sexual release. Finally, it is quite likely that viewing porn of this nature will stimulate the desire to enact the situation in real life.
"Since you haven't demonstrated that porn created [1] with consenting actors is in fact harmful in any way [2], the benefit as a discharge of sexual energy[3] should automatically tilt the debate in porn's favor[3]."
[1] The debate is not about creation of the porn so much as the viewing of the porn.
[2] There have been demonstrations of the harm -- the problem is that further study is needed. Also, saying that the counter-argument to your stance hasn't been proven does not mean that your stance is correct. As an example, the ID proponents are not correct just because abiogenesis hasn't been demonstrated.
[3] You assume that sexual discharge is beneficial. Some people disagree -- they believe that sexual discharge for purposes other than procreation is harmful. Some medical studies have shownthat life expectancy is longer and incidence of non-STD related illnesses are lower among those who have more frequent sexual release, but this correlation has not been shown to be causative. For example, people who have housepets show much of the same benefits, and I highly doubt it is due to sexual release.
"There are also many people who have deviant sexualities that they may not be able to find a consenting partner for. Aside from mandating that anyone with a deviant sexuality self-castrate[1], how exactly should they relieve those urges?[2] Again, since porn as defined above is not harmful in and of itself[3], there is no reason to deny a potential outlet to these sort of folks that may very well help them[4] keep their urges in check[5] with respect to other citizens."
[1] Nice straw man.
[2] There are plenty of ways to seek out partners for deviant sexual behavior while not publishing porn. It is easier than ever to find a partner, and doing so is not against the law in most places.
[3] Just because it is assumed or stated does not make it true.
[4] It may also very well harm them, depending on your point of view -- perhaps it will encourage them to continue their deviant thoughts, which some people consider harmful?
[5] Alternatively, it could encourage them to seek out these experiences in real life.
"Of course, this is not to mention that porn (and the resultant wanking) is a form of expression, the prohibition of which would be both absurdly authoritation and impossible to enforce."
We prohibit certain forms of expression all the time, the question is where to draw the line. I am prohibited from inciting a riot, for example.
"No, you may not like porn[1] and wish that people didn't need it to control themselves or whatever[2], but from a sociological perspective, we are a better society for having ethically produced porn available[3]."
[1] On the contrary, I like it very much.
[2] You are assuming that people use
"Exactly right. To do business in China you must abide by their rules. Pretty much the same thing here in America. I assume that Yahoo holds a corporate charter (or some such statement that says they can do business within the nation of P.R.C.) and said charter binds them to operate within the laws of the land and says that they are more of a "peoples" company than anything else. Really, American corporate charters phrase the legal paperwork as the corporation doing a service for the people of their state (and beyond) and grants them the right to incorporate"
Except that a lot of the multi-national coporations wield sufficient clout to get governments to change their laws. This is the laughable truth in the US, since politicians are dependent upon corporations to get elected.
From the parent of your post:
"Moreso, we cannot really fault companies who give in to China's demands. Companies operating within China's shores, or otherwise targetting the Chinese people will have to submit to Chinese law. If Yahoo or MSN did otherwise, then it is their company that would be in violation of the law."
But we can fault the people who have the power to affect the actions of Yahoo or MSN, who chose profits over ideals. These people are the customers of those companies, the shareholders in those companies, and the decision-makers in those companies.
We, as conscientious members of society, cannot apologize for corporate actions by just saying, "Well, profit is their only motive, so it's OK." We don't do that for polluters (even US companies who pollute outside the US), we don't do that for companies that utilize underage labor in miserable conditions, we don't do that for companies that perpetuate other human rights violations -- even if the governments of the countries where it is being done allow it.
You can draw a distinction between the company itself choosing to "do the deed," and the company being forced to as terms of doing business within a country. And yes, this distinction is important -- but it does not exonerate company X, who are providing the tools of enforcement to China.
Finally, I think it is naive to assume that eventually American companies will affect change from within China, because some of China's laws will hurt their profits. Chinese government bannination of those companies will hurt their profits even more. There is something to be said for cultural rub-off, but China's measures against free speech severely limit that rub-off.
Not taking action to affect positive change, when it is within your power, just because you think eventually the change will happen anyway? Isn't this the kind of apathy that has led the US into a lot of the problems we face today?
"Still, you'll gain a much better footing once you have the means to personify your target."
In context, I know what he means. But if I am trying to get a person's IP address, does that mean I'm trying to "computerfy" them?
"Nevermind that porn with two consenting adults is completely legal and does absolutely no harm to society. It's just another step towards turning America into a Islamic... -oops!- Christian Republic."
First, porn with two consenting adults is not completely legal -- after all, there are some laws against it, or restricting it, no? Whether or not it should be legal does not mean that it is legal.
Second, do not equate an Islamic $GOVERNMENT with a fascist government -- the two are not the same. Just because a lot of Islamic government are fascist does not mean that all are, nor does it mean that it would not be possible to have an open, Freedom-loving(R) Islamic government. Statements like yours do a lot to fuel the hatred of Islam that is undeserved and unhealthy. "Fundamentalist Islamic" would be much better.
Third, do not grant the agressive moralists the title of "Christians," since that is not what their actions are, despite what they say.
Fourth, do not assume that pornography does no harm to society. To say so would violate scientific principle (since it has not been established as the best competing theory). Just because there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary does not mean it is true -- especially since there is no conslusive evidence that it is so. Also, you are stating as fact what is really an opinion. Porn does have effects on society -- but it is opinion that determines whether that effect is harmful or not. This is a moral judgment.
The real question is not whether porn is harmful to society, but whether government should or should not be regulating it, monitoring it, or prosecuting it.
Is it the government's right or responsibility to criminalize issues of a moral nature, that are not part of the common law (murder, assault, deprivation of property, etc)?
Never said the US is "capitalist," and US government and economic structure never entered the discussion.
I was responding to the OP, go ahead and read it to figure out what the discussion was about.
"We have legitimate crime issues. Murder, theft, terrorism (at some level), and pornography is our new focus. Wonderful."
Yes, but there are elections coming up. The current administration can't let Hillary get all the press for thinking of the children, can they?
This isn't a troll, I'm just postulating that the War on Obscenity is escalating...
Our government doesn't exist to benefit the people; it exists to perpetuate itself. What matters to most politicians, at the end of the day, is whether they, and/or their friends, get elected. It doesn't matter if the people are benefited, it only matters that they think they have.
The article is nice and all, but how can we even dispute the ranking of shows without knowing what criteria were used to decide?
How important is, say, originality, compared to character depth?
Is each show measured against its peers of that era in TV? Or is the ranking independent of time?
Sure, it's a qualitative ranking, but give us slashdotters something to work with!
You make a very good point, and I agree with you completely.
I just wanted to point out:
"In fact, these will be the first organizations to tow the line "
To "toe the line" is to obey; to "tow the line" is how one takes down an AT-AT.
" They have a pretty weird definition of science fiction"
i on_on_television:
The media industry, in deciding what genre a show is, can't slice the pie too fine, or the definitions become useless. They are more likely to define the genres according to audience, since that's what advertisers want to see. So, no Horror-fantasy, Horror, High Fantasy, or Historical Fantasy genre labels for us.
Given that the media industry has so much influence on public perception of things, is it surprising that people slowly change how they label things to fit the media labels?
From http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Science_fict
"There is some ambiguity as to what exactly "science fiction" covers in terms of television. In recent years, the term has come to cover any programme that deals in the fantastical or even merely the horrific, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed or Angel. More accurately these programmes are not science fiction as they don't involve any real scientific element, and are perhaps more comfortably covered under the generic term "telefantasy"."
"You miss the point. When there is not free market competition (reminder: the major record labels have been found guilty of collusion more than once), the price is set by the producers. They look at the prices consumers are willing to pay and restrict supply to the level of sales which will maximise their profits."
First, we have laws against collusion, which IMO can and should be enforced should they try this -- as has happened in the past. Second, restricting supply is not so easy when the method of distribution is electronic file transmission. Third, should they decide to restrict supply of all music, and succeed at it, another company will come into existence to undercut them. If you can't get the latest White Stripes single, so what? There is other music you could get cheaper, or for free.
"Competition is a wonderful thing. Without it, the market can be a distorted place."
I never disputed this, and it's meaningless to add it to the discussion, even if it looks pretty at the end of your post.
I think you are missing my point -- there is competition, between artists, and between labels. Assuming we can prevent collaboration, free market economics would still apply within the context of music availability.
It seems to me that you're upset that you can only buy a specific song from a specific company. Without getting into the debate of whether IP is valid, how is this different from any other product?
" If you don't like it, don't use them. You do have a choice, you know."
m l
m l
Sure, we have that choice... for now. But what happens when all available choices are doing the same thing? The only reason a large company would not submit to China's demands is if doing so would make them lose more business elsewhere. The size of the Chinese market and the relative indifference of consumers preclude this.
Assuming that Chinese policy is wrong, wouldn't it be best for China to change their policy? As more and more companies give in to China's demands, their restrictions on free speech on the internet are becoming a foregone conclusion. Simply not using Yahoo isn't going to change Yahoo's policy, nor China's.
If you want change in China, be proactive. Don't just not use Yahoo -- pass the word to people who are unaware. Let Yahoo know how much business they are losing. Investigate who else bends to the Chinese government, boycott and spread the word.
You may feel like you're doing something by not using Yahoo, and you are. But it's not enough. Have you forwarded the article to your non-Slashdot reading friends who might be concerned about speech limitations in China, asking them to boycott Yahoo?
Have you contacted your legislators about this, to make them aware that you are concerned? Whether or not government can or will do anything about it, public officials need to know.
Here's contact info for US Congresspeople:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
You should also contact your state legislators -- I could see Massachusetts (for example) disallowing Yahoo use in government offices if enough residents do so.
Have you written a letter to Yahoo demanding change, explaining why you are boycotting them and organizing others to do so?
Here's a link to Yahoo's management team bios:
http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/executives/index.ht
Here's a link to Yahoo's board of directors:
http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/executives/board.ht
Yahoo's address is:
701 First Ave Sunnyvale CA 97809
"Sometimes, I wonder if market economy can success in a totalitarian country. It would be a huge blow in face of economist's theories if this is the case."
(1) Communism != totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a method of administering government, not economy. Here's a question for you: is it possible to have a communist economy with a democratic government?
(2) China does not have a purely communist economy; many reforms have occurred to foster (somewhat) free markets.
By accepted definition, capitalism cannot exist within communism -- they are two faces of a coin. Perhaps the subject of your post should have been, "Can capitalism exist under a totalitarian government?"
Or perhaps, "Can capitalism and communism co-exist in one political system?"
Well, Linux maintaining >1% share is much better than dipping to 1%...
So what's the problem?
"'Can you bring the table downstairs?' (The asking party is to stay upstairs.)
To me, the grammar is still wanting here and wrong; the party should have said, 'Can you take the table downstairs?'"
The grammar is the same in both cases. The difference is the vocabulary used. "to bring" has replaced "to take." Your discomfort with their usage helps affirm what the researchers are doing -- multiple people from the same population subset use vocabulary differently.
Imagine if the asking party had said "Downstairs, the table can you bring?"
Other than on Dagobah, this syntax (part of grammar) would be unacceptable to most English speakers. However, in an isolated population, this could conceivably become common usage -- which is why the researchers are using grammar to study the Papuan language family.
"Let the market decide? Oh give me a freaking break. There is no market, not in the free market economics sense of the word anyway."
Restricted supply of a single branded product != no market.
If the music industry wants market economics to apply (which I believe is a good thing, if done properly), they need to stop negotiating as a single entity. Let all the record companies out there negotiate their own deals with Apple. Would it be a PITA? Of course, but since iTMS has such a large market share, well, they could set the terms, if not the rates.
"Rather than supply and demand setting the price of the music, V2 can simply mandate it and then it will be so. The market becomes distorted and everybody loses except the labels."
Not so -- if the labels set the price too high, then they lose out because sales are low.
"The consumer only has one choice: buy it, or don't buy it."
Or, you could buy someone else's music -- that's where there IS competition.
Plus, enough people not buying a song sends a very strong message to the label, be it V2 or anyone else. You can be sure they would drop prices after a while to capture people who aren't willing to pay the high price.
My concern with your argument in general is that you view the product as one song -- e.g., the new single from The White Stripes. The product is music singles, and that single is in competition with every other single on the market. It's like toasters -- only DeLonghi supplies the model that's in my kitchen, but I compared to many other toasters on the market before I purchased it. Was I pissed that only DeLonghi makes the exact model I bought? No. Was I pissed that every store had the same price on the model I bought? No. I chose my toaster because it offered the feature set, quality,and price that I wanted.
All that is required for market economics to apply is for the labels to be able to set the prices on their songs. You can bet your bottom dollar that the prices will be set at a level to maximize profits (including promotional sales, and the competition from the black market), which means that some songs will be cheaper than $0.99 in order to generate sales. I'd also be willing to bet that if you waited three months to buy that White Stripes single, the price would be lower.
The only problem is if the market, for some reason, has the mindset that $0.99 is a resonable minimum.
The music industry is way off base -- iTMS is a distribution channel for music.
As such, Apple deserves to get a cut of the revenue; after all, they are doing the work of selling it.
If the music industry were to act as a distribution channel for iPods, maybe they could claim a right to some of the revenue.
Regarding the market setting the price for songs -- I totally agree, with one caveat: There must be a minimum amount the artist gets per download.
If the market sets the price, I'll bet we see less popular songs drop into the $0.25 range, or cheaper. And I'll bet that the market will explore the artists that cost less.
Why don't we just use the Linnean system?
I'm all about latin names for malware -- for one thing, malware creators won't feel so cool when their piece of code gets designated "Caenorhabditis Crapiticus" of the phylum Nematoda.
"Moore commented the new device would 'bring people in that, as Iwata-san said, are either lapsed gamers or gamers that are intimidated by the complexity of the controller."
Wow, they make it seem like not gaming is an addiction or something... is a lapsed gamer like the opposite of a lapsed alcoholic?
"I'm pretty sure the value of the defence contract for Lucent isn't any kind of secret..."
That's funny.
For one thing, they haven't specified the department. Second, there is tons of gray money in the US budget that just kinda "disappears" in the name of national security.
"...so the courts should award a *fair* share of that ammount to the plaintiff if it is found that Lucent infringed their IP."
Unfortunately, without the full details of the contract (and possibly even with), we have no way of knowing what share of the contract payments are for the IP in question. Figuring out what portion of that portion should belong to the inventors is just as hard.
This is ridiculous. What information is relevant to the patent, and possible patent litigation, that the inventors do not already have access to?
How much the government is paying Lucent? What the end use of the technology is?
The US Government should either allow the lawsuit to proceed, in a closed setting, with NDAs all around (provided security checks pan out), or pay the inventors.
Is the not the purpose of the patent to allow dissemination of knowledge while protecting revenue sources for the inventor?
If the knowledge is not being disseminated, Lucent should not be protected by a patent.
"What kind of warrenty do you have that you have to pay for your repairs? Generally speaking, when a repair is costing you cash warrenty isn't an issue any longer.""
Routine maintenance isn't covered under a lot of warranties. Some warranties don't cover non-drive train repairs after a certain period.
"That's a very valid point, sometimes the "do it yourself" attitude costs more than it was worth if you're not honest to yourself about your abilities."
Or, if there are barriers such as equipment (I don't have a lift or all the right tools, for example). A lot of the time, the infrequency of repairs means that it's not worth investing in the tools -- although, if it's a hobby, that's a different matter.
"So be your own mechanic! "
My time is more valuable to me than that. I'm not going to spend an entire weekend day just to save a couple hundred bucks, especially when doing so will violate my warranty.
I pay someone to repair a machine because I value their expertise and experience dealing with things that are over my head. If it's brake pads or something else easy, I do it myself.
Besides, it was a tongue-in-cheek post, did you leave your sense of humor at home today, or did you just want to brag that you fix your own stuff?
"Also, I highly doubt people will ever grow complacent during my lifetime. September 11 is so infamous it far overshadows even Pearl Harbor, and people still obsess over Pearl Harbor to this very day."
First, 9/11 only overshadows Pearl Harbor because it was recent and totally unexpected by the public, and because it was televised.
Second, tradegies are generational memories. Eventually they become a part of history, or lore, but you can't possibly believe that a child born today will not be more complacent about 9/11 than someone who witnessed the video.
"It will be one hundred years before this memory begins to fade (possibly much more)"
No, it has begun to fade already. It began to fade days after it happened. The question is the rate at which the memory is fading, and how far it has to fade before people grow complacent.
"and by then I suspect that the situation in the Middle East will be changed one way or the other""
The Middle East is not the only source of terrorists, nor will it be in the future. Look to the Pacific Rim (including SE Asia), Africa, and Central Asia for future hotbeds of terrorism. American imperialistic policy creates massive ill-will in these places, and when these regions are economically more developed, watch out.
The root of the discussion though, is whether the article's subject is not worth investment in the program. My take on it is that this could be done cheaply, so in terms of Cost/Benefit, it's worth doing -- even if the benefit is slight. One of the other benefits is confidence, and while not nearly so quantitative as number of hijackings stopped, is still very important. The things you suggested in your previous post are also worth doing, but very expensive.
"4. It assumes their monopoly is somehow threatened and it's not. Even if they lose 10-30% of their desktop marketshare, they've still got a monopoly. "
Umm, no. IF MS were to lose 30%, they'd be left with less than 65% marketshare -- not a monopoly. Technically, 95% is not a monopoly, although in practice, most would consider it to be one.
Would MS still be in a strong market position? Yes. Could they even remotely be considered to have a monopoly? No.