This is like asking "How much for your musical talent?" or "I'll buy that feeling of love for $1 million." Not everything can be exchanged between people (i.e. bought and sold), freedoms and rights should be unexchangeable.
The dillema is that those other products are trying to fix those same security issues that are causing the problems to begin with. If Windows was more secure, then there wouldn't be as many worms...etc.
to do anything worth their while. Maybe in the short run they'll discourage some of the downloads, which is good for them. But in the long run, let's consider the likely possibilities:
1. Bittorrent is a great distributed protocol to distribute content. It can be modified to instantly block ips that provide bad data. This may slow down the protocol overall a bit, but it should be quite possible and it WILL prevent these "geniuses" from f'ing up the authentic data from the original uploader.
2. As they are doing this, many people around the world are connecting to the www and finding out how to download content.
Perhaps instead of petty attempts such as this, they will figure out a way to distribute their content effectively and cheaply while still making enough profits. People shouldn't have to be charitable to these companies by not downloading. Yes, I know they need money to make content, many people, especially outside the US, do not feel morally bad to be downloading their content.
Come on people... surely there are countries where people (children included) are starving and they need help desperately. And there are also those countries that are not exactly starving for food, but they are desperately need to hold their own and take care of themselves.
My point is that if you live in a poor country the first thing you would want after your stomach is full is to find out how you can work to get this stuff for yourself. Computers are the ultimate pieces of machinery to help educate the mind and also with the ability to connect to the International Network to get all the information they need about farming, building, etc. whatever they need to build up their communities into shape. Replace all the missionaries with materials and these laptops.
This is an excellent point. When you are writing an essay you are allowed to quote a small portion. This goes to mean that you openly and immediately declare the owner of the content which allows the reader to seek the original of this reference if they are interested. Likewise TV shows are allowed to show small snippets of video content. Amazon does a very similar thing to Google with books (you can view first few pages of some books). The purpose of this is to introduce the material, not own it or profit from it.
Actually I think that this is more of a side-project for Google that brings in audience rather than any direct profit. If you think about it, if you're searching for a particular book on this engine, what kind of ad would interest you? I can't think of one... unless Google decides to give preference to paying publishers which would change my entire argument so far.
Slashdot Mirror
This is like asking "How much for your musical talent?" or "I'll buy that feeling of love for $1 million."
Not everything can be exchanged between people (i.e. bought and sold), freedoms and rights should be unexchangeable.
The dillema is that those other products are trying to fix those same security issues that are causing the problems to begin with. If Windows was more secure, then there wouldn't be as many worms...etc.
to do anything worth their while. Maybe in the short run they'll discourage some of the downloads, which is good for them. But in the long run, let's consider the likely possibilities:
1. Bittorrent is a great distributed protocol to distribute content. It can be modified to instantly block ips that provide bad data. This may slow down the protocol overall a bit, but it should be quite possible and it WILL prevent these "geniuses" from f'ing up the authentic data from the original uploader.
2. As they are doing this, many people around the world are connecting to the www and finding out how to download content.
Perhaps instead of petty attempts such as this, they will figure out a way to distribute their content effectively and cheaply while still making enough profits. People shouldn't have to be charitable to these companies by not downloading. Yes, I know they need money to make content, many people, especially outside the US, do not feel morally bad to be downloading their content.
Come on people... surely there are countries where people (children included) are starving and they need help desperately. And there are also those countries that are not exactly starving for food, but they are desperately need to hold their own and take care of themselves.
My point is that if you live in a poor country the first thing you would want after your stomach is full is to find out how you can work to get this stuff for yourself. Computers are the ultimate pieces of machinery to help educate the mind and also with the ability to connect to the International Network to get all the information they need about farming, building, etc. whatever they need to build up their communities into shape. Replace all the missionaries with materials and these laptops.
This is an excellent point. When you are writing an essay you are allowed to quote a small portion. This goes to mean that you openly and immediately declare the owner of the content which allows the reader to seek the original of this reference if they are interested. Likewise TV shows are allowed to show small snippets of video content. Amazon does a very similar thing to Google with books (you can view first few pages of some books). The purpose of this is to introduce the material, not own it or profit from it. Actually I think that this is more of a side-project for Google that brings in audience rather than any direct profit. If you think about it, if you're searching for a particular book on this engine, what kind of ad would interest you? I can't think of one... unless Google decides to give preference to paying publishers which would change my entire argument so far.