Here's the question that lies at the heart of each person's position in this great debate:
Mr. content producer values his money _________ I do.
1) less than
2) the same as
I think this basic emotional feeling (are most of the people on the content chain rich / do they deserve the money) is the heart of all the other reasons we create for our position on piracy.
Honest inquiry here:
The computer in some cars artificially limits the speed of the car - if you found out that was true in a car you liked would you feel the same way about it as the iPhone?
Perhaps scientists keep it to themselves because faith implies poor scientific method. Science is about questioning assumptions and always trying to get closer to the truth - while almost all popular religions preach the opposite.
Let me give an example with musical sampling - it's totally different with bands like Girl Talk who sample music to create new pieces - because Girl Talk doesn't claim to have made the samples. One of the aspects of why plagiarism is seen as wrong is because you're taking credit for someone else's work. When you're sampling music, you're crediting them. From the perspective of a first reader it makes no difference - someone copying someone else's words into a paper they're writing is invisible & the work still exists on it's own.
A work exists on its own, and broken down is always recombinations of other things - but it's someone taking credit for it for gain that's the unethical bit. Kids who sample music don't usually have to credit the sample for a listener to distinguish it, so it's a totally different piece.
PS: Anyone watch Californication? Were those episodes written and aired before this whole thing?
"Because when you study comparative religion in a serious, academic way, you quickly reach undeniable evidences of "something" that defy the typical atheist's oversimplifications."
Absolutely not. You find that many religions have similar ideas. Many languages have nouns. Many human cultures associate similar feelings with moments of intense fear (that time slowing down effect). Etc. We're all human, we have very similar brains, and so the fact that two very similar beings might reach similar conclusions is certainly not "undeniable evidences of "something" that defy the typical atheist's oversimplifications."
Please don't be a jerk. Atheists are not children.
As for the argument that you can't draw conclusions about something without experiencing it, how do religions come to conclusions about what happens after death? How do car manufacturers come to conclusions about the results of a crash? Not every engineer of a safe vehicle is in a wheelchair. Frankly, imitation is not the only way to draw conclusions, if it was we'd all be hobbling on crutches with an eye-patch and a deaf ear.
I'm still not clear on just how they "lost their rights to profit" - first, even if we assume that among a persons natural, unalienable rights is the right to profit (and I think its charitable to be even considering this scenario), how have they lost their rights to profit? Are they now incapable of selling the software, or making a profit on it? It sounds like what you're proposing is actually a reversed version, that they have a right to prevent others from profiting from it (in this case the OP). A right to exclusivity, the violation of which is hurting them here somehow, rather than, in this case, potentially benefitting them later on (the OP mentions he now buys software) and benefiting society (well, who knows if the OP benefits society, by why not if he pays his taxes?)
I visited the SoHo Apple store the other day (looking for directions to the Wired store, to see the Optiumus keyboard).
All the computers were full with people checking their email, browsing the web, etc - but what really caught my eye was that a shabbily dressed man (in SoHo this usually means homeless) was playing World of Warcraft on one of the computers - a quick glance over his shoulder and I noticed he was level 60.
Let this be a warning to many WoWers out there! Too little self control and you may end up homeless, giving sexual favors for account-money and standing groggily in the back of the Apple store, monopolizing the 30" display machines.
| I can. He wants to charge you extra for a right you already have. That's not aligning with my own personal interests.
Actually, whether he convinces movie companies to offer less-DRM'd versions or not, there's no changing of your rights, only your ability to legally exercise them. "He wants to charge you extra" - yeah, right - it's in Steve's interest to increase the barrier to getting content onto iPods - I'm sure he'd rather the consumer think "Well, if I buy an iPod I'll spent a ton more on my DVDs." Remember, he's not pitching the idea that Apple should get the $3-4 extra.
Unless people are better enabled to move their content with these DVDs, Apple gets nothing - they don't sell more iPods.
This is the same thing as when he convinced EMI to start offering DRM-free tracks on iTMS - they charged more for it initially because charging more is the only thing that will convince a copyright-monger to do anything.
Really, the summary implies Steve Jobs wants to exploit the consumer by convincing other companies to offer content-transferrable DVDs at a higher price. It fails to note that while one currently has the *right* to transfer content, they do not have the right (under the DMCA) to the necessary reverse-engineering involved in that transfer.
So - while I agree it'd cast Steve in a very negative light if consumers were already legally able to transfer their DVDs (note "legally able" as opposed to "legally allowed") this is not the case. Steve Jobs is petitioning studios to increase consumers legal ability to transfer their DVD contents.
Do people imagine that Steve is going to get a cut of that extra price just for pitching the idea? Or that the idea - charging for non or less DRM'd DVDs is going to set DMCA revisionists back 100 years? As a maker of media players, it's in Steve's interest to do away with DMCA restrictions on DVDs, as it only makes iPods look better to consumers as the realm of movies available for them increases. I can't see how Steve's interests and my consumer interests don't align on this one.
It costs about $160,000 for us to go to NYU for 4 years. A bit more, actually.
I'd trade my vote for $160k - imagine the political influence you can have with $160,000.
In addition, I'd trade my vote for $160k and then buy votes with iPod touches.
Every vote makes a difference, but that kind of money makes more difference.
"Equality is a meaningless concept. I don't believe that it is within human nature. The Episcopal Church is about to split over election of a gay bishop. Too bad there isn't a religion based on tolerance and love of others."
Maybe there is, it might be one of the two halves that are splitting.
Well, what practices exactly are you thinking of?
They have a deal with a carrier whereby the carrier pays them in exchange for exclusivity - this is completely standard in businesses of all types.
They won't accept cash for new iPhones, - you'll have to use your debit or credit card. The same was true the last time I tried to buy a bus ticket out of NYC, they aren't pioneering new ways to abuse the consumer here. I assume most people pay their phone bills with card, rather than cash.
Imagine Apple makes printers and AT&T makes the compatible ink - this isn't a new racket, is it just because its shared between two companies rather than one that you feel slighted?
A quick browse through the comments on this story, and an application of the conclusions of the study in the article would imply that most slashdotters are extremely conservative. The vast majority of posters didn't read or understand the article.
Article Summary: People who identify as liberal are better at pressing a key when the letter "m" is shown, and not pressing it when the letter "w" is shown, than people who identify as conservative. Liberals were "2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy." The study also tracked the activation of the anterior cingulate cortex - currently thought to help decide between habitual behaviors (like pressing the key) and unique situations requiring different actions (not pressing the key).
Discrediting the study based on the comments of the "researcher not affiliated with the study." Sure, blast the LA Times for getting the unwarranted comments of another unaffiliated researcher - but don't mistake external comments for the biases of the researchers. In fact, from the article, one of the actual researchers said: "The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation,"
In addition, people blast the study on a few other unrelated tangents:
The study was based on a 10 point self-reported scale of liberal vs conservative, and this is all the groups the study makes claims about - people who report themselves to be differing degrees of liberal or conservative. It doesn't matter what you wish the study's criteria were.
Liberal politics in Europe are certainly further left than in the US. This has nothing to do with the study or its results, kthx for the info though!
Here, the fact is many people who go to google and type in "mail" are looking for Gmail. I've witnessed people go to Google looking for some google tool and search for it. It makes sense that if you search for something that may be a Google tool, Google will let you know with a "Hey - do you mean Maps?" And Google have just chosen to do this with the top ad slot. There's nothing special about this not-so-nefarious practice.
Re:Why can't they still sell PCs without OS?
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 1
In which case you've happily paid for Windows XP twice.
Here's the proper response if your in US IT:
"Lets get to it and totally pwn the rest of the world with superior skills and superior work."
We need to outdo or be outdone. We can't cheat the game, but that doesn't mean we can't still win - lets go for it!
I went to Nextfest, the robot is *not* holding an intelligent conversation, it's a complicated emoticon for someone with a voice changer, that works very well and is quite nicely built.
It looks to me like this:
He couldn't get them to ask for the work, hes a lone guy, and banks tend to go with larger more established firms for security work. So, his best bet at getting a more extensive job at the bank would be to do the work first - its good practice / learning, its good for the resume regardless of whether they hire him, and its probably the kind of thing he actually likes doing.
He calls them, tells them the security problem, and then asks for money. He didn't extort them, or in any way take advantage of them. Just the fact that he asked for money AFTER explaining the security flaws and their potential fixes shows his belief that he was doing them a friendly favor, and hopefully going to impress someone there into giving him a job.
I'm sure he didn't expect that 4 months later the police would be in his house. Seems fair to me that the judge wouldn't convict.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the question that lies at the heart of each person's position in this great debate: Mr. content producer values his money _________ I do. 1) less than 2) the same as I think this basic emotional feeling (are most of the people on the content chain rich / do they deserve the money) is the heart of all the other reasons we create for our position on piracy.
Honest inquiry here: The computer in some cars artificially limits the speed of the car - if you found out that was true in a car you liked would you feel the same way about it as the iPhone?
Perhaps scientists keep it to themselves because faith implies poor scientific method. Science is about questioning assumptions and always trying to get closer to the truth - while almost all popular religions preach the opposite.
Even though there was little harm to the Havasupai here this case sets a critically important precedent for the future.
Let me give an example with musical sampling - it's totally different with bands like Girl Talk who sample music to create new pieces - because Girl Talk doesn't claim to have made the samples. One of the aspects of why plagiarism is seen as wrong is because you're taking credit for someone else's work. When you're sampling music, you're crediting them. From the perspective of a first reader it makes no difference - someone copying someone else's words into a paper they're writing is invisible & the work still exists on it's own. A work exists on its own, and broken down is always recombinations of other things - but it's someone taking credit for it for gain that's the unethical bit. Kids who sample music don't usually have to credit the sample for a listener to distinguish it, so it's a totally different piece. PS: Anyone watch Californication? Were those episodes written and aired before this whole thing?
"Because when you study comparative religion in a serious, academic way, you quickly reach undeniable evidences of "something" that defy the typical atheist's oversimplifications." Absolutely not. You find that many religions have similar ideas. Many languages have nouns. Many human cultures associate similar feelings with moments of intense fear (that time slowing down effect). Etc. We're all human, we have very similar brains, and so the fact that two very similar beings might reach similar conclusions is certainly not "undeniable evidences of "something" that defy the typical atheist's oversimplifications." Please don't be a jerk. Atheists are not children. As for the argument that you can't draw conclusions about something without experiencing it, how do religions come to conclusions about what happens after death? How do car manufacturers come to conclusions about the results of a crash? Not every engineer of a safe vehicle is in a wheelchair. Frankly, imitation is not the only way to draw conclusions, if it was we'd all be hobbling on crutches with an eye-patch and a deaf ear.
I'm still not clear on just how they "lost their rights to profit" - first, even if we assume that among a persons natural, unalienable rights is the right to profit (and I think its charitable to be even considering this scenario), how have they lost their rights to profit? Are they now incapable of selling the software, or making a profit on it? It sounds like what you're proposing is actually a reversed version, that they have a right to prevent others from profiting from it (in this case the OP). A right to exclusivity, the violation of which is hurting them here somehow, rather than, in this case, potentially benefitting them later on (the OP mentions he now buys software) and benefiting society (well, who knows if the OP benefits society, by why not if he pays his taxes?)
I visited the SoHo Apple store the other day (looking for directions to the Wired store, to see the Optiumus keyboard). All the computers were full with people checking their email, browsing the web, etc - but what really caught my eye was that a shabbily dressed man (in SoHo this usually means homeless) was playing World of Warcraft on one of the computers - a quick glance over his shoulder and I noticed he was level 60. Let this be a warning to many WoWers out there! Too little self control and you may end up homeless, giving sexual favors for account-money and standing groggily in the back of the Apple store, monopolizing the 30" display machines.
| I can. He wants to charge you extra for a right you already have. That's not aligning with my own personal interests. Actually, whether he convinces movie companies to offer less-DRM'd versions or not, there's no changing of your rights, only your ability to legally exercise them. "He wants to charge you extra" - yeah, right - it's in Steve's interest to increase the barrier to getting content onto iPods - I'm sure he'd rather the consumer think "Well, if I buy an iPod I'll spent a ton more on my DVDs." Remember, he's not pitching the idea that Apple should get the $3-4 extra. Unless people are better enabled to move their content with these DVDs, Apple gets nothing - they don't sell more iPods. This is the same thing as when he convinced EMI to start offering DRM-free tracks on iTMS - they charged more for it initially because charging more is the only thing that will convince a copyright-monger to do anything.
Really, the summary implies Steve Jobs wants to exploit the consumer by convincing other companies to offer content-transferrable DVDs at a higher price. It fails to note that while one currently has the *right* to transfer content, they do not have the right (under the DMCA) to the necessary reverse-engineering involved in that transfer.
So - while I agree it'd cast Steve in a very negative light if consumers were already legally able to transfer their DVDs (note "legally able" as opposed to "legally allowed") this is not the case. Steve Jobs is petitioning studios to increase consumers legal ability to transfer their DVD contents.
Do people imagine that Steve is going to get a cut of that extra price just for pitching the idea? Or that the idea - charging for non or less DRM'd DVDs is going to set DMCA revisionists back 100 years? As a maker of media players, it's in Steve's interest to do away with DMCA restrictions on DVDs, as it only makes iPods look better to consumers as the realm of movies available for them increases. I can't see how Steve's interests and my consumer interests don't align on this one.
I'll support you in your campaign not to post on this topic - here I am matching your commitment, comrade!
It costs about $160,000 for us to go to NYU for 4 years. A bit more, actually. I'd trade my vote for $160k - imagine the political influence you can have with $160,000. In addition, I'd trade my vote for $160k and then buy votes with iPod touches. Every vote makes a difference, but that kind of money makes more difference.
"Equality is a meaningless concept. I don't believe that it is within human nature. The Episcopal Church is about to split over election of a gay bishop. Too bad there isn't a religion based on tolerance and love of others." Maybe there is, it might be one of the two halves that are splitting.
Well, what practices exactly are you thinking of? They have a deal with a carrier whereby the carrier pays them in exchange for exclusivity - this is completely standard in businesses of all types. They won't accept cash for new iPhones, - you'll have to use your debit or credit card. The same was true the last time I tried to buy a bus ticket out of NYC, they aren't pioneering new ways to abuse the consumer here. I assume most people pay their phone bills with card, rather than cash. Imagine Apple makes printers and AT&T makes the compatible ink - this isn't a new racket, is it just because its shared between two companies rather than one that you feel slighted?
A quick browse through the comments on this story, and an application of the conclusions of the study in the article would imply that most slashdotters are extremely conservative. The vast majority of posters didn't read or understand the article.
Article Summary:
People who identify as liberal are better at pressing a key when the letter "m" is shown, and not pressing it when the letter "w" is shown, than people who identify as conservative. Liberals were "2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy." The study also tracked the activation of the anterior cingulate cortex - currently thought to help decide between habitual behaviors (like pressing the key) and unique situations requiring different actions (not pressing the key).
Discrediting the study based on the comments of the "researcher not affiliated with the study." Sure, blast the LA Times for getting the unwarranted comments of another unaffiliated researcher - but don't mistake external comments for the biases of the researchers. In fact, from the article, one of the actual researchers said: "The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation,"
In addition, people blast the study on a few other unrelated tangents:
The study was based on a 10 point self-reported scale of liberal vs conservative, and this is all the groups the study makes claims about - people who report themselves to be differing degrees of liberal or conservative. It doesn't matter what you wish the study's criteria were.
Liberal politics in Europe are certainly further left than in the US. This has nothing to do with the study or its results, kthx for the info though!
Here, the fact is many people who go to google and type in "mail" are looking for Gmail. I've witnessed people go to Google looking for some google tool and search for it. It makes sense that if you search for something that may be a Google tool, Google will let you know with a "Hey - do you mean Maps?" And Google have just chosen to do this with the top ad slot. There's nothing special about this not-so-nefarious practice.
In which case you've happily paid for Windows XP twice.
Those are obvious signs of image compression, not photoshopping :p
Here's the proper response if your in US IT: "Lets get to it and totally pwn the rest of the world with superior skills and superior work." We need to outdo or be outdone. We can't cheat the game, but that doesn't mean we can't still win - lets go for it!
I went to Nextfest, the robot is *not* holding an intelligent conversation, it's a complicated emoticon for someone with a voice changer, that works very well and is quite nicely built.
It looks to me like this: He couldn't get them to ask for the work, hes a lone guy, and banks tend to go with larger more established firms for security work. So, his best bet at getting a more extensive job at the bank would be to do the work first - its good practice / learning, its good for the resume regardless of whether they hire him, and its probably the kind of thing he actually likes doing. He calls them, tells them the security problem, and then asks for money. He didn't extort them, or in any way take advantage of them. Just the fact that he asked for money AFTER explaining the security flaws and their potential fixes shows his belief that he was doing them a friendly favor, and hopefully going to impress someone there into giving him a job. I'm sure he didn't expect that 4 months later the police would be in his house. Seems fair to me that the judge wouldn't convict.
researchers determined that at least 4.5% of all US Internet visits are extraneous, and terminated them in order to conserve energy.
Jason Anderson, Xbox Canada 's Group Marketing Manager, predicts success for the xbox. 0.0 JASON ANDERSON IS WITH XBOX MARKETING CANADA. !?!?!?!
I don't know why, but that was the most terrifying thing I've ever read. Steven King is nothing beside you. Wow, it made me shiver uncontrollably.
that Thomas Hawk is an idiot.