It really isn't redundant though... in a sort of sideways manner, the OP pointed out a fallacy in the summary that was meant to make you feel like you were using a severely outdated operating system in a demeaning manner.
By someone saying, "I pulled this out of the stone age" doesn't literally mean that you pulled it from the prehistoric era. In computer terms, 1990 pretty much is prehistoric in home user sense. I think it was pretty shallow (obvious bias) tactic to tell everyone that still uses XP that they are somehow misguided by using "something so old" that isn't REALLY that old. Considering updates, service packs, etc. you can't go by release date in software, especially if it "just works."
Then these people may need to find other ways to make money off those bits than to perform them once and copy them ad infinitum while reaping the reward for the original labor which is now duplicated to (near) perfect quality with no effort on their part.
As far as media and entertainment it's simply a matter of bands going on tour to perform to dedicated fans, movie theaters offering services before/while/after the movie is playing that you probably can't get at home. For software companies, it's a matter of support. There are alternative ways to make money on something that can be duplicated easily.
My point is that it's one thing to copy a book. It takes time, resources, etc. It does not take time, resources, etc. to copy digital anything.
I could frankly care less what's in the content of the book. It's a physical object and until we get cloning machines they will be transferable, but until that time we cannot treat data the same as media as far as IP is concerned.
So... you are perfectly okay with a company making as many free copies of their product as they want and making the same profit on each one as if they meticulously handcrafted each bit, but you are not okay with a user making as many free copies of the same object?
Yes, books require the company have some sort of resources in hard matter form (paper, binding, factories...) kick out books that can sell for anywhere between $5 and $100. But software companies can kick out software for digital download for anywhere between $5 and $100 (or more)?
The digital world is not full of one way streets.
I realize that you can't compare books to the digital world, but we can't expect the same IP restrictions to apply either.
Red Dead doesn't allow you to play into your role though. You can literally slaughter an entire town, but walk up to the prostitute in game and he tells them he's married...
So I guess if your morals allow you to kill and drag innocent people through town as long as you don't commit adultery... whatever. I found it rather disappointing.
In that scenario though, instead of punishing the user/driver that replaced their catalytic converter by taking away their license, the State is going after the manufacturer of the catalytic converter...
Yeah, so now Mozilla can pick all the tests that they are successful in and put up a web page stating they are 100% in compliance (with said list of tests) while IE9 is not.
You think Microsoft would let that fly? Look at what AT&T and Verizon have been going on about the past few months. 3G coverage vs. Cellular voice coverage and all that.
Right, but they aren't going after the users that violate the terms. They are going after another product that enhances or extends their product in a way which they do not approve.
Woo, a car analogy...
Just as you are licensed to drive on the road, you have to follow the rules. If, however, you wanted to drive off roads you do not need a license or comply with any rules (except those of the land owner...) but you bought your vehicle for the expressed purpose of driving on a road, then found out later that you can drive it in your field.
Now, you find out that it isn't quite as fun in your field so you go and modify your vehicle.
From what I gather, Blizzard is saying that since you bought the game to play on their servers, any modification of that game is illegal, even if you intent to play that game on another server not owned by Blizzard.
This would be kind of like GM suing aftermarket part companies for allowing you to put a lift kit on your vehicle and change the way it handles.
We are not all in the military. When you join the military you become the property and representatives of the government in most regards. You are held to a higher degree of behavior and anything less looks poorly on the training you received.
The rest of us are citizens that you protect. If you can't face the judge, who relies on you to protect his/her right to live their daily life and give a proper explanation as to why you were violating their trust... well, you see my point. (I hope.)
Ugh, I got a reckless op once in Illinois... I "changed lanes too fast". The court didn't even see it. they had some administrator tell me I was wrong because they knew the officer was a "fair man." I moved back to Ohio because I've had better experience here... but apparently we are getting as bad as IL.
We still have that in Ohio, but it's a little more high tech. It involves a helicopter and painted lines at certain distances on the road. (The helicopter makes it more high tech.)
Though, this isn't what the story is about. I can't believe the SC voted it a valid technique. Now we have to have our lawyers figure out if a police officer is properly trained to issue tickets by guessing... I'm hoping there's a way to overturn this decision. (Yes, I'm claiming ignorance on how my government works in this regard.)
It's all fine and well to sit here thinking of the situations where it could be good or bad, but you never really know until that situation happens.
But to answer your question: One would have to question the mentality/stability of the person who didn't run away. How many other people did or would they attack and harm? Maybe it's better for society in general for me to go through the process (and anguish?) of having to defend myself mentally and legally to confront that element rather than letting them continue as if nothing can stop them.
Because you have the right to ask someone what they are doing. Using insurance and involving the police in a matter that can be resolved in a few words is pointless and abusive. A smart criminal will run away. If you feel in danger, sometimes calling the police who can be more than a few minutes away is naive and expecting too much of the system. Not to mention, it gives criminals power over you and society. They can do what they like and have a buffer time to get away before being caught. Crimes are done in seconds... not minutes or hours.
Then you present a different situation where you have a gang of kids trying to break into your car and you expect me to assert myself the same way? Perhaps we took different situational awareness lessons. I most likely would have contacted the police as well if there were more than one person looking in cars (mine or otherwise.) But if there's one person you visibly see breaking into your car, confronting them is totally acceptable IMO.
Carrying a firearm has little to do with it and should always be used as a last resort. It is perfectly acceptable to confront somebody who is breaking into your car, hitting another person, or whatever they are doing. Frankly, I think we need more people asking questions rather than blindly accepting that maybe the guy is just rotating his tires in the parking lot. (I had my tires stolen a few years back. A busy time in the parking lot as it was a shift change and nobody thought to question or call the police... I walked out to my car and noticed that half the tires were gone. Not having a cell phone at the time, I went back inside to call the police and when I came back out, they were all gone. Ten minutes later, a squad car pulls up. Nothing came of my report.)
They have their recorded data, you have yours. If they corroborate... awesome! More data for the jury to make a decision on who was right or wrong. How can more data be bad?
Placing total trust in authority makes you a slave with no recourse. Your master (the police) can shoot you and nobody will question if it was done for the right reasons if you place total trust in every officer you meet. They are people, people are flawed. A certain amount of flaw is tolerable, but too much should be corrected. If you never question authority you are doomed to be dominated by it.
What you are saying is that the Jedi were wrong for questioning The Emperor, and they should be condemned for asking questions. The Empire deserves no questioning.
Or if you like to stay in reality, the U.S. should still be a colony of the Queen. What reason do they have to question the extra taxes or the unjust laws? They should have just trusted that the King, and his officers, know best?
Then what defense does that give someone when all they have is a tape recorder and they defend themselves against an unruly officer asking them to do something "unlawful"?
I just took my concealed carry class and the instructor explicitly told us our best defense in court is to have a recorded account of every defensive situation we are confronted with. He said our first order of defense was buying one of those small MP3 or tape recording devices with an easy record button and using it before we draw our weapon. (It should be on first encounter with a person whom you question their action...)
Now, I'm taking his word on it as a former JAG officer and now professional lawyer, but I think the specific restriction on recording someone is for non-confrontational situations (like sales calls.) I'm not going to say, "Excuse me sir, can I help you? By the way, I am now recording you" when I see someone jimmying the lock on my car door. I'm hoping that they take off, but if I see them draw a weapon I have my weapon as defense and after that my only account of the situation is their word vs. mine... and with the way people view guns and gun-owners in this society a jury in that case is already going to be skewed to one side.
Slashdot Mirror
It really isn't redundant though... in a sort of sideways manner, the OP pointed out a fallacy in the summary that was meant to make you feel like you were using a severely outdated operating system in a demeaning manner.
By someone saying, "I pulled this out of the stone age" doesn't literally mean that you pulled it from the prehistoric era. In computer terms, 1990 pretty much is prehistoric in home user sense. I think it was pretty shallow (obvious bias) tactic to tell everyone that still uses XP that they are somehow misguided by using "something so old" that isn't REALLY that old. Considering updates, service packs, etc. you can't go by release date in software, especially if it "just works."
Then these people may need to find other ways to make money off those bits than to perform them once and copy them ad infinitum while reaping the reward for the original labor which is now duplicated to (near) perfect quality with no effort on their part.
As far as media and entertainment it's simply a matter of bands going on tour to perform to dedicated fans, movie theaters offering services before/while/after the movie is playing that you probably can't get at home. For software companies, it's a matter of support. There are alternative ways to make money on something that can be duplicated easily.
Excellent... Resorting to strawman attacks on the common grammatical mistake in my post while at the same time concluding that my point is stupid.
That shows me that you only care about "winning the conversation" rather than debating the points presented.
My point is that it's one thing to copy a book. It takes time, resources, etc. It does not take time, resources, etc. to copy digital anything.
I could frankly care less what's in the content of the book. It's a physical object and until we get cloning machines they will be transferable, but until that time we cannot treat data the same as media as far as IP is concerned.
So... you are perfectly okay with a company making as many free copies of their product as they want and making the same profit on each one as if they meticulously handcrafted each bit, but you are not okay with a user making as many free copies of the same object?
Yes, books require the company have some sort of resources in hard matter form (paper, binding, factories...) kick out books that can sell for anywhere between $5 and $100. But software companies can kick out software for digital download for anywhere between $5 and $100 (or more)?
The digital world is not full of one way streets.
I realize that you can't compare books to the digital world, but we can't expect the same IP restrictions to apply either.
mandate to produce quality programming
"You there! Entertain me! I demand it!"
How do you mandate that? (I do love Top Gear here in the US, and the US version of The Office... so I give them that.)
And how many Big Macs are sold, [pop artist here] albums are sold, etc., etc...
Red Dead doesn't allow you to play into your role though. You can literally slaughter an entire town, but walk up to the prostitute in game and he tells them he's married...
So I guess if your morals allow you to kill and drag innocent people through town as long as you don't commit adultery... whatever. I found it rather disappointing.
In that scenario though, instead of punishing the user/driver that replaced their catalytic converter by taking away their license, the State is going after the manufacturer of the catalytic converter...
Yeah, so now Mozilla can pick all the tests that they are successful in and put up a web page stating they are 100% in compliance (with said list of tests) while IE9 is not.
You think Microsoft would let that fly? Look at what AT&T and Verizon have been going on about the past few months. 3G coverage vs. Cellular voice coverage and all that.
Right, but they aren't going after the users that violate the terms. They are going after another product that enhances or extends their product in a way which they do not approve.
Woo, a car analogy...
Just as you are licensed to drive on the road, you have to follow the rules. If, however, you wanted to drive off roads you do not need a license or comply with any rules (except those of the land owner...) but you bought your vehicle for the expressed purpose of driving on a road, then found out later that you can drive it in your field.
Now, you find out that it isn't quite as fun in your field so you go and modify your vehicle.
From what I gather, Blizzard is saying that since you bought the game to play on their servers, any modification of that game is illegal, even if you intent to play that game on another server not owned by Blizzard.
This would be kind of like GM suing aftermarket part companies for allowing you to put a lift kit on your vehicle and change the way it handles.
Unless, of course, you have a few on your side as well.
It wasn't one ticket... it was a lot of things.
When I was in the military...
We are not all in the military. When you join the military you become the property and representatives of the government in most regards. You are held to a higher degree of behavior and anything less looks poorly on the training you received.
The rest of us are citizens that you protect. If you can't face the judge, who relies on you to protect his/her right to live their daily life and give a proper explanation as to why you were violating their trust... well, you see my point. (I hope.)
How will they pay the gas bill if they just hand out warnings? Apparently our taxes aren't enough.
Ugh, I got a reckless op once in Illinois... I "changed lanes too fast". The court didn't even see it. they had some administrator tell me I was wrong because they knew the officer was a "fair man." I moved back to Ohio because I've had better experience here... but apparently we are getting as bad as IL.
I still like to say "evening." Keeps them on their toes.
We still have that in Ohio, but it's a little more high tech. It involves a helicopter and painted lines at certain distances on the road. (The helicopter makes it more high tech.)
Though, this isn't what the story is about. I can't believe the SC voted it a valid technique. Now we have to have our lawyers figure out if a police officer is properly trained to issue tickets by guessing... I'm hoping there's a way to overturn this decision. (Yes, I'm claiming ignorance on how my government works in this regard.)
It's all fine and well to sit here thinking of the situations where it could be good or bad, but you never really know until that situation happens.
But to answer your question: One would have to question the mentality/stability of the person who didn't run away. How many other people did or would they attack and harm? Maybe it's better for society in general for me to go through the process (and anguish?) of having to defend myself mentally and legally to confront that element rather than letting them continue as if nothing can stop them.
Because you have the right to ask someone what they are doing. Using insurance and involving the police in a matter that can be resolved in a few words is pointless and abusive. A smart criminal will run away. If you feel in danger, sometimes calling the police who can be more than a few minutes away is naive and expecting too much of the system. Not to mention, it gives criminals power over you and society. They can do what they like and have a buffer time to get away before being caught. Crimes are done in seconds... not minutes or hours.
Then you present a different situation where you have a gang of kids trying to break into your car and you expect me to assert myself the same way? Perhaps we took different situational awareness lessons. I most likely would have contacted the police as well if there were more than one person looking in cars (mine or otherwise.) But if there's one person you visibly see breaking into your car, confronting them is totally acceptable IMO.
Carrying a firearm has little to do with it and should always be used as a last resort. It is perfectly acceptable to confront somebody who is breaking into your car, hitting another person, or whatever they are doing. Frankly, I think we need more people asking questions rather than blindly accepting that maybe the guy is just rotating his tires in the parking lot. (I had my tires stolen a few years back. A busy time in the parking lot as it was a shift change and nobody thought to question or call the police... I walked out to my car and noticed that half the tires were gone. Not having a cell phone at the time, I went back inside to call the police and when I came back out, they were all gone. Ten minutes later, a squad car pulls up. Nothing came of my report.)
The proper reply is "What camera?"
Unless it was concealed, a crooked cop will find that camera missing in no time flat.
Prestige and credibility should be earned, not given.
They have their recorded data, you have yours. If they corroborate... awesome! More data for the jury to make a decision on who was right or wrong. How can more data be bad?
Placing total trust in authority makes you a slave with no recourse. Your master (the police) can shoot you and nobody will question if it was done for the right reasons if you place total trust in every officer you meet. They are people, people are flawed. A certain amount of flaw is tolerable, but too much should be corrected. If you never question authority you are doomed to be dominated by it.
What you are saying is that the Jedi were wrong for questioning The Emperor, and they should be condemned for asking questions. The Empire deserves no questioning.
Or if you like to stay in reality, the U.S. should still be a colony of the Queen. What reason do they have to question the extra taxes or the unjust laws? They should have just trusted that the King, and his officers, know best?
Then what defense does that give someone when all they have is a tape recorder and they defend themselves against an unruly officer asking them to do something "unlawful"?
I just took my concealed carry class and the instructor explicitly told us our best defense in court is to have a recorded account of every defensive situation we are confronted with. He said our first order of defense was buying one of those small MP3 or tape recording devices with an easy record button and using it before we draw our weapon. (It should be on first encounter with a person whom you question their action...)
Now, I'm taking his word on it as a former JAG officer and now professional lawyer, but I think the specific restriction on recording someone is for non-confrontational situations (like sales calls.) I'm not going to say, "Excuse me sir, can I help you? By the way, I am now recording you" when I see someone jimmying the lock on my car door. I'm hoping that they take off, but if I see them draw a weapon I have my weapon as defense and after that my only account of the situation is their word vs. mine... and with the way people view guns and gun-owners in this society a jury in that case is already going to be skewed to one side.