Because, short of building my own machine, there's no good DVR solution for over-the-air content and I don't have cable. I can stream it for free, but this often forces me to wait some period of time after the original broadcast. Usually a day. Also, the streaming sites often fail to properly support captioning. My wife has hearing loss, so captioning is of premium importance. So we pipe the digital TV signal through a digital-to-analog converter and record shows on VHS.
So what? That doesn't tell us how they'd behave in the absence of piracy. Maybe they'd buy even more media.
Re:Your right to what?
on
BTJunkie No More?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Where did I say nobody was purchasing content? That's idiotic. My experience with heavy torrent users, though, is that they legitimately purchase very little of the media they consume. They might buy a few songs on iTunes, but you won't catch them buying DVDs or CDs (or renting them, or streaming them).
Re:Your right to what?
on
BTJunkie No More?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Yeah. I think this is wrong. Imagine a magical world where it is literally impossible to get a digital copy of a song or movie without paying for it. You think all these kids with ginormous music collections would go without all their tunes? No. They'd purchase some of it. Now it's certainly reasonable to argue that such a world will never exist, but that's not the same as saying, "If people couldn't get it for free they'd just go without."
Here's my problem with this logic. There is an advantage to having near-full employment. Not everybody is born with the gray matter to make his or her living doing things that require a certain level of intellect. Even if they were, some people will underperform due to environmental reasons and not be in a position to do that sort of work. There needs to be something for them to do. I'm not sure the consumer driven service-economy is big enough to accommodate them.
Note: nothing in the above should be taken as my denigrating folks who aren't cut out for software development. My point is only that there's always going to be a wide spectrum of ability, and that to the extent we muck with our economy we should do so with that fact in mind.
In a lunch-counter sit-in the protesters were simply refusing to leave, and insisting they be treated like normal customers. When they were denied service they stayed there until service was provided. That is fundamentally different from organized efforts to shut down business tools such as websites. The analog would be if the lunch-counter protestors decided to show up before the business opened, surround it, link arms then refuse to let anyone (owner or customers) enter. In that case I would fully support their arrest, just as I support the arrest of the Anonymous actors behind this DDoS.
Football? Islam? Topic matters at least a little bit.
I don't discount the advantage of peers who are either motivated themselves or have motivated parents. That has to be balanced, though, against the potential negatives of surrounding your kid with peers who have such an insular focus. The students and teachers may give short shift to subjects like literature and history given the school's (and student's preference for) software design. I see some benefit to kids associating with those whose interests are significantly different from theirs.
School that lets kid take a wider range of math and science courses, and potentially more advanced "computer science"? Sure. School devoted to "software design"? No thanks. The focus is too narrow. Honestly, I'm not sure I'd want my kid surrounded by kids whose interest (or whose parents' interest) in "software design" (at age 13) is so strong that they'd attend a school devoted solely to it.
Isn't this the equivalent of a car dealer heavily promoting Cadillacs, then complaining about poor fuel efficiency, then charging a ton for extra gasoline?"
First, the gas you put into your car isn't typically sold by the company from which you bought your car.
Second, you pay per for gas on a per unit basis and not at a flat rate.
Goths irritate me too, for the record. And certainly not because I can't be one. I think what bothers me is the extent to which it's so affected. This sentence struck me as unintentionally funny:
So I went and bought some blacker clothes:-). I socialised with people who didn't care for social norms
Sure they care about social norms. Just not the norms of the majority; they care about the social norms of their little subculture. Which is why you went out and bought black clothes so you could fit in with them. I'm certainly not against hanging out with goths if you have common interests and enjoy the conversation. What's stupid is the "uniform". Newsflash: non-conformists shouldn't need to all dress alike.
Sure I can (let other people do what they want to do with their own time). I'm certainly not stopping him. He's free to waste his time doing whatever he wants. However, that won't stop me calling a spade a spade. And, just for the record, I hold no delusions about being a jock and I'm sure you could kick my ass.
Good question. Unfortunately for me, I have not yet achieved the Zen state where I can control my own irritation level. So, I let it bother me because I can't stop it from bothering me. xkcd understands.
Dunno, I thought it was pretty tame. There are folks who have nerdy interests and who pursue them because they enjoy them. Then there are the ones who memorize pi to 100 digits and wear capes. The former type may do quirky things if they happen to enjoy doing them. The latter do quirky things for the sake of being quirky because their identity is built around being the "quirky outsider". It's irritating.
So you met kids who, just like the jocks who picked on you, were unreasonably proud of their own more-or-less meaningless skills. Like magic tricks and memorizing pi to 100 digits. Thus was your identification with nerd subculture cemented forever. Yeah; I'm not sure I view that as a positive thing. And I say this as someone who is not athletic, went to nerdy schools and works as a software developer.
The 1981 Civic was 148.4" long, 62.6" wide and 52.8" tall. The 2012 Civic is 177.3" long, 69.0" wide and 56.5" tall. Is all that extra size going to safety measures, or is the 2012 model just a bigger car? What are the performance metrics (acceleration and top speed) for the 1981 vs. 2012? Is the extra horsepower (and consequently lower fuel efficiency) purely going to support the extra weight, or is it also going to support higher performance?
Slashdot Mirror
Because, short of building my own machine, there's no good DVR solution for over-the-air content and I don't have cable. I can stream it for free, but this often forces me to wait some period of time after the original broadcast. Usually a day. Also, the streaming sites often fail to properly support captioning. My wife has hearing loss, so captioning is of premium importance. So we pipe the digital TV signal through a digital-to-analog converter and record shows on VHS.
So what? That doesn't tell us how they'd behave in the absence of piracy. Maybe they'd buy even more media.
Where did I say nobody was purchasing content? That's idiotic. My experience with heavy torrent users, though, is that they legitimately purchase very little of the media they consume. They might buy a few songs on iTunes, but you won't catch them buying DVDs or CDs (or renting them, or streaming them).
Yeah. I think this is wrong. Imagine a magical world where it is literally impossible to get a digital copy of a song or movie without paying for it. You think all these kids with ginormous music collections would go without all their tunes? No. They'd purchase some of it. Now it's certainly reasonable to argue that such a world will never exist, but that's not the same as saying, "If people couldn't get it for free they'd just go without."
Also The Week (though I guess it's actually British; didn't know that), The Atlantic, The New Republic and Mother Jones (if you can handle the liberal skew).
Here's my problem with this logic. There is an advantage to having near-full employment. Not everybody is born with the gray matter to make his or her living doing things that require a certain level of intellect. Even if they were, some people will underperform due to environmental reasons and not be in a position to do that sort of work. There needs to be something for them to do. I'm not sure the consumer driven service-economy is big enough to accommodate them.
Note: nothing in the above should be taken as my denigrating folks who aren't cut out for software development. My point is only that there's always going to be a wide spectrum of ability, and that to the extent we muck with our economy we should do so with that fact in mind.
In a lunch-counter sit-in the protesters were simply refusing to leave, and insisting they be treated like normal customers. When they were denied service they stayed there until service was provided. That is fundamentally different from organized efforts to shut down business tools such as websites. The analog would be if the lunch-counter protestors decided to show up before the business opened, surround it, link arms then refuse to let anyone (owner or customers) enter. In that case I would fully support their arrest, just as I support the arrest of the Anonymous actors behind this DDoS.
Here's hoping they all get caught and do time.
Football? Islam? Topic matters at least a little bit.
I don't discount the advantage of peers who are either motivated themselves or have motivated parents. That has to be balanced, though, against the potential negatives of surrounding your kid with peers who have such an insular focus. The students and teachers may give short shift to subjects like literature and history given the school's (and student's preference for) software design. I see some benefit to kids associating with those whose interests are significantly different from theirs.
School that lets kid take a wider range of math and science courses, and potentially more advanced "computer science"? Sure. School devoted to "software design"? No thanks. The focus is too narrow. Honestly, I'm not sure I'd want my kid surrounded by kids whose interest (or whose parents' interest) in "software design" (at age 13) is so strong that they'd attend a school devoted solely to it.
Bleh. Slashdot ate my logic symbols. NOT ( "more intelligence" AND "more education" => "greater emotional maturity" )
That was your first mistake. ("more intelligence" "more education" "greater emotional maturity").
This supposes that becoming a CEO implies lack of social dysfunction. I might argue the opposite.
I doubt we're looking at "a couple percent" of the population who can pass that type of cert at age nine in a non-native language.
There's dark humor and there's intentionally tasteless trolling. Let's not confuse the two.
Obligatory Hawking reference.
First, the gas you put into your car isn't typically sold by the company from which you bought your car.
Second, you pay per for gas on a per unit basis and not at a flat rate.
So, no, it's not equivalent.
Sure they care about social norms. Just not the norms of the majority; they care about the social norms of their little subculture. Which is why you went out and bought black clothes so you could fit in with them. I'm certainly not against hanging out with goths if you have common interests and enjoy the conversation. What's stupid is the "uniform". Newsflash: non-conformists shouldn't need to all dress alike.
Sure I can (let other people do what they want to do with their own time). I'm certainly not stopping him. He's free to waste his time doing whatever he wants. However, that won't stop me calling a spade a spade. And, just for the record, I hold no delusions about being a jock and I'm sure you could kick my ass.
Good question. Unfortunately for me, I have not yet achieved the Zen state where I can control my own irritation level. So, I let it bother me because I can't stop it from bothering me. xkcd understands.
I don't think I'll ever "get over" being irritated by people who think memorizing pi is a worthwhile way to spend one's time. Sorry.
Dunno, I thought it was pretty tame. There are folks who have nerdy interests and who pursue them because they enjoy them. Then there are the ones who memorize pi to 100 digits and wear capes. The former type may do quirky things if they happen to enjoy doing them. The latter do quirky things for the sake of being quirky because their identity is built around being the "quirky outsider". It's irritating.
So you met kids who, just like the jocks who picked on you, were unreasonably proud of their own more-or-less meaningless skills. Like magic tricks and memorizing pi to 100 digits. Thus was your identification with nerd subculture cemented forever. Yeah; I'm not sure I view that as a positive thing. And I say this as someone who is not athletic, went to nerdy schools and works as a software developer.
Yeah. Go hike around the Alps or something. As the years roll by, you'll look back on that sort of experience more fondly than a summer spent coding.
The 1981 Civic was 148.4" long, 62.6" wide and 52.8" tall. The 2012 Civic is 177.3" long, 69.0" wide and 56.5" tall. Is all that extra size going to safety measures, or is the 2012 model just a bigger car? What are the performance metrics (acceleration and top speed) for the 1981 vs. 2012? Is the extra horsepower (and consequently lower fuel efficiency) purely going to support the extra weight, or is it also going to support higher performance?