Assuming your supply of money will be forever the same, that is. You might, for instance, have enough money left over each month to buy a movie or two, but not enough to buy a player.
Your point? So you go 2 months without buying movies and buy a player. And why exactly are you buying 2 movies a month with no player anyway?
Simple: it's a subjective matter. He might believe that the reviews are garbage.
Because he believes nobody who review movies likes generally the same sorts of movies he does?
It's entirely possible.
Sure but its highly unlikely and there is no evidence he's actually made any effort to try either.
Unless you only plan on EVER watching or renting 2 or 3. BluRay players $60... amazon even lists used bluray players for $35. DVD players can be had new for under $25 bucks.
How so? It's a subjective matter. Perhaps, to him, not enough information is given.
The internet is full of movie review sites. If he were actually to try he will be able to find reviewers he generally agrees with, or at least whose reviews allow him to decide for himself whether or not he's going to like a movie.
If you are seriously postulating that there is no way for him to reliably gauge in advance whether or not he'll enjoy a movie, the burden of proof is on you.
Meanwhile his entire argument is nonsense. Even if we accepted as true the premise that he is completely unable to make any sort of reasonable assessment about what movies he would enjoy watching then caveat emptor. Nobody owes him anything if he buys or watches a movie he doesn't like. That still doesn't justify pirating them.
If you need to compile a kernel module from source......then you probably aren't a linux newbie playing with a live CD or using a windows installer to install linux...:)...to support hardware whose driver isn't yet in the mainline kernel, then as I understand it, you can't load such a module into a securely booted kernel without paying the $99 VeriNorton tax.
Fair enough, but in that event you can optionally a) disable secure boot b) leave secure boot enabled, self sign the drivers, and install the certificate you are using into uefi yourself. c) leave secure boot enabled, and pay the $99 to sign it against the already installed microsoft certificate.
Well, whether it's nonsense or not is subjective. It may or may not be self-serving, but that wouldn't really make them incorrect.
He justified pirating movies because a player would cost too much and he doesn't know where to find decent reviews.
That the player costs too much is rubbish. If he can't afford a $50 dollar player, then he can't afford to buy movies. He never claimed he couldn't afford to buy movies, so this whole argument is nonsense. Players are not too expensive for anyone that can afford the content to play.
His second argument tries to justify not paying for movies based on the premise that the movie industry doesn't make it possible for him to know in advance what movies he might like. This simply isn't true. That makes it self serving (because the argument serves his interest) and nonsense (because its based on false premises).
I also the Singleton more often than I like to admit.
Singletons are the modern global variable. We've all been trained to shun globals... and rightly so... but I think its gone too far.
People are afraid to use use globals and singletons, even where they make sense.
Sure every user control on your web page could open its own database connection and you can avoid a global or singleton by doing so.... but that doesn't mean you should.
. But now, the problem will involve getting the new operating system's key into the UEFI environment.
Maybe that's why red hat paid the $99 bucks to microsoft to get signed so that red hat users could use the windows key that is already in the UEFI environment, without having to get everyone to install new keys...
There was even an article on slashdot about it a few days ago.
My parents can't figure out how to hock a DVD player to their TV, so I'd suggest it's equally hard for them to hook up a PC and an xbox.
I diagree. An xbox has a power cable, and some sort of a/v connection. Your PC + xbox has more connections, needs to be networked, needs to be updated, needs software... they aren't even in the same league of simplicity.
However I'd rather hook up the second one then the first for them as it is much more likely to have issues ("You didn't use the remote to change into the DVD input again", etc).
If you seriously can't envision far more potential problems that can crop up with a pc+xbox then you aren't even trying. And the one example you gave for the DVD applies equally to a pc+xobx... "you didn't use the remote to change into the xbox input again..." because I'm going to assume your parents watch TV through some sort of cable box or at least an antenna... i doubt they would use the xbox for everything all the time.
As I said in my post, he's trying "too hard" because its simpler and more direct to just observe that the legal media itself costs money that he doesn't want to pay.
And to them, it may very well justify piracy.
Clearly they have justified piracy to themselves with it but the argument is still self serving nonsense.
But should you be allowed to use google docs? You know that cloud app where you and all your fellow students could have the same document open at the same time and use it to give eachother the answers.
if his PC played blue ray's then he would already have everything required and that would no longer be an argument for pirating over legal methods.
He doesn't have a valid argument for pirating over legal methods. Its that simple. Everything he said was self serving BS to rationalize why its ok for him to pirate. To save $55 on players and cables is NOT a legit reason to pirate.
what complexity? what additional software. they go into my documents and there you go.
Well, I went into my documents, and there weren't any movies there. Apparently, there are some extra steps you seem to be in denial about to get them there.
And they have to go into "my documents"? How would one know that? They could be anywhere.
If you left someone to house-sit at your house, would they be able to watch a movie? If you had a player and some discs, odds are they could.
Your setup on the other hand, you'd probably have to show them. Why? Because its a lot more complicated than turn on, put disc in.
I'm NOT saying its rocket science, but you are in denial if you think its as simple as you are declaring it is. I've worked with systems for seniors and small children, and your system is orders of magnitude more complex to teach someone to use than a DVD player.
. i dont understand why you are talking about something you have obviously never used and has no idea how it works
I've said elsewhere in this thread that I have an HTPC setup myself. I helped setup my parents AppleTV, I have used streaming features of the Xbox. I know exactly what I'm talking about - you are just in denial.
and setting up and hooking up a pc, and setting up and hooking up an xbox, and networking them...
I'm not going to pretends its rocket science, but lets not kid ourselves that using a computer to watch movies on a tv is simpler than using a dvd player or bluray player.
Of course. But a) Its not rating everything 9 or 9.5 out of 10 the way some video game sites do, where even the greatest stinker of all time gets an 8. Rotton Tomatoes has tons of stuff rated below 20/100...
And even if you don't agree with the consensus, like i said, there are probably sub-groups that align with what you like, and you can selectively follow that.
I have way different reasons than that guy for pirating which you may or may not agree with. But its easier to stream from my pc than to set up any sort of player.
Yeah, sure, if you spend considerable effort in advance to setup a PC and Xbox, and are going argue that going through the relatively minimal one-time effort to setup a player is now too much.
Honestly its much simpler to browse through movies in a digital list format than dvd cases.
Tell my Mom that.:) Its more powerful, and once you know how to do I'd even agree that its usually preferable, but its not really "simpler".
Plus a blu-ray disc in even a half decent player is higher quality audio/video than what your 1.6GHz AMD + xbox 360 are doing -- provided home theatre setup is equipped with a decent size HDTV and better than absolute junk surround sound. (I'm not talking audiophile/videophile nonsense.)
why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont
Self serving nonsense. Rotton tomatoes comes to mind as one movie review site that does a remarkably good job of correctly rating movies as utter crap on a continual basis.
And you can subselect within that to follow frequent reviewers that look for what you look for in movies. I'm sure there's other places for good reviews as well.
I also pirate the film because its a more usable format than a DVD or blu-ray, which require me to purchase needless accessory players and cables to do that which im perfectly capable of with a computer.
Yes... because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables (which you'd need for your computer too)... give me a break.
Fair enough I just used cpu's as an example because it was simple.
Virtualization will almost always improve the memory situation - it permits the use of shared memory, where blocks of memory can be de-duplicated across multiple hosts, significantly reducing memory requirements.
de-duplicate guests memory on a single host you mean, right? yes, this is true, provided the guests are running the same OS, and software. This is a bigger deal when running multiple low load servers, because you have 8 copies of Windows Server 2008 R2 deduplicated... and that's awesome savings.
But if your applications are memory bound... the deduplication benefit isn't all that big, as most usage is data, which (to my knowledge at least) isn't deduplicated instead of code (which is).
A relatively inexpensive blade can take a decent pile of ram... for your ram heavy requirements but if you want to virtualize multiple memory hogging servers, your VM host needs to have enough ram for all of them combined.. and only is going to get a couple GB dedupe at best... and that ram requirement can pushes you upmarket in to much more expensive host machines.
you can still map a raw LUN from your san to the VM, without any real performance penalty.
The issue here is the connections from the VM to the SAN.
I don't know offhand, but I'd be curious whether having multiple iops heavy vms on the same host would saturate the host bus and be a bottleneck? Intuitively it seems possible that you'd either saturate something or be pushed pretty upmarket to give each one enough dedicated room to breathe?
Well, yes, of course. I'm defining what I'm saying. Why do you think this strange?
Because your virtual world can't possibly have the properties I'm supposing are possible.
I am talking about the possibility of something not needing a creator. Your example virtual world can't possibly apply, because it is defined as having been created by you!
This at least seems to touch on the point I was making, but you seem to be missing it.
I'd have bolded "2x as silly". That 2x is crucial.
If we assume she has no evidence one way or the other, it makes perfect sense for PP to use Ockham's razor and favor spontaneous creation, even though she'd be wrong.
Why do I feel hunger? I don't think Occam's razor would ever favor "Spontaneous hunger".
So I'm not sure Occam's razor argues for spontaneous creation. It favors the simplest explanation. spontaneous action is not an explanation... its another way of saying "there is no explanation, it just happened."
Suggesting a creator as a hypothesis would be fine, but it really would be silly for her to insist that there must be one, or even to favor that hypothesis over the other.
I agree with you.
I'm only arguing that discounting the creator hypothesis because its "2x as silly as believing in spontaneous generation is deeply flawed". The reason it is flawed is because the original poster asserted that not do you have to believe in a creator, but you also need to explain where they came from and you are back to spontaneous creation... hence 2x as silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming your supply of money will be forever the same, that is. You might, for instance, have enough money left over each month to buy a movie or two, but not enough to buy a player.
Your point? So you go 2 months without buying movies and buy a player. And why exactly are you buying 2 movies a month with no player anyway?
Simple: it's a subjective matter. He might believe that the reviews are garbage.
Because he believes nobody who review movies likes generally the same sorts of movies he does?
It's entirely possible.
Sure but its highly unlikely and there is no evidence he's actually made any effort to try either.
In your opinion.
Your point?
Movies cost as much as players?
No. Movies cost more, far more.
Unless you only plan on EVER watching or renting 2 or 3. BluRay players $60... amazon even lists used bluray players for $35. DVD players can be had new for under $25 bucks.
How so? It's a subjective matter. Perhaps, to him, not enough information is given.
The internet is full of movie review sites. If he were actually to try he will be able to find reviewers he generally agrees with, or at least whose reviews allow him to decide for himself whether or not he's going to like a movie.
If you are seriously postulating that there is no way for him to reliably gauge in advance whether or not he'll enjoy a movie, the burden of proof is on you.
Meanwhile his entire argument is nonsense. Even if we accepted as true the premise that he is completely unable to make any sort of reasonable assessment about what movies he would enjoy watching then caveat emptor. Nobody owes him anything if he buys or watches a movie he doesn't like. That still doesn't justify pirating them.
If you need to compile a kernel module from source... ...then you probably aren't a linux newbie playing with a live CD or using a windows installer to install linux... :) ...to support hardware whose driver isn't yet in the mainline kernel, then as I understand it, you can't load such a module into a securely booted kernel without paying the $99 VeriNorton tax.
Fair enough, but in that event you can optionally
a) disable secure boot
b) leave secure boot enabled, self sign the drivers, and install the certificate you are using into uefi yourself.
c) leave secure boot enabled, and pay the $99 to sign it against the already installed microsoft certificate.
At least in the x86 ecosystem.
Well, whether it's nonsense or not is subjective. It may or may not be self-serving, but that wouldn't really make them incorrect.
He justified pirating movies because a player would cost too much and he doesn't know where to find decent reviews.
That the player costs too much is rubbish. If he can't afford a $50 dollar player, then he can't afford to buy movies. He never claimed he couldn't afford to buy movies, so this whole argument is nonsense. Players are not too expensive for anyone that can afford the content to play.
His second argument tries to justify not paying for movies based on the premise that the movie industry doesn't make it possible for him to know in advance what movies he might like. This simply isn't true. That makes it self serving (because the argument serves his interest) and nonsense (because its based on false premises).
I also the Singleton more often than I like to admit.
Singletons are the modern global variable. We've all been trained to shun globals... and rightly so... but I think its gone too far.
People are afraid to use use globals and singletons, even where they make sense.
Sure every user control on your web page could open its own database connection and you can avoid a global or singleton by doing so.... but that doesn't mean you should.
This is either 'yay, I don't want to talk to them anyway'
I -did- call it the upside. :)
. But now, the problem will involve getting the new operating system's key into the UEFI environment.
Maybe that's why red hat paid the $99 bucks to microsoft to get signed so that red hat users could use the windows key that is already in the UEFI environment, without having to get everyone to install new keys...
There was even an article on slashdot about it a few days ago.
My parents can't figure out how to hock a DVD player to their TV, so I'd suggest it's equally hard for them to hook up a PC and an xbox.
I diagree. An xbox has a power cable, and some sort of a/v connection. Your PC + xbox has more connections, needs to be networked, needs to be updated, needs software... they aren't even in the same league of simplicity.
However I'd rather hook up the second one then the first for them as it is much more likely to have issues ("You didn't use the remote to change into the DVD input again", etc).
If you seriously can't envision far more potential problems that can crop up with a pc+xbox then you aren't even trying. And the one example you gave for the DVD applies equally to a pc+xobx... "you didn't use the remote to change into the xbox input again..." because I'm going to assume your parents watch TV through some sort of cable box or at least an antenna... i doubt they would use the xbox for everything all the time.
Define "too hard." How hard should they try?
As I said in my post, he's trying "too hard" because its simpler and more direct to just observe that the legal media itself costs money that he doesn't want to pay.
And to them, it may very well justify piracy.
Clearly they have justified piracy to themselves with it but the argument is still self serving nonsense.
But what do I know? I don't have a facebook account.
On the upside, then no one with a fb phone could call you... seeing as ...
"If you want to talk to someone, select them from your facebook friends. etc."
since they are both cannabis derivatives.
Corophyll is not a cannabis derivative.
more tests need to be open book / open Google.
But should you be allowed to use google docs? You know that cloud app where you and all your fellow students could have the same document open at the same time and use it to give eachother the answers.
That's what allegedly happened here.
Its supossed to be a test, not a group project.
it may not be morally acceptable to you, but it is a perfectly rational reason.
If one is going to rationalize piracy to save a few bucks on playback equipment, then one is trying much too hard.
He could have just said "DVDs cost too much money" and left it at that; that's a rational reason too.
But he's attempting to make a moral argument to rationalize his piracy.
if his PC played blue ray's then he would already have everything required and that would no longer be an argument for pirating over legal methods.
He doesn't have a valid argument for pirating over legal methods. Its that simple. Everything he said was self serving BS to rationalize why its ok for him to pirate. To save $55 on players and cables is NOT a legit reason to pirate.
what complexity? what additional software. they go into my documents and there you go.
Well, I went into my documents, and there weren't any movies there. Apparently, there are some extra steps you seem to be in denial about to get them there.
And they have to go into "my documents"? How would one know that? They could be anywhere.
If you left someone to house-sit at your house, would they be able to watch a movie? If you had a player and some discs, odds are they could.
Your setup on the other hand, you'd probably have to show them. Why? Because its a lot more complicated than turn on, put disc in.
I'm NOT saying its rocket science, but you are in denial if you think its as simple as you are declaring it is. I've worked with systems for seniors and small children, and your system is orders of magnitude more complex to teach someone to use than a DVD player.
. i dont understand why you are talking about something you have obviously never used and has no idea how it works
I've said elsewhere in this thread that I have an HTPC setup myself. I helped setup my parents AppleTV, I have used streaming features of the Xbox. I know exactly what I'm talking about - you are just in denial.
why would it need a blue-ray player?
in order to be able to do everything a bluray player does and more, by definition it needs to be able to play bluray discs...
you know... like if your brother in law drops by to visit and brings one to watch...
Its much much simpler.
Only if you close your eyes and tell yourself this is true.
Nice alphabetical list.
That's handwaving a lot of compexity... how the movies got there, additional software to get them, codec installations, etc, etc.
Can grandma figure it out? Doubtful. Could she set up it? Very doubtful.
Can grandma put a disc in a player and press play? Most can.
Can she hook it up herself? Probably.
and setting up and hooking up a pc, and setting up and hooking up an xbox, and networking them...
I'm not going to pretends its rocket science, but lets not kid ourselves that using a computer to watch movies on a tv is simpler than using a dvd player or bluray player.
"correctly"? It's a subjective matter.
Of course. But
a) Its not rating everything 9 or 9.5 out of 10 the way some video game sites do, where even the greatest stinker of all time gets an 8. Rotton Tomatoes has tons of stuff rated below 20/100...
And even if you don't agree with the consensus, like i said, there are probably sub-groups that align with what you like, and you can selectively follow that.
I have way different reasons than that guy for pirating which you may or may not agree with. But its easier to stream from my pc than to set up any sort of player.
Yeah, sure, if you spend considerable effort in advance to setup a PC and Xbox, and are going argue that going through the relatively minimal one-time effort to setup a player is now too much.
Honestly its much simpler to browse through movies in a digital list format than dvd cases.
Tell my Mom that. :)
Its more powerful, and once you know how to do I'd even agree that its usually preferable, but its not really "simpler".
Plus a blu-ray disc in even a half decent player is higher quality audio/video than what your 1.6GHz AMD + xbox 360 are doing -- provided home theatre setup is equipped with a decent size HDTV and better than absolute junk surround sound. (I'm not talking audiophile/videophile nonsense.)
Furthermore, my PC only cost me $175.
Then I seriously doubt it has a bluray player in it, does DTS7.1 surround sound, hdmi/dvi digital output.
I'm also skeptical that a 5 year old kid or grandma, or the babysitter can just use it...
I don't disagree that an HTPC is a great thing to have. I have one myself. But I don't pretend its is simpler to use than a disc player.
why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont
Self serving nonsense. Rotton tomatoes comes to mind as one movie review site that does a remarkably good job of correctly rating movies as utter crap on a continual basis.
And you can subselect within that to follow frequent reviewers that look for what you look for in movies. I'm sure there's other places for good reviews as well.
I also pirate the film because its a more usable format than a DVD or blu-ray, which require me to purchase needless accessory players and cables to do that which im perfectly capable of with a computer.
Yes... because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables (which you'd need for your computer too)... give me a break.
Very few tasks on modern systems are CPU limited.
Fair enough I just used cpu's as an example because it was simple.
Virtualization will almost always improve the memory situation - it permits the use of shared memory, where blocks of memory can be de-duplicated across multiple hosts, significantly reducing memory requirements.
de-duplicate guests memory on a single host you mean, right?
yes, this is true, provided the guests are running the same OS, and software. This is a bigger deal when running multiple low load servers, because you have 8 copies of Windows Server 2008 R2 deduplicated... and that's awesome savings.
But if your applications are memory bound... the deduplication benefit isn't all that big, as most usage is data, which (to my knowledge at least) isn't deduplicated instead of code (which is).
A relatively inexpensive blade can take a decent pile of ram... for your ram heavy requirements but if you want to virtualize multiple memory hogging servers, your VM host needs to have enough ram for all of them combined .. and only is going to get a couple GB dedupe at best... and that ram requirement can pushes you upmarket in to much more expensive host machines.
you can still map a raw LUN from your san to the VM, without any real performance penalty.
The issue here is the connections from the VM to the SAN.
I don't know offhand, but I'd be curious whether having multiple iops heavy vms on the same host would saturate the host bus and be a bottleneck? Intuitively it seems possible that you'd either saturate something or be pushed pretty upmarket to give each one enough dedicated room to breathe?
Well, yes, of course. I'm defining what I'm saying. Why do you think this strange?
Because your virtual world can't possibly have the properties I'm supposing are possible.
I am talking about the possibility of something not needing a creator. Your example virtual world can't possibly apply, because it is defined as having been created by you!
This at least seems to touch on the point I was making, but you seem to be missing it.
I think you missed mine as well.
The bold sections are messing you up.
I'd have bolded "2x as silly". That 2x is crucial.
If we assume she has no evidence one way or the other, it makes perfect sense for PP to use Ockham's razor and favor spontaneous creation, even though she'd be wrong.
Why do I feel hunger? I don't think Occam's razor would ever favor "Spontaneous hunger".
So I'm not sure Occam's razor argues for spontaneous creation. It favors the simplest explanation. spontaneous action is not an explanation... its another way of saying "there is no explanation, it just happened."
Suggesting a creator as a hypothesis would be fine, but it really would be silly for her to insist that there must be one, or even to favor that hypothesis over the other.
I agree with you.
I'm only arguing that discounting the creator hypothesis because its "2x as silly as believing in spontaneous generation is deeply flawed". The reason it is flawed is because the original poster asserted that not do you have to believe in a creator, but you also need to explain where they came from and you are back to spontaneous creation... hence 2x as silly.