In reality, the legal penalties for acts of violence against police are dramatically more severe than identical acts on non-police. For example, if during a car chase, you happen to hit a bystander's car, but continue to flee, you've just earned a charge of felony hit and run. However, if the cops try to box your car in, and you smash your way out (i.e., you hit a cop car), then you're looking at a charge of "aggravated assault on a peace officer," which is very, very bad news for you. At this point, you better pray you get away, because if they catch you, you'll be locked up for an extremely long time.
Uh, 9.99 "sounds" less than 10 becuase it is less than 10! Of course they're going to sell more if they lower the price. They'd sell more at 9.99 than at 10. They'd sell even more at 9.50, or 4.00, or 2.25. Where's the revelation here? There isn't one.
As for "maximizing profits," Wal-mart, the biggest retailer in the world, explicitely REJECTS this absurd ".99" pricing model, so that blows THAT theory out of the water. Walk into a Wal-mart, and you really have to look hard to find a price that ends in ".99."
Why would people pay (her) money to go to one of her concerts, just to heckle and boo her?
Why would people buy the CD if they've already downloaded a high-quality MP3?
Sure, I know a few people here claim they do it occassionally, but surely you can't deny that the vast, vast majority of P2P users rarely buy CDs of the songs they download.
he question I always wondered, though, is whether it is better to sell out at a slightly lower price that more people can afford or hope you'll sell out at the higher price?
Don't worry, they have accountants whose entire job is to know that exact price point to maximize profit.
I'd like to take issue with those who claim that CDs are too expensive, and getting more expensive all the time. I can't remember a time when CDs weren't 20 bucks or cheaper. As far back as I can remember, CDs have always been 20 bucks. I don't believe they're getting more expensive. As for the argument that even THAT is too expensive, I call "bullsh*t."
For 15 to 20 bucks, you get music you like, to listen to as long as you want, over and over, which (for me, anyway) is easily several hours of listening over the lifetime of my owning the CD. Let's compare this to some other forms of entertainment.
A play, opera, musical, or concert. Tickets are around $80. For your 80 bucks, you get to watch a 3 hour show. But once its over, that's it, you're done. You don't get to see it as many times as you like for that money - it's a one-shot deal. No refunds, or exchanges. Hope you liked it, because you can't get your money back (unlike a CD, where if it sucked, you could always sell it and recoup some of your money). Now of course, many of you out there will respond "Sure, but theatre tickets are ridiculously overpriced anyway." Maybe you've got a point. Let's move on.
A hockey game. The cheapest possible seats at a hockey game in my neck of the woods, during regular season (Ottawa Senators) is $18. About the price of a CD. However, these are the dirt-cheap seats. Decent seats (without screaming kids surrounding you, and where you are actually allowed to drink beer) start at 30 bucks. Great seats are over $120. For 2 hours. Once the game is over, that's it, end of transaction. Again, you'll all shout "Sure, but pro sports games are ludicrously expensive." All right, all right, let's keep moving down and find something even cheaper.
The movies. Around here, ticket prices for movies is $13.50. To take my wife to a movie would cost $27, plus concessions, for a 2 hour movie that might suck (and if it did, too bad, we can't get our money back - if a CD sucks, as I mentioned, you can always sell it). We don't get to see the movie as many times as we want for that money - just the once. About the same price of a CD (for one of us), for a one-shot deal at entertainment. "Movie prices are retarded too," you'll say. I suppose. But for a price comparable to a CD, you get less long-term value.
Do you see a trend here? The people who claim that "CDs are too expensive" would also say that VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING ELSE IS TOO EXPENSIVE, TOO! Do you think it's likely that in fact all entertainment is overpriced, or is it more likely that in fact these minimum-wage, penny-pinching, burger-flipping adolescents just plain don't make much money, and can't afford the things that educated, productive members of society can?
Occam's Razor guides me to the latter. So, does that give them the right to steal - sorry, "infringe" - the music and movies that normal people would pay for? In my opinion, NO! Arguing over the semantics of "theft" is pointless - the big picture is that you are doing something morally wrong. Deep down, you know it's wrong, but hey, all my (equally-poor) friends are doing it, and there are some legal loopholes here and there, so why not. Game on! *sigh*.
C'mon... everyone's had an old song running through their head from time to time, where they can remember only a line or two. Enter that line into any lyric site (or google with quotation marks around it), find the song, and mark it down on your "future purchases" list.
Or.... since you're already at your computer anyway, typing things in and clicking stuff, you just pop over to Kazaa and type in the song title, and *BAM*, you've got the song. No need to part with your valuable money, no need to pull out some paper and pen "list" and risk hurting your wrist by writing down the song, no need to remember to buy a CD...
THIS is, I would bet, how most lyric sites are used. As just another link in the chain of copyright infringement.
Theft is when someone loses possession of actual (not potential) wealth due to the activities of others.
So what was it then when the Bre-X/Enron/MCI/Nortel/Corel/Whoever CEOs lied about earnings, cashed out all their stocks, then sat back and watched the price plummet? As far as I'm concerned, they STOLE money not just from investors, but from the 401Ks and RRSP's of their own employees. But would you call it "theft?" If not, then what was it? Simple fraud? Is it still fraud when you've destroyed the life savings of hundreds of thousands of people? Is it still fraud when you're sitting on billions of dollars that you didn't earn, don't deserve, and acquired through lying and breaking the law?
"Hi, Acme Currency Printing Presses? Yes, I'd like to order one of your USD-2004/100 Series presses - yes, that's right, the one that prints US hundred dollar bills. How much is that one? $850,000 US? Sounds good. Listen, can you deliver it first, and then I'll pay you about a week later? And, can I pay you in hundreds? Great, thanks, I'll give you a call when it arrives."
You really think anyone selling counterfeit equipment to someone is going to wait for payment? Or that they'll accept cash? Especially considering that this equipment costs on the order of hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of dollars? They probably won't accept payment in hundred dollar bills for that (since the US hasn't had a thousand dollar bill for decades, for precisely this reason). This means you'd have to have the cash in a bank somewhere, and good luck passing a million dollars in fake hundreds through a bank.
Uh, the two LotR movies are ranked 7th and 11th on the list of all-time highest grossing movies at the box office. Charlie's Angels is number 167. Fast and the Furious is number 114. Looks to me like the LotR trilogy is extremely "successful", by your own measure. I guess that means that in your eyes, they must therefore be crap, since the public at large (i.e., everyone except you) is too stupid to appreciate a real, quality movie like Lord of the Rings? Or maybe they're not as dumb as you like to think? Maybe you're not really so intellectually and artistically superior to the movie-going public you're trying so desperately hard to raise yourself above?
Take your snooty, elitist, poseur-intellect crap elsewhere.
You know what's funny? I see posts like yours all the time on Slashdot. And if you're an intelligent person, that should tell you something.
Think about the point you're trying to make. You wish to "educate" the world that the proper word for illegal computer invasion activities is "cracking," while "hacking" refers simply to harmless fiddling with either hardware or software. However, the world is resisting your efforts, and insists on calling illegal computer invaders "hackers."
So, the majority of the media (i.e., virtually every media outlet on the planet except Slashdot) is using the generally accepted definition of "hacker." But... and here's where it gets interesting... more often than not, even Slashdot uses the conventional (bad) definition of "hacker!" Need proof? Your post is proof enough. The sheer frequency of posts like yours is proof enough. The very fact that I do see posts like yours all the time on Slashdot indicates that Slashdot habitually uses the "incorrect" (in your interpretation, but generally accepted interpretation of "hacker."
What's my point? My point is that it's a lost cause. "Hacker" has ALWAYS meant breaking into computers illegally. Simply because a few geeks seek the self-validation of knowing that they effected a relatively high-profile change on culture is not enough reason for society to oblige and alter the language. Just because a few underachievers with low self esteem want to point to a CNN article that uses "cracker" in the manner they desire so they can say "Look, you see that? *I* helped make them do that" is not enough reason to try and confuse the public at large about definitions of words that they already know so little about.
The public is already pretty fuzzy on what a "hacker" is. You have no hope of educating them about the differences between a "hacker" and a "cracker" when for years, the media's been calling the bad guy's "hackers." Who do you think CNN would rather upset - you, or their computer-illiterate viewers? Heck, I think you'd be surprised to learn how many people out there don't even truly understand where a "computer virus" comes from. Many people (I've met some!) actually believe that computer viruses, like actual viruses, simply appear spontaneously. They don't realize that someone has to actually sit down and write the virus.
Anyway, it's a lost cause, not even Slashdot accepts your little quest to change the language, as evidence by the preponderanceof posts like yours, correcting them, every time they post a story on hackers. Oops, sorry, I mean "crackers."
I call bullshit. I would venture that the bandwidth used by downloading movies and music (oops, sorry, I meant "previewing"), combined with surfing and gaming bandwith FAR, FAR outweighs a few hundred kilobytes of unwanted spam.
Spam sucks, but let's not make things up here, guys. Keep things in perspective. No need to lie.
Soon, they'll be chopping off random parts of TV shows to make them look 'cooler'
They already do that. "Enterprise" is broadcast in pseudo-widescreen, with black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. I believe I've seen some episodes of "Angel" broadcast this way, too.
That argument doesn't work on a PC. Logic works under the assumption that nothing changes, that cannot possibly be true when you have other apps running.
Sure it can. A computer is a "Finite State Machine." There are only so many states it can be in. Theoretically, the software could be tested with the machine in every possible state. This would be very time-consuming, but it is definitely not "impossible," as you assert.
File trading doesn't neccessarily mean sharing or trading MP3s.
Oh, puh-LEASE! What "files" are people talking about when they talk about file "sharing?" Some healthy recipes? Customized boot scripts? "File trading" is simply a sanitized word for "trading illegal copies of copyrighted material including, but not limited to music, movies, and commercial software." No one goes on Kazaa looking for the latest version of Mozilla. The ONLY reason those networks exist is to trade free stuff that is supposed to cost money.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not getting all self-righteous on you. I use Kazaa to find music (but I pay for my movies and software) - I just can't stand hypocrites. Let's call a spade a spade. It's stealing. We all do it, but it's stealing.
There are all kinds of artists that don't mind their music being shared
Yeah, Madonna sounded pretty pleased that I'd downloaded that song. Name a popular RIAA member artist that condones their music being ripped off their CD and freely traded on P2P networks. I'm not talking about concert bootlegs or limited samples, I'm talking about direct CD rips.
The ONLY artists that don't mind - or even LIKE - their music being freely traded are indies. The ones striving for recognition. The ones who aren't making any money off of their music anyway.
Trading MP3s is a good way to "preview" an album/artist. I ROUTINELY buy CDs after having listened to a few MP3s.
I see this argument occassionally, yet I've never actually met anyone who's done it. I know I've never done it. The only CDs I buy nowadays are CDs I would buy anyway, even without having heard their songs on the radio. That is to say, I like the band, and I know I'll like their new album, even before I hear it. But everyone I know who downloads music has virtually stopped buying CDs.
My point is, assuming you're not lying out your ass, you are a very rare exception, not the rule.
I don't think "The Hulk" will be worth the $12 it will cost me to go see it. So my options are to pay it anyway and see it, save my money and not see it, or sneak into the theatre.
What you are doing is analogous to sneaking into the theatre. The "moral" thing to do would be to just not go to the movie. MP3 theives insist on having their cake and eating it too. Then, they bitch about how bad the song was (while keeping it on their 5,000-song playlist anyway).
You'll happily throw money at a kid you've never met, to support depriving artists of the money they rightfully deserve, but you won't spend that money on that actual artists that you listen to! The irony of it all.
Who said the RIAA is threatening its customers? The interview, and indeed even your comments, describe their actions against file-traders; a group that is well known to rarely actually pay for their music. The "customers" are the ones who actually go to the store and buy CDs, and have probably never even used Kazaa.
Mortage interest deductions are great and inflating the market value of homes is a good thing. Yes it makes them more expensive but homes are an investment.
How is more expensive housing a "good thing?" It makes that "investment" less affordable to the middle and lower class. They're forced to stay in rental arrangements longer, rather than building their equity. Inflating the market values of homes is not a good thing.
My aunt lost over a million dollars due to bad stock purchases during the.com bubble.
So did many Canadians... how does this demonstrate that the US is a better place to live than Canada? You can lose money in investments in both countries; what was your point? Does the US protect your losses somehow? In Canada, you can write your losses off against future (or past) capital gains. Does the US have similar allowances?
Anyway her apartment she bought in 88 on the shore of Lake Michigan went up over a million in value! Low interests rates are to thank. She bought it for only 250k!
Sorry to break it to you, but that's nothing spectacular. That's less than a 10% ROI, which don't get me wrong, is good, but it's nothing phenomenal. A similar gain could have been realized with a simple stock index fund, or balanced mutual fund.
It also equals lower unemployment rates. When I was in Canada back in 96 and 97 the rate was close to %10
Huh??? Where was that - Newfoundland? Got a reference to back that up? I'm in a city with a terrible unemployment rate at the moment: Ottawa. A very tech-oriented city. When the.com bubble burst, Ottawa's local unemployment rate "soared" to almost 8%. I don't recall it ever being 10% in my lifetime, nationwide. It is well known, however, that some regions do have unemployment rates in that neighborhood, such as Cape Breton Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
Personally, I think Canada is the better place to live. That's probably why I'm still here.:) Our taxes aren't as bad as people make them out to be, and anyone who's had to experience both medical systems (without insurance) will never again complain about socialised health care. Canada has legalized prostitution, a drinking age of 19 instead of 21, much lower crime per capita, a more relaxed lifestyle, a virtually identical quality of life (depending on which province you look at), superior strip clubs, and soon-to-be virtually legal marijuana. Canada, in spite of al l its problems, has more freedoms, less prejudice, and better care for the poor than the US, in my opinion and experience.
Something occurred to me the other day that lead me to conclude that in the future, the US will be forced to adopted a socialised health care system similar to Canada's. Let me explain.
Ever since its creation, insurance has been a numbers game where the house always wins. When you insure your car, you're gambling that someday you'll have a crash which costs more to fix than you've paid into the system. The insurance companies, on the other hand, gamble that you'll pay more in premiums than you'll cost in claims. Of course, the insurace company always wins. If it is ever any other way, they simply raise your rates. Otherwise, insurance companies would go out of business. It's simple math: they must take in more than they pay out.
When you apply for auto insurance, they guess at how much of a risk you will be. They check to see if you've had any past claims, accidents, speeding tickets, or whatever. They even discriminate based on factors that would be blatantly illegal in any other context. Your sex and age affect your rate. However, in the end, it's all a crap shoot. No one can predict the future. You have complete control over what kind of driver you will be. If you have no speeding tickets, you might very well be an extraordinarily safe and cautious driver. Or, you may just be lucky.
Health insurance is similar. No one knows what they will die from. The insurance companies ask you all sorts of questions to try and find out, and your rates are based on your medical history. But in the end, the healthy ones are subsidising the sick ones.
We are at the threshold of some unstoppable, extraordinary changes in the health insurance industry. Soon, very soon, it will be possible to take a drop of your blood, and generate a very detailed schedule of your future illnesses and eventual doom, assuming you don't crash your car first. They will know with great certainty that you will definitely develop Parkinson's. That will affect your rate.
Those who are destined to be expensively ill will not be able to afford health care, or will be denied coverage completely. The only people who will be able to afford health care will be those who won't need it.
The only fair solution will be to force everyone to subsidize the sick, for the good of society. This will most likely be implemented as a tax of some sort, or maybe simply a component of existing taxes (like in Canada). Canada's system will survive these advances intact, but the US's will require massive evolution, or scores will die. Government is going to have to take over health care. It is extremely unrealistic to expect the insurance companies to be altruistic and generous when it comes to covering the inevitably ill.
It will most certainly be interesting. It will be controversial. Many still cling to the hope that this type of genetic screening will be successfully held at bay through legislation; a hope which runs counter to evolution itself. It is human nature to relentlessly advance science.
My old man paid %50 of his income on just the national Canadian tax and nothing else.
Wow, that's a lot. What's the "national Canadian tax" anyway? Are you talking about just the federal income tax? Or are you combining federal and provincial taxes? Are you counting property tax? Anyway, there's something wrong there. Last year, my federal income tax was about 23% of my income, and I didn't even max out my RRSP. I only had a few hundred dollars of student loan interest to claim, and I have no kids.
I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bullshit. Can I see some numbers? I'm trying to figure out how anyone could be on the hook for 50% of their gross. Did he gross something on the order of $250,000? Was it mostly capital gains income? Is he retired? I can't figure out how a tax bill could be that high.
The only thing I envy about the US tax system is that mortgage interest is tax-deductible. THAT would be sweet.
What ever happened to opting in for things like spam, services, etc.
It never existed. Think about it. Who wants spam or telemarketer calls? No one would opt in. And I don't mean "No one" as in, "maybe a few people, but most people wouldn't," I mean "no one" as in literally their lists would be completely empty. The reason why "opt in" didn't take off is obvious.
You're very wrong. I'm a Canadian with my Restricted and Unrestricted PALs, and the magazine itself is not illegal. Sure, owning fully autos is illegal, but so what? What on Earth makes a clip "auto" or "semi-auto?" It's just a clip - it holds ammo. The action of the rifle that'll hold it is completely unrelated. It could be either.
Yes, it is illegal to have a magazine that'll hold more than... I think it's 7 rounds in Canada. But this isn't a clip anymore. It's just an MP3 player that happens to look like an ammo clip.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of like real life?
In reality, the legal penalties for acts of violence against police are dramatically more severe than identical acts on non-police. For example, if during a car chase, you happen to hit a bystander's car, but continue to flee, you've just earned a charge of felony hit and run. However, if the cops try to box your car in, and you smash your way out (i.e., you hit a cop car), then you're looking at a charge of "aggravated assault on a peace officer," which is very, very bad news for you. At this point, you better pray you get away, because if they catch you, you'll be locked up for an extremely long time.
Uh, 9.99 "sounds" less than 10 becuase it is less than 10! Of course they're going to sell more if they lower the price. They'd sell more at 9.99 than at 10. They'd sell even more at 9.50, or 4.00, or 2.25. Where's the revelation here? There isn't one.
As for "maximizing profits," Wal-mart, the biggest retailer in the world, explicitely REJECTS this absurd ".99" pricing model, so that blows THAT theory out of the water. Walk into a Wal-mart, and you really have to look hard to find a price that ends in ".99."
Why would people pay (her) money to go to one of her concerts, just to heckle and boo her?
Why would people buy the CD if they've already downloaded a high-quality MP3?
Sure, I know a few people here claim they do it occassionally, but surely you can't deny that the vast, vast majority of P2P users rarely buy CDs of the songs they download.
he question I always wondered, though, is whether it is better to sell out at a slightly lower price that more people can afford or hope you'll sell out at the higher price?
Don't worry, they have accountants whose entire job is to know that exact price point to maximize profit.
I'd like to take issue with those who claim that CDs are too expensive, and getting more expensive all the time. I can't remember a time when CDs weren't 20 bucks or cheaper. As far back as I can remember, CDs have always been 20 bucks. I don't believe they're getting more expensive. As for the argument that even THAT is too expensive, I call "bullsh*t."
For 15 to 20 bucks, you get music you like, to listen to as long as you want, over and over, which (for me, anyway) is easily several hours of listening over the lifetime of my owning the CD. Let's compare this to some other forms of entertainment.
A play, opera, musical, or concert. Tickets are around $80. For your 80 bucks, you get to watch a 3 hour show. But once its over, that's it, you're done. You don't get to see it as many times as you like for that money - it's a one-shot deal. No refunds, or exchanges. Hope you liked it, because you can't get your money back (unlike a CD, where if it sucked, you could always sell it and recoup some of your money). Now of course, many of you out there will respond "Sure, but theatre tickets are ridiculously overpriced anyway." Maybe you've got a point. Let's move on.
A hockey game. The cheapest possible seats at a hockey game in my neck of the woods, during regular season (Ottawa Senators) is $18. About the price of a CD. However, these are the dirt-cheap seats. Decent seats (without screaming kids surrounding you, and where you are actually allowed to drink beer) start at 30 bucks. Great seats are over $120. For 2 hours. Once the game is over, that's it, end of transaction. Again, you'll all shout "Sure, but pro sports games are ludicrously expensive." All right, all right, let's keep moving down and find something even cheaper.
The movies. Around here, ticket prices for movies is $13.50. To take my wife to a movie would cost $27, plus concessions, for a 2 hour movie that might suck (and if it did, too bad, we can't get our money back - if a CD sucks, as I mentioned, you can always sell it). We don't get to see the movie as many times as we want for that money - just the once. About the same price of a CD (for one of us), for a one-shot deal at entertainment. "Movie prices are retarded too," you'll say. I suppose. But for a price comparable to a CD, you get less long-term value.
Do you see a trend here? The people who claim that "CDs are too expensive" would also say that VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING ELSE IS TOO EXPENSIVE, TOO! Do you think it's likely that in fact all entertainment is overpriced, or is it more likely that in fact these minimum-wage, penny-pinching, burger-flipping adolescents just plain don't make much money, and can't afford the things that educated, productive members of society can?
Occam's Razor guides me to the latter. So, does that give them the right to steal - sorry, "infringe" - the music and movies that normal people would pay for? In my opinion, NO! Arguing over the semantics of "theft" is pointless - the big picture is that you are doing something morally wrong. Deep down, you know it's wrong, but hey, all my (equally-poor) friends are doing it, and there are some legal loopholes here and there, so why not. Game on! *sigh*.
C'mon... everyone's had an old song running through their head from time to time, where they can remember only a line or two. Enter that line into any lyric site (or google with quotation marks around it), find the song, and mark it down on your "future purchases" list.
.... since you're already at your computer anyway, typing things in and clicking stuff, you just pop over to Kazaa and type in the song title, and *BAM*, you've got the song. No need to part with your valuable money, no need to pull out some paper and pen "list" and risk hurting your wrist by writing down the song, no need to remember to buy a CD ...
Or
THIS is, I would bet, how most lyric sites are used. As just another link in the chain of copyright infringement.
Theft is when someone loses possession of actual (not potential) wealth due to the activities of others.
So what was it then when the Bre-X/Enron/MCI/Nortel/Corel/Whoever CEOs lied about earnings, cashed out all their stocks, then sat back and watched the price plummet? As far as I'm concerned, they STOLE money not just from investors, but from the 401Ks and RRSP's of their own employees. But would you call it "theft?" If not, then what was it? Simple fraud? Is it still fraud when you've destroyed the life savings of hundreds of thousands of people? Is it still fraud when you're sitting on billions of dollars that you didn't earn, don't deserve, and acquired through lying and breaking the law?
Sure, whatever.
"Hi, Acme Currency Printing Presses? Yes, I'd like to order one of your USD-2004/100 Series presses - yes, that's right, the one that prints US hundred dollar bills. How much is that one? $850,000 US? Sounds good. Listen, can you deliver it first, and then I'll pay you about a week later? And, can I pay you in hundreds? Great, thanks, I'll give you a call when it arrives."
You really think anyone selling counterfeit equipment to someone is going to wait for payment? Or that they'll accept cash? Especially considering that this equipment costs on the order of hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of dollars? They probably won't accept payment in hundred dollar bills for that (since the US hasn't had a thousand dollar bill for decades, for precisely this reason). This means you'd have to have the cash in a bank somewhere, and good luck passing a million dollars in fake hundreds through a bank.
So while you can bleach a one, you cant remove the plastic strip inside that has "1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1" on it.
Actually, if I've read correctly, US currency doesn't have that security strip in anything smaller than a 20. Am I wrong?
Uh, the two LotR movies are ranked 7th and 11th on the list of all-time highest grossing movies at the box office. Charlie's Angels is number 167. Fast and the Furious is number 114. Looks to me like the LotR trilogy is extremely "successful", by your own measure. I guess that means that in your eyes, they must therefore be crap, since the public at large (i.e., everyone except you) is too stupid to appreciate a real, quality movie like Lord of the Rings? Or maybe they're not as dumb as you like to think? Maybe you're not really so intellectually and artistically superior to the movie-going public you're trying so desperately hard to raise yourself above?
Take your snooty, elitist, poseur-intellect crap elsewhere.
You know what's funny? I see posts like yours all the time on Slashdot. And if you're an intelligent person, that should tell you something.
... and here's where it gets interesting ... more often than not, even Slashdot uses the conventional (bad) definition of "hacker!" Need proof? Your post is proof enough. The sheer frequency of posts like yours is proof enough. The very fact that I do see posts like yours all the time on Slashdot indicates that Slashdot habitually uses the "incorrect" (in your interpretation, but generally accepted interpretation of "hacker."
Think about the point you're trying to make. You wish to "educate" the world that the proper word for illegal computer invasion activities is "cracking," while "hacking" refers simply to harmless fiddling with either hardware or software. However, the world is resisting your efforts, and insists on calling illegal computer invaders "hackers."
So, the majority of the media (i.e., virtually every media outlet on the planet except Slashdot) is using the generally accepted definition of "hacker." But
What's my point? My point is that it's a lost cause. "Hacker" has ALWAYS meant breaking into computers illegally. Simply because a few geeks seek the self-validation of knowing that they effected a relatively high-profile change on culture is not enough reason for society to oblige and alter the language. Just because a few underachievers with low self esteem want to point to a CNN article that uses "cracker" in the manner they desire so they can say "Look, you see that? *I* helped make them do that" is not enough reason to try and confuse the public at large about definitions of words that they already know so little about.
The public is already pretty fuzzy on what a "hacker" is. You have no hope of educating them about the differences between a "hacker" and a "cracker" when for years, the media's been calling the bad guy's "hackers." Who do you think CNN would rather upset - you, or their computer-illiterate viewers? Heck, I think you'd be surprised to learn how many people out there don't even truly understand where a "computer virus" comes from. Many people (I've met some!) actually believe that computer viruses, like actual viruses, simply appear spontaneously. They don't realize that someone has to actually sit down and write the virus.
Anyway, it's a lost cause, not even Slashdot accepts your little quest to change the language, as evidence by the preponderanceof posts like yours, correcting them, every time they post a story on hackers. Oops, sorry, I mean "crackers."
Spam is a major part of your bandwidth bill
I call bullshit. I would venture that the bandwidth used by downloading movies and music (oops, sorry, I meant "previewing"), combined with surfing and gaming bandwith FAR, FAR outweighs a few hundred kilobytes of unwanted spam.
Spam sucks, but let's not make things up here, guys. Keep things in perspective. No need to lie.
Soon, they'll be chopping off random parts of TV shows to make them look 'cooler'
They already do that. "Enterprise" is broadcast in pseudo-widescreen, with black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. I believe I've seen some episodes of "Angel" broadcast this way, too.
That argument doesn't work on a PC. Logic works under the assumption that nothing changes, that cannot possibly be true when you have other apps running.
Sure it can. A computer is a "Finite State Machine." There are only so many states it can be in. Theoretically, the software could be tested with the machine in every possible state. This would be very time-consuming, but it is definitely not "impossible," as you assert.
Most studies show that people who download songs of P2P networks actually buy more music than those who don't.
Really? Link to one. Just one. I challenge you. One, single, credible study that supports what you just said.
File trading doesn't neccessarily mean sharing or trading MP3s.
Oh, puh-LEASE! What "files" are people talking about when they talk about file "sharing?" Some healthy recipes? Customized boot scripts? "File trading" is simply a sanitized word for "trading illegal copies of copyrighted material including, but not limited to music, movies, and commercial software." No one goes on Kazaa looking for the latest version of Mozilla. The ONLY reason those networks exist is to trade free stuff that is supposed to cost money.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not getting all self-righteous on you. I use Kazaa to find music (but I pay for my movies and software) - I just can't stand hypocrites. Let's call a spade a spade. It's stealing. We all do it, but it's stealing.
There are all kinds of artists that don't mind their music being shared
Yeah, Madonna sounded pretty pleased that I'd downloaded that song. Name a popular RIAA member artist that condones their music being ripped off their CD and freely traded on P2P networks. I'm not talking about concert bootlegs or limited samples, I'm talking about direct CD rips.
The ONLY artists that don't mind - or even LIKE - their music being freely traded are indies. The ones striving for recognition. The ones who aren't making any money off of their music anyway.
Trading MP3s is a good way to "preview" an album/artist. I ROUTINELY buy CDs after having listened to a few MP3s.
I see this argument occassionally, yet I've never actually met anyone who's done it. I know I've never done it. The only CDs I buy nowadays are CDs I would buy anyway, even without having heard their songs on the radio. That is to say, I like the band, and I know I'll like their new album, even before I hear it. But everyone I know who downloads music has virtually stopped buying CDs.
My point is, assuming you're not lying out your ass, you are a very rare exception, not the rule.
I don't think "The Hulk" will be worth the $12 it will cost me to go see it. So my options are to pay it anyway and see it, save my money and not see it, or sneak into the theatre.
What you are doing is analogous to sneaking into the theatre. The "moral" thing to do would be to just not go to the movie. MP3 theives insist on having their cake and eating it too. Then, they bitch about how bad the song was (while keeping it on their 5,000-song playlist anyway).
A fool and his money ...
You'll happily throw money at a kid you've never met, to support depriving artists of the money they rightfully deserve, but you won't spend that money on that actual artists that you listen to! The irony of it all.
Why do you want to threaten your customers?
Who said the RIAA is threatening its customers? The interview, and indeed even your comments, describe their actions against file-traders; a group that is well known to rarely actually pay for their music. The "customers" are the ones who actually go to the store and buy CDs, and have probably never even used Kazaa.
sample your music
You misspelt "steal."
Mortage interest deductions are great and inflating the market value of homes is a good thing. Yes it makes them more expensive but homes are an investment.
.com bubble.
... how does this demonstrate that the US is a better place to live than Canada? You can lose money in investments in both countries; what was your point? Does the US protect your losses somehow? In Canada, you can write your losses off against future (or past) capital gains. Does the US have similar allowances?
.com bubble burst, Ottawa's local unemployment rate "soared" to almost 8%. I don't recall it ever being 10% in my lifetime, nationwide. It is well known, however, that some regions do have unemployment rates in that neighborhood, such as Cape Breton Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
:) Our taxes aren't as bad as people make them out to be, and anyone who's had to experience both medical systems (without insurance) will never again complain about socialised health care. Canada has legalized prostitution, a drinking age of 19 instead of 21, much lower crime per capita, a more relaxed lifestyle, a virtually identical quality of life (depending on which province you look at), superior strip clubs, and soon-to-be virtually legal marijuana. Canada, in spite of al l its problems, has more freedoms, less prejudice, and better care for the poor than the US, in my opinion and experience.
How is more expensive housing a "good thing?" It makes that "investment" less affordable to the middle and lower class. They're forced to stay in rental arrangements longer, rather than building their equity. Inflating the market values of homes is not a good thing.
My aunt lost over a million dollars due to bad stock purchases during the
So did many Canadians
Anyway her apartment she bought in 88 on the shore of Lake Michigan went up over a million in value! Low interests rates are to thank. She bought it for only 250k!
Sorry to break it to you, but that's nothing spectacular. That's less than a 10% ROI, which don't get me wrong, is good, but it's nothing phenomenal. A similar gain could have been realized with a simple stock index fund, or balanced mutual fund.
It also equals lower unemployment rates. When I was in Canada back in 96 and 97 the rate was close to %10
Huh??? Where was that - Newfoundland? Got a reference to back that up? I'm in a city with a terrible unemployment rate at the moment: Ottawa. A very tech-oriented city. When the
Personally, I think Canada is the better place to live. That's probably why I'm still here.
Something occurred to me the other day that lead me to conclude that in the future, the US will be forced to adopted a socialised health care system similar to Canada's. Let me explain.
Ever since its creation, insurance has been a numbers game where the house always wins. When you insure your car, you're gambling that someday you'll have a crash which costs more to fix than you've paid into the system. The insurance companies, on the other hand, gamble that you'll pay more in premiums than you'll cost in claims. Of course, the insurace company always wins. If it is ever any other way, they simply raise your rates. Otherwise, insurance companies would go out of business. It's simple math: they must take in more than they pay out.
When you apply for auto insurance, they guess at how much of a risk you will be. They check to see if you've had any past claims, accidents, speeding tickets, or whatever. They even discriminate based on factors that would be blatantly illegal in any other context. Your sex and age affect your rate. However, in the end, it's all a crap shoot. No one can predict the future. You have complete control over what kind of driver you will be. If you have no speeding tickets, you might very well be an extraordinarily safe and cautious driver. Or, you may just be lucky.
Health insurance is similar. No one knows what they will die from. The insurance companies ask you all sorts of questions to try and find out, and your rates are based on your medical history. But in the end, the healthy ones are subsidising the sick ones.
We are at the threshold of some unstoppable, extraordinary changes in the health insurance industry. Soon, very soon, it will be possible to take a drop of your blood, and generate a very detailed schedule of your future illnesses and eventual doom, assuming you don't crash your car first. They will know with great certainty that you will definitely develop Parkinson's. That will affect your rate.
Those who are destined to be expensively ill will not be able to afford health care, or will be denied coverage completely. The only people who will be able to afford health care will be those who won't need it.
The only fair solution will be to force everyone to subsidize the sick, for the good of society. This will most likely be implemented as a tax of some sort, or maybe simply a component of existing taxes (like in Canada). Canada's system will survive these advances intact, but the US's will require massive evolution, or scores will die. Government is going to have to take over health care. It is extremely unrealistic to expect the insurance companies to be altruistic and generous when it comes to covering the inevitably ill.
It will most certainly be interesting. It will be controversial. Many still cling to the hope that this type of genetic screening will be successfully held at bay through legislation; a hope which runs counter to evolution itself. It is human nature to relentlessly advance science.
That's why no medical advancements come out of nations with such systems.
Penicillin isn't a "medical advancement?" Invented in Canada, by a Canadian.
My old man paid %50 of his income on just the national Canadian tax and nothing else.
Wow, that's a lot. What's the "national Canadian tax" anyway? Are you talking about just the federal income tax? Or are you combining federal and provincial taxes? Are you counting property tax? Anyway, there's something wrong there. Last year, my federal income tax was about 23% of my income, and I didn't even max out my RRSP. I only had a few hundred dollars of student loan interest to claim, and I have no kids.
I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bullshit. Can I see some numbers? I'm trying to figure out how anyone could be on the hook for 50% of their gross. Did he gross something on the order of $250,000? Was it mostly capital gains income? Is he retired? I can't figure out how a tax bill could be that high.
The only thing I envy about the US tax system is that mortgage interest is tax-deductible. THAT would be sweet.
What ever happened to opting in for things like spam, services, etc.
It never existed. Think about it. Who wants spam or telemarketer calls? No one would opt in. And I don't mean "No one" as in, "maybe a few people, but most people wouldn't," I mean "no one" as in literally their lists would be completely empty. The reason why "opt in" didn't take off is obvious.
You're very wrong. I'm a Canadian with my Restricted and Unrestricted PALs, and the magazine itself is not illegal. Sure, owning fully autos is illegal, but so what? What on Earth makes a clip "auto" or "semi-auto?" It's just a clip - it holds ammo. The action of the rifle that'll hold it is completely unrelated. It could be either.
... I think it's 7 rounds in Canada. But this isn't a clip anymore. It's just an MP3 player that happens to look like an ammo clip.
Yes, it is illegal to have a magazine that'll hold more than
This would get through customs no problem.