The difference is that those websites are illegally maintained as opposed to just illegally accessed. Jimbo sits comfortably in the U.S., and there's nothing China can do about it but block his site. These people are actually breaking the law, and that's a bit more serious.
It doesn't matter what you do, any decrease in oil prices is going to be temporary. Crude oil is neither reusable nor indefinitely reusable. Supply is going to decrease irreversibly, and the general trend of prices will be upwards. As long as they go up, everything else goes up, until it becomes economically viable to drop oil for whatever's available. If there's nothing else available, you go broke.
Whenever we talk about "reducing oil prices" by this or that, we're just kidding ourselves.
That in itself seems like a problem; maybe it could be rectified by an algorithm based on saturation and volume indices? It would need to be corrected for continuity, since artists don't have an infinite spectrum...
I was working with C when I was nine years old, and everyone knows I'm an idiot, a complete idiot, the dumbest little pissant who ever lived. Hell, 99% of kids are smarter than I am today. If I could do it, the dumbest kid in America could.
Summers didn't say that women weren't capable of participating in math and science fields. He said that they were less likely to participate, that there were fewer capable women. That's not to say that there aren't capable women.
And I doubt you'd be saying "it's just social structure" in disciplines that are skewed towards women (with the exception of domestic skills). In fact, my guess would be that you'd say, or have said, that women would ipso facto make better world leaders than men, which is further than Summers went in regard to mathematics and heavily analytic sciences. Why is it acceptable to state an inherent difference when women are favored?
"Any disparity of gender, of any kind, that works against women, is enough evidence of sexism to get sued onto the street."
So, in short, neither. They're just covering their asses.
If they're asking questions about legal procedure at all, it's probably a sign that this is a civilian buyer; most government officials already know! (Whether they care...well, that's a different matter.) I don't think that this is about the government, really.
Of course, knowing that private citizens and corporations are overseeing you without regard for legal procedure isn't much more comforting, especially since the government is probably looking anyway...
I could see banning under-13's (who already require parental supervision), but minors? What does a sixteen-year-old have to fear from a pedophile? Even if this passes (oh, Canada!), it's an absurd smoke-and-mirrors measure.
The long-standing justification for music downloading is that artists should receive money through shows rather than album sales. How can you use this justification and not realize that the price of shows would go up? A musician's lifestyle is expensive, you know; that money's got to come from somewhere.
No, no, no, and no.
However, there's no need for any of those. There are thousands of database programs out there. Quark Express is a substitute for competence. The GIMP can do most things Photoshop can, and more than enough for government purposes. RTF is open, and that's even supported by Word.
The pound's not that strong. £300-£400 is only about $500-600. That's still a lot for a monitor, but they'll probably pull it down soon, and it's really the kind of thing you wouldn't buy unless you had a bit extra tucked aside anyway; it's a frill.
That this "penalty" is only a decrease in resolution. Unless they have a gigantic TV, in which case my guess would be that they could afford the better technology, the average Joe won't notice unless he's specifically looking for it.
The problem I have with Ricardo's theory of rent is that if the land is at that price, there's no incentive to rent it over plot B. Instead, unless there's a strong seller's market, the landlord will meet the lessee somewhere in the middle, and only get some majority of the profits.
This is, of course, within the assumption of rationality.
Did anyone really expect anything else? These kinds of webpages have a long history of being geared towards the mass-market, and the mass-market is semi-luddites. The primary market couldn't use HTML if their lives depended on it, let alone script anything. And one has to recognize that a site that does the things the average geek would want it to do would get too much traffic to give out for free. They can't really afford to have interesting websites on a service like this, or they'd go bankrupt.
To take the Tom Sawyer comparison a step further..
on
The New Wisdom of the Web
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Tom Sawyer, according the the external narration of the novel, inadvertently found that on some level, the children liked painting the fence, so long as it was not obligatory. (I don't remember the exact wording, but Twain compared it to driving a buggy.) People like to show off what they know, hence Wikipedia. People like to go on about every thought that pops into their heads, hence blogs, including LJ and mySpace. People like to throw in their two cents about everything, hence ours truly, as well as Fark, America's Debate, 2, etc. If someone's under obligation to do these things, you get scholars, columnists, politicos, etc. complaining about their jobs.
The grey area isn't in the definition of theft per se, but rather in the definition of property. While "intellectual property" can't be removed from the owner, except by actions that are far more illegal than petit theft, it is the revenue of which the owner is deprived. To download a film or album without the author's consent is to remove an instance of his rights as the creator, and that instance holds definite value. While to say that intellectualy property is being stolen is a misnomer, inasmuch as the property remains in the hands of the creator and out of the hands of the perpetrator, a particular instance, with definite value, is totally withheld from the creator and instead given to the perpetrator, and perhaps others. It isn't tangible, to be sure, but neither is credit card fraud or the tracking of accounts, yet both of those are indubitably theft. The author has created a source of wealth for himself, and you are removing an instance of that wealth.
The thing is, though, that if you didn't buy it, odds are that most of the people in your social circle won't either; in pure economic terms, the advertising is worthless. It might be possible to cash in on the extra fame, but on a per capita basis, it's not really as valuable. And I'm sorry, but I don't see how it helps to sustain the cartel. Not only is downloading an FU to the cartel and its business model, but many do it for that explicit purpose.
You may say I'm being materialistic here, but bear in mind that ars gratia artis is a relatively new concept. The artistic profession, at many points in our history, as a way to get out of more taxing professions. Remember that many of the classics we spend full semesters on were written for per-chapter pay. Look at Hugo's Les Misérables: out of 48 books (comprising 600k words), one is spent on a barely-relevant battle, one on the workings of a convent, and the first on a bit part who's forgotten by the end of the second. Artistic fervour is great, but everyone's got to pay the bills.
Well, what's theft? Is theft just stealing that which one can tangibly hold? A computer geek, of all people, must know that things can be valuable without being tangible! I concede that those associated with major Hollywood films aren't exactly going to starve to death over this. However, these people go to bed with everyone and his competitor for supplemental income, and even so, wouldn't be as rich as they are (although that might not be a bad thing) if everyone did this. And that's only the spotlight whores, the actors, directors, and producers; if everyone did this, the screenwriters, idea men, etc. would be screwed, even more than already.
There's a difference between putting a lockdown on a scientific breakthrough that could be useful to others and putting a lockdown on something unique that you yourself created. It could run as a gift economy, sure, and I admire the artists who rely on such, but that shouldn't be the consumer's decision to make. When you download, you deprive the artist of revenue and give nothing in return; it's as bad as taking twenty dollars out of the CEO's pocket. Whatever he's done to deserve it, that's a crime.
IBM is motivated by pure profit, and they did this for just that reason. And for the reason of pure profit, IBM has advanced the course of science. That's the idea of capitalism; people work harder when their purpose is more tangible than the good of mankind's collective knowledge.
Of course, there is the danger of this becoming "capitalism at its worst," i.e., patented...
It's only a mental illness over short periods of time, such that one cannot function in society, rather than a full ninety-minute lecture without such a task as taking notes. Besides, most colleges would disagree with you, that is is and educator's responsibility to cater to the handicaps of the mentally ill.
Let's face it, most downloaders aren't in it for the convenience. Whether it's an ideological beef with the MPAA, lack of funds, or just plain stinginess, most people don't want to pay for these movies. This might catch on among people who don't feel like going out to the store or waiting for it to come via online stores, but it's not going to curb illegal downloading.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that those websites are illegally maintained as opposed to just illegally accessed. Jimbo sits comfortably in the U.S., and there's nothing China can do about it but block his site. These people are actually breaking the law, and that's a bit more serious.
Yeah, well, in China they don't stay behind bars as long...
It doesn't matter what you do, any decrease in oil prices is going to be temporary. Crude oil is neither reusable nor indefinitely reusable. Supply is going to decrease irreversibly, and the general trend of prices will be upwards. As long as they go up, everything else goes up, until it becomes economically viable to drop oil for whatever's available. If there's nothing else available, you go broke.
Whenever we talk about "reducing oil prices" by this or that, we're just kidding ourselves.
That in itself seems like a problem; maybe it could be rectified by an algorithm based on saturation and volume indices? It would need to be corrected for continuity, since artists don't have an infinite spectrum...
What happens if you give Escher this thing?
How badly do you have to screw up to make it possible to hack through a virtual document?
I was working with C when I was nine years old, and everyone knows I'm an idiot, a complete idiot, the dumbest little pissant who ever lived. Hell, 99% of kids are smarter than I am today. If I could do it, the dumbest kid in America could.
Summers didn't say that women weren't capable of participating in math and science fields. He said that they were less likely to participate, that there were fewer capable women. That's not to say that there aren't capable women.
And I doubt you'd be saying "it's just social structure" in disciplines that are skewed towards women (with the exception of domestic skills). In fact, my guess would be that you'd say, or have said, that women would ipso facto make better world leaders than men, which is further than Summers went in regard to mathematics and heavily analytic sciences. Why is it acceptable to state an inherent difference when women are favored?
"Any disparity of gender, of any kind, that works against women, is enough evidence of sexism to get sued onto the street." So, in short, neither. They're just covering their asses.
If they're asking questions about legal procedure at all, it's probably a sign that this is a civilian buyer; most government officials already know! (Whether they care...well, that's a different matter.) I don't think that this is about the government, really. Of course, knowing that private citizens and corporations are overseeing you without regard for legal procedure isn't much more comforting, especially since the government is probably looking anyway...
I could see banning under-13's (who already require parental supervision), but minors? What does a sixteen-year-old have to fear from a pedophile? Even if this passes (oh, Canada!), it's an absurd smoke-and-mirrors measure.
The long-standing justification for music downloading is that artists should receive money through shows rather than album sales. How can you use this justification and not realize that the price of shows would go up? A musician's lifestyle is expensive, you know; that money's got to come from somewhere.
The thing I like about YouTube is that they have their videos as standard shockwave files...I can't get most other sites to run on my browser/OS.
No, no, no, and no. However, there's no need for any of those. There are thousands of database programs out there. Quark Express is a substitute for competence. The GIMP can do most things Photoshop can, and more than enough for government purposes. RTF is open, and that's even supported by Word.
The pound's not that strong. £300-£400 is only about $500-600. That's still a lot for a monitor, but they'll probably pull it down soon, and it's really the kind of thing you wouldn't buy unless you had a bit extra tucked aside anyway; it's a frill.
That this "penalty" is only a decrease in resolution. Unless they have a gigantic TV, in which case my guess would be that they could afford the better technology, the average Joe won't notice unless he's specifically looking for it.
The problem I have with Ricardo's theory of rent is that if the land is at that price, there's no incentive to rent it over plot B. Instead, unless there's a strong seller's market, the landlord will meet the lessee somewhere in the middle, and only get some majority of the profits.
This is, of course, within the assumption of rationality.
Did anyone really expect anything else? These kinds of webpages have a long history of being geared towards the mass-market, and the mass-market is semi-luddites. The primary market couldn't use HTML if their lives depended on it, let alone script anything. And one has to recognize that a site that does the things the average geek would want it to do would get too much traffic to give out for free. They can't really afford to have interesting websites on a service like this, or they'd go bankrupt.
Tom Sawyer, according the the external narration of the novel, inadvertently found that on some level, the children liked painting the fence, so long as it was not obligatory. (I don't remember the exact wording, but Twain compared it to driving a buggy.) People like to show off what they know, hence Wikipedia. People like to go on about every thought that pops into their heads, hence blogs, including LJ and mySpace. People like to throw in their two cents about everything, hence ours truly, as well as Fark, America's Debate, 2, etc. If someone's under obligation to do these things, you get scholars, columnists, politicos, etc. complaining about their jobs.
The grey area isn't in the definition of theft per se, but rather in the definition of property. While "intellectual property" can't be removed from the owner, except by actions that are far more illegal than petit theft, it is the revenue of which the owner is deprived. To download a film or album without the author's consent is to remove an instance of his rights as the creator, and that instance holds definite value. While to say that intellectualy property is being stolen is a misnomer, inasmuch as the property remains in the hands of the creator and out of the hands of the perpetrator, a particular instance, with definite value, is totally withheld from the creator and instead given to the perpetrator, and perhaps others. It isn't tangible, to be sure, but neither is credit card fraud or the tracking of accounts, yet both of those are indubitably theft. The author has created a source of wealth for himself, and you are removing an instance of that wealth.
The thing is, though, that if you didn't buy it, odds are that most of the people in your social circle won't either; in pure economic terms, the advertising is worthless. It might be possible to cash in on the extra fame, but on a per capita basis, it's not really as valuable. And I'm sorry, but I don't see how it helps to sustain the cartel. Not only is downloading an FU to the cartel and its business model, but many do it for that explicit purpose.
You may say I'm being materialistic here, but bear in mind that ars gratia artis is a relatively new concept. The artistic profession, at many points in our history, as a way to get out of more taxing professions. Remember that many of the classics we spend full semesters on were written for per-chapter pay. Look at Hugo's Les Misérables: out of 48 books (comprising 600k words), one is spent on a barely-relevant battle, one on the workings of a convent, and the first on a bit part who's forgotten by the end of the second. Artistic fervour is great, but everyone's got to pay the bills.
Well, what's theft? Is theft just stealing that which one can tangibly hold? A computer geek, of all people, must know that things can be valuable without being tangible! I concede that those associated with major Hollywood films aren't exactly going to starve to death over this. However, these people go to bed with everyone and his competitor for supplemental income, and even so, wouldn't be as rich as they are (although that might not be a bad thing) if everyone did this. And that's only the spotlight whores, the actors, directors, and producers; if everyone did this, the screenwriters, idea men, etc. would be screwed, even more than already.
There's a difference between putting a lockdown on a scientific breakthrough that could be useful to others and putting a lockdown on something unique that you yourself created. It could run as a gift economy, sure, and I admire the artists who rely on such, but that shouldn't be the consumer's decision to make. When you download, you deprive the artist of revenue and give nothing in return; it's as bad as taking twenty dollars out of the CEO's pocket. Whatever he's done to deserve it, that's a crime.
IBM is motivated by pure profit, and they did this for just that reason. And for the reason of pure profit, IBM has advanced the course of science. That's the idea of capitalism; people work harder when their purpose is more tangible than the good of mankind's collective knowledge.
Of course, there is the danger of this becoming "capitalism at its worst," i.e., patented...
It's only a mental illness over short periods of time, such that one cannot function in society, rather than a full ninety-minute lecture without such a task as taking notes. Besides, most colleges would disagree with you, that is is and educator's responsibility to cater to the handicaps of the mentally ill.
Let's face it, most downloaders aren't in it for the convenience. Whether it's an ideological beef with the MPAA, lack of funds, or just plain stinginess, most people don't want to pay for these movies. This might catch on among people who don't feel like going out to the store or waiting for it to come via online stores, but it's not going to curb illegal downloading.