Do they care if you record music off the radio? Nope. Do they care if you record a video clip on TV?
They used to whine a lot, until they managed to get a lot of countries to put a sort of fee or tax on recordable media.
Sure they don't make money from downloads, but they don't make money from radio or TV either
Sure they do. A lot. The TV or radio can't play a song without paying for it. Usually lots and lots of money. Normally you also have to pay to hear it, be it a radio/tv license or by listening to commercials.
But since the marginal cost of computer games is as close to zero as it can get, you can't talk about margins like that. You could easily say that their margin is not smaller today, it's much larger, since there are a lot more gamers, with higher and higher income.
It is also quite possible that they got caught by a rotating IP address, and while there may have been something questionable going on at that IP address, that IP address now belongs to somebody completely different.
Unfortunately not; it still belongs to the organization, and what user is behind it is possibly not very interesting, legally. The reason they want to find the actual person might be that it's easier and much cheaper to get some money from a poor citizen than to sue the organization for damages.
I think that if you can sanely, rationaly, and beyond a reasonable doubt prove that someone has violated the copyright, you have the right to make them stop and seek some amount of damages.
(emphasis mine)
Damages for what? A lost sale? Hardly.
Seriously, thousands of people make their living producing the games that I love to play.
And through all the time they have been doing this, piracy has been rampant in the computer game industry. Funny how they keep whining, they should all be dead and gone by now, since there's obviously no money to be made when everyone are copying their valuable intellectual property.
Exactly. The issue here is that Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization, but Google clearly is not. Presumably IRS could be interested in exactly how close ties they have.
Do you also just google for the debian package when you want to install it? After all, it will show up there anyway. You'll also get a list of the dependencies, so any apt isn't even necessary.
V.44-compressed dialup is equivalent to a 300kbit/s uncompressed broadband line... therefore faster.
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but in order to not give anyone else any ideas.. no, you won't get anything *near* 300kbit/s with any file that are worth downloading. You can read why if you check for example the wikipedia article about V.44, and some basics about data compression.
False - I regularly use windows as a host for example, running distcc in cygwin. The only thing you have to make sure is that the compiler called by distcc will create object files for the client system. You can have a renderfarm of sparcs generating code for your ARM router if you like.
So you have a problem with hardware vendors refusing to release info necessary to support your hardware, this doesn't make the operating system broken, since the wireless works much better than windows using hardware from vendors that actually wants to have their hardware supported. Ubuntu can't do the job of your random joe hardware designer.
Naturally someone designing a computer around an ARM processor and think about putting Ubuntu on it would chose hardware from closed source windows-only vendors. I have no problems at all with WPA or USB ADSL routers, so I guess according to my anecdotal evidence it will work everywhere.
I think it's "hey, one can only hope". I know I do.
However, I think more important is that someone can now make a "netbook" without having to stick with intel, and still get a complete and modern desktop OS. An extra bonus would be the difficulties to switch to Windows XP.
If you shoot at the resolution you are tend to project at, you can't modify the frames in any non-trivial way other than colour/contrast adjustments. Anything else will in practice degrade the resolution. Shooting at a higher resolution gives you a lot of headroom that can be used to for example cut away areas that you don't want to use, and zoom in interesting areas. Similar to when music studios record and work with 192kHz audio signals to give some headroom for processing, then resample to whatever resolution the end user wants, 44.1 and 48kHz for example.
Other uses could be for reporters, journalists or nature photographers who can film at general areas of interest and then later cut out and scale up interesting areas.
Well, we can already download it at a reasonable rate if "we" live in civilized countries..:)
Also, the technology you're talking about is called JPEG2000 and is already a standard, but since it doesn't offer that much quality improvement over standard JPEG it's not much used yet. The good progressive update would be great for the web though.
But as it turns out resolution is proportional to the number of pixels across the long edge of the frame. Note that movie cameras are marketed to profesionals who understand this
Too bad that the "profesionals" don't understand that it depends on the ratio between the width and height of the sensor as well, thus "28K" doesn't mean a thing unless you know the aspect ratio.
I get about 100/day on a gmail account a couple of years old, and I always display my full email address everywhere (for example here on slashdot). There's no point hiding it when gmail handle all the spam for me.
Slashdot Mirror
You have chosen to live in a society
No, you're born into it, and randomly moving away isn't always an option.
Do they care if you record music off the radio? Nope. Do they care if you record a video clip on TV?
They used to whine a lot, until they managed to get a lot of countries to put a sort of fee or tax on recordable media.
Sure they don't make money from downloads, but they don't make money from radio or TV either
Sure they do. A lot. The TV or radio can't play a song without paying for it. Usually lots and lots of money. Normally you also have to pay to hear it, be it a radio/tv license or by listening to commercials.
If you ladies are done kissing
pix or it didn't happen
But since the marginal cost of computer games is as close to zero as it can get, you can't talk about margins like that. You could easily say that their margin is not smaller today, it's much larger, since there are a lot more gamers, with higher and higher income.
It is also quite possible that they got caught by a rotating IP address, and while there may have been something questionable going on at that IP address, that IP address now belongs to somebody completely different.
Unfortunately not; it still belongs to the organization, and what user is behind it is possibly not very interesting, legally. The reason they want to find the actual person might be that it's easier and much cheaper to get some money from a poor citizen than to sue the organization for damages.
I think that if you can sanely, rationaly, and beyond a reasonable doubt prove that someone has violated the copyright, you have the right to make them stop and seek some amount of damages.
(emphasis mine)
Damages for what? A lost sale? Hardly.
Seriously, thousands of people make their living producing the games that I love to play.
And through all the time they have been doing this, piracy has been rampant in the computer game industry. Funny how they keep whining, they should all be dead and gone by now, since there's obviously no money to be made when everyone are copying their valuable intellectual property.
but that's OK because it's the same company?
Exactly. The issue here is that Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization, but Google clearly is not. Presumably IRS could be interested in exactly how close ties they have.
Do you also just google for the debian package when you want to install it? After all, it will show up there anyway. You'll also get a list of the dependencies, so any apt isn't even necessary.
V.44-compressed dialup is equivalent to a 300kbit/s uncompressed broadband line... therefore faster.
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but in order to not give anyone else any ideas.. no, you won't get anything *near* 300kbit/s with any file that are worth downloading. You can read why if you check for example the wikipedia article about V.44, and some basics about data compression.
Obviously Al Gore is to blame for all of this.
False - I regularly use windows as a host for example, running distcc in cygwin. The only thing you have to make sure is that the compiler called by distcc will create object files for the client system. You can have a renderfarm of sparcs generating code for your ARM router if you like.
There's a minor error in the article, which claims that your servers need access to the source. distcc was designed to not need this.
Ok great, yeah, give the robots DNA too. Like we'll have any chance now.
So you have a problem with hardware vendors refusing to release info necessary to support your hardware, this doesn't make the operating system broken, since the wireless works much better than windows using hardware from vendors that actually wants to have their hardware supported. Ubuntu can't do the job of your random joe hardware designer.
Naturally someone designing a computer around an ARM processor and think about putting Ubuntu on it would chose hardware from closed source windows-only vendors. I have no problems at all with WPA or USB ADSL routers, so I guess according to my anecdotal evidence it will work everywhere.
Yes. We know. That's what the GP talked about as well. It's nothing.
I think it's "hey, one can only hope". I know I do.
However, I think more important is that someone can now make a "netbook" without having to stick with intel, and still get a complete and modern desktop OS. An extra bonus would be the difficulties to switch to Windows XP.
If you shoot at the resolution you are tend to project at, you can't modify the frames in any non-trivial way other than colour/contrast adjustments. Anything else will in practice degrade the resolution. Shooting at a higher resolution gives you a lot of headroom that can be used to for example cut away areas that you don't want to use, and zoom in interesting areas. Similar to when music studios record and work with 192kHz audio signals to give some headroom for processing, then resample to whatever resolution the end user wants, 44.1 and 48kHz for example.
Other uses could be for reporters, journalists or nature photographers who can film at general areas of interest and then later cut out and scale up interesting areas.
Well, we can already download it at a reasonable rate if "we" live in civilized countries.. :)
Also, the technology you're talking about is called JPEG2000 and is already a standard, but since it doesn't offer that much quality improvement over standard JPEG it's not much used yet. The good progressive update would be great for the web though.
I think there will be artifacts shrinking it that small for computer viewing.
No.
Well ok, a longer response could be that it's more or less trivial to "shrink" or enlarge images to any resolution you want.
But as it turns out resolution is proportional to the number of pixels across the long edge of the frame. Note that movie cameras are marketed to profesionals who understand this
Too bad that the "profesionals" don't understand that it depends on the ratio between the width and height of the sensor as well, thus "28K" doesn't mean a thing unless you know the aspect ratio.
I get about 100/day on a gmail account a couple of years old, and I always display my full email address everywhere (for example here on slashdot). There's no point hiding it when gmail handle all the spam for me.
Pedophiles tend to be gullible and desperate
citation needed
Do the install in a virtual machine like VirtualBox or similar. Then you can do as many snapshots you like directly.
Care to post an URL?
My hard drives have always been unnoticeable audibly
Then you're not very old.