That implies that "the little guy" is capable of winning against "the big guy". Which as we all well know is false. Warner would keep it in the courts until either an out-of-court settlement, or until "the little guy" is bankrupt.
It reminds me of the band 'KISS', who sues pretty much anyone attempting to use the word 'kiss', or even any form of it, anywhere.
And they always succeed.
So if a band can stop the use of a common term for a show of emotion from ever being used, why can't Apple stop the use of a common fruit from ever being used.
I think that's thinking too much into it. Personally, I think their line of thinking goes more like:
We haven't run out of IPv4, therefore it is unnecessary to change from IPv4.
I don't think anyone will 'really' change to IPv6 until we are literally fully, 100% out, and they have no other option. And even still, it'll take at least a year after that point.
And call it a hunch, but two days after this is enacted, corporations will push through an act that the corporation itself, since it's already considered an individual entity, will become allowed to vote. Thus making everything the exact same as it was before.
Sweet, now the political parties will only have ONE company they need to bribe donate to for all of their voting needs. At least that'll curb a bit of the government spending. That, or they'll just give themselves bigger bonuses. I'm sure they'll take the interest of the public to heart first though:P.
I actually outright refuse to shop at a few select places whose obnoxious ads have pissed me off.
At the very top of the list are Old Navy and Old Spice. GOD I hate those ads, and I could care less if they have a product I want, I'd gladly pay twice their price for a similar article from somewhere else if I needed to.
Sadly, more people need to vote with their wallets in this manner... otherwise my gesture is simply only to appease me mentally, but does nothing either to or for the company/product.
If they want to supplement their income with ads, then they need to find that price point where they can reasonably justify it to their consumers.
The problem is, I wouldn't accept the game for free if I got spammed with obtrusive ads. I'd gladly pay the $60 or whatever for an ad-free game though.
I'd fully and honestly pay $60 for a game without ads than take a free one with. Hell, I'd do that instead of them PAYING me say, $5 to take a game with ads.
Although admittedly, in the latter case I'd take as many of the 'ad' copies to make $5, throw them out, and buy the $60 at a discount:P
And of course, it won't actually affect the spammers in the slightest. In fact, they'll be laughing their asses of at it.
Sure sending an email costs a cent. Why, I guess the spammer will have to pay for all of those emails he sends from his home comp- oh, wait... we forgot about the MILLIONS OF BOTNET COMPUTERS that send the spam, not the spammer's home computer.
So now he's not only still sending spam, but he's ruining the financial records of millions of individuals. Profit AND entertainment. Hell, this might cause more people to get INTO spamming, purely for the "fuck people up" factor.
Maybe, just maybe, companies should stop relying solely on advertising to get income. If the only reason you're still in business is because of something that pisses off most of your customers, maybe it's best if you weren't in that business any more.
Short answer: You don't. I've come to find that the "dream" jobs are based almost entirely on WHO you know, very little on what you know. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone, so I'm screwed.
But, the "dream job", or "living the american dream" is a fairy tale that no longer applies to the vast, vast majority of the population.
Oh, it'll save more than just fuel. Have you seen what they charge to allow a ship through there?
In 2008, a total of 21,415 vessels passed through the canal and the receipts from the canal totaled $5.381 billion. Average cost per-ship is roughly $250,000.00
I'm sorry... a quarter of a million dollars to let a ship float down a path of water that doesn't even have any water locks? Come ON! I somehow doubt that the upkeep of the canal costs 5.38 billion a friggin' year!
Isn't making assumptions wonderfully fun? I'm one of those *crazy*, and according to you nonexistant, people who use torrents for legal purposes. You will assume I only download illegal material... but what about, for example:
1. I very much enjoy watching video game speed runs. A large majority is available via torrent. Legally. Should I be cut off for this? Some of them are quite large, and use a lot of bandwidth... which costs you money. Should I be treated worse and cut off faster because of that? 2. Despite what you believe, there IS a large quantity of music available legally via torrent. I tend to avoid mainstream stuff, because honestly I think most of it sucks. Should I be cut off for this?
Obviously, I will use less bandwidth than a "heavy" user, but that is irrelevant for the whole 'cut off' aspect.
And now let's stir up a little bit of controversy that may come up, that one day you may eventually have to face. After all, as you have claimed, not everyone is honest, and some people are even scammers or just troublemakers.
Let's look at assumptions a bit more, but from the other perspective. You mentioned that you cut off people who an authority (you neglect to mention which, or how) has fingered as 'uploading' illegal files. Now for the sake of argument, let's delve into this a little bit. Can you confirm that whom you're speaking with is actually an authority, and not someone pretending to be one via email/phone? Could say... anyone with a spoofed phone number or email header make a claim? Secondly, do you attempt in the slightest to confirm these claims, or just accept them at face value?
Say for example, for the sake of stirring up trouble and/or lawsuits, I rename "Megaman9SpeedrunAudioRip.mp3" (and don't say this is stupid... I DO in actuality have audio rips of some game speed runs, which are available to others) to "Britney Spears - Whatever.mp3" and start uploading it. If I were to tell you this after being cut off, would you outright ignore me? Say for example someone with the same mindset as me has a lot of money, has documented the entire process of him doing this (via screenshots, etc), and later comes to you with a lawyer. What would be your reaction? Call them liars and kick them out?
Basically, are you just doing as told, or taking even the slightest responsibility for your actions? Obviously, a large number of people illegally fileshare. Let's say that it's the vast, vast majority. Is that still any reason it condemn the innocent at the same time as the guilty? A few cracked eggs to make an omelette, so to speak?
And as others have mentioned, the technology of torrenting can have immeasurable value in the future, if used correctly. Will you condemn this technology because someone else says it's bad?
I realize that the likely response to all of this will be along the lines of "Virtually all people nowadays illegally fileshare, what can I do about it, the police tell me to cut someone off and I can't disobey them, etc, etc"... but I just wanted to put a few extra thoughts in your mind. Hopefully I succeeded, but I somehow doubt it.
True Crypt will work -for now-. Can you tell me that it won't be broken 5 years from now? 20? 50? What guarantee do you have that the encryption used today won't be utterly worthless decades from now? Because after all, we've all seen that encryption methods in the past haven't been defeated by new technology and such.
So the thumb drive containing whatever extraordinarily sensitive information sits in someone's "to be unencrypted" pile for a dozen years or so. If I had ridiculously sensitive information for some reason, I'd rather the lost/stolen thumb drive destroy itself, rather than just sit and collect dust, waiting for unencrypting technology to catch up to it.
The problem around here is that most of the major roads and buildings around them were designed for horse and carriage, before cars even existed. So a lot of those roads are virtually too thin for the irritatingly-wide SUV's that were so damn popular for so long, let alone vehicles AND bicycles beside them.
Except that goes contrary to the primary benifit (in my eyes) of music over the internet. The capability of listening to music that's NOT local and/or sold locally. A few of my favourite genres I'd have never encountered in my entire life if it hadn't been for the internet.
True, lawyers themselves don't start lawsuits (typically)... HOWEVER, I can't even count how many times I've seen a commercial stating "If you've been in an accident, or anything bad has happened to you, call our number, and we will GET YOU MONEY".
Don't count the lawyers out of the equation either... they're also the ones telling people that suing people is a GOOD thing.
I keep wondering why people always bring up "drive destroying" methods when disposing of a hard drive. What about that Linux (I think) command that overwrites the entire hard drive with 0's? Wasn't there some website offering a pile of money to any data-recovery place that can get anything off of a drive that's had that done? And hasn't pretty much every data-recovery place either failed, or refused to even try once they heard that this command was used?
So... why no just use that command? At least the drive is re-useable after.
Slashdot Mirror
That implies that "the little guy" is capable of winning against "the big guy". Which as we all well know is false. Warner would keep it in the courts until either an out-of-court settlement, or until "the little guy" is bankrupt.
It reminds me of the band 'KISS', who sues pretty much anyone attempting to use the word 'kiss', or even any form of it, anywhere.
And they always succeed.
So if a band can stop the use of a common term for a show of emotion from ever being used, why can't Apple stop the use of a common fruit from ever being used.
Isn't living in lawyerland wonderful?
I think that's thinking too much into it. Personally, I think their line of thinking goes more like:
We haven't run out of IPv4, therefore it is unnecessary to change from IPv4.
I don't think anyone will 'really' change to IPv6 until we are literally fully, 100% out, and they have no other option. And even still, it'll take at least a year after that point.
And call it a hunch, but two days after this is enacted, corporations will push through an act that the corporation itself, since it's already considered an individual entity, will become allowed to vote. Thus making everything the exact same as it was before.
Sweet, now the political parties will only have ONE company they need to bribe donate to for all of their voting needs. At least that'll curb a bit of the government spending. That, or they'll just give themselves bigger bonuses. I'm sure they'll take the interest of the public to heart first though :P.
Yyyyep, I'd still pay $100 instead of free-but-with-ads for the game. It'd have to be a fucking good game though.
Most likely, I simply wouldn't play it.
I actually outright refuse to shop at a few select places whose obnoxious ads have pissed me off.
At the very top of the list are Old Navy and Old Spice. GOD I hate those ads, and I could care less if they have a product I want, I'd gladly pay twice their price for a similar article from somewhere else if I needed to.
Sadly, more people need to vote with their wallets in this manner... otherwise my gesture is simply only to appease me mentally, but does nothing either to or for the company/product.
If they want to supplement their income with ads, then they need to find that price point where they can reasonably justify it to their consumers.
The problem is, I wouldn't accept the game for free if I got spammed with obtrusive ads. I'd gladly pay the $60 or whatever for an ad-free game though.
I'd fully and honestly pay $60 for a game without ads than take a free one with. Hell, I'd do that instead of them PAYING me say, $5 to take a game with ads.
Although admittedly, in the latter case I'd take as many of the 'ad' copies to make $5, throw them out, and buy the $60 at a discount :P
Well heck, if it worked for Cable TV, then it'll work for... oh, wait.
And of course, it won't actually affect the spammers in the slightest. In fact, they'll be laughing their asses of at it.
Sure sending an email costs a cent. Why, I guess the spammer will have to pay for all of those emails he sends from his home comp- oh, wait... we forgot about the MILLIONS OF BOTNET COMPUTERS that send the spam, not the spammer's home computer.
So now he's not only still sending spam, but he's ruining the financial records of millions of individuals. Profit AND entertainment. Hell, this might cause more people to get INTO spamming, purely for the "fuck people up" factor.
Maybe, just maybe, companies should stop relying solely on advertising to get income. If the only reason you're still in business is because of something that pisses off most of your customers, maybe it's best if you weren't in that business any more.
when and how DO you get to your dream job?
Short answer: You don't. I've come to find that the "dream" jobs are based almost entirely on WHO you know, very little on what you know. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone, so I'm screwed.
But, the "dream job", or "living the american dream" is a fairy tale that no longer applies to the vast, vast majority of the population.
Sorry to depress, but I calls it likes I sees it.
Oh, it'll save more than just fuel. Have you seen what they charge to allow a ship through there?
In 2008, a total of 21,415 vessels passed through the canal and the receipts from the canal totaled $5.381 billion. Average cost per-ship is roughly $250,000.00
I'm sorry... a quarter of a million dollars to let a ship float down a path of water that doesn't even have any water locks? Come ON! I somehow doubt that the upkeep of the canal costs 5.38 billion a friggin' year!
Isn't making assumptions wonderfully fun? I'm one of those *crazy*, and according to you nonexistant, people who use torrents for legal purposes. You will assume I only download illegal material... but what about, for example:
1. I very much enjoy watching video game speed runs. A large majority is available via torrent. Legally. Should I be cut off for this? Some of them are quite large, and use a lot of bandwidth... which costs you money. Should I be treated worse and cut off faster because of that?
2. Despite what you believe, there IS a large quantity of music available legally via torrent. I tend to avoid mainstream stuff, because honestly I think most of it sucks. Should I be cut off for this?
Obviously, I will use less bandwidth than a "heavy" user, but that is irrelevant for the whole 'cut off' aspect.
And now let's stir up a little bit of controversy that may come up, that one day you may eventually have to face. After all, as you have claimed, not everyone is honest, and some people are even scammers or just troublemakers.
Let's look at assumptions a bit more, but from the other perspective. You mentioned that you cut off people who an authority (you neglect to mention which, or how) has fingered as 'uploading' illegal files. Now for the sake of argument, let's delve into this a little bit. Can you confirm that whom you're speaking with is actually an authority, and not someone pretending to be one via email/phone? Could say... anyone with a spoofed phone number or email header make a claim? Secondly, do you attempt in the slightest to confirm these claims, or just accept them at face value?
Say for example, for the sake of stirring up trouble and/or lawsuits, I rename "Megaman9SpeedrunAudioRip.mp3" (and don't say this is stupid... I DO in actuality have audio rips of some game speed runs, which are available to others) to "Britney Spears - Whatever.mp3" and start uploading it. If I were to tell you this after being cut off, would you outright ignore me? Say for example someone with the same mindset as me has a lot of money, has documented the entire process of him doing this (via screenshots, etc), and later comes to you with a lawyer. What would be your reaction? Call them liars and kick them out?
Basically, are you just doing as told, or taking even the slightest responsibility for your actions? Obviously, a large number of people illegally fileshare. Let's say that it's the vast, vast majority. Is that still any reason it condemn the innocent at the same time as the guilty? A few cracked eggs to make an omelette, so to speak?
And as others have mentioned, the technology of torrenting can have immeasurable value in the future, if used correctly. Will you condemn this technology because someone else says it's bad?
I realize that the likely response to all of this will be along the lines of "Virtually all people nowadays illegally fileshare, what can I do about it, the police tell me to cut someone off and I can't disobey them, etc, etc"... but I just wanted to put a few extra thoughts in your mind. Hopefully I succeeded, but I somehow doubt it.
In my opinion, most laws could easily be replaced with "Don't be stupid, this is common fucking sense!"
Sadly, many people I see on the road or otherwise seem incapable of complying with that.
Exactly.
This just in: Peer pressure exists.
News at 11.
I'm putting my money on "case is dropped, RIAA gets to keep things secret"
True Crypt will work -for now-. Can you tell me that it won't be broken 5 years from now? 20? 50? What guarantee do you have that the encryption used today won't be utterly worthless decades from now? Because after all, we've all seen that encryption methods in the past haven't been defeated by new technology and such.
So the thumb drive containing whatever extraordinarily sensitive information sits in someone's "to be unencrypted" pile for a dozen years or so. If I had ridiculously sensitive information for some reason, I'd rather the lost/stolen thumb drive destroy itself, rather than just sit and collect dust, waiting for unencrypting technology to catch up to it.
So... you're saying that we SHOULDN'T advance medical technology so that people die off faster?
Good luck getting other people on board with that one.
The problem around here is that most of the major roads and buildings around them were designed for horse and carriage, before cars even existed. So a lot of those roads are virtually too thin for the irritatingly-wide SUV's that were so damn popular for so long, let alone vehicles AND bicycles beside them.
Except that goes contrary to the primary benifit (in my eyes) of music over the internet. The capability of listening to music that's NOT local and/or sold locally. A few of my favourite genres I'd have never encountered in my entire life if it hadn't been for the internet.
Probably moreso along the lines of "we" as in "common sense", RIAA-lover.
True, lawyers themselves don't start lawsuits (typically)... HOWEVER, I can't even count how many times I've seen a commercial stating "If you've been in an accident, or anything bad has happened to you, call our number, and we will GET YOU MONEY".
Don't count the lawyers out of the equation either... they're also the ones telling people that suing people is a GOOD thing.
I keep wondering why people always bring up "drive destroying" methods when disposing of a hard drive. What about that Linux (I think) command that overwrites the entire hard drive with 0's? Wasn't there some website offering a pile of money to any data-recovery place that can get anything off of a drive that's had that done? And hasn't pretty much every data-recovery place either failed, or refused to even try once they heard that this command was used?
So... why no just use that command? At least the drive is re-useable after.