If you're adding functionality that isn't adding value to your product, you're doing it wrong. What added development is there (aside from minimal maintenance) after you have a stable platform that supports the popular browsers?
I don't know. while I agree with pretty much everything you said, Ima, I read his post a little differently. Maybe it's a fine distinction, but it sounds more like he's arguing AGAINST advertising rather than arguing FOR paywalls. Paywalls just happen to be the current fashion as far as getting away from advertising is concerned.
Like grumpy said, they've lost sight of who their real customer is/has been but -- and I know how heretical this sounds -- maybe it's because they've decided that customer is a losing bet these days.
I still think they're dumb for doing it, and would be better off (in many ways for many reasons) increasing their readership rather than restricting it, but maybe there's a touch of misguided method to their madness.
(Also, I don't know who this Maneker guy is, but his post struck me as generally poorly written and half-cocked...)
You've created a tautology; between actual costs, set up costs, costs paid by someone else, time invested, opportunity costs, caloric costs, etc. ad nausiem, yes -- nothing is ever free.
Absurdism aside, though, that's not what most people think of when they think of "free."
I'm not sure why those who choose to pay are suckers. That is to say, you would have me believe that I could choose to not-pay and still enjoy the same benefits -- but that ignores the fact that if EVERYONE chooses to not-pay, the show dies. It's foolish for me to consider whether others are unable or unwilling to pay for new content -- if I want to see more, then best I can do is donate what I'm willing and able to pay. How does that make me a sucker?
Security through obscurity is generally understood to be any security measure that wholly or strongly relies on not being understood in order to provide protection. Once such a measure IS understood, it provides no protection. This being the case, if Google's intent in keeping their methods closed is to prevent being gamed (I'm not convinced that's their intent, really), then it qualifies.
The picture, from the sounds of the decision (found here) is that the girl was arguing that the school was violating her First Amendment rights to free speech and violated her right to due process. The Due Process claim isn't addressed in the linked decision.
The video was recoded, encouraged, and distributed by The Daughter, but she didn't say anything herself, only other students did. The school had all students involved "write a statement" about the video, and told The Daughter to remove it from YouTube and her home computer, and then suspended her for two days. no other students involved were punished.
It esentially boils down to the Daughter arguing that the school had no right to discipline her for off-campus speech which, hurtful though it may have been, this video was.
I was talking about the same lawyer, and I stand by my comments. I don't doubt that the "little girl" is anything but sweet and innocent, but that doesn't change whether or not the school had authority to punish her -- nor does it change the fact that it's not illegal to be a bitch. There are plenty of horrible human beings who have broken no laws, I chalk this up as just one more.
You're probably right about taking it up with the PTS, school board, etc, but the guy was a lawyer -- when the only tool you have is a hammer... -shrugs- I certainly don't think he should be publicly beaten because he took a legal matter (does the school have authority outside of school hours/grounds) to the civil courts.
And just because there was arguably a bad outcome (bitch remains a bitch) doesn't change the facts over whether or not the school was in the right.
Who besides me wanted to hunt that guy down and beat him with a stick?
Uhm, why? There are details missing (like, were the other girls suspended, too, or just the one who posted the video?), but it sounds to me like he was just standing up for his daughter's rights and justly limiting the school's authority. He admits that what his daughter did was mean, and he probably should do the decent thing and take the video down, but there's no law against being mean. And even if there was, it's not the school's place to enforce such things.
For instance, alot of parents suspect that their children may decide to have sex, and subject them to embarrassing talks, and even make them take birth control without their consent based on that suspicion. Ohh, evil parents. They should wait until they catch their child in flagrante delicto before taking them to the doctor. :) Or until they catch an STD, or get pregnant. Oh, wait...
there is a MAJOR difference between this and your proposed mandated counciling that I would expect you to recognize -- namely, this it is the *parents* imposing restrictions and protections on *their child* in the interest of protecting *that child* from the child's own decisions.
In your mandated-counciling idea, it's some third party forcing corrections on the child under the suspicion that the child could be a danger to someone else. I wouldn't be (very) bothered if a parent decided to get their kid counciling because they thought he needed it, but it's a much different thing when a third party mandates that same couciling on the basis of suspicion of potential inappropriate behavior.
I'd argue that the worst case scenario would be that the counciling you'd make mandatory has negative effects on some children -- that's not a given, but it's a possibility. I can't imagine you'd be OK with it if your kids were forced to have counciling because someone suspected they didn't behave appropriately.
I would take issue with "suspected bullying," but otherwise I agree. If you have evidence of bullying then that's one thing, but you shouldn't take such action based on suspicion.
one would have to be stupid not to think that the students involved would not also bring it into school
But until they do it's not the under school's responsibility or authority. WHEN they do, then the school authorities can and should act.
bring the bullying student into their office for a talk
This would be appropriate once the behavior is exhibited under school authority. Until then you're essentially advising school to punish kids on the acusation, because last I checked going to the principal's office was one (low level) form of punishment.
making it clear that these tactics will not be tolerated in school would not be a bad move.
I would expect that to be a standard policy that would be communicated at the beginning of each term; in the absence of actual behavior, reiteration should be unnecessary.
"it is true only in a very general way. the money goes somewhere in the economy, but not into gaming or music."
What says he can't spend money on OTHER games or music just because he DIDN'T spend money on THOSE games and music? You can make no claim on where or how he spends his money based on where or how he didn't spend it. It's even possible that after pirating Game A he turns around and BUYS Game A because it was THAT GOOD and he wanted to reward the people that made it. That happens, anecdotally, all the time.
"if the material they are pirating is important to them, it is likely that they will, in some manner, pay to enjoy it."
False assumption. If the material were sufficiently important to them to out-weigh or at least counter-balance the asking price, AND there was not suitable substitute at a better value-cost ratio, then they MIGHT choose to pay for it. The difference is that without piracy there's a GREATER CHANCE that the content is not consumed at all. You could write a brilliant story or shoot a brilliant movie, but what benefit is that to you (or anyone) if it's never consumed?
And there's ALWAYS an alternative. Only teenagers and college kids ever complain about having NOTHING to do, and even they don't usually mean it. Just because someone's not consuming your content doesn't mean they're sitting on their thumbs staring into space. If they decide the value of your content isn't worth the cost to obtain it, then they'll just do something else.
To assume that simply eliminating the ability to access your content for free means that those people (or even ANY percentage of those people) would then be paying to access your content is at best foolish and at worst gross arogance.
On the post: Debunking The Logic In Favor Of Paywalls
Re: Re: Re: Poor assertion
On the post: Debunking The Logic In Favor Of Paywalls
Like grumpy said, they've lost sight of who their real customer is/has been but -- and I know how heretical this sounds -- maybe it's because they've decided that customer is a losing bet these days.
I still think they're dumb for doing it, and would be better off (in many ways for many reasons) increasing their readership rather than restricting it, but maybe there's a touch of misguided method to their madness.
(Also, I don't know who this Maneker guy is, but his post struck me as generally poorly written and half-cocked...)
On the post: Judge Says Damages In Tenenbaum Case Were 'Unconstitutionally Excessive'
On the post: Users Revolt Over Blizzard's Requirement Of 'Real Names' In Forum Comments
Re: Re: Not a big deal...
On the post: Is It Better To *Require* Or *Request* Something In Return For Free Content?
Re: Re:
On the post: Is It Better To *Require* Or *Request* Something In Return For Free Content?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absurdism aside, though, that's not what most people think of when they think of "free."
On the post: Should Schools Be Involved In Disciplining Students For Off-Campus Bullying?
Re: What?
On the post: TV Show Released On BitTorrent Raises $20,000 Pretty Damn Fast
Re:
On the post: Is Google Required To Carry Anyone's Advertising? French Regulators Seem To Think So
Re: Re: Re: Security through obscurity
On the post: Should Schools Be Involved In Disciplining Students For Off-Campus Bullying?
Re: Re: The Constitution
The video was recoded, encouraged, and distributed by The Daughter, but she didn't say anything herself, only other students did. The school had all students involved "write a statement" about the video, and told The Daughter to remove it from YouTube and her home computer, and then suspended her for two days. no other students involved were punished.
It esentially boils down to the Daughter arguing that the school had no right to discipline her for off-campus speech which, hurtful though it may have been, this video was.
On the post: Should Schools Be Involved In Disciplining Students For Off-Campus Bullying?
Re: The Constitution
http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-files/pdfs/jc-v-beverly-hills-a.pdf
On the post: Should Schools Be Involved In Disciplining Students For Off-Campus Bullying?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're probably right about taking it up with the PTS, school board, etc, but the guy was a lawyer -- when the only tool you have is a hammer... -shrugs- I certainly don't think he should be publicly beaten because he took a legal matter (does the school have authority outside of school hours/grounds) to the civil courts.
And just because there was arguably a bad outcome (bitch remains a bitch) doesn't change the facts over whether or not the school was in the right.
On the post: Should Schools Be Involved In Disciplining Students For Off-Campus Bullying?
Re: Re: Re:
Uhm, why? There are details missing (like, were the other girls suspended, too, or just the one who posted the video?), but it sounds to me like he was just standing up for his daughter's rights and justly limiting the school's authority. He admits that what his daughter did was mean, and he probably should do the decent thing and take the video down, but there's no law against being mean. And even if there was, it's not the school's place to enforce such things.
On the post: Should Schools Be Involved In Disciplining Students For Off-Campus Bullying?
Re: Re: Re:
there is a MAJOR difference between this and your proposed mandated counciling that I would expect you to recognize -- namely, this it is the *parents* imposing restrictions and protections on *their child* in the interest of protecting *that child* from the child's own decisions.
In your mandated-counciling idea, it's some third party forcing corrections on the child under the suspicion that the child could be a danger to someone else. I wouldn't be (very) bothered if a parent decided to get their kid counciling because they thought he needed it, but it's a much different thing when a third party mandates that same couciling on the basis of suspicion of potential inappropriate behavior.
On the post: Should Schools Be Involved In Disciplining Students For Off-Campus Bullying?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Should Schools Be Involved In Disciplining Students For Off-Campus Bullying?
Re:
On the post: Should Schools Be Involved In Disciplining Students For Off-Campus Bullying?
Re:
But until they do it's not the under school's responsibility or authority. WHEN they do, then the school authorities can and should act.
bring the bullying student into their office for a talk
This would be appropriate once the behavior is exhibited under school authority. Until then you're essentially advising school to punish kids on the acusation, because last I checked going to the principal's office was one (low level) form of punishment.
making it clear that these tactics will not be tolerated in school would not be a bad move.
I would expect that to be a standard policy that would be communicated at the beginning of each term; in the absence of actual behavior, reiteration should be unnecessary.
On the post: US International Trade Commission Learns That 'Piracy' Claims From Industry Are Bunk
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What says he can't spend money on OTHER games or music just because he DIDN'T spend money on THOSE games and music? You can make no claim on where or how he spends his money based on where or how he didn't spend it. It's even possible that after pirating Game A he turns around and BUYS Game A because it was THAT GOOD and he wanted to reward the people that made it. That happens, anecdotally, all the time.
On the post: US International Trade Commission Learns That 'Piracy' Claims From Industry Are Bunk
Re: Re:
False assumption. If the material were sufficiently important to them to out-weigh or at least counter-balance the asking price, AND there was not suitable substitute at a better value-cost ratio, then they MIGHT choose to pay for it. The difference is that without piracy there's a GREATER CHANCE that the content is not consumed at all. You could write a brilliant story or shoot a brilliant movie, but what benefit is that to you (or anyone) if it's never consumed?
And there's ALWAYS an alternative. Only teenagers and college kids ever complain about having NOTHING to do, and even they don't usually mean it. Just because someone's not consuming your content doesn't mean they're sitting on their thumbs staring into space. If they decide the value of your content isn't worth the cost to obtain it, then they'll just do something else.
To assume that simply eliminating the ability to access your content for free means that those people (or even ANY percentage of those people) would then be paying to access your content is at best foolish and at worst gross arogance.
On the post: Neil Gaiman And Todd McFarlane Fight Over Whose Derivative Character Is Owned By Whom
Re: Best. Quote. Ever.
Next >>