While IANAL and have no dog in this fight, I couldn't help but notice that (to continue the theme of this thread...) your spelling is wrong:
You're comment, however, is wrong.
IIRC, part of the HBGary "attack" was merely social engineering: someone pretending to be an employee asked an administrator for a password and it was handed over. Some passwords were just guessed at and succeeded.
I don't know if that's really 'hacking', or just pointing up how lax HBGary was about their own security.
[note: I may be misremembering details from the ArsTechnica articles about the HBGary scandal. I recommend them, interesting reading.]
This^. Also, I do not believe that the above arrests pertain to HBGary...the above arrests were for the PayPal DDOS...so...no...not hacking.
I'm at work. Taking lunch. I'll tell you that you really need to cite some sources. Ad-hominem attacks only serve to convince the rest of us that you really have nothing of value to speak of.
To be honest, I've never been shown convincing evidence that there was ANY time when artists made more money (profit here that goes to the artist - as we've already discussed in the above article, quite a bit does NOT make it to the artist) from recordings than from performances.
Not 100% true. The Germans as well as anyone else in the world at that time knew perfectly well that Hitler hated and planned to kill the Jews. He wrote about it well before he came to power...MeinKampf anyone? It was the best-selling book in all of Germany for a couple years. And sold pretty darned well around the world. Hitler's plans were there for all to see.
Now, granted...I don't think people necessarily understood what they were reading, but surely, with that many people buying the book and an amount of them reading it, someone thought about it? I don't really think that the German people are as innocent in that regard as you spoke of. It doesn't make sense. They would have to be stupid to NOT know.
I think the more reasonable explanation is that Hitler appealed to their sense of nationality because they were a broken people. The brokenness of their state after World War I was horrible. The alliance from that First War wanted Germany to pay for and take responsibility for the entire first war. Germany fell from being a world power to being virtually a 2nd or 3rd rate nation...and its people felt that. They just wanted to feel national pride, etc. THAT's why they didnt care that Hitler planned to kill Jews - they just looked the other way. They just wanted to believe in Hitler and were willing to accept whatever cost.
So, I'm not really countering your entire argument. I feel this actually makes it stronger...because this more closely parallels what we see today than you pointed out. We, as a nation, are having the wool pulled over our eyes over the whole terrorism thing or concerning copyright or patent or many various things that we as a nation value greatly (pretty much anything stemming from capitalism it appears). We're willing to sacrifice everything it seems because we'd rather just turn our faces aside and pretend that we're not giving up freedoms because we just WANT to believe the lies.
Straw-man argument again. The art in this piece is not the image that you see...the art is in how he expressed it...the image that you see is your connection point. The art is the 1,000 vinyl record pieces that made it. If you don't appreciate it, that's fine. But it's not your place, nor is it the judges place to determine if that is artistic.
The actual argument here is that copyright law and case law sets up a situation where the judge gets to determine if a piece is art or not. Whether or not you believe in impartiality of judges, this now takes the control in determining what art is away from artists and viewers BOTH and places it in the hands of a few judges. For artists, this is a SCARY proposition.
Arguing that this piece is not art is only straw-man - the argument has nothing to do with whether you or I believe that it's art. The argument only concerns whether a single judge should have control over this aspect of culture.
Arguing against poorly realized statements by fleshing them out yourself free from context and then responding to these arguments of your own fashioning is actually a perfectly legitimate way of debating in high school. It does not, however, make for useful or constructive discussion.
I am aware that you most likely hold strong opinions (or are paid to hold these opinions just as likely), but you actually engender no sympathy nor reason to read your arguments by arguing in this way. Should you temper your arguments a little more and provide evidence, citations, and other support, we might be more prone to not feel like we wasted 30 seconds of our lives reading your crap.
As an IT person, I could see this kind of vehemence against IE as yes, I've had to explain that IE isn't the only browser to some people, but...for programmers, things may look a little differently.
I have to design end to end solutions for my company's customers. I don't get the option to change the browser that end users are using. Thus my hatred for a browser is solely based off of how easy or difficult it is for me to implement a solution that works for the user's situation and my own personal like or dislike for browsing in a browser.
Since we deliver video through flash currently, I have developed a like for the stability that IE8 has provided compared to firefox and chrome. It crashes far less in our use-cases than the other browsers and since stability is extremely important to us, it is welcome. Personally, for my own browsing, I prefer chrome. I hate firefox currently because of its slow feel and IE has the same sluggish feeling compared with chrome.
So, despite my technical background, I actually do have a soft-spot for IE despite its shortcomings. Nonetheless, in situations where I am supporting someone who is struggling with some IE only problem, I am frustrated to no end that they have IE and IE only (God forbid that you can install another browser?!?!?).
Regarding your narrative on the history of browser wars, I am fairly certain that you are mis-remembering your history. As has been addressed by AC and chrono above, IE actually was a jump ahead of the competition in its day, even as it locked developers in over time. Similarly, Flash has enabled similar jumps in video technology even if it locks its users in over time. Proprietary technology sometimes is the ONLY way to solve a particular problem at a given point in time. Once you have a solution, the inertia to continue using that solution is quite strong, hence lock-in. Even without a company forcing and encouraging lock-in, it happens from sheer familiarity and expertise with the technology.
Yes, but Mike isn't a news source. He's more of a feed of opinion and discourse on topics. Mike noted the interesting situation provided and provided the view that he saw. This is a completely different tack than his debate concerning Murdoch earlier...that difference is what makes this just as worthy of our time.
Yes, but customer service also breeds loyalty, a rather intangible, but extremely lucrative characteristic. It's a decision that has to be made. I know, growing up in Texas, some businesses just plain go out of business if the customer service isn't up to par (there are good examples of those that don't...but anecdotal experience tells me they are the exception)...
Ya...sadly though, then our judges will be just as incompetent, bought, and flaky as our congress-sheeple...at least our judges are only bought...they don't have to run for re-election nearly as much or in as many cases as our congressmen, so we always know they'll support the same corporation time and again...and most of them have at least some understanding that getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar is a BAD thing...
actually, I should amend my comment. It seems that I misinterpreted your comment in the first place...I agree with the other poster that it is kinda a meaningless, picky comment rather than actually contributive, but I take back my original analysis of your comment
On the post: You Know What's Missing From The Aaron Swartz Indictment? Any Mention Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re:
You're comment, however, is wrong.
On the post: Arresting People Associated With Anonymous Unlikely To Have The Impact The Feds Expect
Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrests
This^. Also, I do not believe that the above arrests pertain to HBGary...the above arrests were for the PayPal DDOS...so...no...not hacking.
On the post: RIAA Accounting: How To Sell 1 Million Albums And Still Owe $500,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be honest, I've never been shown convincing evidence that there was ANY time when artists made more money (profit here that goes to the artist - as we've already discussed in the above article, quite a bit does NOT make it to the artist) from recordings than from performances.
On the post: Reading 'Go The F**k To Sleep' May Lead To Child Abuse And Racism*
Re: Why no revival? Is there Still no revival?
On the post: FBI Agents Getting More Power To Spy On People With Less Oversight
Re:
Now, granted...I don't think people necessarily understood what they were reading, but surely, with that many people buying the book and an amount of them reading it, someone thought about it? I don't really think that the German people are as innocent in that regard as you spoke of. It doesn't make sense. They would have to be stupid to NOT know.
I think the more reasonable explanation is that Hitler appealed to their sense of nationality because they were a broken people. The brokenness of their state after World War I was horrible. The alliance from that First War wanted Germany to pay for and take responsibility for the entire first war. Germany fell from being a world power to being virtually a 2nd or 3rd rate nation...and its people felt that. They just wanted to feel national pride, etc. THAT's why they didnt care that Hitler planned to kill Jews - they just looked the other way. They just wanted to believe in Hitler and were willing to accept whatever cost.
So, I'm not really countering your entire argument. I feel this actually makes it stronger...because this more closely parallels what we see today than you pointed out. We, as a nation, are having the wool pulled over our eyes over the whole terrorism thing or concerning copyright or patent or many various things that we as a nation value greatly (pretty much anything stemming from capitalism it appears). We're willing to sacrifice everything it seems because we'd rather just turn our faces aside and pretend that we're not giving up freedoms because we just WANT to believe the lies.
On the post: Another Appropriation Artist Loses Copyright Lawsuit; Are We Nearing The End Of Appropriation Art?
Re:
The actual argument here is that copyright law and case law sets up a situation where the judge gets to determine if a piece is art or not. Whether or not you believe in impartiality of judges, this now takes the control in determining what art is away from artists and viewers BOTH and places it in the hands of a few judges. For artists, this is a SCARY proposition.
Arguing that this piece is not art is only straw-man - the argument has nothing to do with whether you or I believe that it's art. The argument only concerns whether a single judge should have control over this aspect of culture.
On the post: Smashing The Scales: Not Everything Needs 'Balance'
Re: Re: True story
I am aware that you most likely hold strong opinions (or are paid to hold these opinions just as likely), but you actually engender no sympathy nor reason to read your arguments by arguing in this way. Should you temper your arguments a little more and provide evidence, citations, and other support, we might be more prone to not feel like we wasted 30 seconds of our lives reading your crap.
On the post: Rock & A Hard Place: Will Google Dropping H.264 Lead To Antitrust Questions?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to design end to end solutions for my company's customers. I don't get the option to change the browser that end users are using. Thus my hatred for a browser is solely based off of how easy or difficult it is for me to implement a solution that works for the user's situation and my own personal like or dislike for browsing in a browser.
Since we deliver video through flash currently, I have developed a like for the stability that IE8 has provided compared to firefox and chrome. It crashes far less in our use-cases than the other browsers and since stability is extremely important to us, it is welcome. Personally, for my own browsing, I prefer chrome. I hate firefox currently because of its slow feel and IE has the same sluggish feeling compared with chrome.
So, despite my technical background, I actually do have a soft-spot for IE despite its shortcomings. Nonetheless, in situations where I am supporting someone who is struggling with some IE only problem, I am frustrated to no end that they have IE and IE only (God forbid that you can install another browser?!?!?).
Regarding your narrative on the history of browser wars, I am fairly certain that you are mis-remembering your history. As has been addressed by AC and chrono above, IE actually was a jump ahead of the competition in its day, even as it locked developers in over time. Similarly, Flash has enabled similar jumps in video technology even if it locks its users in over time. Proprietary technology sometimes is the ONLY way to solve a particular problem at a given point in time. Once you have a solution, the inertia to continue using that solution is quite strong, hence lock-in. Even without a company forcing and encouraging lock-in, it happens from sheer familiarity and expertise with the technology.
On the post: Why The Oracle Java Patents Were Literally A Joke Played By Sun Engineers
Re: Mudak
On the post: Andrew Cuomo Grandstanding Again: Threatens To Sue Social Networking Site Over Actions Of Its Users
Re: I Wonder
On the post: Radiohead's Thom Yorke Predicts Record Labels Have Months, Not Years, Left To Live
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wishful thinking
On the post: EFF, Public Citizen And ACLU Ask Judge To Quash Mass Subpoenas From US Copyright Group
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NetCoalition/CCIA Reinforces Recent Comments To IP Czar Over Bogus Industry Studies On Copyright
Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
On the post: Student Sues School For Privacy Invasion After School Found Nude Photos On Her Phone
Re: Re:
On the post: Company Sues MPEG-LA, Claiming Antitrust Violations Over Patents
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Zappos Admits Pricing Mistake Cost It $1.6 Million; But Is Upfront About Taking The Hit Itself
Re: Re:
On the post: NYTimes' Boss Pretends That A Paywall Creates A Stronger Emotional Bond
Re: Re: Something about Techdirt
On the post: Germany "Horrified" That Google's Collecting Publicly-Available Data
Re: Hidden SSID's not actually secure, or hidden
On the post: FCC Slowly Realizing Science And Data Are Kind Of Important
Re:
On the post: Photographer Makes One-Third Of His Living Expenses Off Only 94 Fans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Living?
Next >>