The thing is, we want all schools to put rules in place to prevent this sort of thing. Thus, the school should bare the liability for authorising this, not the employees.
Strange, I don't remember the last time you WERE in a good mood. You are always huffing and puffing and telling people you disagree with to STFU. However, that's thankfully not a problem because you are a retard, so we know not to take you too seriously.
Cheers for the input, though! Would you be willing to tell us why we shouldn't debate the utilitarian merits of particular fields of endeavour?
Is it because there clearly IS a huge difference between fields? Afraid what conclusions such a debate might lead to, perhaps?
Like I said, I have no intention of praising artists just for being "artists" -- or games programmers, whatever. These are not a useful lines of work, imo, and I hate to see governments grant draconian laws for their sakes, especially when such laws stifle other, more useful industries.
I'm going to give you a chance to convince me that you are not a luddite and ask you: if you were forced to make a choice, would you give up all science and technology, or all art? Which do you think is a luxury, and which is vital for the betterment and possibly the survival of the human race?
No. I make no claim that software engineers are special, just that software is of more practical value to society than art. Similarly, doctors are more valuable to society than software engineers.
"Just because art is on a higher and thus less essential tier of Maslow's hierarchy of needs doesn't mean that art isn't valuable. And when the population is so high, everyone needs a job, and some people have talent that lies in entertaining others."
Didn't say it wasn't valuable, just that it's less valuable.
You brought up Maslow's hierarchy, so let's work with that: software is in the bottom two levels, art consumption (opposed to creation) isn't even there. "Creativity" is placed at the top, but that could equally imply either art or software development.
If you remove software, then people move down the hierarchy; if you remove prefab art, then what happens exactly?
"All those software engineers would be depressed if they couldn't go home and watch the SyFy channel after a hard day of writing code."
Of course, I'm sure ubergeeks would slit their wrists if they didn't have the syfy channel!
Laurie makes $400k an EPISODE?? He wouldn't make that much if he was a real doctor and saved real people.
So, like the original article says, some people make a ridiculous amount of money, while others don't make nearly enough.
The current system encourages this. Remove the distributor monopolies and let the artists self-organise in the free market and you have a much fairer system.
True. I personally don't think it will be enough to save the book publishing industry, especially in the long run. The younger generations seem to be perfectly content with ebooks, as they have no emotional/nostalgic attachment to the dead-tree format. I don't doubt that there will always be demand for physical books, though I expect the volume to decline (we could draw a parallel with vinyl vs CDs, I suppose).
What would really put the nail in their coffin would be on-demand printing of ebooks by small print-shops...
Just struck me that even though the book publishers may be the last ones to join the internet/piracy panic, they may be the first ones who will be decimated.
Unlike the music and film publishers, the book publishers are the only ones who haven't had any big disruptions by technology since Gutenberg -- perhaps their lobbyists weren't as prepared for this fight as the other industries'?
Software developers not only create something of practical value that improves people's daily lives, they occasionally have to take on a HUGE amount of responsibility -- who do you think writes the software the runs the internet, or your car, or airplanes, and so on? People's lives depend on the devs doing a good job!
Entertainers are just.. clowns. They are a luxury for those who have money to waste, and even if they all disappeared tomorrow, it would make little difference to the world.
I simply HATE it when people put "artists" on a pedestal like they are something special. They aren't.
Indeed, even if you can guess which digits were pressed, you'll have to brute-force the sequence. If the phone locks itself completely after a number of failed attempts, this is a pretty pointless exploit.
If you think about it, this is not a new "problem". You could theoretically dust the keys on an ATM for fingerprints to find out which digits the last customer pressed. Since you only get 3 attempts with most credit cards, you need a good deal of luck to guess the PIN number in the correct order.
I agree, however I don't believe it's possible to stop people from watching movies. I don't think most people care enough about copyright or even civil liberties to boycott the major studios simply out of principle.
The only way forward is if the major studios start seeing competition from newcomers, but they've set up a "cartel" to collectively fight anyone new from getting a foothold in the market. That's why they are called a monopoly, after all.
The internet is way more disruptive than anything they've had before, because it means they've lost control of the distribution channel.
While traditionally the distributors would load a bunch of films/tapes/DVDs on a truck and deliver them to the cinema/store and charge any price they wanted, there is now a new player they simply can't compete with in both terms of cost and efficiency.
There is nothing that can be done to save them, really, but the big studio companies own the bigger distributors, and they are putting up a fight -- a fight that may NOT in fact be about saving the distributors!
They clearly don't own the internet's infrastructure, but they sure seem bent on controlling the internet through new legislation that passes some of the profits to themselves! Isn't that what all these Hadopi, Ipred, Digital Economy Act, Australian Firewall etc "projects" are really about?
I'm personally sick and tired of listening to them moan. Not only are they in the "luxury goods" business, meaning what they sell is hardly a necessity, they've been rendered obsolete by new technology, they've even cried "wolf" way too many times, and they've proven themselves to be greedy, selfish and unethical. Can't they just die already?
In the case of a service, which is likely degraded after the secret limit is hit, the end user has no way of knowing the reason of the degradation.
If there's a 10GB limit after which the download speed is capped to 1/4, a typical end-user will probably blame YouTube for being slow rather than the ISP for capping it.
On the post: John Mellencamp: The Internet Is An Atomic Bomb For Music
On the post: Apple Pulls Grooveshark From App Store, Because Universal Music Doesn't Like It
On the post: Las Vegas Review-Journal Thinks Suing Sites Over Copyright Will Mean More People Link To It
On the post: Feds Won't Bring Charges Against School District Officials In Webcam Spying
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Won't Bring Charges Against School District Officials In Webcam Spying
Re:
Or, are you saying the school employees should be sued, but not the school district?
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Re:
Cheers for the input, though! Would you be willing to tell us why we shouldn't debate the utilitarian merits of particular fields of endeavour?
Is it because there clearly IS a huge difference between fields? Afraid what conclusions such a debate might lead to, perhaps?
Like I said, I have no intention of praising artists just for being "artists" -- or games programmers, whatever. These are not a useful lines of work, imo, and I hate to see governments grant draconian laws for their sakes, especially when such laws stifle other, more useful industries.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re:
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Re:
Didn't say it wasn't valuable, just that it's less valuable.
You brought up Maslow's hierarchy, so let's work with that: software is in the bottom two levels, art consumption (opposed to creation) isn't even there. "Creativity" is placed at the top, but that could equally imply either art or software development.
If you remove software, then people move down the hierarchy; if you remove prefab art, then what happens exactly?
"All those software engineers would be depressed if they couldn't go home and watch the SyFy channel after a hard day of writing code."
Of course, I'm sure ubergeeks would slit their wrists if they didn't have the syfy channel!
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re:
http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/who-are-tvs-top-earners--1459#earners
Laurie makes $400k an EPISODE?? He wouldn't make that much if he was a real doctor and saved real people.
So, like the original article says, some people make a ridiculous amount of money, while others don't make nearly enough.
The current system encourages this. Remove the distributor monopolies and let the artists self-organise in the free market and you have a much fairer system.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Re: Re: The rise of the part-time creator
What would really put the nail in their coffin would be on-demand printing of ebooks by small print-shops...
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: The rise of the part-time creator
Just struck me that even though the book publishers may be the last ones to join the internet/piracy panic, they may be the first ones who will be decimated.
Unlike the music and film publishers, the book publishers are the only ones who haven't had any big disruptions by technology since Gutenberg -- perhaps their lobbyists weren't as prepared for this fight as the other industries'?
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re:
Software developers not only create something of practical value that improves people's daily lives, they occasionally have to take on a HUGE amount of responsibility -- who do you think writes the software the runs the internet, or your car, or airplanes, and so on? People's lives depend on the devs doing a good job!
Entertainers are just.. clowns. They are a luxury for those who have money to waste, and even if they all disappeared tomorrow, it would make little difference to the world.
I simply HATE it when people put "artists" on a pedestal like they are something special. They aren't.
On the post: More And More People Seeing How Collection Societies Have Distorted Copyright
Re:
I'd say copyright is a neo-Marxist thing: it's a government-granted monopoly, and it's totally anti-free market.
On the post: More And More People Seeing How Collection Societies Have Distorted Copyright
Re:
I'd say copyright is a neo-Marxist thing: it's a government-granted monopoly, and it's totally anti-free market.
On the post: Research Claims Hackers Could Figure Out Your Smartphone Password Via Screen Smudges
Re:
If you think about it, this is not a new "problem". You could theoretically dust the keys on an ATM for fingerprints to find out which digits the last customer pressed. Since you only get 3 attempts with most credit cards, you need a good deal of luck to guess the PIN number in the correct order.
On the post: How Many Times Will Content Industries Claim The Sky Is Falling Before People Stop Believing Them?
Re: Re: Re:
The only way forward is if the major studios start seeing competition from newcomers, but they've set up a "cartel" to collectively fight anyone new from getting a foothold in the market. That's why they are called a monopoly, after all.
On the post: How Many Times Will Content Industries Claim The Sky Is Falling Before People Stop Believing Them?
Re:
The internet is way more disruptive than anything they've had before, because it means they've lost control of the distribution channel.
While traditionally the distributors would load a bunch of films/tapes/DVDs on a truck and deliver them to the cinema/store and charge any price they wanted, there is now a new player they simply can't compete with in both terms of cost and efficiency.
There is nothing that can be done to save them, really, but the big studio companies own the bigger distributors, and they are putting up a fight -- a fight that may NOT in fact be about saving the distributors!
They clearly don't own the internet's infrastructure, but they sure seem bent on controlling the internet through new legislation that passes some of the profits to themselves! Isn't that what all these Hadopi, Ipred, Digital Economy Act, Australian Firewall etc "projects" are really about?
I'm personally sick and tired of listening to them moan. Not only are they in the "luxury goods" business, meaning what they sell is hardly a necessity, they've been rendered obsolete by new technology, they've even cried "wolf" way too many times, and they've proven themselves to be greedy, selfish and unethical. Can't they just die already?
On the post: Why Aren't More Companies Sued For Bogus 'Unlimited' Service Claims?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there's a 10GB limit after which the download speed is capped to 1/4, a typical end-user will probably blame YouTube for being slow rather than the ISP for capping it.
On the post: Rupert Murdoch Suing The Sky Out Of Skype
Re: Re: Skyy
But, real real men drink ethernet.
Next >>