A city council meeting would be the best place for a news reporter to be to report on what is going on in the community since you probably won't find that info on the NY Times website.
so why can't the guy that used to cover the city hall beat for the smalltown star keep doing it on his or her blog?
and instead of just covering the beat, why not go further in depth as well?
if there are so many crazies that attend these meetings to advance their insane agendas, surely covering them should even provide a human interest/humor section to the blog to attract those disaffected types who use the internet to hate everything.
The problem is that you can't set up an internet radio station to play the other 99% because the dollars will never work thanks to the cartel forcing the 1% to collect for the 99% (but never "find" them), even if you never play music from the 1%.
See the problem?
it's not a problem. it was engineered to stop the free streaming of independent music and it's working very well.
your problem is that you can't just listen to top40 radio and buy CD's at walmart. the sooner you hippies get in line, the sooner all this internet nonsense will stop.
I thought maybe the FBI was out LOOKING FOR TERRORISTS.
clearly the terrorists are not doing enough to show up on the FBI's radar. if osama bin laden was uploading 80's hair metal to the internets the FBI would have given him 2 in the chest and 1 in the head 5 years ago.
it's an excellent example of how the industry "frames the argument" from the blog post:
Thanks to some of the press coverage, and the way the industry often tries to frame this debate, you get this picture of evil kids destroying an industry by downloading tons and tons of content.
according to the industry, file sharing is always about cheap bastards who want everything for free. market failures, legitimate uses, fair use, and all that other stuff is brushed aside in favor of the "you are all thieving bastards" argument.
steven fry is a famous actor (at least in england) who probably has millions (probably hidden in offshore pirate bay accounts!!) and he downloads stuff, so he must be the ultimate thieving bastard, making money from TV and then stealing TV.
i download a lot of british TV (being human and the IT crowd for example) simply because it's not available where i am in the US.
I guess the idea is to use the OS as a platform for running Chrome and accessing Web apps that are in the Cloud, but what about apps that have to run locally? What about games? Adobe Creative Suite?
those are what PC's are for.
it's not like the police are gonna come take your windows PC once chrome OS is out. it will just be another tool to add to your arsenal.
i have several computers, they're like my attack fleet:
a desktop and two file servers: base command.
a fullsize laptop: the mothership.
a netbook: the landing craft.
a smartphone: the scout craft.
a USB stick with portable apps+google: the escape pod.
chrome OS sounds ideal for a cafe/school/library/kiosk where people without computers will want to get online. i hope they support older hardware so people like me can recycle old machines into internet terminals.
This is actually the third "google OS" if I remember right though? Didn't they do one for those walmart PC's or something and then android, and now this?
and so was java, and e-commerce, and application service providers, and B2B, and P2P, and open source, and social networks, and at one point in time: personal computers and the internet.
the technology press treats every new thing as if it is earth shattering and life altering, and then a month later they repeat the process. they've been doing it since the invention of the PC.
cloud computing won't change the world, but it will add to the existing landscape, just like all that other marketing garbage that has ended up changing everything.
so, you can sue someone and just take their computers? that's awesome. i should time my class action lawsuit against bestbuy to coincide with the release of left4dead2.
Okay, but you never gave any kind of reference to "hefty" other than what the author stated.
of course not, there is nothing else to go on. "hefty" is based entirely on the author's statement.
the original question was how can the word hefty be justified based on the article? i have clearly stated that you can justify the word because the fees were considerable, i.e. they were worthy of consideration, and based on that consideration, they were determined to be large enough to be out of reach.
in the absence of real data (numbers) mike took the author's statement to be true and that justifies the use of the word.
the whole blog post is predicated on the author's statement being true, that the fees are too large. your counter argument is based on the assumption that the author's statement is not true, that the fees were not in fact large.
After, that EVERYTHING you said (and that Mike said) was an assumption.
of course. the issue here isn't that mike's good faith in the author is an assumption. the issue is that his assumptions were countered with yet more assumptions. i have stated from the beginning that i stand by my assertion that your assumption dispelled mikes assumption, thanks to your numbers that don't really exist.
all of this drama is about someone accusing mike of spinning the author's statement to support his anti-copyright agenda and then using more assumptions and spin in an attempt to prove this "fact". that is why this is so entertaining.
Incidentally, there is nothing to reply to in this message, so you can stop now.
and now we take the "this is pointless" defense. in public school i didn't learn the latin name for it, but on slashdot it's called winning with the last word.
I would love to know the answer to Chris's questions myself. Someone please answer. Incidentally, try to use the word "hefty" at least once in your answer.
i would too, but please don't detract from my hefty thread. i almost have the threaded view of the posts to a single character in width. this is important work, so please be respectful :-)
You will note that the posts CLEARLY STATED that they were "what if scenarios" or assumptions? So, yes, I said I was going to assume, and I did. Too bad Mike did not.
and using assumptions to disprove someone else's assumptions is entertaining to watch:
you are saying that mike's a bastard for assuming the author of the article is telling the truth. you then assume the author is lying as proof of that.
you are doing exactly what you are bashing mike for doing. that's funny.
Redefining to "anything you have to consider when budgeting" merely changes the definition of "hefty" to a smaller amount. Regardless, we now know that hefty does NOT equate with "large."
no, the combined acts of considering IF you can afford it and THEN considering it to be too great, makes the fee hefty. "hefty" is a result of your consideration. there are two parts, 1)the fee in question being big enough that you have consider whether or not you can afford it and 2) deeming said fee to be large enough that you cannot afford it. there are two definitions of considerable, so in my mind that means there are two criteria for qualifying as hefty.
you have to answer to questions: 1) is this big enough to merit consideration? 2) now that we have considered it, do we consider it to large to fit with our budget?
you can use numbers to answer those questions for yourself, but since we do not know the numbers the author/publisher used, we have to go with the result of their consideration, which was, YES. yes the fees were big enough to consider, and yes they were too big to include. yes the fees were hefty.
this is where you keep going off track. you keep talking about what amount equates to large. that is a quantitative statement. quantitative statements are great for proving things with numerical data. we do not know the numbers involved and therefore cannot quantify. we have to qualify instead. we have to take the author's statement about not affording the fee as qualification. we take the result of the author/publisher's qualification process to justify the amount as hefty.
something is large because you consider it to be large based on your qualification process. mike used the word hefty because the author said it couldn't be included due to budgetary reasons.
you want to call mike out because he doesn't know the numeric value for the project's budget, nor does he know the cost of the licenses and therefore cannot use the word hefty. that is cool.
you then want to make up scenarios with your own assumptions to prove your assumptions are better. that too is cool, but since you don't know the numbers either, you are doing exactly what you are criticizing mike for doing.
my assertion is that because those numeric values are unknown, you cannot use numbers to define hefty. you have to use other information, like the author's statement to justify the use of the word hefty. if you cannot use numbers to define hefty, then you cannot define hefty as "any number outside the budget" because the definition is not quantitative but qualitative.
you (or the anonymous cowards like you) keep saying that mike assumed the fees were large relative to the budget so he can infer his commie pirate bullshit. you then assume small fees relative to the budget to infer he and the people who agree with him are all cheap assholes that want other people's shit for free.
if mike is wrong for doing what he is doing, then by that logic, so too are you. this is why i call this making the world safe from assumptions other than your own. that's why this is so entertaining.
my assertion has always been that since the numbers are unknown, the justification of the word hefty is based on the author's qualitative statement that the fees didn't fit the budget, so since there are no actual numbers involved, the word hefty is justified based on the author saying they couldn't afford it.
this is not redefining anything. it is simply accepting the aggregate result of the author/publisher's qualification process as justification for the word hefty being used in the blog post since there is no numerical data that we can use to perform our own qualification process.
So, what you mean is that any amount over budget is "too large" or "hefty," right?
no, i mean that any amount that you have determined you cannot pay is hefty.
then let's pretend that the fees are a dollar, and then point out that that pretend number is not made up, is not assumption or speculation, isn't even a number, and then infer that being unwilling to pay a dollar means that opposing copyright really is about being cheap.
or we can go with the understanding that if the amount is so great that you have to take it into consideration when budgeting your project, then that fee is hefty.
So, if someone goes to the grocery store to purchase a case of Coke, and Coke, which is often on sale for $6, is actually $6.50, because you considered whether you wished to purchase the Coke for $.50 more, and then decided to wait, by definition $.50 is "hefty."
Yes, his explanation was that he made a HUGE ASSUMPTION. So, fundamentally he had no explanation. Then he should have kept with the words in the original article rather than making stuff up. Again, as long as I knew he was inventing scenarios that did not actually exist, I am fine with that.
do you get that if you accuse someone of assuming, then make up these scenarios with made up numbers, you too are assuming? the problem here is that not having the budget for a fee makes the fee hefty. the fee is hefty because you can't pay it. you have to choose whether or not you can afford it. that consideration is what makes the fee hefty, not the made up numbers involved.
So, if someone goes to the grocery store to purchase a case of Coke, and Coke, which is often on sale for $6, is actually $6.50, because you considered whether you wished to purchase the Coke for $.50 more, and then decided to wait, by definition $.50 is "hefty."
ok, you want to play with numbers, let's play with numbers:
you go to the store with a dollar. the lowest price in the store is two dollars. you can't afford it. ergo, the price are too "hefty".
and anonymous coward stops you on the street and says "what's wrong with you you cheap bastard? you won't pay a dollar to get something from the store? what are you some sort of no money paying retard?"
so you become determined to pay money for something in order to prove to the world that you are worthy. so you do some odd jobs, sells some things and now have $10,000 dollars. you decide to buy a car. that car is $20,000, you can't afford it. ergo the price was too hefty.
again the anonymous coward stops you on the street and say, yeah, that car is expensive, the prices are hefty. you are justified in not buying anything and have my permission to go on with your life.
On the post: But Who Will Cover City Council Meetings?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
so why can't the guy that used to cover the city hall beat for the smalltown star keep doing it on his or her blog?
and instead of just covering the beat, why not go further in depth as well?
if there are so many crazies that attend these meetings to advance their insane agendas, surely covering them should even provide a human interest/humor section to the blog to attract those disaffected types who use the internet to hate everything.
On the post: Not That It Matters... But Appeals Court Rejects Webcasters' Challenge Over Copyright Royalties
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution?
See the problem?
it's not a problem. it was engineered to stop the free streaming of independent music and it's working very well.
your problem is that you can't just listen to top40 radio and buy CD's at walmart. the sooner you hippies get in line, the sooner all this internet nonsense will stop.
On the post: Isn't There Something Ironic In An Anonymous Exec Demanding Transparency From Google?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
MS's reaction was something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBZEk_GrATo
On the post: Isn't There Something Ironic In An Anonymous Exec Demanding Transparency From Google?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh wow...
LINK PLEASE
here you go.
On the post: GNR Uploader Gets Two Months House Arrest, Plus Will Produce Propaganda For RIAA
Re:
clearly the terrorists are not doing enough to show up on the FBI's radar. if osama bin laden was uploading 80's hair metal to the internets the FBI would have given him 2 in the chest and 1 in the head 5 years ago.
On the post: Slap Chop Remix Being Used As A Real TV Ad
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zhHRcxc_qM&NR=1
On the post: Stephen Fry: Time For Politicians To Represent People's Interest On Copyright, Not Corporations
Re: Re: Not competing with "free"
it's an excellent example of how the industry "frames the argument" from the blog post:
Thanks to some of the press coverage, and the way the industry often tries to frame this debate, you get this picture of evil kids destroying an industry by downloading tons and tons of content.
according to the industry, file sharing is always about cheap bastards who want everything for free. market failures, legitimate uses, fair use, and all that other stuff is brushed aside in favor of the "you are all thieving bastards" argument.
steven fry is a famous actor (at least in england) who probably has millions (probably hidden in offshore pirate bay accounts!!) and he downloads stuff, so he must be the ultimate thieving bastard, making money from TV and then stealing TV.
i download a lot of british TV (being human and the IT crowd for example) simply because it's not available where i am in the US.
On the post: The Google Trends Suicide Watch
Re: Re: Trending...
suicide is not the answer. suicide is the question. yes is the answer.
On the post: EMI Stops Selling CDs To Indie Record Stores
Re: The death throws begin?
if you go by the "too big to fail" approach, the american auto industry went bad in the 70's and it took 30+ years for the corpse to stop kicking.
media companies went bad in the late 90's, so it could still be a few years before they finally bleed out.
On the post: Is Streaming Really Replacing Downloading?
you can't trust streams
it might be good enough for some, but not this guy. i'd rather trust the pirates.
On the post: Why Is Google Turning Chrome Into An Operating System?
Re: It doesn't make sense
those are what PC's are for.
it's not like the police are gonna come take your windows PC once chrome OS is out. it will just be another tool to add to your arsenal.
i have several computers, they're like my attack fleet:
a desktop and two file servers: base command.
a fullsize laptop: the mothership.
a netbook: the landing craft.
a smartphone: the scout craft.
a USB stick with portable apps+google: the escape pod.
chrome OS sounds ideal for a cafe/school/library/kiosk where people without computers will want to get online. i hope they support older hardware so people like me can recycle old machines into internet terminals.
On the post: Why Is Google Turning Chrome Into An Operating System?
Re: Re: Imagine
the walmart os isn't from google, it's gOS:
http://www.thinkgos.com/gos/index.html
cloud computing is a bunch of marketing garbage
and so was java, and e-commerce, and application service providers, and B2B, and P2P, and open source, and social networks, and at one point in time: personal computers and the internet.
the technology press treats every new thing as if it is earth shattering and life altering, and then a month later they repeat the process. they've been doing it since the invention of the PC.
cloud computing won't change the world, but it will add to the existing landscape, just like all that other marketing garbage that has ended up changing everything.
On the post: Why Did UK Anti-Piracy Group FACT Get Computers From A Criminal Investigation... And Keep Them?
viking lawsuits FTW
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
of course not, there is nothing else to go on. "hefty" is based entirely on the author's statement.
the original question was how can the word hefty be justified based on the article? i have clearly stated that you can justify the word because the fees were considerable, i.e. they were worthy of consideration, and based on that consideration, they were determined to be large enough to be out of reach.
in the absence of real data (numbers) mike took the author's statement to be true and that justifies the use of the word.
the whole blog post is predicated on the author's statement being true, that the fees are too large. your counter argument is based on the assumption that the author's statement is not true, that the fees were not in fact large.
After, that EVERYTHING you said (and that Mike said) was an assumption.
of course. the issue here isn't that mike's good faith in the author is an assumption. the issue is that his assumptions were countered with yet more assumptions. i have stated from the beginning that i stand by my assertion that your assumption dispelled mikes assumption, thanks to your numbers that don't really exist.
all of this drama is about someone accusing mike of spinning the author's statement to support his anti-copyright agenda and then using more assumptions and spin in an attempt to prove this "fact". that is why this is so entertaining.
Incidentally, there is nothing to reply to in this message, so you can stop now.
and now we take the "this is pointless" defense. in public school i didn't learn the latin name for it, but on slashdot it's called winning with the last word.
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: This whole "hefty" this has to go.
i would too, but please don't detract from my hefty thread. i almost have the threaded view of the posts to a single character in width. this is important work, so please be respectful :-)
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
and using assumptions to disprove someone else's assumptions is entertaining to watch:
you are saying that mike's a bastard for assuming the author of the article is telling the truth. you then assume the author is lying as proof of that.
you are doing exactly what you are bashing mike for doing. that's funny.
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
no, the combined acts of considering IF you can afford it and THEN considering it to be too great, makes the fee hefty. "hefty" is a result of your consideration. there are two parts, 1)the fee in question being big enough that you have consider whether or not you can afford it and 2) deeming said fee to be large enough that you cannot afford it. there are two definitions of considerable, so in my mind that means there are two criteria for qualifying as hefty.
you have to answer to questions: 1) is this big enough to merit consideration? 2) now that we have considered it, do we consider it to large to fit with our budget?
you can use numbers to answer those questions for yourself, but since we do not know the numbers the author/publisher used, we have to go with the result of their consideration, which was, YES. yes the fees were big enough to consider, and yes they were too big to include. yes the fees were hefty.
this is where you keep going off track. you keep talking about what amount equates to large. that is a quantitative statement. quantitative statements are great for proving things with numerical data. we do not know the numbers involved and therefore cannot quantify. we have to qualify instead. we have to take the author's statement about not affording the fee as qualification. we take the result of the author/publisher's qualification process to justify the amount as hefty.
something is large because you consider it to be large based on your qualification process. mike used the word hefty because the author said it couldn't be included due to budgetary reasons.
you want to call mike out because he doesn't know the numeric value for the project's budget, nor does he know the cost of the licenses and therefore cannot use the word hefty. that is cool.
you then want to make up scenarios with your own assumptions to prove your assumptions are better. that too is cool, but since you don't know the numbers either, you are doing exactly what you are criticizing mike for doing.
my assertion is that because those numeric values are unknown, you cannot use numbers to define hefty. you have to use other information, like the author's statement to justify the use of the word hefty. if you cannot use numbers to define hefty, then you cannot define hefty as "any number outside the budget" because the definition is not quantitative but qualitative.
you (or the anonymous cowards like you) keep saying that mike assumed the fees were large relative to the budget so he can infer his commie pirate bullshit. you then assume small fees relative to the budget to infer he and the people who agree with him are all cheap assholes that want other people's shit for free.
if mike is wrong for doing what he is doing, then by that logic, so too are you. this is why i call this making the world safe from assumptions other than your own. that's why this is so entertaining.
my assertion has always been that since the numbers are unknown, the justification of the word hefty is based on the author's qualitative statement that the fees didn't fit the budget, so since there are no actual numbers involved, the word hefty is justified based on the author saying they couldn't afford it.
this is not redefining anything. it is simply accepting the aggregate result of the author/publisher's qualification process as justification for the word hefty being used in the blog post since there is no numerical data that we can use to perform our own qualification process.
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
no, i mean that any amount that you have determined you cannot pay is hefty.
then let's pretend that the fees are a dollar, and then point out that that pretend number is not made up, is not assumption or speculation, isn't even a number, and then infer that being unwilling to pay a dollar means that opposing copyright really is about being cheap.
or we can go with the understanding that if the amount is so great that you have to take it into consideration when budgeting your project, then that fee is hefty.
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
Yes, his explanation was that he made a HUGE ASSUMPTION. So, fundamentally he had no explanation. Then he should have kept with the words in the original article rather than making stuff up. Again, as long as I knew he was inventing scenarios that did not actually exist, I am fine with that.
do you get that if you accuse someone of assuming, then make up these scenarios with made up numbers, you too are assuming? the problem here is that not having the budget for a fee makes the fee hefty. the fee is hefty because you can't pay it. you have to choose whether or not you can afford it. that consideration is what makes the fee hefty, not the made up numbers involved.
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
ok, you want to play with numbers, let's play with numbers:
you go to the store with a dollar. the lowest price in the store is two dollars. you can't afford it. ergo, the price are too "hefty".
and anonymous coward stops you on the street and says "what's wrong with you you cheap bastard? you won't pay a dollar to get something from the store? what are you some sort of no money paying retard?"
so you become determined to pay money for something in order to prove to the world that you are worthy. so you do some odd jobs, sells some things and now have $10,000 dollars. you decide to buy a car. that car is $20,000, you can't afford it. ergo the price was too hefty.
again the anonymous coward stops you on the street and say, yeah, that car is expensive, the prices are hefty. you are justified in not buying anything and have my permission to go on with your life.
Next >>