again this comment ignores that not everyone looking at the newspaper reads Dilbert. while the number of newspapers with Dilbert printed in them may be greater than the number of views XKCD gets every day that is not an apt comparison. the number of newspapers printed is more comparable to the number of total possible viewers, which means for Dilbert the possible viewers is the number of newspapers printed with Dilbert in them, for XKCD it's the number of people who have the internet. I wonder which is larger...?
I can honestly say that not only have I not visited the comic strips in a newspaper in many years, I have only viewed Dilbert in one place in many years, and that is on the internet.
What I'm saying is, you're ignoring the fact that not everyone who reads the newspaper is looking at the comic. Also, not every newspaper that gets printed actually gets read, some just sit on stands until they get thrown away. You can't figure out how many people are reading Dilbert just by looking at the newspaper's statistics.
You also say "internet successful in cartoons is still only a rounding error on most newspaper strips." If that were true, why would there even be a Dilbert web page? If that viewership is so tiny and insignificant compared to the printed version how would that be justifiable?
Google admitted to collecting public data of one type, Mike said it was no big deal. At a later date Google admitted to collected even more data than they had previously said, Mike said the new data they admitted to collecting was questionable. His stance changed because he gained access to new information as it was just released from Google. Simple enough English for you? maybe you don't understand the technology behind wifi well enough to comprehend the difference in what Google originally said they were doing and what they were actually doing, but there is a difference, and it was a big enough difference to make Mike change his mind. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind when you learn new information. He already explained this himself, but apparently you didn't get it, so he's not dismissing, it's that you're either ignoring or not comprehending.
in what part of the US is pornography illegal? I don't think you understand the term pornography if you think it's only applicable to pedophilia or bestiality. I'll link you to the Oxford dictionary just so you can easily educate yourself. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/pornography?view=uk
exactly what I was thinking. it's this sort of entitled attitude that I hate. he seems to be implying that those things are bad because they are merely for entertainment and don't empower you with information, but I say, what's wrong with that? is it really so bad just to be entertained sometimes? not every moment needs to be spent towards becoming more empowered and informed. I would hardly say that my x-box 360 is misinforming me or putting pressure on me, not unless President Obama thinks I'm stupid enough to believe everything the 12-year-olds playing Call of Duty say in the game lobby.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
You only have those rights because of where you were born and you only think others should have those rights because you were raised where you were. While I also live in the United States and agree that the rights we are allowed are awesome and everyone should have them, not all people agree. And despite my beliefs, I try to respect their opinions and thus do not try to force my own liberties on them if they don't think they want or need them.
Your comment about how you should have the right to change your government is nice but actually lends itself to the point that you don't have the right unless you have the means to defend it. Unless you're in a democratic country (or at the very least, a republic) it takes a massive amount of power to change the government. A vast majority of people have to be willing to speak up and make that a right for themselves. That usually turns out to be too difficult for it to actually occur, so those people continue to lack that right.
On a less serious note I don't know if we are known as the freest place on the planet. There's been a lot of deception and things happening without us knowing in the last couple of presidencies, and a lot of other countries have been looking down on us for it. I do personally still think we are the freest place, however, or at the very least, it's leagues better than most places. At least in our free elections we have more than one person running.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
If there is no society to state rape is wrong and enforce the idea, then there is no right. I can't go as far as to find societies where rape is outright legal (although I bet there are some), but in many middle eastern countries it is so hard for a woman to prove rape (in Pakistan they need four reliable male witnesses, they have to be male) that it is basically legal.
A better example I could come up with is that in some countries women are eligible to have sex very early in life, as early as when they have puberty. If a man had sex with a 14 year old in America it goes against some basic human rights not to be taken advantage of, because the 14 year old girl couldn't make an informed decision. In those countries, however, her rights would not be considered violated. Some people might hear about it and think it's morally wrong, but it's not in any way going against her rights.
So yes, rights are entirely decided by a society, based on what the majority of people agree is wrong and how they enforce infringements. Your personal morals do not dictate the rights of you or those around you. Some people think drinking is morally wrong, other people still have the right to drink. There is no birthright that decides what is legally right and wrong universally that applies to everyone just because some government says that there is and you have no moral right not to be raped because people are going to have different morals than you. Maybe it's sick, but it's true.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
I think many countries would disagree with you. There are many places where free speech is not a right, it's isn't simply a right everywhere because some people raised in America think it should be. The American constitution may say that all men are born equal but I hate to break it to you, other countries don't care about our constitution. It might conflict with your morals that not everyone can speak freely but if someone in China is prosecuted for speaking out against the government they didn't have their rights violate because in China, that's not one of their rights.
When I was in high school (which was only a couple years ago, mind you) we had all sorts of ways to get around firewalls. First it was simple proxy servers. The got blocked, but there were so many of them. Then we made our own hidden proxy server and let people we knew could keep their mouths shut use it. Then we realized most web pages were only blocked for internet explorer and running Firefox from a thumb drive without saving history between sessions made it easy to access almost any site we wanted to. After that we just downloaded some games, installed games to thumb drives, and passed them around. At one point we even had it so that students could access each others' folders on the network, so we had a few people put the games into a set of nested folders hidden behind some school documents and everyone used that. We basically ran our networking guy in circles. It was awesome.
as a firm believer in personal responsibility, if you are either stupid enough to think that's a good deal or are willing to work unpaid because you think it could be beneficial in the long run (you might end up with a real job that pays at the company) then you are free to take whatever offers are present, and if you get screwed, it's really your fault. Especially in this case, if you wanna spend a lot of money on software and start a division for a company without getting paid, you only have yourself to blame when they fire you and don't even say thanks.
Re: Global warming is a hoax. Oops, I mean violent video games don't lead to violence.
Apparently you missed all the leaked e-mails that were confirmed to be genuine from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, a leading researcher in climate change, which showed that a lot of their data was forget and fudged.
I especially like this quote from one of the e-mails...
"Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year."
Hmm...yet we continue to push for more carbon regulation. Maybe the whole thing was natural and now it's cooling down. Wait, no, that would mean the scientists were wrong. Instead they offer the option that "Our observing system is inadequate."
So yes, global warming could very well have largely been spurred on by fake data, much like violent video games causing violent behavior. Obviously violence didn't exist before video games, after all. Not like people were savagely murdering people at the centers of large crowds and it was considered acceptable in ancient times.
I already didn't like Apple, this just pushed it farther. Apple's just getting scared of the competition. It used to be a joke that no one could stand up to the iPhone, now people are and they don't want to compete. It's funny, because recently I've seen a lot of television shows and movies where the phones they're using are HTC phones that run Android. Apple's losing their hold on consumers and media. Plus some of the patents they hold are absolutely ridiculous and in no way promote progress, they only serve to limit functionality of other phones so that all the other phones are useless compared to the iPhone, enabling Apple to have a monopoly.
I love it when hackers do things just to prove that they can. it's just lucky that they did it before any of the slightly intelligent criminals got around to it. I'm sure it won't make a huge difference in the use of the system, people tend to be overly confident in their security. maybe it'll wake up a few people, though, and someone will find ways to improve it. improving security technologies is always good, after all.
well, it was a merger between Activision and Vivendi, in which Vivendi came out the largest shareholder, then Vivendi, which also owned the game developer/publisher Blizzard, made the new company Activision Blizzard, which is run by the former Activision CEO. Vivendi itself is just a media conglomerate based in France; video game publishing is just one of the things they deal in (which is how they managed to come out owning more shares).
just because you consider someone who takes things they don't have the right to take a thief doesn't mean that's how the law perceives it. so how does your inability to understand laws and the difference between stealing and pirating make us "wanna-be lawyers?" if knowing the proper terms for law makes me a wanna-be lawyer then I suppose knowing art terms and history makes me a wanna-be artist, etc. Apparently I'm a wanna-be in a lot of things, seeing as I try to be knowledgeable about many topics.
I'm getting tired of people posting about how the frequenters of techdirt advocate stealing. first of all, piracy isn't stealing, there is a difference between the crimes. second, I've never seen a post seriously advocating pirating here. we're not arguing that we should be allowed to take your music for free and you should find a new way to make money. we simply argue that many people are pirating and it's almost impossible to stop so a new business model is needed to succeed. saying pirating exists isn't the same as saying that pirating should be allowed.
this much I actually agree with. while reproductions are free in music there is still a difference from the original. an original studio recording, or a band's original demo tape, to get even deeper into the origins, would be worth a lot more, in terms of both value and price, than any reproduction to a fan of a band. you may be right about the average consumer not being able to tell the difference just by listening, in fact you probably are, but there is a physical product for the original, which makes it scarce, which adds value and price.
however your comment about musicians making most of their money from originals baffles me. unless you consider live performances to be "originals." personally I don't classify them that way, they're a separate scarce product. care to explain?
reproductions (in music) aren't just cheaper they are free. it's a one time upload to, for example, iTunes and infinite people can pay to download it. the cost gets driven down to a fraction of a penny until there is virtually no cost. and then of course there's pirating, which is literally free. all you do it select a file and hit ctrl+c and then go to a different folder and hit ctrl+v. instant reproduction for free.
this is where music and paintings fail to compare. a reproduction of a painting requires time and attention to detail to look good. unlike with music, reproductions of paintings are still scarce goods.
I couldn't agree more. just because someone doesn't have a career in music doesn't mean they're not a musician. one of the things about the internet is that it makes music less scarce and easier to distribute, so that it takes less time and direct input to spread the music around. I'm not saying no one should make money from music, many people will want to make music and connect with their fans and then their fans will be willing to pay them for the music, concerts, lyrics with notes by the write, etc. But for many others it could be a better idea to hold another job (hopefully one they don't hate) to help support themselves while also making music without doing all the touring and merch making. Those people are as much musicians as the ones whose primary income is from music.