It's reasonably easy to fake headaches and nausea, but a nose-bleed has to be real.
Then again, if a nose-bleed was enough to get out of school, I'd have never gotten an education! Since primary school, I've suffered from regular nose-bleeds; particularly in summer where I'd bleed typically at least once per day. Electronic cauterisation stopped them for a few months, but mostly I just learned to live with them - no harm except for a mess if I don't catch it in time.
And what if the effects have a lag? Maybe it takes days to build up to the point that symptoms are felt, and days without exposure to return to normal. I suffer from hayfever, but I couldn't tell you as levels of dust in the air go up with better than about half an hour lag, or within hours of levels going down again.
Not that I'm saying that IEI-EMF definitely exists, but "no conclusive evidence" doesn't mean it definitely doesn't exist, and it's pretty easy to design a trial that won't tell you what you think it does.
So, I started a campaign to report him and anyone with little enough sense to reply to him. Guess what? It WORKED.
Hey, I've got this magic rock that totally protects you against tiger attacks, you can have it for a great price...
I have to assume that by "It WORKED", you mean that you successfully reported him and everyone who replied to him. Good for you. Extrapolating any other effect from your cause is... oversimplifying at best, but more likely to be just wrong.
Interpreting a lack of comment on my part with any particular meaning is more likely to involve an act of projection than any kind of prescience as to what I would have said if I had commented.
On that note, those are some nice assumptions/strawmen you have there.
If you really do want to "walk that way", a good place to start might be the Trade Agreements which the same Legacy Industries consider so important that they have to keep the deals 100% secret.
I'm somewhat well aware of the various trade agreements currently being negotiated around the world, though nowhere near as aware as I could be if the various texts were actually available to the public. I could even make educated guesses as to what the net effects of these treaties might be in various time frames... like most people though, I'd most likely be substantively wrong.
Further, I'm not aware of any interpretation or extrapolation of any trade agreements that leads to people dying in their sleep... unless an increase in the cost of medicines means that you are no longer able to afford a particular prescription required to live, but you seem to be suggesting something much more general than that.
Perhaps you meant wake up and realise that they're turning everyday social activities into a crime; once everyone is a criminal then society can be controlled! Well, yes. That one has been and is continuing to be well documented, but you may want to provide slightly more nuanced advice than "wake up" and "walk that way"... unless you're just after a catchy song.
tl;dr: You might want to wipe your mouth, you appear to be frothing a bit.
Being gay, it is the quality of being care-free and happy, or perhaps a colourful vibrancy such as shown by a gay bunch of flowers.
Homosexuality is the social phenomenon of having a sexual preference for people of your own gender, as opposed to the hetero norm of preference for the opposite gender.
How on earth can anyone with a brain relate these two concepts as identical in any way whatsoever?
Welcome to the English language, GEMont. One word can mean multiple, different, unrelated things, and some words even gain meanings over time! English is a living language, and it matters not whether you agree with the changes or not.
Personally, if you want to avoid the negative valence of "pirate" and "piracy", I'd recommend avoiding "file sharing" which has neutral or slightly negative valence, and go straight for "sharing" or "sharer" for that nice positive valence glow.
Wake up, or die in your sleep people.
Let governments pass stronger copyright laws... die in my sleep. No, I can't quite follow that one, you might have to walk me through some of the intermediate steps.
Of course, YMMV. I've found TripAdvisor ratings to be an accurate indicator for hotels in most cities I've used it in (with more likelihood of accuracy outside USA than inside, possibly based on my very limited sampling within USA)
"never will understand why people will pay so much money on a single player game"
Why do you limit this comment to single player games? Multiplayer games don't get off the hook here either.
I didn't mean to let multiplayer games off the hook, just that I understand why people pay for multiplayer games - the "prestige" of being seen at the top of the leaderboards.
Not that I could ever see myself spending *that much* on any game; I'm happy to drop $5 or $10 on a game that I enjoy, but sending the rest to my mortgage means I got to pay it off in 10 years instead of 35.
@That One Guy: And maybe that's the rub. I wonder how many of these games would rake in so much money if kids were taught how to budget, and why living on credit is so bad, in school? (Never mind the rest of the economy...)
I pretty much agree with everything you are saying, and 100% agree that "appealing to empathy rather than guilt/shame/fear is definitely the way to go, here".
Empathy isn't quite enough, though. I live in Australia, and it sucked to have to pay an extra 20% or even more compared to the US because of legacy deals with entrenched local importers who add exactly zero value in the age of the internet. And we were one of the lucky countries that tended to receive content at all! There are any number of stories out there of a public hungry for music (films, books, etc) with exactly zero legal options, and piracy is the only way that people could get access to the content - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125608/, also the anime fan-sub movements, unlicensed translations of books, etc, etc.
And that's the whole point of articles like this one. Why is the legacy industry spending so much time and money trying to work on the empathy bit, and nothing else... when they could spend some time on providing their potential customers with the opportunity to buy, and then they probably won't even need the "education" campaigns!
I still remember the day that I saw that a free game was #1 top grossing in the Google store. I never will understand why people will pay so much money on a single player game... I mean $5 will either get you one or more full games that you can play through to completion, or a single-use tool that may or may not let you pass the current level... and by the way, the next level is even harder.
That this campaign is better than previous attempts is mostly just pointing out how low the bar has been set.
Even this campaign fails at the first intellectual step - there is no way to link the situations being described to piracy. Elvis didn't get into barbiturates because people were downloading his songs (well, I'm pretty sure, anyway). Pirates had nothing to do with Marvin Gaye's home life.
Unless the underlying message is "If you knew what went into it, you'd run away screaming and never touch it, let alone download so much distilled depression that your preferred listening device will die of sadness", I'm not sure what the reason not to pirate is here?
Assuming: that you agree with the message that piracy should stop, think anything will, and would write it plain enough to annoy your fanboys.
That's a strange assumption. Even if I were to agree with each part of your assumption individually and collectively, there's no particularly strong reason to believe that stopping piracy is or should be the highest priority. What hurts artists more? Piracy, or industry accounting and one-sided contracts? Piracy which gains the artist fans and followers, or publishers who don't promote the artist and doom them to obscurity?
You really ought to write numbered bullet points of your boiler-plate and just refer to them, save much time.
Not a terrible idea, but it takes a surprising amount of time up-front to do it well.
You are locked in last century mindset that music can, should, or will be "free as in beer".
When have any of the TechDirt authors ever said this? Well, other than "can" (amongst various demonstrations that money can be made from free, but also that free is not the only business model).
I could just as easily say (with an equal amount of proof) that you are locked in the last-century mindset that ideas, art and creativity can, should and must be owned and controlled.
Brandis has commissioned a cost-benefit analysis into an 18-month inquiry, producing a report that contains this:
4.1 The ALRC recommends the introduction of a fair use exception into Australian copyright law. This chapter briefly explains what fair use is, and makes the case for enacting fair use in Australia. It sets out some of the important arguments for and against introducing this exception.
It sets out some of the important arguments for and against introducing this exception? Sounds like a cost-benefit analysis was baked right in... which means that to answer my own question, the only reason why you would ever commission another analysis is that you didn't like the first answer and you want a different answer on the second go.
Given all that - the expectation that we should be able to use any toner with any printer is just wishful thinking.
I'm sure everyone would agree with that, but it's a strawman argument - nobody has that expectation.
The point of this discussion is that people expect that Xerox official toner should work in Xerox printers, which isn't the case and is resulting in printers being disabled.
Seems to me that a factory reset and installation of approved toner would solve the problem if you had it. I get that this lock in is in some ways 'unfair'.
So... you can either pay a Xerox technician to come and fix your printer, or you can pay Xerox for more official toner - that hopefully won't disable your printer this time - and lose all of your printer settings and have to spend time reconfiguring it. I can't imagine why people would think this is 'unfair'.
But in my opinion you should only expect to use a 6605 toner from Xerox in their machines. As a repair tech I don't want to have to face off with a customer who chose to cheap out on toner, has issues and now expects me to fix the damage at the cost of my time and parts.
This is the generic medicine argument.
People would like to be able to use third-party toner that is designed for their specific printer. If Xerox wanted to be awesome about it, they could release detailed specifications for the requirements for the toner for each of its printers, but let customers know that they'll be on the hook for any repairs from using third-party toner, and that there are no guarantees of quality when using third-party toner.
Then let the market decide - if some brand of third-party toner is cheaper and has a reputation of just as good quality and not breaking the printer, then Xerox has incentive to try to do better. Crappy third-party knockoffs won't get repeat business after people have to pay to get their printers fixed.
Thanks for your perspective, and I get that having to deal with other peoples' senses of entitlement sucks, but historically it has never been best business practice to tell your customers that they're using your product wrong. Put the business first and continue to be mediocre, or put the customer first and be awesome - that is (a vastly oversimplified version of) the choice in front of every business.