Ebooks have real limitations - can't read them in the bathtub, probably don't want to read them on the beach either
Yes you can. I do it anyway. Got myself a Sony (PRS900). I own lots of gadgets, but this one proved to be the best and most useful. I love reading. And I take it anywhere. Most Sony products in the past decade were meh, but they do make great readers. Very, very sturdy. It came with a leather-like cover AND a case for travel, which I never used actually. Dropped it a couple of times (I never dropped it in water though). And beaches - that's my favourite activity... reading on the beach. Actually, now it looks a little battered (painting coming off on the side), but it's just like a somewhat used book. Battery still lasts 2 weeks (one week if I read A LOT), the screen is scratch-free (despite my best attempts) and done sand doesn't seem to have done any harm
facebook is miles better than g+. g+ is just another me too social network. almost every feature is identical to fb, and video chat in fb is much better because skype does it.
Care to point out where I can extract my photos from facebook in one click (download a single zip file)? Care to point how to export my facebook profile data in a standard and open - json - format? Where can I download my connections and contact information? Where can I download my posts and store it locally? All one click of course. G+ does that, and much more.
Circles run circles around group management in facebook, and I already have skype, but skype doesn't do what Hangout does. Besides, Skype is owned by Microsoft now - not really future proof for people using alternative operating systems. Hangout uses open protocols, and it's much, much cooler than Skype in many ways.
Depends. If it kills Facebook and replaces it with yet another proprietary communication system, then I don't really care. If it kills Facebook and replaces it with an interoperable federated system, then that's great. Google has done some good work in that area before. I shut down my ICQ / AIM transport a few months ago because the last person I still knew who used either network had got a Google Talk account, so I can talk to all of my former ICQ and AIM contacts with XMPP from my own server.
I see your point and I agree with it. Still, killing facebook and replacing it would still be a boon. Facebook has nothing like data liberation. At this point facebook explicitly forbids importing your data (connections, pages, etc.) into any other service. Google does not. If and when something better then G+ comes along, it would be easier to switch from G+ than it is now from facebook.
Why don't these articles ever tell you WHICH markets and apps are affected? Oh, that's right, they're too busy trying to generate page hits through scare-mongering to care about information.
(I'm not trying to say these aren't legitimate threats: quite the opposite. But, good reporting would help mitigate these threats by publicly shaming and informing.)
Exactly. Also, chances are, that there are HUNDREDS of malware in unofficial Chinese markets - will we get a new slashdot post for each and every one of them? Editors: wtf?
Washington DC has rotaries, not roundabouts.
How about reading your own link:
"Traffic circle" is a term mainly used in the United States to describe a junction which in other countries would be called a roundabout.
.
But the point is: 1) Google is acting evil (if my mom had tried to do this herself, she'd be stuck with a horrible antivirus product - or two, there's two in the Pack) 2) Chrome installs are up because of their evil.
Giving free advertising to Chrome on Google.com is borderline evil, too. Leverage of monopolistic powers and all.
I agree with 1) but I don't see 2) as evil. I mean
I presume, then, that your act of civil disobedience occurs after the original copyright period? E.g., if you pirate music or movies from RIAA or the MPAA, you're waiting 14 years from the filing of copyright title (or 28 years in case the author(s) survive for the original term and elect to renew their filing the copyright title) to pirate the media?
Because that was the original copyright law in the US, you know:
You raise some good points there. It may seem a bit hypocritical if I didn't wait. Problem is, that the system itself is corrupt. I believe that copyright should belong to the author. 300 years the author exchanged his copyright for the privilege of promotion and publishing offered by publishing houses. This hasn't changed much for centuries. Producing art and selling it was prohibitively expensive. Not anymore. Artists no longer need to slave for the major labels. MTV is no longer the only source of music. There's this thing called the Internet, you know. And we have systems in place to help young and talented artists in self-publishing, and we see a great more deal of variety of pretty much everything. I'm not about to spend any money on an organization that 1) stole my and my children's access to culture 2) is working on restoring a world where they're the gatekeepers - they create celebrities, stars, and the so called "mainstream" crap that are inflicted on us through MTV and the likes.
No! Don't buy, don't pirate! If you download the media you're still endorsing the RIAA and MPAA. You're demonstrating that they're the ones creating the content that people want and you're still legitimising what they produce.
I see your point, but most of the music I listen to are indies. Lounge music, nu-jazz, jazz, etc. I pay for that stuff whenever I can. Occasionally, I stumble upon something that's actually good and I want, but comes from a RIAA label. Look, RIAA is a fishing company. For every good artist they find they create nine crap ones - assembly-line celebrities, basically. And when you pay for that one good artist you are also supporting nine crap ones. That's a rotten business model - and choosing to pirate is still the more ethical choice.
RIAA and friends are calling downloader thieves. I'm going to say something that might not be very popular with the holier-than-thou types: pirating music from labels are members of RIAA, MPAA and their equivalents is an ethical obligation. Here is why.
If I was born about 200 years ago, I could be reasonably certain that I could share art that I enjoyed as a teen with my own children, not to mention my grandchildren. My generation would have enjoyed this "privilege" as well. This has been stolen from us. They stole our public domain. Thanks to the lobbying of the movie and music industries and corrupt politicians, now we have a copyright extend beyond our own children's lifetime. Generations lost access to culture. And these people have the guts to call downloaders pirates?!
I want RIAA, MPAA and friends to die. As soon as possible. I'm refusing to buy any music or movies published under their label. I'm more than willing to pay for entertainment by the way. I will buy Mass Effect 3 as soon as it's out. I'd support musicians who are experimenting with self publishing or services like Jamendo. But I would never pay for music when I know that about 70% of my money goes to thieves. Thieves that did the public HUGE harm - depriving generations from access to culture, be it music, literature or whatever.
It's such a pity that RIM's response is basically "fuck off!" - way to bury their heads in the sand.
The method they *could* use to tell would be to take a hash of the file. When you rip the cd, you will get a different hash each time. With file sharing services most likely there are only 3 or 4 rips that are shared among thousands of people. Consequently, if you see someone with a copy of a particular song that has a hash of one of these commonly shared files, chances are miniscule that it isn't a pirated copy.
Good explanation. Luckily, it's easy to circumvent. I think the author's worry is that his pirated music will be detect somehow (I don't believe for a minute that he's worried about mp3 files downloaded in the 90s - that's just too ridiculous). Anyway, I believe this is doable in the way you describe it. It's also easy to write software that would remove a single bit from all downloaded files from random locations (or it could add random microseconds of silence to the end or the beginning). This would randomize hashes of all files you dowload. So I think if such database exists, it's not in use at the moment.
Just don't worry about it. Only a dumbass would worry about legality of his music. If you're listening to it, it's yours.
I think he isn't worried. He just didn't have the balls to ask directly: Is it possible to detect by software (implies remotely) whether my mp3 files are pirated or not.. That's a good question.
All power corrupts, but we need electricity.