True, that is incredible that we can kick this disease pretty hard now. However the problem still stands, the only known solution is a bone marrow transplant and that requires a corpse + a 50/50 chance to die.
1,162 karma · joined June 9, 2008
I read sometime ago that the conundrum with AIDS is that the better the immune system response, the faster it spreads. Because the response basically brings it's food to it faster. So vaccines seemed to actually do more harm.
I'm very curious on this, and would hope to see more on this particular story, and with more details than a "almost ready for human trial yay!"
That's the problem. People just don't get it. Or rather people don't realize the value their personal data has.
The law is supposed to be impartial. I am all for judges sympathetic to the cause, but I don't want that either. The law must treat both parties big and small equally, and assume that even if its the RIAA that they may have merit in their claims, and vice versa.
So in conclusion, its a tough call here. I would hope this gets much more media attention and either her COI is exposed and she is forced to step down OR she is taken off these sort of cases and her knowledge is put to use elsewhere.
However why the price tag was not a maximum of $1,000,000 beats me. Possibly massive user and seo testing. Maybe a chunk was bribes?
What does that mean? It means that when looking at the fun little multi step accepting certificates bells and whistles that FF throws I have absolutely no way of knowing if there is a 3rd party. There is nothing helping me out. And I am a "power user". Put those messages to a regular user and you get 3x as dumbfounded. So if 99% of the people don't understand WTF is going on, how can we help prevent any fraud?
2% of users use 20% of the bandwidth, so they claim that it is only fair to charge. Which is fine.
However the price mentioned is actually what really hits me. $10 for 50GB bandwidth. True its over inflated, BUT the price is not so bad. 20 cents per gigabyte seems like a major profit margin however when comparing to verizon's $10 for 1-3gb (can't remember) per month for the chrome notebook wireless internet service the prices are pretty good. Granted the price is for broadband.
What I think is that we can use these numbers to justify that ATT & Verizon are going nuts when it comes to pricing their wireless & wired caps.
People understand the value of things. If you give people something they value and want more of, they will gladly pay for it (the value that they see it's worth) because they want you to keep producing. They know if they stop there will be nothing new. So the end-goal is to make people see the value you produce (even if its giving them that thing for free) because instead of instant-value you will get long-term customers.
1) If 10,000 people will buy my X I will have sold 10,000. I will not have sold more since nobody else was willing to pay.
2) If 100,000 people also pirated my X then potentially a few of them would like it and either buy it, or buy a future product from me, which translates into more sales.
3) Once my X is hacked it is hacked for good (or something to that extent) and people pirating have no problems with DRM while people who legitimately bought X have to deal with DRM.
4) DRM can cost me sales just as piracy could.
So yes, who would spam animoto? But you know what, now their spam filter is good enough, their user registration has been increased. Better more "foolproof" techniques will always be needed, and directed attacks are hard to prevent, but getting to a good enough point is great as well.
And the problem you face may be a smaller percentage of sites than animoto, who do need captcha especially if you are the target of a directed attack.
"We're committed to open source ... open source makes the best code in the world ... were innovators in open source ... we just decided to give ourselves a competitive advantage" ... WTF!?
Its like in one breath he snuck it in. Bullcrap.
#2 Korea and China are only heavy (>5%) ie6 users. Whewh I don't support those languages anyways so YAY DEATH TO IE6.
However another argument: If 99% of the people thought that every 18 year old female must be raped repeatedly until shes 19, will that make it right? A lesser example. If every man believed that a woman must be whipped in public for not wearing the appropriate clothing, is it right? If every man believed that a woman cheating on her husband is grounds for execution, while a husband cheating on his wife is completely acceptable. Is all that moral or right? Consensus does not mean morality.
I feel that InclinedPlane's points raise the correct questions: What part of "piracy" is what people feel is sharing/socially acceptable behaviors taken from the physical to the digital world, and what part is really theft. Intent is important. And how do we separate the theft intent from the sharing intent.
Also another point: Perceived value. If by now people perceive music as worthless commodities, to them downloading it illegally is moral BECAUSE they feel that buying it is a rip off. They are buying something of no value. This could be a side-effect of theft they committed in the past. The content industry must change from "steal and we'll fucking sue" to "steal and you will miss out on big values of the product"