Man, I loved Syndicate... You killed all the civilians? I always packed a persuadertron... After all, you got money for all the persuaded civilians you had at the end of the mission...
So then it's a waste of my valuable hard drive space. IE's agressive caching drives me up the wall...
But then again, that's probably because I was doing some CGI work and had to use just about every "Don't cache this, dumbass!" tag I could find to actually see changed output...
"Do not use Microsoft.doc and.xls formats as the basis for document interchange. Not everyone uses Microsoft products, and because of their proprietary nature other software packages cannot offer 100% portability."
Forget other software packages... I've never even seen Microsoft acheive 100% portability between two machines running Windows! And both with Office 2000 installed...
"This is nothing new anyway, any fully articulated rotor system OR rigid rotor system, with a powertrain posessing enough power, can safely do rolls, loops, etc. Don't try this at homw with your UH-1 or OH-58/Jetranger or Longranger, they have semi-rigid rotor systems that will break if you try to maneuver at less than.5G"
Somewhere out there is footage of a CH-53 doing a longitudinal roll. I don't remember what TV show I saw it in, but I cringed. Things like that simply weren't meant to be.
I'm with you all the way on this, but I have to be realistic. The reason that you can't get a DVD is that it would kill the advertising value of reruns. Some shows go into reruns for decades, and the networks get paid for every showing. Kinda sad, really.
Hmm. Maybe Rob et al. ought to consider incorporating something like this? I can see it now... Hundreds of people dropping back to the comments section yelling "F1r5t R3ad!!!!!!!"
Dealing with the cheaters would be a problem though.
Slashdot: "Your assigned timeslot is 02:45 GMT, August 22, 2028."
User: "Aw, screw this..."
In each case, the copy has been paid for at some point. Only one user is using it at a time (having said friends over to have a movie party doesn't count, although the MPAA would like you to think it does). This is what's known as the "First Sale" doctrine. I don't think that either of the cases you've specified breaks my argument.
Once enough copies have been paid for that the author/studio gets back the value of the time put into creating the work (ignoring distribution as digital copies have near-zero distribution costs), by all means pop the sucker into public domain. The situation is a bit more complicated when you bring profit and the right to set a price into the picture, but I'm looking at it from the perspective of the least amount one can rightly expect for time and effort.
*sigh* Last reply, honest. Until the slot of time that the programmer used to write the program is paid off, what's the difference between a hairdresser and a programmer? That's my point, and I'm sticking to it.
Lemme put it this way. Time performing service costs money, you admitted as much with the hairdresser analogy. The amount of money that the time costs is equal to (cost of living per unit time * units of time spent). With me so far? Now to pay for one's vital needs, the amount recieved must equal at least the amount it cost to perform the service. (Anything above that is profit, but I'm not arguing a right to profit, simply a right to recoup cost of creation). The argument and the numbers still accurately model the hairdresser analogy, which you agreed with. Let's do some arithmetic, shall we?
t = amount of time spent at work = 8 hours.
c = cost of living per hour = an arbitrarily chosen $5.15 per hour of work / 24 hours =~ $0.22.
u = number of haircuts given during time t = 25.
t hours / u haircuts =.3 hours per haircut.
.3 hours * c $/hour =~ $0.07 per haircut.
So in order for that hairdresser to go on breathing, the hard limit for a haircut is $0.07 and is non-negotiable. Again, still talking about hairdressers, and again, you agreed that walking out without paying for a haircut is stealing.
That hairdresser loses $0.07 cents every time somebody bolts. It doesn't matter whether the bolter could/would have paid for it or not, does it? If the hairdresser can only do 25 haircuts in 8 hours and one person doesn't pay, it's practically murder. Note that I'm not arguing a right to profit. I'm arguing right to life. The numbers aren't lying here.
Let p = the number of bolters = 1.
In order to keep from keeling over, the hairdresser must charge each paying customer an extra ( p/( u - p ) ) * $0.07. With p = 1, we have ( 1/24 *.7 ) =~ $0.003. In effect, the bolter steals a tiny bit from each of the paying customers.
Now software takes time to write. That time could be spent, say, giving haircuts. So it logically follows that the time it takes to write software is directly equivalent to the time it takes to give a haircut. If the would-be software author cuts hair instead, the software doesn't exist. Period. Which means that nobody can use it, not even the people who would pay for it.
Of course, software (and IP in general) are special cases. I'll admit that it takes a finite time to create it, and it doesn't cost the author any more per additional user. However, in order to maintain right to life, the author must make as much money off the software as it cost to spend the time. If the price per copy is fixed, however, then the time is paid for after a certain number of copies are paid for. This is a mathematical argument for the limited-time argument about IP ownership, since the creator of the idea doesn't have to expend time for each copy disseminated. As much as I hate to say it, the math works, although it does not excuse disproportionate profit-taking.
I can't make it much clearer than that. These are numbers, and pretty inarguable. The logical link between the time spent cutting hair and the time spent writing software is pretty damn strong. Now I ask, do you care to go back on your proposition that bolting after recieving a haircut is stealing? If not then you're logically bound to accept that up to a certain point using software without paying for it is stealing. If it's any comfort, until I sat down and composed this, I wouldn't have used the word "stealing". And the argument does support the idea that software shouldn't be charged for indefinitely. But otherwise, your only option is to defy logic.
And before anyone gets around to correcting my math, it's more like:
effect on creator = ( 1 - ( t/( u - p ) ) ) * unit price.
*shrug* Probably shows why it took me seven semesters to pass three semesters worth of calculus. Bottom line: If walking out after recieving a service is clearly theft, then why is it right just because the service is performed once and distributed among multiple clients? Although it could be argued that with this model, if u is a really big number and p is small, then the effect of p is negligible... Which makes me wonder if there's a threshold value in there.
Wow. I definitely didn't get enough sleep last night.
But the formula still holds. If you wouldn't have paid for the software and don't use it, you're not a member of p. Otherwise, you are. Suck it up and admit it.
Actually, they have lost. To the tune of t/(u - p), where t = time spent creating the software and u = number of people using the software and p = those using it who didn't pay for it.
As p approaches u, you get the same effect as one person stealing a six-month long massage.
Imagine if pepsi came out of taps for free at your house. Would you goto the store to buy some pepsi to "support the pepsi developers"?
No, but there's probably a lesson to be learned in an existing situation: bottled water. To get you started, compare a buyer's reason for buying Evian and a buyer's reason for choosing (note the wording) Microsoft products.
The concept in Rainbow Mars was a pinwheel, not a space elevator. The difference is that instead of having the cable just hang there, it instead rotates around its center of mass. However, you weren't far off thinking about the Dream Park novels. You're probably thinking of another novel he did with Steven Barnes, Descent of Anansi. In that book, a space shuttle trapped in orbit with nothing going for it but a cargo pod containing a spool of "Sinclair molecule chain" manages to engineer manages to engineer its reentry by connecting the shuttle to the pod using the cable and letting the cable spool out. I'm not clear on the physics, but it was something about the shuttle dropping into a lower orbit while the pod ascended into a higher one.
Uh.... Please, please, pleeeeeeease tell me that Burger King link is a joke... I'm left-dominant ambi myself, but that's just ridiculous. It's something I'd expect to see on The Onion. *shudder*
Slashdot Mirror
Man, I loved Syndicate... You killed all the civilians? I always packed a persuadertron... After all, you got money for all the persuaded civilians you had at the end of the mission...
I second that... You don't go to a nightclub to get information, you go to a library. Which fits the description exactly.
So then it's a waste of my valuable hard drive space. IE's agressive caching drives me up the wall...
But then again, that's probably because I was doing some CGI work and had to use just about every "Don't cache this, dumbass!" tag I could find to actually see changed output...
And then I go and trash my point by forgetting to close my "a" tag... *sigh* Yep, it's six in the morning, all right...
No, no, no... The other site. You know, the one the article is talking about?
..reading comprehension... *mutter grumble*
*grumble mutter*
ROFL! I had mods just a few minutes ago but spent 'em all... Should have used one here. Props!
Forget other software packages... I've never even seen Microsoft acheive 100% portability between two machines running Windows! And both with Office 2000 installed...
Somewhere out there is footage of a CH-53 doing a longitudinal roll. I don't remember what TV show I saw it in, but I cringed. Things like that simply weren't meant to be.
Dealing with the cheaters would be a problem though.
Slashdot: "Your assigned timeslot is 02:45 GMT, August 22, 2028."
User: "Aw, screw this..."
Once enough copies have been paid for that the author/studio gets back the value of the time put into creating the work (ignoring distribution as digital copies have near-zero distribution costs), by all means pop the sucker into public domain. The situation is a bit more complicated when you bring profit and the right to set a price into the picture, but I'm looking at it from the perspective of the least amount one can rightly expect for time and effort.
t = amount of time spent at work = 8 hours.
c = cost of living per hour = an arbitrarily chosen $5.15 per hour of work / 24 hours =~ $0.22.
u = number of haircuts given during time t = 25.
t hours / u haircuts =
.3 hours * c $/hour =~ $0.07 per haircut.
So in order for that hairdresser to go on breathing, the hard limit for a haircut is $0.07 and is non-negotiable. Again, still talking about hairdressers, and again, you agreed that walking out without paying for a haircut is stealing.
That hairdresser loses $0.07 cents every time somebody bolts. It doesn't matter whether the bolter could/would have paid for it or not, does it? If the hairdresser can only do 25 haircuts in 8 hours and one person doesn't pay, it's practically murder. Note that I'm not arguing a right to profit. I'm arguing right to life. The numbers aren't lying here.
Let p = the number of bolters = 1.
In order to keep from keeling over, the hairdresser must charge each paying customer an extra ( p/( u - p ) ) * $0.07. With p = 1, we have ( 1/24 *
Now software takes time to write. That time could be spent, say, giving haircuts. So it logically follows that the time it takes to write software is directly equivalent to the time it takes to give a haircut. If the would-be software author cuts hair instead, the software doesn't exist. Period. Which means that nobody can use it, not even the people who would pay for it.
Of course, software (and IP in general) are special cases. I'll admit that it takes a finite time to create it, and it doesn't cost the author any more per additional user. However, in order to maintain right to life, the author must make as much money off the software as it cost to spend the time. If the price per copy is fixed, however, then the time is paid for after a certain number of copies are paid for. This is a mathematical argument for the limited-time argument about IP ownership, since the creator of the idea doesn't have to expend time for each copy disseminated. As much as I hate to say it, the math works, although it does not excuse disproportionate profit-taking.
I can't make it much clearer than that. These are numbers, and pretty inarguable. The logical link between the time spent cutting hair and the time spent writing software is pretty damn strong. Now I ask, do you care to go back on your proposition that bolting after recieving a haircut is stealing? If not then you're logically bound to accept that up to a certain point using software without paying for it is stealing. If it's any comfort, until I sat down and composed this, I wouldn't have used the word "stealing". And the argument does support the idea that software shouldn't be charged for indefinitely. But otherwise, your only option is to defy logic.
effect on creator = ( 1 - ( t/( u - p ) ) ) * unit price.
*shrug* Probably shows why it took me seven semesters to pass three semesters worth of calculus. Bottom line: If walking out after recieving a service is clearly theft, then why is it right just because the service is performed once and distributed among multiple clients? Although it could be argued that with this model, if u is a really big number and p is small, then the effect of p is negligible... Which makes me wonder if there's a threshold value in there.
Wow. I definitely didn't get enough sleep last night.
As p approaches u, you get the same effect as one person stealing a six-month long massage.
Imagine if pepsi came out of taps for free at your house. Would you goto the store to buy some pepsi to "support the pepsi developers"?
No, but there's probably a lesson to be learned in an existing situation: bottled water. To get you started, compare a buyer's reason for buying Evian and a buyer's reason for choosing (note the wording) Microsoft products.
The concept in Rainbow Mars was a pinwheel, not a space elevator. The difference is that instead of having the cable just hang there, it instead rotates around its center of mass. However, you weren't far off thinking about the Dream Park novels. You're probably thinking of another novel he did with Steven Barnes, Descent of Anansi. In that book, a space shuttle trapped in orbit with nothing going for it but a cargo pod containing a spool of "Sinclair molecule chain" manages to engineer manages to engineer its reentry by connecting the shuttle to the pod using the cable and letting the cable spool out. I'm not clear on the physics, but it was something about the shuttle dropping into a lower orbit while the pod ascended into a higher one.
Ok, I'll admit it's catchy. But how about copywrong? Or better yet, and more accurate, copyresponsibility?
Erm... And exactly how do you plan to upload that tree to the Internet?
(bah-dum bum...) *ducks*
Uh.... Please, please, pleeeeeeease tell me that Burger King link is a joke... I'm left-dominant ambi myself, but that's just ridiculous. It's something I'd expect to see on The Onion. *shudder*
Belgium, but that was a bad pun! You oughta be kicked in the turlingdromes! Swut!
Shhhhhh! There are some pretty devoted fans hanging around here... You might tick someone off!
I dunno... I saw one episode, and kept thinking, "But... He doesn't have the googly white eyes! It just doesn't look right!"
As for live-action Johnny Bravo... Why do I get the feeling that parts of it would look like a Tool video?