What is so bad about actually focusing on one bloody task at the time? You are either watching a movie, or doing something else while pretending to watch a movie.
It's not a PC, it does not pretend to be a PC, any more than a Fiat 500 pretends to be a dumper truck.
Well, the submitter was probably blinded by all the tech-porn numbers that interest nerds but rarely influence the buying decisions of the average consumer. It's not like four cores will make them read the text on a web page faster, the high clock speed will not make the network speeds any higher etc.
The standard game controller has like 14 buttons and two sticks that often do wildly different things in different games, leading to "re-learning" a particular mapping when you revisit a game.
The iPad in practice has one controller with six buttons and an eight-way stick: the iCade. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to pick up mine...
Straw-man. That was not the point and you know it.
Quick ask your Mom if her PC supports PixelShader 3.0! Or if she knows if the family computer meets any of the nerdgasm-inducing spec numbers listed on the back of the case in the store!
Copyright protection exists as a fiat of Government. Here, the same Government that graciously give the artist his copyright has decided to clarify one aspect of it. If the artists cannot accept that that is the Government's prerogative maybe they should find another job?
The creator can perhaps feel like he is Lando Calrissian and the Government is Darth Vader, though: "I have amended the copyright. Pray I do not amend it further".
"Expect" is not "entitled to". If Lady Gaga makes an album and I instead buy an album from Bullets for my Valentine, neither I nor the other band owe anything to Lady Gaga. So by all means take your business elsewhere - that is the consequence of failed business models in any other trade as well.
Your murder analogy takes top prize for "terrible analogies from the entertainment industry fans". Are you guys running out of actual arguments?
There is NO cost to the copyright holder if someone pirates their stuff, unless they were running the servers it was pirated from. There is a loss of potential income, but income from sales are never guaranteed unless agreed-upon before the work is done. The anti-pirates might as well go after subsistence farmers in Africa that never have bought a CD in their life, for their non-payment as well. Or maybe a band like Train can go after Lady Gaga for "stealing" potential customers since many people bought Lady Gaga's albums instead of Train's...
There is no entitlement to success in business.
And again the comparing of unlicensed copying of digital files with stealing physical objects. Are you guys dense?
More bullshit allegories from those that seem hell-bent on defending megacorporations that exploit artists.
Artists in general are people making "luxury goods" instead of contributing to society in other ways. But Governments recognized that having some output like that was a valuable contribution to defining the culture, and so enacted laws that gave a limited monopoly to make some money on the work before it entered the public domain where it belonged. But with the rise of the entertainment industries, the laws were morphed into what we have today, which is artist serfdom combined with a "lottery" where you need to become really popular to make a living from copies of your work.
Are you American? Remember that your country gladly ignored copyrights on foreign works in order to "kick-start" their printing etc. businesses. Remember that you earlier had to register your copyright for it to be valid, and a lot of "blues standards" are that precisely because noone told the black musicians that little fact. Remember that there are multiple types of copyright that interact, not just one simple law - have you ever sung "Happy Birthday" to your son? INFRINGEMENT!
Also think over how the "classics" are enjoyed by all simply because their copyright has expired. In fifty years time, theater companies will continue to perform Romeo and Juliet, while scripts from last century will have been forgotten because they were jealously guarded "assets" to some company.
I would love to pay an artist for his work. Maybe they could print an email address I could Paypal some money to?
But in general I cannot. I instead have to pay a store for my copy. There is absolutely no way for me to know if any of that money end up in the hands of the artist. Yet you somehow seem to accept that? That there are multiple layers between the customer and the artist, each "ripping off" a few dollars?
Shut up, entitlement jerk! If you create something and try to sell it there is NO obligation for anyone to actually buy it! You are NOT entitled to a success in business! Despite what Mum told you, you are NOT a special snowflake! If you are a musician and I walk into a record store and instead of buying your album I buy someone else's I have NOT stolen from you! It is your job to make it interesting for me to pay you!
You make your business model and you take your chances, in art as in any trade. Except artists are SHIT at business, and leave that to companies that end up with 90% of the money traveling from the customer to you. Programmers often have it easier, but what they create is even more treated as "work for hire" than that of musicians and the like... why should their creations be protected by laws that are there as a governmental boon for the benefit of common culture?
When NancyBoy the pirate enters the picture, and receives the benefit of ABCD without paying for it, he just stole $1, collectively, from the 10 people who paid to receive benefit.
No he did not.
If person A has $100 and pays $1 for the software, he now has $99. This is totally independent on the number of copies sold or copied without a license.
You seem to think there is some rule that the price of a product to the end consumer is costs divided by the number sold. But for an infinitely copyable product, any copy sold after that break-even point is called "profit". There is no "payback" to the people who purchased the earlier copies of it: If NancyBoy the pirate paid for his copy, no company I know of has a business model where each for the ten original customers get sent $0.09.
Art was created by creative individuals long before we even had the reasonable copyright laws of old. Now that we have laws that only serve the entertainment industry middle-men, it is even less relevant. And is really the art of the 10% or so practitioners who get to make a living off it better than that of the hobbyists?
I see you, too, trot the old "think of the artists" argument, but given what meager fraction of a work's price the artist in general gets from a sale, most of them might as well have stayed amateur and held a well-paying ordinary job and made more money that way.
Unless you somehow can come up with an argument for why the salary of some director in Vivendi Universal has any effect on the quality of an artistic creation.
Counterpoint: If no qualified professional is willing to work for peanuts, will the company close up shop? Then who will line the pockets of the excess manager layers companies build up?
Plus it largely affected AT&T users; in countries where the number of antennas are sufficient to provide a strong signal, the problem was absent also for the iPhone 4. And First World Problems, anyway.
Sure they had elections, but they didn't have a multi-party system. But as U.S. politics has demonstrated, having two or more parties tends to cause stupidities where party X sabotages decision A just because they want to be against what party Y is for. With a single party you avoid that. However without opposition the ruling party becomes mired in dogma instead of adapting to change...
Slashdot Mirror
Then don't use it - fullscreen on Lion is optional.
Well, if you assume WiFi then you can drop down to the WiFi-only iPad, and drop the data connection plan.
Watch a movie while doing something else.
What is so bad about actually focusing on one bloody task at the time? You are either watching a movie, or doing something else while pretending to watch a movie.
It's not a PC, it does not pretend to be a PC, any more than a Fiat 500 pretends to be a dumper truck.
So I guess the same goes for "Nerdroid" users, or are you unfamiliar with the Asus EEE Transformer line of tablets?
Well, the submitter was probably blinded by all the tech-porn numbers that interest nerds but rarely influence the buying decisions of the average consumer. It's not like four cores will make them read the text on a web page faster, the high clock speed will not make the network speeds any higher etc.
The standard game controller has like 14 buttons and two sticks that often do wildly different things in different games, leading to "re-learning" a particular mapping when you revisit a game.
The iPad in practice has one controller with six buttons and an eight-way stick: the iCade. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to pick up mine...
Except a fancy case has a much better spouse acceptance factor
I think that's the PC vs. console crowd right there: Dedicated PC gamers do not have such a "spouse" of which you speak.
Straw-man. That was not the point and you know it.
Quick ask your Mom if her PC supports PixelShader 3.0! Or if she knows if the family computer meets any of the nerdgasm-inducing spec numbers listed on the back of the case in the store!
Hey, PC gaming is not for non-geeks... :)
Really? Soon romance will be theft because someone stole a young girl's heart...
Copyright protection exists as a fiat of Government. Here, the same Government that graciously give the artist his copyright has decided to clarify one aspect of it. If the artists cannot accept that that is the Government's prerogative maybe they should find another job?
The creator can perhaps feel like he is Lando Calrissian and the Government is Darth Vader, though: "I have amended the copyright. Pray I do not amend it further".
"Expect" is not "entitled to". If Lady Gaga makes an album and I instead buy an album from Bullets for my Valentine, neither I nor the other band owe anything to Lady Gaga. So by all means take your business elsewhere - that is the consequence of failed business models in any other trade as well.
Your murder analogy takes top prize for "terrible analogies from the entertainment industry fans". Are you guys running out of actual arguments?
There is NO cost to the copyright holder if someone pirates their stuff, unless they were running the servers it was pirated from. There is a loss of potential income, but income from sales are never guaranteed unless agreed-upon before the work is done. The anti-pirates might as well go after subsistence farmers in Africa that never have bought a CD in their life, for their non-payment as well. Or maybe a band like Train can go after Lady Gaga for "stealing" potential customers since many people bought Lady Gaga's albums instead of Train's...
There is no entitlement to success in business.
And again the comparing of unlicensed copying of digital files with stealing physical objects. Are you guys dense?
More bullshit allegories from those that seem hell-bent on defending megacorporations that exploit artists.
Artists in general are people making "luxury goods" instead of contributing to society in other ways. But Governments recognized that having some output like that was a valuable contribution to defining the culture, and so enacted laws that gave a limited monopoly to make some money on the work before it entered the public domain where it belonged. But with the rise of the entertainment industries, the laws were morphed into what we have today, which is artist serfdom combined with a "lottery" where you need to become really popular to make a living from copies of your work.
Are you American? Remember that your country gladly ignored copyrights on foreign works in order to "kick-start" their printing etc. businesses. Remember that you earlier had to register your copyright for it to be valid, and a lot of "blues standards" are that precisely because noone told the black musicians that little fact. Remember that there are multiple types of copyright that interact, not just one simple law - have you ever sung "Happy Birthday" to your son? INFRINGEMENT!
Also think over how the "classics" are enjoyed by all simply because their copyright has expired. In fifty years time, theater companies will continue to perform Romeo and Juliet, while scripts from last century will have been forgotten because they were jealously guarded "assets" to some company.
I would love to pay an artist for his work. Maybe they could print an email address I could Paypal some money to?
But in general I cannot. I instead have to pay a store for my copy. There is absolutely no way for me to know if any of that money end up in the hands of the artist. Yet you somehow seem to accept that? That there are multiple layers between the customer and the artist, each "ripping off" a few dollars?
Is that a "property right"? Is a driver's license now a "property right" to drive a car?
Will this abuse of language ever stop?
Shut up, entitlement jerk! If you create something and try to sell it there is NO obligation for anyone to actually buy it! You are NOT entitled to a success in business! Despite what Mum told you, you are NOT a special snowflake! If you are a musician and I walk into a record store and instead of buying your album I buy someone else's I have NOT stolen from you! It is your job to make it interesting for me to pay you!
You make your business model and you take your chances, in art as in any trade. Except artists are SHIT at business, and leave that to companies that end up with 90% of the money traveling from the customer to you. Programmers often have it easier, but what they create is even more treated as "work for hire" than that of musicians and the like... why should their creations be protected by laws that are there as a governmental boon for the benefit of common culture?
When NancyBoy the pirate enters the picture, and receives the benefit of ABCD without paying for it, he just stole $1, collectively, from the 10 people who paid to receive benefit.
No he did not.
If person A has $100 and pays $1 for the software, he now has $99. This is totally independent on the number of copies sold or copied without a license.
You seem to think there is some rule that the price of a product to the end consumer is costs divided by the number sold. But for an infinitely copyable product, any copy sold after that break-even point is called "profit". There is no "payback" to the people who purchased the earlier copies of it: If NancyBoy the pirate paid for his copy, no company I know of has a business model where each for the ten original customers get sent $0.09.
Art was created by creative individuals long before we even had the reasonable copyright laws of old. Now that we have laws that only serve the entertainment industry middle-men, it is even less relevant. And is really the art of the 10% or so practitioners who get to make a living off it better than that of the hobbyists?
I see you, too, trot the old "think of the artists" argument, but given what meager fraction of a work's price the artist in general gets from a sale, most of them might as well have stayed amateur and held a well-paying ordinary job and made more money that way.
Unless you somehow can come up with an argument for why the salary of some director in Vivendi Universal has any effect on the quality of an artistic creation.
And often your only source of goods was an overpriced company-run store, where you accumulated debt that your meager salary was spent futily repaying.
Counterpoint: If no qualified professional is willing to work for peanuts, will the company close up shop? Then who will line the pockets of the excess manager layers companies build up?
In iOS 5 you can switch between apps using a four-finger swipe. Only an issue with apps that don't deal well with being backgrounded...
Plus it largely affected AT&T users; in countries where the number of antennas are sufficient to provide a strong signal, the problem was absent also for the iPhone 4. And First World Problems, anyway.
How is the Transformer a phone?
Sure they had elections, but they didn't have a multi-party system. But as U.S. politics has demonstrated, having two or more parties tends to cause stupidities where party X sabotages decision A just because they want to be against what party Y is for. With a single party you avoid that. However without opposition the ruling party becomes mired in dogma instead of adapting to change...