Get a job where you do something useful. Just like the rest of us do.
The entertainment industries are in a Bizarro world. Where the rest of the capitalist world looks for a demand and tries to fill it, the entertainment industries first create something based on what can be considered selfish needs of expression, then tries to make people want what they made, propped up by exploiting state-granted monopolies and getting away with market collusion and price fixing that would be deemed illegal in any other industry.
Go get a decent job and let culture return to the people and amateurs where it belongs.
But Scala uses a functional paradigm, and thus represents a different mindset to the OO nature of Java, and even the syntactic mindset of the C family. But yes, it is another tool for writing code targeting the VM.
An aside: How many.Net developers use F#, the functional programming equivalent there?
No, it was a breach of contract suit; Sun and Microsoft agreed to a (publically available) contract about Microsoft making the reference implementation of Java on Windows, but then Microsoft broke the terms by doing stupid things like adding keywords (delegate, multicast) to the language and methods and fields/constants to the standard classes.
I mean, this is public knowledge - why do you choose to lie? Yes, Sun was late in specifying JNI, and hence both Microsoft and Netscape came up with their own implementations of "native", but that was just one aspect of it and far from the most significant.
Obviously you are in the throes of the entertainment industry yes: Demand did not die, it just dropped below a level where it would not be profitable as an industrial product.
If demand had actually died, why wasn't it released to the public domain where cultural produce belongs?
You are a luxury animal, an author who makes money doing basically useless tasks for money instead of serving society by being a nurse, carpenter or having some other useful trade. Get a real job instead of living off government monopolies!
"However, you can download all the pirated games you want to your hacked PSP, since the game industry does not have the lawyers or lobbyist power to actually enforce their copyright: The courts are all swamped with the cases brought by the cocaine-snorter-financing industries anyway.
I also get paid. In fact, as an ISV we do not produce unless there is a customer under contract to pay us. However, the customer pays us for the service (and gets ownership of the end product), and would have done so without copyright because it is a profession and the service adds value to the customer, the alternative would have been to hire their own programmers etc. which might as well have been me for instance.
It's not copyright that gets you paid but your skills and customers. There is no inherent money in copyright: you need someone to actually pay you because they want what you produce. Copyright just means they cannot dilute your market by copying the product themselves.
But do we really need works that are created in the pursuit of profits? Artists and authors are by and large creating luxury goods for a society of workers who manufacture goods and services people need. There is no entitlement, if you write a novel and print 5,000 copies there is no compulsion that causes those 5,000 copies to be bought.
If you turn arts into a business you need to find a business model that works. But nobody owes the artist-turned-entertainment-manufacturer any success.
Communism = Federation of Planets. Picard said it best in "First Contact" when he explained how they had eliminated the need for money since everyone got what they needed from the matter replicators.
No, they are illegally performing an unlicensed copying. How many times do people need to be told the difference between taking and copying? Two acts being illegal does not make the two acts the same. The artists are not raped, their works are not stolen, the persons downloading illegal copies are not driving 65 mph in a 55 mph zone.
And it is not "muddying the waters" when the very concepts of intellectual property are concepts of law. If you do not want to talk about the legal definitions then there is no copyright to debate.
(Music prices are artificial anyway: Why does Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska, recorded in his basement with two guitars and a harmonica on an 8-track tape cost as much as a symphony recorded with a full orchestra in a concert hall? Because the music cartels set the prices and divide the markets.)
Angry much? "the legal definition" is not an "only", it is the CORE of the issue. Because copyright ONLY exists because of law, the laws' definitions are paramount. When something is copied it is NOT "taken", whether the copy is made legally or illegally.
The creators are not deprived of any money: If a musician has $1000 and someone copies his song, he still has those $1000. However, he does not have the $1001 he would get if it was bought. But there is no entitlement to make money from artistic works.
You see, there is no obligation for others to make anyone succeed in their trade. The world does not owe you a living. Copyright exists as an incentive for creators to make works for the public domain instead of doing useful work like teachers, nurses etc. do. If you cannot find a business model supporting your arts but rely on state-granted monopolies and interest groups attacking alternatives to the entertainment industry the former artist has become a worker in, maybe he should take on a proper job instead of living off handouts form a luxury industry propped up by lobbyists.
Because: Artists are producing luxury goods that may or may not turn into culture classics, but if you look around you might notice that most classics are old works that have expired copyrights; current terms last so long that the works protected by them are forgotten and replaced by the next thing. But there is no profit in Romeo and Juliet any more.
(You might as well argue that competing books/CDs/movies are "stealing" customers, and start suing other authors/musicians/directors for that "theft" while you are at it...)
Yes, they are a big company and have the potential to do nefarious things, but I don't really see it happening.
"We have peace, peace in our time!"
In unrelated news, the EU data directive that "only" required ISPs to register all IP addresses and addresses og email recipients and senders is apparently going to be extended to register all Google searches. You know, because if you give them a finger they WILL take the whole hand.
What if Microsoft's drive to get people to upgrade from IE 6 force-installed IE 8? And you had an app that through outright stupidity did not work on any other browser? Could you sue them even if they had amended the Windows EULA/"TOS" to let them do that?
Yes, but that information can be a complete restorable state. It depends on the developer and how much work they want to put into code dealing with restoring the view when restarting.
Why do you assume everyone has a PC? Was it assigned at birth? Why can't people just as well have a Mac? Not everyone needs "Wintendo" to play games on, which is the PC's ONLY advantage over a Mac.
Apple are as likely to port XCode to Windows as Microsoft are to port Visual Studio to Mac or Linux.
Microsoft? Can you install anything you like on a Zune? No. Can you install what you want on an XBox 360? No. Will you be able to install freely on a Kin or other Windows Phone 7 series device? No. Comparing Windows to iPhones is comparing apples and clay bricks.
Apple are NOT falling behind, because only a TINY fraction of users are tech-geeks who "need" full control over their device. The ONLY thing propping Android up is the Google support, there have been other open platforms and they failed. Why? Because the openness is not in demand by the majority of the market. It would not surprise me if the three million iPads sold in three months exceed the total number of Windows-based tablets manufactured since the release of Windows 3 Pen Edition back in the day...
Most people want something that just works. Which is what Apple sells.
And you could - for a while. After the firmware update that enabled it. But you are in a minority - the people buying the later versions that did not have PS2 backward compatibility were far more numerous without that moving Sony much.
Unlicensed copying is NOT and NEVER has been stealing despite the abuse of language the price-fixing entertainment guilds practice.
What is so bloody HARD to understand? That if both act A and act B are illegal it does not follow they are the same act?
What's next, that the artists are raped? That's illegal too you know.
Oh, and hundreds of black blues musicians who either could not afford or did not know they needed to register copyright would like to be compensated by the white musicians who copied them. The industries you slobber at the feet of are NOT good people.
No, you are not right. That you are using an example involving physical items shows that you utterly fail to see the point. Which is that theft and copyright infringement are radically different concepts.
Slashdot Mirror
It comes with so many features and customizabilty built in, what extensions do you really need? Only thing I miss from Firefox is Live HTTP Headers.
*checks latest Dragonfly in 10.60*
Never mind, that is included as well.
Get a job where you do something useful. Just like the rest of us do.
The entertainment industries are in a Bizarro world. Where the rest of the capitalist world looks for a demand and tries to fill it, the entertainment industries first create something based on what can be considered selfish needs of expression, then tries to make people want what they made, propped up by exploiting state-granted monopolies and getting away with market collusion and price fixing that would be deemed illegal in any other industry.
Go get a decent job and let culture return to the people and amateurs where it belongs.
But Scala uses a functional paradigm, and thus represents a different mindset to the OO nature of Java, and even the syntactic mindset of the C family. But yes, it is another tool for writing code targeting the VM.
An aside: How many .Net developers use F#, the functional programming equivalent there?
No, it was a breach of contract suit; Sun and Microsoft agreed to a (publically available) contract about Microsoft making the reference implementation of Java on Windows, but then Microsoft broke the terms by doing stupid things like adding keywords (delegate, multicast) to the language and methods and fields/constants to the standard classes.
I mean, this is public knowledge - why do you choose to lie? Yes, Sun was late in specifying JNI, and hence both Microsoft and Netscape came up with their own implementations of "native", but that was just one aspect of it and far from the most significant.
In summary: You are the one without a clue.
Obviously you are in the throes of the entertainment industry yes: Demand did not die, it just dropped below a level where it would not be profitable as an industrial product.
If demand had actually died, why wasn't it released to the public domain where cultural produce belongs?
You are a luxury animal, an author who makes money doing basically useless tasks for money instead of serving society by being a nurse, carpenter or having some other useful trade. Get a real job instead of living off government monopolies!
"However, you can download all the pirated games you want to your hacked PSP, since the game industry does not have the lawyers or lobbyist power to actually enforce their copyright: The courts are all swamped with the cases brought by the cocaine-snorter-financing industries anyway.
I also get paid. In fact, as an ISV we do not produce unless there is a customer under contract to pay us. However, the customer pays us for the service (and gets ownership of the end product), and would have done so without copyright because it is a profession and the service adds value to the customer, the alternative would have been to hire their own programmers etc. which might as well have been me for instance.
It's not copyright that gets you paid but your skills and customers. There is no inherent money in copyright: you need someone to actually pay you because they want what you produce. Copyright just means they cannot dilute your market by copying the product themselves.
Or
"To improve our understanding, please identify the class of organization the ASCAP belongs to:
A: Protection Racket (mafia)
B: Guild (trade monopoly)
Awaiting your reply."
But do we really need works that are created in the pursuit of profits? Artists and authors are by and large creating luxury goods for a society of workers who manufacture goods and services people need. There is no entitlement, if you write a novel and print 5,000 copies there is no compulsion that causes those 5,000 copies to be bought.
If you turn arts into a business you need to find a business model that works. But nobody owes the artist-turned-entertainment-manufacturer any success.
It's getting very obvious they are just running a protection racket. Can't someone report them to the police soon?
We need a "+0 Meh" moderation.
You are practicing in violation of the interests of the guild.
Sounds like a protection racket, let's throw RICO at them and see if it sticks.
I spent all my mod points on hookers.
Communism = Federation of Planets. Picard said it best in "First Contact" when he explained how they had eliminated the need for money since everyone got what they needed from the matter replicators.
No, they are illegally performing an unlicensed copying. How many times do people need to be told the difference between taking and copying? Two acts being illegal does not make the two acts the same. The artists are not raped, their works are not stolen, the persons downloading illegal copies are not driving 65 mph in a 55 mph zone.
And it is not "muddying the waters" when the very concepts of intellectual property are concepts of law. If you do not want to talk about the legal definitions then there is no copyright to debate.
(Music prices are artificial anyway: Why does Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska, recorded in his basement with two guitars and a harmonica on an 8-track tape cost as much as a symphony recorded with a full orchestra in a concert hall? Because the music cartels set the prices and divide the markets.)
Angry much? "the legal definition" is not an "only", it is the CORE of the issue. Because copyright ONLY exists because of law, the laws' definitions are paramount. When something is copied it is NOT "taken", whether the copy is made legally or illegally.
The creators are not deprived of any money: If a musician has $1000 and someone copies his song, he still has those $1000. However, he does not have the $1001 he would get if it was bought. But there is no entitlement to make money from artistic works.
You see, there is no obligation for others to make anyone succeed in their trade. The world does not owe you a living. Copyright exists as an incentive for creators to make works for the public domain instead of doing useful work like teachers, nurses etc. do. If you cannot find a business model supporting your arts but rely on state-granted monopolies and interest groups attacking alternatives to the entertainment industry the former artist has become a worker in, maybe he should take on a proper job instead of living off handouts form a luxury industry propped up by lobbyists.
Because: Artists are producing luxury goods that may or may not turn into culture classics, but if you look around you might notice that most classics are old works that have expired copyrights; current terms last so long that the works protected by them are forgotten and replaced by the next thing. But there is no profit in Romeo and Juliet any more.
(You might as well argue that competing books/CDs/movies are "stealing" customers, and start suing other authors/musicians/directors for that "theft" while you are at it...)
Yes, they are a big company and have the potential to do nefarious things, but I don't really see it happening.
"We have peace, peace in our time!"
In unrelated news, the EU data directive that "only" required ISPs to register all IP addresses and addresses og email recipients and senders is apparently going to be extended to register all Google searches. You know, because if you give them a finger they WILL take the whole hand.
What if Microsoft's drive to get people to upgrade from IE 6 force-installed IE 8? And you had an app that through outright stupidity did not work on any other browser? Could you sue them even if they had amended the Windows EULA/"TOS" to let them do that?
Yes, but that information can be a complete restorable state. It depends on the developer and how much work they want to put into code dealing with restoring the view when restarting.
Why do you assume everyone has a PC? Was it assigned at birth? Why can't people just as well have a Mac? Not everyone needs "Wintendo" to play games on, which is the PC's ONLY advantage over a Mac.
Apple are as likely to port XCode to Windows as Microsoft are to port Visual Studio to Mac or Linux.
Microsoft? Can you install anything you like on a Zune? No. Can you install what you want on an XBox 360? No. Will you be able to install freely on a Kin or other Windows Phone 7 series device? No. Comparing Windows to iPhones is comparing apples and clay bricks.
Apple are NOT falling behind, because only a TINY fraction of users are tech-geeks who "need" full control over their device. The ONLY thing propping Android up is the Google support, there have been other open platforms and they failed. Why? Because the openness is not in demand by the majority of the market. It would not surprise me if the three million iPads sold in three months exceed the total number of Windows-based tablets manufactured since the release of Windows 3 Pen Edition back in the day...
Most people want something that just works. Which is what Apple sells.
And you could - for a while. After the firmware update that enabled it. But you are in a minority - the people buying the later versions that did not have PS2 backward compatibility were far more numerous without that moving Sony much.
Unlicensed copying is NOT and NEVER has been stealing despite the abuse of language the price-fixing entertainment guilds practice.
What is so bloody HARD to understand? That if both act A and act B are illegal it does not follow they are the same act?
What's next, that the artists are raped? That's illegal too you know.
Oh, and hundreds of black blues musicians who either could not afford or did not know they needed to register copyright would like to be compensated by the white musicians who copied them. The industries you slobber at the feet of are NOT good people.
No, you are not right. That you are using an example involving physical items shows that you utterly fail to see the point. Which is that theft and copyright infringement are radically different concepts.