I guess this is because nuclear power produces a lot more energy than what it costs to extract uranium...
And that one country cannot have enough energy!
Not really, because it doesn't matter what was spent to make something, that doesn't give it value. You're never "promised" profitability - it's always a risk. You sound like you think because you put effort into something you should be able to demand something from society. It only has value based on the demand that the market will bear. There are plenty of multimillion dollar movies made that end up worth less than the studios paid for them. So even though they can spend the money, then make copies for $0.25 each, they still wasted their money because they can't find 20 million people that will pay $1 for the movie.
I must disagree with that statement. Artwork have an intrinsic value because of the work of the artist, and we wouldn't have multimillion dollar movies, if said movies were to be free in high definition before hitting theatres, just because too few people would still be going to theatres. And I agree when you say that some movies are worth less than what the studio paid for them. But without IP, no movies would be worth the price paid...
But where do you draw the line, then? [...]
Again, where is the line? And how do you enforce these laws? Death of the author plus 70 years? How long do we hold up progress so that corporations can reap profits?
Nobody said the laws were correctly chosen here; but this is the heart of the problem, where do you draw the line? How to enforce laws like that. How to make laws that protects the artists, encourages good art, without straining the consumer in a web of unreadable laws that everyone transgresses daily without a second thought.
The laws in this matter are not done properly, they are flawed almost everywhere, and need a complete intelligent rereading now that tools like internet exists. However, they're better than nothing in this matter... And the flawed design of the current business model and law system doesn't mean that it would be better without it. The whole system could be better, but this new collective licensing thing is IMHO a good thing, showing a positive evolution in the system.
I hardly seems the problem if the software is reliable.
I find google a lot better than some other companies that I won't name here (like IBM for instance) in term of quality of service for their mail software. And their software is at least usable.
If I have a problem, I don't complain... My bad for not choosing a better email software provider
I don't agree with that... I'm paying for my upload even if I don't use it. I'm not paying more if I spend my whole time torrenting files...
You could say that my ISP pays more if I use my upload bandwidth, but those costs are normally quite integrated in their prices calculations, and are still cheaper than paying for bandwidth on a file transfer server...
That said, software development is a little more objectively measurable than music. When this guy says that all the "major" good ideas were discovered, he don't see the fact that there was nothing before, so basically, every discovery would score as a major good idea. It is perhaps a little scarcer today, but discoveries are still made, and good ideas too.
And of course that only Gregorian Chant really qualifies as music.
And it would be a good thing if every law was really spelled in an unambiguous way, I think the problem is, it's not... and people still argue about law.
It is specially true for the kind of law we are talking about, software patent laws, or copyright laws, etc. they seem designed to be endlessly discussed in every detail, designed to be used for anything but what they are initially asked for...
Well, I see you are very precise in all the dating old documents, I read somewhere that the dates you advance have enormously changed through recent research, and that lots of historians still fight over things like that... Of course being the ultimate base of a whole religion, this unleashes passionate debates (trolls?), but IMHO, the existence of Jesus is comparable to any relatively major guy living too much ahead in history, and historians are according credit to much more unclear documents than the gospels (speaking of provenance) but as I don't have a precise example, I will not insist on that.
It is interesting to notice that anyone dead for more than 200 years could be a literary invention... I don't see why Jesus would be more imaginary than Julius Caesar for instance. Documents exists for both, written by people who claim to have seen them, claiming both were gods. (Roman imperator is a god, by popular belief, and Jesus, well, is believed to be the son of God by christians)
Nobody doubts the existence of Julius Caesar, right?
I'm not denying the usefulness of Google search, I'm only pointing out that the "old ways" still have an interest, and that it might be useful to still teach them, you never know when things like that might come in handy.
[...] the number of people who need that skill is significantly reduced by advances in technology.
I agree with that, but I keep in mind that it is a skill that can always be useful, internet is not yet everywhere and will probably never be.
If the cost of that knowledge is time and you aren't interested in having that knowledge, then yes, it does hurt.
I disagree with this, knowledge in itself cannot hurt, acquiring it may, but having it cannot, you never know when a particular piece of knowledge will be useful.
Looking for information is a skill in itself, and provides all kind of background information on the subject you are looking for; you may not be directly interested in all the information, but knowledge of it cannot hurt.
With a simple Google search, you find much less complete information, because you are targeting way more your searches.
The difference is that frequently, the film score is written for the movie; without a movie and a producer to pay for the music, there would be no music... Fair use or not, the music composer gets paid.
I'm greatly relieved to hear that.
By the way, why do any date format have a limit this close in the future? We had it for two-digits year, and knowing that they design a 32-bits date format which ends near 2038...
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could have tried http://www.goolge.com/ and see for yourself that this typo is completely irrelevant.
I guess this is because nuclear power produces a lot more energy than what it costs to extract uranium... And that one country cannot have enough energy!
Force feeding the rules of music composition to a computer is possible, but it will always lack the artistic imagination needed to make good music.
Maybe I am retarded or something, but I use the internet, *and* I still by CDs... and I don't really see a problem with that...
This seems impossible... He's older than me, and I'm a three months-old slashdotter...
Not really, because it doesn't matter what was spent to make something, that doesn't give it value. You're never "promised" profitability - it's always a risk. You sound like you think because you put effort into something you should be able to demand something from society. It only has value based on the demand that the market will bear. There are plenty of multimillion dollar movies made that end up worth less than the studios paid for them. So even though they can spend the money, then make copies for $0.25 each, they still wasted their money because they can't find 20 million people that will pay $1 for the movie.
I must disagree with that statement. Artwork have an intrinsic value because of the work of the artist, and we wouldn't have multimillion dollar movies, if said movies were to be free in high definition before hitting theatres, just because too few people would still be going to theatres. And I agree when you say that some movies are worth less than what the studio paid for them. But without IP, no movies would be worth the price paid...
But where do you draw the line, then?
Nobody said the laws were correctly chosen here; but this is the heart of the problem, where do you draw the line? How to enforce laws like that. How to make laws that protects the artists, encourages good art, without straining the consumer in a web of unreadable laws that everyone transgresses daily without a second thought.[...]
Again, where is the line? And how do you enforce these laws? Death of the author plus 70 years? How long do we hold up progress so that corporations can reap profits?
The laws in this matter are not done properly, they are flawed almost everywhere, and need a complete intelligent rereading now that tools like internet exists. However, they're better than nothing in this matter... And the flawed design of the current business model and law system doesn't mean that it would be better without it. The whole system could be better, but this new collective licensing thing is IMHO a good thing, showing a positive evolution in the system.
There aren't any moving parts in an SSD (obviously) so the power consumption might be lower.
Wikipedia seems to think that this is true only for small capacity SSDs...
I hardly seems the problem if the software is reliable.
I find google a lot better than some other companies that I won't name here (like IBM for instance) in term of quality of service for their mail software. And their software is at least usable.
If I have a problem, I don't complain... My bad for not choosing a better email software provider
I don't agree with that... I'm paying for my upload even if I don't use it. I'm not paying more if I spend my whole time torrenting files...
You could say that my ISP pays more if I use my upload bandwidth, but those costs are normally quite integrated in their prices calculations, and are still cheaper than paying for bandwidth on a file transfer server...
That said, software development is a little more objectively measurable than music. When this guy says that all the "major" good ideas were discovered, he don't see the fact that there was nothing before, so basically, every discovery would score as a major good idea. It is perhaps a little scarcer today, but discoveries are still made, and good ideas too.
And of course that only Gregorian Chant really qualifies as music.
I heard about 4 studied cases of homozygotic twins which had different genders (a boy and a girl).
So, yes, in a way, it could seem "Blindingly obvious".
Writing compilers in C is indeed possible, but you still need to know assembly, just to compile the code.
And it would be a good thing if every law was really spelled in an unambiguous way, I think the problem is, it's not... and people still argue about law. It is specially true for the kind of law we are talking about, software patent laws, or copyright laws, etc. they seem designed to be endlessly discussed in every detail, designed to be used for anything but what they are initially asked for...
I will trademark the world 'law'! And then, I will sue every tribunal over the world! Yes!
Well, I see you are very precise in all the dating old documents, I read somewhere that the dates you advance have enormously changed through recent research, and that lots of historians still fight over things like that... Of course being the ultimate base of a whole religion, this unleashes passionate debates (trolls?), but IMHO, the existence of Jesus is comparable to any relatively major guy living too much ahead in history, and historians are according credit to much more unclear documents than the gospels (speaking of provenance) but as I don't have a precise example, I will not insist on that.
It is interesting to notice that anyone dead for more than 200 years could be a literary invention... I don't see why Jesus would be more imaginary than Julius Caesar for instance. Documents exists for both, written by people who claim to have seen them, claiming both were gods. (Roman imperator is a god, by popular belief, and Jesus, well, is believed to be the son of God by christians)
Nobody doubts the existence of Julius Caesar, right?
Sorry for the off-topic.
I'm not denying the usefulness of Google search, I'm only pointing out that the "old ways" still have an interest, and that it might be useful to still teach them, you never know when things like that might come in handy.
[...] the number of people who need that skill is significantly reduced by advances in technology.
I agree with that, but I keep in mind that it is a skill that can always be useful, internet is not yet everywhere and will probably never be.If the cost of that knowledge is time and you aren't interested in having that knowledge, then yes, it does hurt.
I disagree with this, knowledge in itself cannot hurt, acquiring it may, but having it cannot, you never know when a particular piece of knowledge will be useful.Looking for information is a skill in itself, and provides all kind of background information on the subject you are looking for; you may not be directly interested in all the information, but knowledge of it cannot hurt. With a simple Google search, you find much less complete information, because you are targeting way more your searches.
The difference is that frequently, the film score is written for the movie; without a movie and a producer to pay for the music, there would be no music... Fair use or not, the music composer gets paid.
I'm greatly relieved to hear that. By the way, why do any date format have a limit this close in the future? We had it for two-digits year, and knowing that they design a 32-bits date format which ends near 2038...