...So that means I live almost entirely on the royalties from licensed performances -- and it isn't much...
I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, are you sustaining yourself on your compositions or is the money that comes in from writing music just a bonus check every month or so? If it's the latter then I believe your post is arguing for a lack of ASCAP, they might provide you with license payments every so often but you'd still be writing anyway because it's not your living. If it's the other way around, and your primary occupation/ money earning is from composing then you've made a worthwhile argument for ASCAP.
Also, the fact that you have your works open to downloads is fantastic. It helps all of us who just want to tinker around at home. Thanks.
Activision more than likely is paying a fee to license the songs from ASCAP. I don't know whether ASCAP has the right to request additional fees from arcades or if they're just trying to double dip on the small guys who might not know about ASCAP licensing.
One of these days I want someone to explain to me why reading more books is so important. Not everything that isn't reading books is bad (take that grammar nazis).
> Haven't noticed any drawbacks on speed in any of my applications.
You simply aren't WILLING to acknowledge any of the drawbacks on speed in any of your applications.
Well, I guess I'll put it this way, the lowest connection speed in my network is my ISP. I have one computer, one smart phone, one media player and one game system on my network. The majority of my intra-network transfer occurs between my computer and my media player. Last time I had to refill the player it took about 45 minutes to load the 100GB+ of data back onto it. It takes around one minute to upload an HD episode of Lost. Sure, it probably would've been faster with a hard line connection, but I don't often have to restore the entire drive with data. And when I do I can set it on and then go make dinner or something. Haven't noticed any issues with streaming Netflix through my XBox either.
Wireless has always been a train wreck compromise for people too cheap to set up a proper network.
A proper network to me consists of cables that are not run across the floor or the ceiling but are in wall. Seeing as I live in an apartment and my landlord probably wouldn't be too happy with me taking hammer to drywall I'll stick with wireless. Haven't noticed any drawbacks on speed in any of my applications.
Google, being a publicly held company, has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to place money before mere principles.
Google has a legal obligation to not misinform the public about its dealings (ala enron's hide where the money's not coming from trick). Google has an obligation to its shareholders to turn a profit. But it definitely isn't a legal obligation. And who knows, maybe those high impact shareholders do care more about principles than huge profits. Then the obligation would be to back up those principles.
It's not so much about finding the partner to share the responsibility as it is the time involved. To get that coveted tenured faculty position one must put in tons of time up front which could essentially make the partner the nanny. Even with a supportive partner it can still be a question of family versus career.
That doesn't change the point. If you have a partner to share the responsibility with then there is no sexism. It's simply having to choose between having a family at an early age or devoting yourself to a career. For either the man or the woman it's a decision that has to be made.
So, a woman in academia has to choose: postpone family until early 40's (and risk birth defects), don't postpone family but miss out on actually being a mother (babies raised by nanny or even day care), or give up on a high power tenured faculty position.
You forgot the other option, find a partner to raise the kid with. It's not society's fault that you didn't find the right partner to share the responsibility of raising a child with.
The devil is in the details. The "Active" region is only 1 atom wide, but the gate is still "10s of nanometers" Last I checked, the gate was still part of a transistor. We're currently mass producing with critical dimensions at 34 nanometers where I work.
Yeah, that's the first thing of thought of when I read the title. If I'm understanding correctly the gate is of dimension [1 atom x 10s of nm]. That's still damn impressive. I guess now the work has to come down to dropping that 10s of nm into the handful of atoms range.
If images of child porn are so evil, how about entire MOVIES about genocide!
You haven't heard, sex is much, much worse than violence. People weren't truly up in arms about Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas until Hot Coffee came out. Before that it was simple mutterings of violence is bad.
No jury will convict.
"Deep int he hard drive" - it is to laugh. Must have been a really old hard drive - most of them are pretty shallow nowadays.
You have a lot of faith in the amount of technical knowledge that the general public has. In regards to this, I wonder if there would be a case that a jury that doesn't understand technology is not a jury of your peers (this assumes that you are yourself knowledgeable about technology)?
...the judge is required to ensure that the proceedings are fair, and that the gov't doesn't abuse its' position.
And the judge will tell the defendant to get a lawyer (a lawyer will be provided if you can't afford a lawyer, etc. etc.). If you refuse that, the judge will assume that you consider yourself more capable of defending yourself than the public defender. If you're wrong then you have to deal with it. I'm not saying this is fair, per se, but it's more than likely the truth.
They (the men) are not burglars or kidnappers, they would never get a gun being illegal as it is now, but if they could get it legally, I wonder how many women would survive?
And the drunk husband doesn't somehow get hold of the gun first. The drunk husband would never get a gun because it's illegal. But if they get i legally, I wonder how many drunk husbands will have access to a gun.
I think you're missing the grand parents point. I read the post as being that because guns are illegal the drunk bastards are only beating their wives. If guns were legal then they might have a gun in the house and might kill their wives.
In short, the english language does not have a simple structure for dealing with gender-neutrality. If you look to Latin based languages you will see that they have masculine, feminine and neuter forms of speech. I don't know enough about other languages to speak to whether or not they have similar constructions but english does not. And for that reason, trying to make everything into a genderless pursuit is futile. I like to do the old switch between his/her because it riles up people who tell me it's still sexist, to which I reply, I don't give a rat's ass.
When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans' it's gone too far.
I remember someone telling me that Resident Evil 5 was racist towards african americans. I told them that the game wasn't racist, but if it were it would have to be towards africans that were specifically not american. The look on the guys face made it seem like he wanted to know more about this mythical africa.
PC is simply about acknowledging that language has history and there are times, if for nothing else than for expediency, when certain terms have to be collectively chosen which allow people to reference things without immediate negative connotations.
So you're saying that we shouldn't mention the war?
Typical of the intellectually lazy Slashdot reader to say it's "free speech" and move on. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just behind the times, right?
How do you deal with slander and abuse? Say I discover Odinlake's real name and home address, and I publish it and say nasty things about him. Then maybe Odinlake has trouble getting a job, because his prospective employers look him up and see the false information. It's just free speech, right? Surely a free society will allow this! Who are we, Communist China?
I would think a company would be hard pressed to not hire someone based on an anonymous posting board. That's a dangerous practice that could result in a major lawsuit if anyone found out about the practice. It essentially amounts to hiring discrimination. I know the last two companies I've worked for have stopped checking facebook profiles because they were worried about a lawsuit. Something about their being an option to post your religious and political view points.
In response to your first point, that would fall into an argument over whether or not these types of licenses are legitimate. Until that argument is cleared up Apple's practice is suspect. When/if EULAs are deemed to be 100% valid in the case of restricted use of software I still don't believe that you'll be seeing Microsoft, Adobe, Skype or anyone else limiting their usage to specific computers, it just isn't in their business model. If adobe made their own hardware that they sold their software on they would probably chard a lot more for each license but they would lose much more in sales and would more than likely fail as a company.
It also discusses specific regulators at NRC, their backgrounds, and their resumes (which involve jumping between the regulatory agency and cushy jobs at the companies they regulate). It cites a specific ethics violation.
Not excusing the practice, but this happens in nearly all regulated industries. You need enough knowledge to understand what you're regulating, the pay isn't that great, ergo, the only people going in are people from the industry. And it doesn't appear that any regulatory agency has found a solution for this problem.
Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.
Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?
I guess it's because those companies don't have those provisions in their license agreements. From my perspective it would be detrimental to their business models to place those kinds of restrictions on their products. For Apple it helps their business model and therefore they have included that into the license. You can argue that it might be worthy of anti-trust, might not be the best business model (though evidence points to it being highly effective) or anything else you can think of. The fact that nobody else does this does not mean that it can't be done, just that those other parties haven't found it to be a worthwhile business idea.
I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?
Too bad you don't legally own the software, only a licensee to it. I don't like it any more than the next guy (unless the next guy is a software company, then they probably like it a lot) but that appears to be the way the law looks at software. I guess that's what happens when you get legislation from people who don't understand what they are legislating.
Slashdot Mirror
...So that means I live almost entirely on the royalties from licensed performances -- and it isn't much...
I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, are you sustaining yourself on your compositions or is the money that comes in from writing music just a bonus check every month or so? If it's the latter then I believe your post is arguing for a lack of ASCAP, they might provide you with license payments every so often but you'd still be writing anyway because it's not your living. If it's the other way around, and your primary occupation/ money earning is from composing then you've made a worthwhile argument for ASCAP.
Also, the fact that you have your works open to downloads is fantastic. It helps all of us who just want to tinker around at home. Thanks.
Activision more than likely is paying a fee to license the songs from ASCAP. I don't know whether ASCAP has the right to request additional fees from arcades or if they're just trying to double dip on the small guys who might not know about ASCAP licensing.
For one, you would probably read more books
One of these days I want someone to explain to me why reading more books is so important. Not everything that isn't reading books is bad (take that grammar nazis).
> Haven't noticed any drawbacks on speed in any of my applications.
You simply aren't WILLING to acknowledge any of the drawbacks on speed in any of your applications.
Well, I guess I'll put it this way, the lowest connection speed in my network is my ISP. I have one computer, one smart phone, one media player and one game system on my network. The majority of my intra-network transfer occurs between my computer and my media player. Last time I had to refill the player it took about 45 minutes to load the 100GB+ of data back onto it. It takes around one minute to upload an HD episode of Lost. Sure, it probably would've been faster with a hard line connection, but I don't often have to restore the entire drive with data. And when I do I can set it on and then go make dinner or something. Haven't noticed any issues with streaming Netflix through my XBox either.
Wireless has always been a train wreck compromise for people too cheap to set up a proper network.
A proper network to me consists of cables that are not run across the floor or the ceiling but are in wall. Seeing as I live in an apartment and my landlord probably wouldn't be too happy with me taking hammer to drywall I'll stick with wireless. Haven't noticed any drawbacks on speed in any of my applications.
Google, being a publicly held company, has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to place money before mere principles.
Google has a legal obligation to not misinform the public about its dealings (ala enron's hide where the money's not coming from trick). Google has an obligation to its shareholders to turn a profit. But it definitely isn't a legal obligation. And who knows, maybe those high impact shareholders do care more about principles than huge profits. Then the obligation would be to back up those principles.
Whereas California or Delaware actually represent places where (tech) companies are incorporated or actually do business.
Blockbuster and Netflix don't do business in Oklahoma? That's news to me.
It's not so much about finding the partner to share the responsibility as it is the time involved. To get that coveted tenured faculty position one must put in tons of time up front which could essentially make the partner the nanny. Even with a supportive partner it can still be a question of family versus career.
That doesn't change the point. If you have a partner to share the responsibility with then there is no sexism. It's simply having to choose between having a family at an early age or devoting yourself to a career. For either the man or the woman it's a decision that has to be made.
So, a woman in academia has to choose: postpone family until early 40's (and risk birth defects), don't postpone family but miss out on actually being a mother (babies raised by nanny or even day care), or give up on a high power tenured faculty position.
You forgot the other option, find a partner to raise the kid with. It's not society's fault that you didn't find the right partner to share the responsibility of raising a child with.
And suddenly 10 real world balloons results in 1000s of iPhone balloon spotting locations.
The devil is in the details. The "Active" region is only 1 atom wide, but the gate is still "10s of nanometers" Last I checked, the gate was still part of a transistor. We're currently mass producing with critical dimensions at 34 nanometers where I work.
Yeah, that's the first thing of thought of when I read the title. If I'm understanding correctly the gate is of dimension [1 atom x 10s of nm]. That's still damn impressive. I guess now the work has to come down to dropping that 10s of nm into the handful of atoms range.
If images of child porn are so evil, how about entire MOVIES about genocide!
You haven't heard, sex is much, much worse than violence. People weren't truly up in arms about Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas until Hot Coffee came out. Before that it was simple mutterings of violence is bad.
No jury will convict.
"Deep int he hard drive" - it is to laugh. Must have been a really old hard drive - most of them are pretty shallow nowadays.
You have a lot of faith in the amount of technical knowledge that the general public has. In regards to this, I wonder if there would be a case that a jury that doesn't understand technology is not a jury of your peers (this assumes that you are yourself knowledgeable about technology)?
And the judge will tell the defendant to get a lawyer (a lawyer will be provided if you can't afford a lawyer, etc. etc.). If you refuse that, the judge will assume that you consider yourself more capable of defending yourself than the public defender. If you're wrong then you have to deal with it. I'm not saying this is fair, per se, but it's more than likely the truth.
They (the men) are not burglars or kidnappers, they would never get a gun being illegal as it is now, but if they could get it legally, I wonder how many women would survive?
And the drunk husband doesn't somehow get hold of the gun first. The drunk husband would never get a gun because it's illegal. But if they get i legally, I wonder how many drunk husbands will have access to a gun.
I think you're missing the grand parents point. I read the post as being that because guns are illegal the drunk bastards are only beating their wives. If guns were legal then they might have a gun in the house and might kill their wives.
I like to do the on-again, off-again method. Turn adverts off for two weeks, turn them back on for a few weeks. It keeps the look of the site fresh.
In short, the english language does not have a simple structure for dealing with gender-neutrality. If you look to Latin based languages you will see that they have masculine, feminine and neuter forms of speech. I don't know enough about other languages to speak to whether or not they have similar constructions but english does not. And for that reason, trying to make everything into a genderless pursuit is futile. I like to do the old switch between his/her because it riles up people who tell me it's still sexist, to which I reply, I don't give a rat's ass.
When you get white Americans calling European nationals who happen to be black 'African Americans' it's gone too far.
I remember someone telling me that Resident Evil 5 was racist towards african americans. I told them that the game wasn't racist, but if it were it would have to be towards africans that were specifically not american. The look on the guys face made it seem like he wanted to know more about this mythical africa.
PC is simply about acknowledging that language has history and there are times, if for nothing else than for expediency, when certain terms have to be collectively chosen which allow people to reference things without immediate negative connotations.
So you're saying that we shouldn't mention the war?
Typical of the intellectually lazy Slashdot reader to say it's "free speech" and move on. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just behind the times, right?
How do you deal with slander and abuse? Say I discover Odinlake's real name and home address, and I publish it and say nasty things about him. Then maybe Odinlake has trouble getting a job, because his prospective employers look him up and see the false information. It's just free speech, right? Surely a free society will allow this! Who are we, Communist China?
I would think a company would be hard pressed to not hire someone based on an anonymous posting board. That's a dangerous practice that could result in a major lawsuit if anyone found out about the practice. It essentially amounts to hiring discrimination. I know the last two companies I've worked for have stopped checking facebook profiles because they were worried about a lawsuit. Something about their being an option to post your religious and political view points.
In response to your first point, that would fall into an argument over whether or not these types of licenses are legitimate. Until that argument is cleared up Apple's practice is suspect. When/if EULAs are deemed to be 100% valid in the case of restricted use of software I still don't believe that you'll be seeing Microsoft, Adobe, Skype or anyone else limiting their usage to specific computers, it just isn't in their business model. If adobe made their own hardware that they sold their software on they would probably chard a lot more for each license but they would lose much more in sales and would more than likely fail as a company.
It also discusses specific regulators at NRC, their backgrounds, and their resumes (which involve jumping between the regulatory agency and cushy jobs at the companies they regulate). It cites a specific ethics violation.
Not excusing the practice, but this happens in nearly all regulated industries. You need enough knowledge to understand what you're regulating, the pay isn't that great, ergo, the only people going in are people from the industry. And it doesn't appear that any regulatory agency has found a solution for this problem.
To further your good argument, Apple sells Mac OS X by itself.
But Apple does not sell OS X for repackaging and resale. You can do what you want with a copy of OS X other than redistribute it.
Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.
Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?
I guess it's because those companies don't have those provisions in their license agreements. From my perspective it would be detrimental to their business models to place those kinds of restrictions on their products. For Apple it helps their business model and therefore they have included that into the license. You can argue that it might be worthy of anti-trust, might not be the best business model (though evidence points to it being highly effective) or anything else you can think of. The fact that nobody else does this does not mean that it can't be done, just that those other parties haven't found it to be a worthwhile business idea.
I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?
Too bad you don't legally own the software, only a licensee to it. I don't like it any more than the next guy (unless the next guy is a software company, then they probably like it a lot) but that appears to be the way the law looks at software. I guess that's what happens when you get legislation from people who don't understand what they are legislating.