If a creationist says that the Oort Cloud is unscientific, people mock them. But the reality is, it doesn't follow a single tenet of the scientific method. It exists purely because without it, the presence of comets in the solar system would prove that the solar system is too young. So a theoretical "comet-holding" cloud is invented out of thin air because long ages require it, not because of any sort of observation or because the facts led anyone there.
People mock them because they clearly don't understand how science works. And apparently, neither do you. Working hypothesis like the Oort Cloud are exactly how the scientific method works.
Using the scheme proposed (1st year: $1, 2nd year: $2, 3rd year: $4, etc), an artist would only pay a sum of $517 in the first ten years of the work.
If after ten years the artist hasn't produced any new work, it's his or her own fault that he only has a single mean of income.
I think the rules should be the same for everyone, regardless of income.
They are. Your proposal isn't.
Perhaps one way to do this would be to have a sliding scale incorporated with your idea - the fee for renewal could be a percentage of the copyright holder's income
Then "Hollywood accounting" will make sure they pay an absolute minimum. Making the rules more complicated is prone to abuse and completely unnecessary.
The point is, nothing is 100%. The game is to make it sufficiently difficult that the number of people who have the skill and time and interest to crack the protection is small (for a suitable definition of small). Then people will have the choice of either a) lots of effort to steal code which will become obsolete or b) pay for it.
Where your analogy fails is here. If there are 10 thieves trying to rob a house, each has to break in individually. If there are 10 guys trying to get a copy of a software, only one has to crack it, the others will download the cracked version.
That's not how a market works. People will pay what they can or feel it's fair. Sellers will set the prices according to what brings them more revenue. More people willing to buy doesn't drive the price down; in fact, it'll probably increase it.
Prices are high because people are willing to pay them. Blame the buyers, not the cheapskates.
People will still buy from the author. Paulo Coelho makes a ton of money by giving away his books as free downloads, just because lots of readers buy an hardcover from him afterwards.
People have shown again and again that they will pay even if they can get it for free. See most of the pay-what-you-want deals or studies like this.
Yes, plenty of people will get it for free. It's irrelevant. We just need to ensure artists get paid enough to make it reasonable to produce new works, not that they get a cut from each and every single viewer.
Artists and less-fortunate companies would pay with the proceedings of work itself, just like big-companies, while it gives them more money than it costs to keep it copyrighted.
Or are you claiming that big companies, just because they have more money, would pay more than what the work gets them?
Economical success is not the only conceivable indicator of value, but luckily nobody claimed that. But it is the only reason to keep a work copyrighted.
I never said the opposite. I was just replying to parent's assertion that "You will not find 1 Gbit (...) unless the "right place" to live is a datacenter."
I wasn't making any statement about the splash screen issue.
Would it be any less land wasting, polluting and resource consuming if we paved all the land and dropped a city on it? Or maybe a data center like Facebook that consumes as much power as the rest of the county it's situated in?
Strawman. Those aren't the only possibilities. One could simply use the land to cultivate food for direct human consumption.
Farms covered in green crops and grass suck up a hell of a lot of that CO2 that you city people are spewing into the air, not to mention filling the air with oxygen for you to breath
The problem is not the green crops and grass, but the animals.
Firstly, there's this:
Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities.
And secondly, the whole process of growing vegetables, feeding it to cattle and then eating the cattle is much less efficient than taking the animals out of the equation.
The two aren't necessarily incompatible, though. Photoshop itself - at least on version CS2 - had a line on the splash screen with the current "thing" being loaded/initialized, like "scanning for plugins" in this example.
Of course, if the application simply crashes, the window will disappear therefore hiding that information.
How is the average relevant at all? Just because most people have slow internet speeds doesn't mean faster are not available, it just means you have to pay more for it.
Here, a local ISP (Zon) does offer 1Gbps for residential connections. Of course, since it costs 250 Euros ($320) per month and is only available in few parts of the country, very few people will actually contract it, so it won't move the average. But it certainly exists.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you propose they use instead?
Frankly, sir, you seem a Luddite if the only application you can see for an HUD with a camera is "checking your messages".
Just integrating it with something like word lens coupled with a navigation system would make it a fantastic device for traveling.
WebSockets for the live feed, then SVG, Canvas or WebGL for the visualization.
It does indicate it's not Android, since it doesn't use glibc or the GNU core utilities.
On the other hand, my parents handled it without requiring courts or lawyers and have remained friends.
Anecdotes are just that.
Nobody on the left has a bold scientific vision
The left? I thought you were talking about Democrats?
If a creationist says that the Oort Cloud is unscientific, people mock them. But the reality is, it doesn't follow a single tenet of the scientific method. It exists purely because without it, the presence of comets in the solar system would prove that the solar system is too young. So a theoretical "comet-holding" cloud is invented out of thin air because long ages require it, not because of any sort of observation or because the facts led anyone there.
People mock them because they clearly don't understand how science works. And apparently, neither do you. Working hypothesis like the Oort Cloud are exactly how the scientific method works.
This doesn't just record audio, it also records network traffic.
Did you miss the part where it records network traffic and streams it all to the 'net?
Maybe next time you could actually read TFA.
Using the scheme proposed (1st year: $1, 2nd year: $2, 3rd year: $4, etc), an artist would only pay a sum of $517 in the first ten years of the work.
If after ten years the artist hasn't produced any new work, it's his or her own fault that he only has a single mean of income.
I think the rules should be the same for everyone, regardless of income.
They are. Your proposal isn't.
Perhaps one way to do this would be to have a sliding scale incorporated with your idea - the fee for renewal could be a percentage of the copyright holder's income
Then "Hollywood accounting" will make sure they pay an absolute minimum. Making the rules more complicated is prone to abuse and completely unnecessary.
People bitched about Oracle to no end on this site when both of those forks were announced
Considering MariaDB was forked before Oracle bought Sun, I'm pretty sure they haven't.
The point is, nothing is 100%. The game is to make it sufficiently difficult that the number of people who have the skill and time and interest to crack the protection is small (for a suitable definition of small). Then people will have the choice of either a) lots of effort to steal code which will become obsolete or b) pay for it.
Where your analogy fails is here. If there are 10 thieves trying to rob a house, each has to break in individually. If there are 10 guys trying to get a copy of a software, only one has to crack it, the others will download the cracked version.
You sir are an idiot. (...) we loose so much (...)
Pot, kettle.
By the way, I was just playing devil's advocate by pointing out the flaws in GP's argument. I do not actually defend the elimination of cattle farms.
An equivalent in Python would be:
Alternatively (faster, but less similar):
Of course, if the class implements the __cmp__() method, you can just do lines.sort().
That's not how a market works. People will pay what they can or feel it's fair. Sellers will set the prices according to what brings them more revenue. More people willing to buy doesn't drive the price down; in fact, it'll probably increase it.
Prices are high because people are willing to pay them. Blame the buyers, not the cheapskates.
People will still buy from the author. Paulo Coelho makes a ton of money by giving away his books as free downloads, just because lots of readers buy an hardcover from him afterwards.
People have shown again and again that they will pay even if they can get it for free. See most of the pay-what-you-want deals or studies like this.
Yes, plenty of people will get it for free. It's irrelevant. We just need to ensure artists get paid enough to make it reasonable to produce new works, not that they get a cut from each and every single viewer.
Definition of tongue-in-cheek.
Artists and less-fortunate companies would pay with the proceedings of work itself, just like big-companies, while it gives them more money than it costs to keep it copyrighted.
Or are you claiming that big companies, just because they have more money, would pay more than what the work gets them?
Economical success is not the only conceivable indicator of value, but luckily nobody claimed that. But it is the only reason to keep a work copyrighted.
And it's still slower than local disk access.
I never said the opposite. I was just replying to parent's assertion that "You will not find 1 Gbit (...) unless the "right place" to live is a datacenter."
I wasn't making any statement about the splash screen issue.
Would it be any less land wasting, polluting and resource consuming if we paved all the land and dropped a city on it? Or maybe a data center like Facebook that consumes as much power as the rest of the county it's situated in?
Strawman. Those aren't the only possibilities. One could simply use the land to cultivate food for direct human consumption.
Farms covered in green crops and grass suck up a hell of a lot of that CO2 that you city people are spewing into the air, not to mention filling the air with oxygen for you to breath
The problem is not the green crops and grass, but the animals.
Firstly, there's this:
Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities.
And secondly, the whole process of growing vegetables, feeding it to cattle and then eating the cattle is much less efficient than taking the animals out of the equation.
Parent said "You will not find 1 Gbit (...) unless the "right place" to live is a datacenter."
This is clearly not true - in some places, there are 1Gbps residential connections. The average being lower doesn't change that.
Does that mean that it solves the splash screen problem? Of course not, GP is an idiot. But I wasn't replying to that.
The two aren't necessarily incompatible, though. Photoshop itself - at least on version CS2 - had a line on the splash screen with the current "thing" being loaded/initialized, like "scanning for plugins" in this example.
Of course, if the application simply crashes, the window will disappear therefore hiding that information.
How is the average relevant at all? Just because most people have slow internet speeds doesn't mean faster are not available, it just means you have to pay more for it.
Here, a local ISP (Zon) does offer 1Gbps for residential connections. Of course, since it costs 250 Euros ($320) per month and is only available in few parts of the country, very few people will actually contract it, so it won't move the average. But it certainly exists.