What's wrong about the statement? You spilled a lot of metaphorical ink on how the world must adapt to your vision of the future, but you never bothered to explain how creators are supposed to get reimbursed in a world with no copyright.
Name some (good) movies for me which were fully funded by patronage. Not small government grants, and not investments by "patrons" that expect a shot at getting back their money, but actual patronage.
So okay, in your country, pop music gets some public funding. Are they required to use that as their sole source of income? Is there a ban on music from countries with copyright laws? If you answer no to either question, then it's not a real test of the system you propose, now is it? No one is saying that all musicians MUST use copyright, but you (and others on this site) are saying that they MUST NOT.
If I could get rid of that levy, I would. But surprisingly, two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact that some big companies do bad things does not mean we should burn down that entire sector of the economy.
Habeas corpus was not invalidated, and I challenge you to point to where it says otherwise. Americans are not under occupation. You're just a crazy paranoid person spreading his bile and itching for blood.
I could steal your car and sell it, and that too would "provide value to people". You need a better argument than that if you want to actually come across as rational and not just rationalizing.
Sheesh dude, I don't know whether you need to get off the drugs or on them, but something about you is definitely off kilter. Half the stuff you claim makes no sense. Megaupload wasn't shut down in retaliation for SOPA. Obama isn't "pretending" to be a Christian. Young adults generally are apathetic about politics. Only 5% of Americans were "members of organizations" in the 80s... huh? Copyright isn't "fascist" (please consult a dictionary). Parasites are people who want other people's works for free, not the people who worked hard on something and don't want everyone to just come by and take it.
Yeah, there are some bad things with copyright law, but as shown yesterday, we can fight against those. Don't go sinking into an abyss of despair and anger over it.
Copying things is much easier now than at any point in history. If copyright is abolished, then many industries will just flat out die. There can be no big budget games or movies. So much should be obvious to any intellectually honest person. Even indie games would suffer, since a big company could buy a single copy of Indie Game X, and resell it on their own (better advertised) website.
There may be some books and music, but their creators will be reduced to begging. Do you think JK Rowling could have written seven (increasingly long) books if her only income from them was donations? Hell no. She wrote the first one on a typewriter, and the only reason you even recognize her name was because she was able to make enough money from the first book to support her writing.
It seems your answer to this -- your idea for this "inevitable new economy" you speak of -- is a reversion to the patronage system, where the rich and powerful get to decide what we read and watch and hear. In such a system, there would still be movies and video games, but only as propaganda and advertising tools. There's no reward for creating something wonderful, only for toeing the line.
In the end, you don't seem to care about the damage you'd do, or the people you'd hurt. You want what you want, and you want it for free. Creative people should entertain you at your pleasure, and you'll pay them whatever you damn well please. Because modern technology has given you the tools to take their work for free, so how dare they expect society to show any restraint. Thankfully, you're a tiny little minority, that society will continue to ignore.
You're intentionally conflating the ideas of "the internet" and "media content". No one pirates "an internet".
The fact that you pay (through taxes) for roads doesn't let you drive drunk. The fact that you legally buy a gun doesn't let you brandish it at people. And the fact that you purchase internet bandwidth does not allow you to pirate other people's creations.
Apples and oranges. The bottled water companies didn't invent water. The media companies did make the media you're pirating. If you don't want to buy their product, there are plenty of alternatives. You can buy indie music, some of which is freely distributed. You can watch free OTA television. You can read a book from the library. And so on.
Taking something without paying just because you can is selfish and wrong.
It's a very different set of problems, but people have had success getting players to solve protein folding problems for fun with Foldit. Such games take advantage of the enormous human capacity for rapidly finding patterns, compared to computers trying to enumerate all possibilities.
Now if only there was a way to tell honest hands from dishonest ones. And I'm not just talking about criminals. I'm talking about John Doe thinking he's John McClane and shooting at a fleeing mugger and whoops! one bullet missed and struck a bystander two blocks away and now that mother of three will be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life, but hey, at least Mr. Doe got to keep the forty bucks in his wallet. At least until the muggers wise up and realize that they need to shoot first and take the money off the corpse.
Guns have their uses, and I fully support them being legal, but as a personal defense system, especially in the city, they are awful.
3- Sometimes you can get harmonics of the base clock frequency that sneak their way into the mixer and end up in the RF range. For example, if they were using a 14 MHz clock, its third harmonic would be 42 MHz, which could then get upconverted to 1572 and interfere with GPS. I don't actually know if that's the case (they could be using direct modulation for all I know, in which case they wouldn't even have this problem), but it is possible.
Well, technically you can repair some types of damage to the metal or add new connections (with FIBs for example), but it's expensive, and might induce some latent failure modes. Plus with CPUs you need to repackage it (glob top wouldn't make a good thermal connection), which can be extremely difficult. Useful for failure analysis, but no one would even think of repairing a customer return.
While you may not have been intentionally spreading false info, it did give ammo to the partisan idiots like PRMan, who now get modded "informative" for lying. Being "snippy" towards them is entirely appropriate.
This right here is why we're in danger of losing this fight. You anti-copyright extremists are so f'in adamant in your beliefs that you'll argue against people who are on your side for no reason.
Develop some social skills, and learn to know when unity is more important than proving yourself right on every little thing.
Price is true, and the scaled down OS is true for the first couple years after the consoles release (after which the increasing power of modern PCs overwhelms the benefits of a leaner OS).
But development costs? The advantage is clearly with the PC. Sure, it might be cheaper to target one platform, but you have to pay Microsoft or Sony for the privilege of being on their console. There's a reason why many AAA PC games are still $50, while AAA console games are uniformly $60. And for indie games. the market on Steam is absolutely booming, so I don't know where you got this notion that AAA titles are the only ones that can make it on PC.
I too am concerned by the militarization of the police. I was in Boston for New Years and there were guys in camo carrying assault rifles guarding the subways. I asked one of my local friends, and apparently that's just the normal transit cops. So yeah, that's definitely not a trend that I like to see. But the drones aren't innately military hardware, and unless they start putting bombs on them, I see no reason to worry about their use.
The cops surveiling Occupy protests with drones... what's supposed to be scary about that? There are already cops at the scene. Why are we supposed to be scared that they now have an extra camera angle? Is it only if they have your hypothetical microwave emitter equipped on the drone? Because if so, that's a reason to be against microwave emitters, not drones, and at any rate it's unlikely they'd ever use them. They tried to the low tech equivalent (firehoses) against civil rights protestors, and it didn't do squat for them.
And for your other example, a more uniform enforcement of traffic laws would be a good thing. Right now they're so spottily enforced that a lot of people ignore them, and it becomes a tax by lottery. If they were enforced uniformly, it would become a bad driving tax instead, which would be preferable.
There's nothing cops can do with drones that they can't do with helicopters. The only difference is drones are cheaper. Unless your plan to defend civil liberties relies on the cops not being able to afford enforcement, there's no reason to be worried by drones. And if your plan does rely on impoverished police departments, you've got other things to worry about.
Yeah, don't bother looking up the statistics or anything. Just make a sarcastic comment to insinuate you know what you're talking about.
In 2005, California paid $290 billion in taxes and received $240 billion in federal spending. California's deficit currently stands at $11 billion. Now, I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure 290 - 240 > 11.
As someone else has pointed out, this is factually incorrect. The skin depth in copper at 60 Hz (377 rad/s) is over 8 mm. The skin effect won't make a difference here.
You were not "lampooning" racists. There was nothing sarcastic about your statement, nor was there any indication that you didn't mean what you said. You're simply backpedaling now, perhaps out of shame, but more likely because you wanted an opportunity to show how awesome and high minded you are (unlike those yokels at Reddit amirite?).
It was passed by a veto proof majority. Refusing to sign it would have been an empty gesture, and would have allowed Republicans to run ads against him stating that he vetoed health care for wounded veterans.
So no, his point does not stand. And FYI, when someone uses the phrase "Supreme Leader Baraq Hussein Sotero", there is no "maybe" about their racism.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong about the statement? You spilled a lot of metaphorical ink on how the world must adapt to your vision of the future, but you never bothered to explain how creators are supposed to get reimbursed in a world with no copyright.
Name some (good) movies for me which were fully funded by patronage. Not small government grants, and not investments by "patrons" that expect a shot at getting back their money, but actual patronage.
So okay, in your country, pop music gets some public funding. Are they required to use that as their sole source of income? Is there a ban on music from countries with copyright laws? If you answer no to either question, then it's not a real test of the system you propose, now is it? No one is saying that all musicians MUST use copyright, but you (and others on this site) are saying that they MUST NOT.
If I could get rid of that levy, I would. But surprisingly, two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact that some big companies do bad things does not mean we should burn down that entire sector of the economy.
Fucking liar.
Habeas corpus was not invalidated, and I challenge you to point to where it says otherwise. Americans are not under occupation. You're just a crazy paranoid person spreading his bile and itching for blood.
I could steal your car and sell it, and that too would "provide value to people". You need a better argument than that if you want to actually come across as rational and not just rationalizing.
but I am mad.
Well, you got that part right.
Sheesh dude, I don't know whether you need to get off the drugs or on them, but something about you is definitely off kilter. Half the stuff you claim makes no sense. Megaupload wasn't shut down in retaliation for SOPA. Obama isn't "pretending" to be a Christian. Young adults generally are apathetic about politics. Only 5% of Americans were "members of organizations" in the 80s... huh? Copyright isn't "fascist" (please consult a dictionary). Parasites are people who want other people's works for free, not the people who worked hard on something and don't want everyone to just come by and take it.
Yeah, there are some bad things with copyright law, but as shown yesterday, we can fight against those. Don't go sinking into an abyss of despair and anger over it.
Copying things is much easier now than at any point in history. If copyright is abolished, then many industries will just flat out die. There can be no big budget games or movies. So much should be obvious to any intellectually honest person. Even indie games would suffer, since a big company could buy a single copy of Indie Game X, and resell it on their own (better advertised) website.
There may be some books and music, but their creators will be reduced to begging. Do you think JK Rowling could have written seven (increasingly long) books if her only income from them was donations? Hell no. She wrote the first one on a typewriter, and the only reason you even recognize her name was because she was able to make enough money from the first book to support her writing.
It seems your answer to this -- your idea for this "inevitable new economy" you speak of -- is a reversion to the patronage system, where the rich and powerful get to decide what we read and watch and hear. In such a system, there would still be movies and video games, but only as propaganda and advertising tools. There's no reward for creating something wonderful, only for toeing the line.
In the end, you don't seem to care about the damage you'd do, or the people you'd hurt. You want what you want, and you want it for free. Creative people should entertain you at your pleasure, and you'll pay them whatever you damn well please. Because modern technology has given you the tools to take their work for free, so how dare they expect society to show any restraint. Thankfully, you're a tiny little minority, that society will continue to ignore.
You're intentionally conflating the ideas of "the internet" and "media content". No one pirates "an internet".
The fact that you pay (through taxes) for roads doesn't let you drive drunk. The fact that you legally buy a gun doesn't let you brandish it at people. And the fact that you purchase internet bandwidth does not allow you to pirate other people's creations.
That's a non-sequitur and you know it. You're not pirating "an internet". You're pirating a song or a movie or whatever.
Apples and oranges. The bottled water companies didn't invent water. The media companies did make the media you're pirating. If you don't want to buy their product, there are plenty of alternatives. You can buy indie music, some of which is freely distributed. You can watch free OTA television. You can read a book from the library. And so on.
Taking something without paying just because you can is selfish and wrong.
It's a very different set of problems, but people have had success getting players to solve protein folding problems for fun with Foldit. Such games take advantage of the enormous human capacity for rapidly finding patterns, compared to computers trying to enumerate all possibilities.
Now if only there was a way to tell honest hands from dishonest ones. And I'm not just talking about criminals. I'm talking about John Doe thinking he's John McClane and shooting at a fleeing mugger and whoops! one bullet missed and struck a bystander two blocks away and now that mother of three will be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life, but hey, at least Mr. Doe got to keep the forty bucks in his wallet. At least until the muggers wise up and realize that they need to shoot first and take the money off the corpse.
Guns have their uses, and I fully support them being legal, but as a personal defense system, especially in the city, they are awful.
3- Sometimes you can get harmonics of the base clock frequency that sneak their way into the mixer and end up in the RF range. For example, if they were using a 14 MHz clock, its third harmonic would be 42 MHz, which could then get upconverted to 1572 and interfere with GPS. I don't actually know if that's the case (they could be using direct modulation for all I know, in which case they wouldn't even have this problem), but it is possible.
Well, technically you can repair some types of damage to the metal or add new connections (with FIBs for example), but it's expensive, and might induce some latent failure modes. Plus with CPUs you need to repackage it (glob top wouldn't make a good thermal connection), which can be extremely difficult. Useful for failure analysis, but no one would even think of repairing a customer return.
While you may not have been intentionally spreading false info, it did give ammo to the partisan idiots like PRMan, who now get modded "informative" for lying. Being "snippy" towards them is entirely appropriate.
No one intelligent did, since Justice Breyer was appointed by Clinton.
Come on mods, I know Wikipedia is blacked out, but there are other ways to fact check!
This right here is why we're in danger of losing this fight. You anti-copyright extremists are so f'in adamant in your beliefs that you'll argue against people who are on your side for no reason.
Develop some social skills, and learn to know when unity is more important than proving yourself right on every little thing.
Price is true, and the scaled down OS is true for the first couple years after the consoles release (after which the increasing power of modern PCs overwhelms the benefits of a leaner OS).
But development costs? The advantage is clearly with the PC. Sure, it might be cheaper to target one platform, but you have to pay Microsoft or Sony for the privilege of being on their console. There's a reason why many AAA PC games are still $50, while AAA console games are uniformly $60. And for indie games. the market on Steam is absolutely booming, so I don't know where you got this notion that AAA titles are the only ones that can make it on PC.
I too am concerned by the militarization of the police. I was in Boston for New Years and there were guys in camo carrying assault rifles guarding the subways. I asked one of my local friends, and apparently that's just the normal transit cops. So yeah, that's definitely not a trend that I like to see. But the drones aren't innately military hardware, and unless they start putting bombs on them, I see no reason to worry about their use.
What's so bad about the scenarios you've listed?
The cops surveiling Occupy protests with drones... what's supposed to be scary about that? There are already cops at the scene. Why are we supposed to be scared that they now have an extra camera angle? Is it only if they have your hypothetical microwave emitter equipped on the drone? Because if so, that's a reason to be against microwave emitters, not drones, and at any rate it's unlikely they'd ever use them. They tried to the low tech equivalent (firehoses) against civil rights protestors, and it didn't do squat for them.
And for your other example, a more uniform enforcement of traffic laws would be a good thing. Right now they're so spottily enforced that a lot of people ignore them, and it becomes a tax by lottery. If they were enforced uniformly, it would become a bad driving tax instead, which would be preferable.
There's nothing cops can do with drones that they can't do with helicopters. The only difference is drones are cheaper. Unless your plan to defend civil liberties relies on the cops not being able to afford enforcement, there's no reason to be worried by drones. And if your plan does rely on impoverished police departments, you've got other things to worry about.
Yeah, don't bother looking up the statistics or anything. Just make a sarcastic comment to insinuate you know what you're talking about.
In 2005, California paid $290 billion in taxes and received $240 billion in federal spending. California's deficit currently stands at $11 billion. Now, I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure 290 - 240 > 11.
As someone else has pointed out, this is factually incorrect. The skin depth in copper at 60 Hz (377 rad/s) is over 8 mm. The skin effect won't make a difference here.
You were not "lampooning" racists. There was nothing sarcastic about your statement, nor was there any indication that you didn't mean what you said. You're simply backpedaling now, perhaps out of shame, but more likely because you wanted an opportunity to show how awesome and high minded you are (unlike those yokels at Reddit amirite?).
If he vetoed it, it would have passed anyway, because it was passed by a veto proof majority.
Please at least try to learn about these issues before coming to your conclusions. Congress would not have been forced to do anything.
It was passed by a veto proof majority. Refusing to sign it would have been an empty gesture, and would have allowed Republicans to run ads against him stating that he vetoed health care for wounded veterans.
So no, his point does not stand. And FYI, when someone uses the phrase "Supreme Leader Baraq Hussein Sotero", there is no "maybe" about their racism.