The point isn't whether YOU personally care about the sport, the question is whether enough people care to make it economically viable. Assuming you want it to work, you should care how popular it is.
Yes, racining requires that at least two people are interested enough and have the werewithal to make it happen.
This may come as a shock to you in this day when every participant sport has been converted into a franchised Circus Maximus to sell a shitload of Tshirts, but there are still sporting events that largely, or even wholly, supported by the participants, just because they think it's fun to do it.
Please note the cost of entry, three quarters of a million dollars per year in racing fees.
This is a rich boy's amatuer sport. Any monies derived from specators and merchandising will certainly be sought and spent, but the show will go on just as long as a couple of monied fighter jocks want to have at each other.
Think of the street luge scene before the Xgames, or competitive surfing in the 50s. Not only did nobody but the participants and their family/friends give flying fuck about the sports, but they often had to hide from possible spectators, because what they were doing could get them arrested.
But the participants lived, and often died, for their sport.
athletes lose all kinds of nutrients during aerobic activites, not just water
Why do you think salt is considered so precious in the tropics? That, water and a couple of bananas works better than Gatorade. Even hits the blood stream just as fast.
And Gatorade doesn't have "all kinds of nutrients" in it. It's got sugar and salt, a bit of sodium and a bit of potasium. For a drink that replaces what you lose drink E.R.G. It was actually biochemist Bill Gookin, after crashing and burning on Gatorade in an Olympic marathon, who had the perspicacity to investigate and find out there was more than salt involved.
Dr. Cade was a man working outside of his field who discovered something that a lot of people had known for a long, long time and didn't actually advance the field. Hell, in the late 1800s athletes even drank Coke with plain water and took salt. Of course it had a "little something extra" in it back then. A six day bicycle race will teach you more about how to keep going than a century of football. A football game hardly lasts long enough to drive the message home. You can "tough it out." You can even "tough out" a marathon if you have to. You can't "tough out" a six day past the first day.
I'm old enough to remember when there was no Gatorade, and I already knew that any man heading into the jungle/desert worth his salt took salt and water with him.
And a bit of fresh sugarcane to go with it if available.Sugar cubes if not. I can't help it if some of the jocks weren't paying attention.
Oh, yeah, a bit of Egyptian and the sarong as well.
I don't have a stich on at the moment. I'm dressed from neck to ankle, but I don't have a stictch on. Not even a sewn hem. Just pieces of cloth right off the loom. This guy calls this A-poc. The Greeks called it a Chiton, which means, "A piece of cloth worn like this" or a Chlamys, which means "A piece of cloth worn like this."
They're both the same simple rectangle of cloth. A chinton is just that piece of cloth pinned like a poncho and the chlamys is that piece of cloth pinned like an off the shoulder shawl. The Greeks did not believe in even cutting a slit in fabric to stick your head through. That would damage the cloth and cloth was revered.
I'm wearing a chlamys and shenti, which is just Egyptian for sarong, which means. ..?
Now let's not always see the same hands. That's right, "A piece of cloth."
Clothes, of course, means "Some pieces of cloth."
If you're interested in the idea of sewing free clothing go here:
Is it significant because it's "the first time" someone argued that software ought to be paid for like a shrinkwrapped product?
Yes.
Did this letter have any effect at all?
It changed the very conception of intellectual property. Anybody who grew up in the 80s or later will never really understand the latter, but things used to be very, very different.
Didn't Gates & Co. just figure out they should sell to businesses instead of hobbyists?
No, no, no. Gates had just figured out that they should sell to hobbyists instead of giving it to businesses like the big boys did.
The hobbyists didn't necessarily see why they should have to pay for software that ought to have just come with the computer, because that's what software did.
Of course noone would pay someone to write software because they have a problem that needs solving and it would be useful to them.
I've written a bit of business code in my time and none of it was for resale. Not one line. Commercial reselling/licensing does not define the market for programmers. In fact, it doesn't even come close.
Bach was employed in much the same manner. He wrote music for hire. He made a living at it. The music was commissioned because his employers wanted the music, not to resell it.
I haven't the slightest fucking clue what "good order" is preserved by intellectual property, since I percieve no abscence of it where it is not an issue. How do ideas get out of social order?
But the article you link to asks the very question I have raised and can only come up the same answer that I have intimated.
The simple idea is very powerful. Fisher identifies four constituencies necessary to accept the model: consumers, artists, device manufacturers and finally the intermediaries: the studios and labels. The model has huge advantages for three of the four. And what incentives, we asked, would the labels and studios have?
The intermediaries get a sinecure, in perpituity, for, once upon a time, having had a valid role to play.
But the key factor is that they are middlemen in a middle that no longer exists.
And they ain't interested in any sinecure. They're businesses. The want growth, and they can't get it with this model unless it is articfically forced on the artists and consumers by law, because for a distributor growth requires monopoly of the distribution chain.
It isn't about making sure they get money, it's about whether or not they have a reason to be given money.
. ..perhaps most useful, - keep in mind we're talking about computerized semantics, not human readability.
And of what value is it to me that the computer knows that Philip Larkin is the author? I already know that because the content is semantic and selfdescriptive when used in conjuction with intelligence.
. ..it might pick up on the author and allow searching for other stuff by the same author.
Because searching on "Philip Larkin" doesn't work?
Realistically, who is going to bother tagging their document by hand?
The same anal retentive assholes who thought the whole thing was a good idea in the first place.
. ..making any semantic meaning that HTML has totally meaningless.
Again, who cares? The language already carries semantic meaning to an intelligence and I as yet cannot find any reason for the computer to know about such things.
grep, find, Google, they already work. Arrange your content intelligently and an intelligence will understand it and find what it's looking for just fine.
Indeed, but where would leave,say, the record companies.
They do not make the music, they merely publish and distribute it.
They don't give a flying fuck about "The Music," or even rights, per se. What they are defending is their business model which is entirely based on having monopoly on distribution.
Rights are simply the primary tool to guaruntee that monopoly. ..until people can simply publish and distribute just as well all by themselves or with artist friendly outfits like CD Baby or Magnatune.
Who are the flat fees paid to and by what justification?
Slashdot Mirror
The point isn't whether YOU personally care about the sport, the question is whether enough people care to make it economically viable. Assuming you want it to work, you should care how popular it is.
Yes, racining requires that at least two people are interested enough and have the werewithal to make it happen.
This may come as a shock to you in this day when every participant sport has been converted into a franchised Circus Maximus to sell a shitload of Tshirts, but there are still sporting events that largely, or even wholly, supported by the participants, just because they think it's fun to do it.
Please note the cost of entry, three quarters of a million dollars per year in racing fees.
This is a rich boy's amatuer sport. Any monies derived from specators and merchandising will certainly be sought and spent, but the show will go on just as long as a couple of monied fighter jocks want to have at each other.
Think of the street luge scene before the Xgames, or competitive surfing in the 50s. Not only did nobody but the participants and their family/friends give flying fuck about the sports, but they often had to hide from possible spectators, because what they were doing could get them arrested.
But the participants lived, and often died, for their sport.
"Popularity" is what has fucked up sport.
KFG
athletes lose all kinds of nutrients during aerobic activites, not just water
Why do you think salt is considered so precious in the tropics? That, water and a couple of bananas works better than Gatorade. Even hits the blood stream just as fast.
And Gatorade doesn't have "all kinds of nutrients" in it. It's got sugar and salt, a bit of sodium and a bit of potasium. For a drink that replaces what you lose drink E.R.G. It was actually biochemist Bill Gookin, after crashing and burning on Gatorade in an Olympic marathon, who had the perspicacity to investigate and find out there was more than salt involved.
Dr. Cade was a man working outside of his field who discovered something that a lot of people had known for a long, long time and didn't actually advance the field. Hell, in the late 1800s athletes even drank Coke with plain water and took salt. Of course it had a "little something extra" in it back then. A six day bicycle race will teach you more about how to keep going than a century of football. A football game hardly lasts long enough to drive the message home. You can "tough it out." You can even "tough out" a marathon if you have to. You can't "tough out" a six day past the first day.
I'm old enough to remember when there was no Gatorade, and I already knew that any man heading into the jungle/desert worth his salt took salt and water with him.
And a bit of fresh sugarcane to go with it if available.Sugar cubes if not. I can't help it if some of the jocks weren't paying attention.
KFG
The Little Bunny Foo Foo Theory of Economics.
I like it.
KFG
It's just sustaining science and engineering JOBS (=communism).
Remind me never to hire you. Especially as an engineer.
KFG
This has translated into practical, useful things such as Gatorade. . .
Otherwise known as "Florescent Sugar Water."
With a pinch of salt.
Took nearly minutes of research to whip that up.
KFG
The above post was supposed to be attached to the post a couple down. I either need more coffee or more sleep.
KFG
Congratulations, sir, you've invented:
.?
Classical Greek clothing.
Oh, yeah, a bit of Egyptian and the sarong as well.
I don't have a stich on at the moment. I'm dressed from neck to ankle, but I don't have a stictch on. Not even a sewn hem. Just pieces of cloth right off the loom. This guy calls this A-poc. The Greeks called it a Chiton, which means, "A piece of cloth worn like this" or a Chlamys, which means "A piece of cloth worn like this."
They're both the same simple rectangle of cloth. A chinton is just that piece of cloth pinned like a poncho and the chlamys is that piece of cloth pinned like an off the shoulder shawl. The Greeks did not believe in even cutting a slit in fabric to stick your head through. That would damage the cloth and cloth was revered.
I'm wearing a chlamys and shenti, which is just Egyptian for sarong, which means. .
Now let's not always see the same hands. That's right, "A piece of cloth."
Clothes, of course, means "Some pieces of cloth."
If you're interested in the idea of sewing free clothing go here:
http://www.idcw.org.uk/
In the meantime I think I'm off to invent fire and give it a snappy new acronym.
KFG
Progress for progress' sake is communism.
Nooo, progress for the common good is communism.
Progress for investor profit is capitalism.
Progress for progress' sake is science and engineering.
KFG
Is it significant because it's "the first time" someone argued that software ought to be paid for like a shrinkwrapped product?
Yes.
Did this letter have any effect at all?
It changed the very conception of intellectual property. Anybody who grew up in the 80s or later will never really understand the latter, but things used to be very, very different.
Didn't Gates & Co. just figure out they should sell to businesses instead of hobbyists?
No, no, no. Gates had just figured out that they should sell to hobbyists instead of giving it to businesses like the big boys did.
The hobbyists didn't necessarily see why they should have to pay for software that ought to have just come with the computer, because that's what software did.
This letter turned the world upsidedown.
KFG
Of course noone would pay someone to write software because they have a problem that needs solving and it would be useful to them.
I've written a bit of business code in my time and none of it was for resale. Not one line. Commercial reselling/licensing does not define the market for programmers. In fact, it doesn't even come close.
Bach was employed in much the same manner. He wrote music for hire. He made a living at it. The music was commissioned because his employers wanted the music, not to resell it.
I haven't the slightest fucking clue what "good order" is preserved by intellectual property, since I percieve no abscence of it where it is not an issue. How do ideas get out of social order?
KFG
I just misinterpreted a rather funny cheap shot until I was already clicking the submit button.
I hate when that happens.
KFG
The fashion is not at all visible anywhere.
Then how do you know it's there?
KFG
And what makes you think they will understand, or even care about, tagging for "semantics"?
.
get back pages containing the poem rather than discussion of the poem. .
What is the "no discussion" tag?
KFG
. . . a seamless relationship between technology and fashion.
In other words, you shouldn't be able to notice it.
KFG
What's interesting is more of creating your own "markup language" and using CSS to explain to the browser how it looks like.
So, a standardless "standard" that clutters up the pipe explaining what the "standard" is to the browser for each and every webpage.
Yeah, that's a good idea.
While we're at it why don't we have everybody just write their own plugins as well?
It's still kinda cool
Many toys are cool; and useless.
KFG
But the article you link to asks the very question I have raised and can only come up the same answer that I have intimated.
The simple idea is very powerful. Fisher identifies four constituencies necessary to accept the model: consumers, artists, device manufacturers and finally the intermediaries: the studios and labels. The model has huge advantages for three of the four. And what incentives, we asked, would the labels and studios have?
The intermediaries get a sinecure, in perpituity, for, once upon a time, having had a valid role to play.
But the key factor is that they are middlemen in a middle that no longer exists.
And they ain't interested in any sinecure. They're businesses. The want growth, and they can't get it with this model unless it is articfically forced on the artists and consumers by law, because for a distributor growth requires monopoly of the distribution chain.
It isn't about making sure they get money, it's about whether or not they have a reason to be given money.
KFG
. . .perhaps most useful, - keep in mind we're talking about computerized semantics, not human readability.
.it might pick up on the author and allow searching for other stuff by the same author.
.making any semantic meaning that HTML has totally meaningless.
And of what value is it to me that the computer knows that Philip Larkin is the author? I already know that because the content is semantic and selfdescriptive when used in conjuction with intelligence.
. .
Because searching on "Philip Larkin" doesn't work?
Realistically, who is going to bother tagging their document by hand?
The same anal retentive assholes who thought the whole thing was a good idea in the first place.
. .
Again, who cares? The language already carries semantic meaning to an intelligence and I as yet cannot find any reason for the computer to know about such things.
grep, find, Google, they already work. Arrange your content intelligently and an intelligence will understand it and find what it's looking for just fine.
KFG
. . . the Entertainment Industry . . .
.until people can simply publish and distribute just as well all by themselves or with artist friendly outfits like CD Baby or Magnatune.
Indeed, but where would leave,say, the record companies.
They do not make the music, they merely publish and distribute it.
They don't give a flying fuck about "The Music," or even rights, per se. What they are defending is their business model which is entirely based on having monopoly on distribution.
Rights are simply the primary tool to guaruntee that monopoly. .
Who are the flat fees paid to and by what justification?
KFG
. . .you could conceivably have a document that describes the contents of the page in a fairly "semantic" manner. . .
This Be The Verse
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.
-Philip Larkin
In exactly what manner do you believe the above could have its semantics and selfdescriptiveness improved by the edition of editorial tags?
KFG
it's the admissability in court that's really the big deal. . .
When I arrange with a confederate to look at your poker hand and signal me what you're holding, it ain't so I can tell people about it.
KFG
It doesn't get down there. It prevents pitting of the teeth the same way that anodizing prevents pitting of aluminum:
By creating a barrier tough enough that the nasties can't get down 3mm themselves.
KFG
Give us a whirl.. feedback is always appreciated.
If I type "kfg" into Google my Slashdot user info page is the number two hit.
If I type "kfg" into Mozdex it doesn't even show up.
You suck.
KFG
"a global struggle against violent extremism"
Oh great, so we'll be invading ourself soon. Lovely.
KFG
Well, ok, they don't actually place the call, but, well, they could.
KFG
. . .so uneducated they never even become part of the equasion.
Just because the sheeple aren't actually locked up in a cell doesn't mean they aren't inmates.
Gotten on an airplane lately?
The size of the prison is simply growing larger.
KFG