Some of us still remember the gas crisis of the 70s. Some of those even act accordingly.
Those under 30 have only read about it. To them it isn't real and will only become real when the next one hits them. A good many of them will then complain about how they didn't see it coming.
Until then they'll bitch about the price, but won't really be affected until it becomes unavailable when they want some.
I was not suggesting that biodiesel requires more energy than it produces, there is that solar input thing, but it is a slim deal and adding algae productiondoes, in fact, destroy hundreds of thousands of additional hectares of natural habitat(although perhaps habitat you don't care about, chipmunks are cuddlier than snakes), replacing it with a habitat of a dramatically different kind, creating all sorts of enviromental issues (like mosquito control).
Without the additional algae production all we have to do is starve and still import over 50% of our oil needs, burning a good deal of oil to now produce and transport our food from other countries,which, while it won't be recorded on the books as our use, really will be. It doesn't matter who does the actual burning if the burning is done for us, something that is frequently overlooked.
Sometimes intentionally.
Don't get me wrong, I've been a fan of biodiesel for decades and am currently doing some consulting on the design of car intended to be run on biodiesel, but it's a suppliment at best, not the saviour that some think it will be.
In any case it all boils down to solar energy, and if we use more energy than we can derive from the sun then we need to get that difference from somewhere else.
I get most of mine from agriculture, as it happens. I eat food, and then do work. It's a remarkably effective method.
After you take out enough biodiesel to run your agriculture and make your biodiesel from your produce, how much biodiesel of your output do you have left?
Someone actually stole my Halliday & Resnick out of my back hall. It was a third edition, so they hardly did so for current class work. I was shocked and stunned to find out what a current edition goes for.
I've bookmarked your page. I'll look over your stuff. If I like what I see you just might get some of my money one of these days, as well as the money of those who ask me for recommendations.
Hey, maybe you're right and this giving away samples thingy works great.
Yes, I've brought up that case myself in other posts.
Three notes.
The best I can do is advise conciously copying something overtly in the public domain. John Lennon's "In My Life" is Bach, for instance.
I haven't a clue what you do about ASCAP. Those bastards will charge you for not playing their stuff. They really do seem to think they own all music.
As for wholly retaining your rights, as I've already said, it's as simple as not selling them. Raise the money yourself and go. I know literally dozens of people who have done so, some by flipping burgers. It's cheaper and easier than it's every been before and getting cheaper and easier all the time.
Wheras privatizing expands corporate control, power, prestige, ability to use that resource as a tool to continue oppresion of the productive class.
I'm not overmuch concerned with who is oppressing me. I'm far more concerned with the fact that I'm being oppressed and I don't fancy shopping at the company store any more than I do shopping at the government store.
I'm going to go stand in the corner with the independents.
The State having a necessity of preserving the facade of democratic rule (for the sake of its own preservation) also opens the door to refusing to privatize what the people regard as a public resource.
Does it have to be all? I don't even think that's possible. At least a few people won't hear (it is desert rat country, after all), and some will be physically incapable.
90% sounds like a more possible number. Will you settle for that?
One could just as equally say the whole debate should be about how to the get the government to do its job, an necessary precondition for fair privatization, which would then illimnate the injustice which makes privatization look attractive.
Furthermore, it may well be that the label claims copyright over the songs, thus keeping any proceeds from methods like this and not really helping the artist.
Certainly current copyright holders remain the current copyright holder. That's done deals and this system doesn't erase history.
However, for the future a system like this that actually worked and doesn't give any preferential treatment to the source of the rights the effect on the industry could be substantial. It's a free and open distribution system. It doesn't rely on existing patterns of manufacturing and distributing physical media. You could write a song, record it, upload it, and the record companies have been totally cut out of the loop. Of course the expense of recording and promoting it is still yours, but so are all the procedes.
Ok, so you don't have the money to record and promote your song. That's ok, because opening up the distribution channel equally to anyone also means the potential development of true independant lables. Let's say you're my friend. You have a song, I have money. I start a small label and front your for a percentage, just like a "real" record company, but you and I will negotiate a truly fair deal. So I front the $10k to make your album, but I don't have to front the $10k to make physical media, I don't have to spend months fighting to get it into the distribution channel and I can use the system itself to promote it.
Now do you see why the major labels resist the idea of online distribution, even if they get payed for it? In the long run it innately collapses their structure. The control of distribution that is the reason they can force unfair contracts on artists.
Online distribution doesn't kill the music industry, but it kills the current business model of the music industry based on highly centralized control.
That's why they're pushing for laws that in effect mean that they are the only ones who can legally produce content in the first place (by controlling the technology), or at least owe them a fee for producing your own content (by a levy on blank media payed directly to them. I'm waiting for the first person to sue for a refund on media they can show was used for their own content).
.... what then, would be able to be sent, besides GPL stuff?
Do you mean what would able to be sent for free? The primary point of this thing being to levy charges.
Well, obviously anything in the public domain or with a license that allows free distribution, such as GPL stuff. Of course there's no particular reason to use this system unless you expect to levy a charge.
Bear in mind that current copyright law is being interpreted in a stricter and stricter fashion. Your copy of a public domain work often carries a copyright, yours. You go to the Louvre and take a picture of the Mona Lisa, the Mona Lisa may well be in the public domain, but your picture is your intellectual property. Make a recording of Beethoven's Ninth, the symphony remains in the public domain, but the recording remains your property. All well and good, and most people would at least vaguely agree with those. But what happens when you copy a work of public domain literature? Did you copy the original, or a copy of the original? Your work may well be explicitly in the public domain, and yet still violate the copyright of the copy you copied from. Project Gutenberg spends money on lawyers and contributors to the project have actually made a fuss about the idea that people are "stealing" their labor when they copy the works.
What we really need is an analog to this system in order to protect the very concept of the public domain. A p2p network containing public domain copies of public domain works.
Otherwise the public domain will entirely disappear in practice.
I have some sympathy with the broader point of your sig, however, the number is pulled out of someone's ass, since many of the people who downloaded it had already at least agreed to pay for it, many more will pay for it in a couple of weeks and some would never pay for it anyway.
I'm not making an argument to justify to downloading warez. I respect copyright as a principal, although I may well not respect certain applications of copyright law. I am merely responding to the specific claim that it caused them a certain amount of financial damage.
Yeah, I remember the stuff from the Letraset days, which is why I didn't comment on it the first time he posted it.
When you're talking to someone and he says " Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,dude," to you you know two things about him.
One, he has at least some vague familiartiy with layout practice.
Two, he's telling you you're talking in meaningless babble that's just taking up space.
That's the point of this stuff. You can use it as development/demo filler without any risk of offending a boss/client/etc, and that in the old days you needed this preprinted. Nowadays I just cut and paste random bits of The Deline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a bit of a personal quirk I guess.
Of course in this case, since he's posted the whole file multiple times, we also know he's an anti-Slash signal to noise ratio troll ironically providing justification for the admins having unlimited mod points.
How about banning vehicles that can't be kept under control? The problem in this case was not the minivan. It's like banning the ground because a bungie jumper mistied his knot and got killed.
Of course, if the idea is to save human lives, all we really have to do it is ban any type of vehicle that has ever caused a fatal accident.
The next big "paradigm shift" is going to be applications that allow you keep your tools and private data on your own computer, thus avoiding smearing it all across the public sphere where anyone can take a crack at it.
Slashdot Mirror
There was more than one government involved, which is part of the point.
KFG
Some of us still remember the gas crisis of the 70s. Some of those even act accordingly.
Those under 30 have only read about it. To them it isn't real and will only become real when the next one hits them. A good many of them will then complain about how they didn't see it coming.
Until then they'll bitch about the price, but won't really be affected until it becomes unavailable when they want some.
Such it has always been, such it will always be.
KFG
I was not suggesting that biodiesel requires more energy than it produces, there is that solar input thing, but it is a slim deal and adding algae productiondoes, in fact, destroy hundreds of thousands of additional hectares of natural habitat(although perhaps habitat you don't care about, chipmunks are cuddlier than snakes), replacing it with a habitat of a dramatically different kind, creating all sorts of enviromental issues (like mosquito control).
Without the additional algae production all we have to do is starve and still import over 50% of our oil needs, burning a good deal of oil to now produce and transport our food from other countries,which, while it won't be recorded on the books as our use, really will be. It doesn't matter who does the actual burning if the burning is done for us, something that is frequently overlooked.
Sometimes intentionally.
Don't get me wrong, I've been a fan of biodiesel for decades and am currently doing some consulting on the design of car intended to be run on biodiesel, but it's a suppliment at best, not the saviour that some think it will be.
In any case it all boils down to solar energy, and if we use more energy than we can derive from the sun then we need to get that difference from somewhere else.
I get most of mine from agriculture, as it happens. I eat food, and then do work. It's a remarkably effective method.
KFG
Not to mention the fact that mass agriculture is extremely enviromentally unfriendly.
KFG
I propose that possession of carbon be banned.
KFG
After you take out enough biodiesel to run your agriculture and make your biodiesel from your produce, how much biodiesel of your output do you have left?
KFG
Ya had me scratching my head for a few minutes there. :)
KFG
1 page written by a wise man is more valuable than 1001 pages written by a fool.
KFG
Someone actually stole my Halliday & Resnick out of my back hall. It was a third edition, so they hardly did so for current class work. I was shocked and stunned to find out what a current edition goes for.
I've bookmarked your page. I'll look over your stuff. If I like what I see you just might get some of my money one of these days, as well as the money of those who ask me for recommendations.
Hey, maybe you're right and this giving away samples thingy works great.
I know I enjoy the cheese.
KFG
Yes, I've brought up that case myself in other posts.
Three notes.
The best I can do is advise conciously copying something overtly in the public domain. John Lennon's "In My Life" is Bach, for instance.
I haven't a clue what you do about ASCAP. Those bastards will charge you for not playing their stuff. They really do seem to think they own all music.
As for wholly retaining your rights, as I've already said, it's as simple as not selling them. Raise the money yourself and go. I know literally dozens of people who have done so, some by flipping burgers. It's cheaper and easier than it's every been before and getting cheaper and easier all the time.
KFG
KFG
I'm familiar with that material and in full agreement with you. You go explain it to the courts and legislative bodies of the the world.
And the Project Gutenberg people while you're at it.
KFG
Wheras privatizing expands corporate control, power, prestige, ability to use that resource as a tool to continue oppresion of the productive class.
I'm not overmuch concerned with who is oppressing me. I'm far more concerned with the fact that I'm being oppressed and I don't fancy shopping at the company store any more than I do shopping at the government store.
I'm going to go stand in the corner with the independents.
KFG
The State having a necessity of preserving the facade of democratic rule (for the sake of its own preservation) also opens the door to refusing to privatize what the people regard as a public resource.
KFG
Does it have to be all? I don't even think that's possible. At least a few people won't hear (it is desert rat country, after all), and some will be physically incapable.
90% sounds like a more possible number. Will you settle for that?
KFG
One could just as equally say the whole debate should be about how to the get the government to do its job, an necessary precondition for fair privatization, which would then illimnate the injustice which makes privatization look attractive.
KFG
Why is formalizing the status quo the cure for the status quo?
KFG
Furthermore, it may well be that the label claims copyright over the songs, thus keeping any proceeds from methods like this and not really helping the artist.
Certainly current copyright holders remain the current copyright holder. That's done deals and this system doesn't erase history.
However, for the future a system like this that actually worked and doesn't give any preferential treatment to the source of the rights the effect on the industry could be substantial. It's a free and open distribution system. It doesn't rely on existing patterns of manufacturing and distributing physical media. You could write a song, record it, upload it, and the record companies have been totally cut out of the loop. Of course the expense of recording and promoting it is still yours, but so are all the procedes.
Ok, so you don't have the money to record and promote your song. That's ok, because opening up the distribution channel equally to anyone also means the potential development of true independant lables. Let's say you're my friend. You have a song, I have money. I start a small label and front your for a percentage, just like a "real" record company, but you and I will negotiate a truly fair deal. So I front the $10k to make your album, but I don't have to front the $10k to make physical media, I don't have to spend months fighting to get it into the distribution channel and I can use the system itself to promote it.
Now do you see why the major labels resist the idea of online distribution, even if they get payed for it? In the long run it innately collapses their structure. The control of distribution that is the reason they can force unfair contracts on artists.
Online distribution doesn't kill the music industry, but it kills the current business model of the music industry based on highly centralized control.
That's why they're pushing for laws that in effect mean that they are the only ones who can legally produce content in the first place (by controlling the technology), or at least owe them a fee for producing your own content (by a levy on blank media payed directly to them. I'm waiting for the first person to sue for a refund on media they can show was used for their own content).
And, of course, to ban p2p.
KFG
.... what then, would be able to be sent, besides GPL stuff?
Do you mean what would able to be sent for free? The primary point of this thing being to levy charges.
Well, obviously anything in the public domain or with a license that allows free distribution, such as GPL stuff. Of course there's no particular reason to use this system unless you expect to levy a charge.
Bear in mind that current copyright law is being interpreted in a stricter and stricter fashion. Your copy of a public domain work often carries a copyright, yours. You go to the Louvre and take a picture of the Mona Lisa, the Mona Lisa may well be in the public domain, but your picture is your intellectual property. Make a recording of Beethoven's Ninth, the symphony remains in the public domain, but the recording remains your property. All well and good, and most people would at least vaguely agree with those. But what happens when you copy a work of public domain literature? Did you copy the original, or a copy of the original? Your work may well be explicitly in the public domain, and yet still violate the copyright of the copy you copied from. Project Gutenberg spends money on lawyers and contributors to the project have actually made a fuss about the idea that people are "stealing" their labor when they copy the works.
What we really need is an analog to this system in order to protect the very concept of the public domain. A p2p network containing public domain copies of public domain works.
Otherwise the public domain will entirely disappear in practice.
KFG
I have some sympathy with the broader point of your sig, however, the number is pulled out of someone's ass, since many of the people who downloaded it had already at least agreed to pay for it, many more will pay for it in a couple of weeks and some would never pay for it anyway.
I'm not making an argument to justify to downloading warez. I respect copyright as a principal, although I may well not respect certain applications of copyright law. I am merely responding to the specific claim that it caused them a certain amount of financial damage.
KFG
Yeah, I remember the stuff from the Letraset days, which is why I didn't comment on it the first time he posted it.
When you're talking to someone and he says " Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,dude," to you you know two things about him.
One, he has at least some vague familiartiy with layout practice.
Two, he's telling you you're talking in meaningless babble that's just taking up space.
That's the point of this stuff. You can use it as development/demo filler without any risk of offending a boss/client/etc, and that in the old days you needed this preprinted. Nowadays I just cut and paste random bits of The Deline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a bit of a personal quirk I guess.
Of course in this case, since he's posted the whole file multiple times, we also know he's an anti-Slash signal to noise ratio troll ironically providing justification for the admins having unlimited mod points.
KFG
. . .as far as monkeys in front of type writers go, you are overrated...
That's probably why I draw a diproportionate amount of overrated mods.
KFG
How about banning vehicles that can't be kept under control? The problem in this case was not the minivan. It's like banning the ground because a bungie jumper mistied his knot and got killed.
Of course, if the idea is to save human lives, all we really have to do it is ban any type of vehicle that has ever caused a fatal accident.
Have a nice crawl to work.
KFG
The next big "paradigm shift" is going to be applications that allow you keep your tools and private data on your own computer, thus avoiding smearing it all across the public sphere where anyone can take a crack at it.
KFG
. . .what are some honest or dishonest uses for stegnography?
Private communications.
KFG
And then go rent Modern Times.
KFG