But, at the same time you can't compare the price of a DVD with the price of a CD because there are movie theaters and video renting to help fund the production of movies.
Of course, offsetting the above is the fact that movies take an order of magnitude more money to produce than music CDs do. (Yes, they do. Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably referring to the obscene amounts of money spent on the promotion of certain CDs... a cost which is an artifact of a flawed business model, and not a cost that is inherent to the medium itself)
Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling announced an ambitious new technology that will protect investors from fraud. "Sure, everybody who wants to invest will have to buy our product first, but once they do, they'll be perfectly safe from all the, um, bad people who would otherwise take advantage of them", said Skilling.
Code that's already out there will always be free to "roam the wild plains"... it can't be made non-free again. People can base non-free derivative products off it but that still doesn't "un-free" the original code...
Technically, you're correct, but in the larger view, there is a historical pattern where free code gets 'adopted' by a company, and the company adds lots of functionality to the free code, so that eventually the free code is no longer competitive, and everyone switches over to using the closed-source product. At that point, the code is no longer free (except for the "old" code which is no longer useful or used, and thus doesn't count). This is what happened to Unix in the 70's and 80's, leading to Unix's fragmentation and irrelevance as a platform. With GPL code, you don't have to worry so much about v2.0 coming out as closed-source, leaving you with a choice between staying with v1.0 or losing the benefits of open source.
but how exactly do you define "free" in a way it doesn't match FreeBSDs license? The usual complaint from people favoring the GPL is that it's not Copyleft, so it's free even for people not interested in freedom for anyone but themselves
I think the GPL people would say that FreeBSD isn't Free in the "Free Willy" sense... GPL software cannot be captured back into proprietary software and made non-free again, whereas BSD licensed software can be (and often is). So while Linux code will always roam the wild plains, BSD code spends some of its time laboring in the Microsoft prison camps.... or something like that.:^)
Okay, I'll give it a shot... Britney Spears does have talent. Not talent for singing or songwriting, perhaps, but talent for projecting an image that can be sold to pre-adolescents, resulting in CD sales and profit. With the music industry, sales are the driving factor, not the production of quality music.
The kid then makes the argument, "If the hay was taxed on the way into the horse, then taxing it when it comes out is double taxation!"
It's a valid point, but then double taxation is a pretty common and accepted thing. For example, I pay income tax on my money when I earn it, and then I pay sales tax on the same money when I spend it.
Get over it. This is a pretty damn reasonable plan from the record studios
No need to 'get over it' -- I simply won't use it. There are plenty of free alternatives that do the things I want, on the software and hardware that I use.
I suspect there isn't any LA support for a number of (essentially) dead systems. Too bad. This is the way the world works.
And therefore LA won't get used by people who use those systems. Too bad. That is the way the world works.
If you want it that badly, write it yourself or run something that can handle it.
As I said, I don't want it that badly. It doesn't offer me anything that mp3 doesn't give me now, and it doesn't meet my needs. So I'll happily ignore it. And as a previous poster said, even if I did want it that badly, I probably couldn't write the software myself due to the technical and legal barriers thrown up by LA to keep their format "secure". (ha ha)
Kvetching about it not supporting your dead-as-a-doornail OS is about as good as horse buggy makers complaining about the Model T
I wasn't "kvetching", I was just pointing out what it was that would keep me from using it. And keep in mind that someday, every OS will be "dead-as-a-doornail" -- even your beloved 'mainstream' OS. At that point, your thousands of dollars invested in LA files will be lost, as you will no longer have any way to play them. (and if you are counting on LA to write a new version of their player for whatever OS you upgrade to... then you haven't been watching the software industry for very long. I give 50/50 odds LA won't even exist in 5 or 10 years)
I would imagine they aren't using MP3 encoding due to the ridiculous royalties they would have to pay to Fraunhoffer. Which would only add to the price.
Whereas Liquid Audio is a free, open format with no royalty payments required. Oh, wait....
I can't play it using my favorite software and hardware (BeOS and SoundPlay, FWIW, although I'm sure you can think of any number of other hardware and software platforms that Liquid Audio is never going to support). I'm also not entirely comfortable with the thought of having audio files with my fingerprint in them.... would I be liable if someone hacked my machine and started distributing copies of my files?
The second problem is that the goal of long term happiness and comfort is perfectly in accordance with a number of actions which are nonetheless not moral. When a guy leaves some money lying around, we agree (I assume) that it would not be moral to take that money even if you knew you would never be caught -- and yet such an action would certainly be only positive in terms of your happiness and comfort.
The key phrase in your paragraph above is "long term". In the long term, you are just as likely to accidentally leave your wad of cash somewhere as you are to find someone else's wad of cash lying around. You will be happier (less worried/paranoid) living in a world where you have a reasonable expectation of getting your lost cash back, than in a world where it's every man for himself. Not keeping the money you found is the price you pay for this sense of security, but in the long term, it is worth the sacrifice.
Likewise, we believe that when someone gives their life to save others, as a number of firemen did on the morning of September 11, they are doing a good and moral thing. How can this be the case if their goal should actually be nothing more than their own long-term happiness?
Hm. I'd better expand my rules a bit. As the previous poster pointed out, biology plays a major role here. A person isn't solely interested in the care and maintenance of their own body, but also in the preservation of their genome. Which means that it is sometimes in people's 'best interest' (biologically speaking) to sacrifice themselves if that will help others who share their genes. This is seen in families, societies, and even regarding humanity as a whole (since we all share mostly the same genes...).
Morality must however be based on transcendent authority (i.e. God) otherwise deontic propositions have no truth-value
I'm not sure I'd know a 'deontic proposition' if it came up and bit me, but let me attempt to describe a basis for morality that does not depend on the existence of God:
Observation 1: I enjoy being happy and comfortable.
Observation 2: The most effective path to happiness and comfort is to cooperate with my fellow humans.
Observation 3: My fellow humans also wish to be happy and comfortable.
Conclusion: The best way to achieve my goal of happiness and comfort is to create (or adopt) standards of behaviour that will ease my interactions with other humans. In this way, I (and they) will spend less energy on unproductive conflicts, and instead enjoy the fruits of each other's cooperation. We can call these standards of behaviour 'morality', if we choose to.
It seems to me that invoking God is unnecessary... we have plenty of justification for morality in that moral behaviour is better for the condition of mankind than immoral behaviour would be. (Not that I am defending any particular system of morality... I'm just saying the idea of having morality is sound, even if God isn't involved)
So depending opon the response at the festivals, and the eyes that see the film, it may or may not get picked up.
Hm, I would pay cash money for a DVD or even a Divx or mpg download of this film... TMBG are pretty innovative with the eMusic thing and all; perhaps they might distribute it on line?
Just tell me what you want to believe and I'll write you a report demonstrating it. Want proof that Windows is the best OS? Pay me $1E6 and I'll write the report.
It seems we are witnessing the first complete implementation of the Electric Monk
And for those who argue it is unnecessary because terrorists will just ship a bomb over on a cargo freighter, I'd ask you if you keep your windows unlocked over vacation just because a thief is most likely to try the front door first.
If it was going to cost me three hundred billion dollars to lock my windows, I would do just that. Especially if I realized that any idiot would be able to trivially defeat the locked-windows 'system' directly as well (i.e. throw a rock, or a few dozen decoy missiles).
What truly democratic country have we ever picked a fight with?
There have been a number of democracies that the US has tried to topple, so that "friendlier" dictators could be placed in power. Our government tried to pull off a coup in Venezuela just a month or so ago. We also sell arms to countries like Turkey, even though they have a history of violentry oppressing their minorities and violating human rights. Not to mention giving economic preference to countries like China, despite their suppression of free speech and dentention of political dissidents. Shenannigans like that is what gives our "beacon of the free world" its hypocritical stench. The USA talks a good line when it wants to, but when it comes down to action, principles go right out the window and it's all about money.
You should fall on your knees and thank whatever god you answer to that it was the United States [...] Until you have a better solution, and can find the modicum of courage to offer it publicly, zip it "You Fucking Coward"
The above is an excellent example of the arrogance and ignorance that so many find offensive about Americans. I suggest you read up on what the US government is really doing before declaring it the saviour of the world... (here's a hint: your TV isn't giving you the whole story.)
...all the weird stuff at the quantum scale is caused by dereferencing a NULL pointer.
Hm, I thought it was caused by limitations in the accuracy of the universe's floating-point format. I would think that a dereferenced NULL pointer would cause the universe to be halted with an error, and then auto-restarted. (ObDouglasAdams: "some say this has already occurred")
Not that much radioactive waste is made. I see no problem with setting aside some hole in the ground somewhere (where it can't get into the water), and putting up a sign saying: "This is the nuclear dumping ground. Don't fucking go in here because you will die."
I see a VERY big problem with that. Every terrorist nut-job in the known universe will come out of the wood-work to dig up some nice nuclear waste to make 'dirty bombs' with, and then irradiate all of our major cities, making them unusable. So any nuclear dumping grounds will need fences, alarms, guards, etc, UNTIL THE END OF TIME.
Solar isnt the future, nor is wind. The future is fusion and the way until we get it is fission. There is no alternative
Nuclear energy isn't a viable alternative either, not until we come up with a good way to dispose of nuclear waste. The chance of it getting into the environment accidentally is bad enough, but with the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on it and spreading it around on purpose, the attendant risks and security costs make nuclear a non-starter. Not to mention that nuclear energy shares one of fossil energy's problems: it's running on a non-renewable fuel. When they dig up the last of the uranium, what then?
If you want a real innovative solution, how about a solar chimney? It combines the best parts of wind and solar power to give us cheap, clean, reliable energy 24/7/365.
That sound's just like the wifebeater's claim that the "bitch" deserved a good beating. So did the Blacks "piss off" the Klan and cause lynchings? Did the Jews "piss off" the Nazis and get what they deserved? It's the same dumbass argument.
It's not quite the same, is it? In all your examples, the perpetrators are also the people in a position of power. In the US-vs.-terrorists case, it's the US that has all the power. If the US abuses its power, and the powerless parties see no other way to rectify that abuse, then terrorism is a probable eventual reaction It's not a morally justifiable reaction, but it's nonetheless the way things work -- if you're the big bully on the block and continually take unfair advantage of your strength to get what you want at the expense of the other kids, eventually one of the kids might be inspired to set you up for a fall.
I think that seatbelt laws are better example than Marijuana, but it's all the same thing. The wrong thing is being attacked.
Perhaps, but nobody is getting thrown in jail for not wearing their seat belt. The worst that happens is you pay a fine, and even then only if you are pulled over for something else first. (around here, anyway)
in this country (the United States), and many others, you are free to do as you wish as long as it doesn't harm OTHERS
Just to play Devil's Advocate... Joe doesn't wear his seat belt, Joe gets badly hurt in an accident, Joe isn't insured, morality doesn't allow us to just write Joe off and leave him for dead, therefore society has to pay for his medical care. Isn't that harming others (by burdening them with an unecessary expense)?
From the research provided by Texas A&M, the replacement of the oil fields is occuring while they are drilling! That means that this is not a slow process but a very fast one on geologic terms.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that 'replaced' in that context means that oil from another (previously unknown) reservoir is seeping in to the areas where oil is being drilled. If that is the case, then it's not accurate to say the oil is being 'regenerated' -- it's merely moving around. Actual generation of new fossil fuels (from biomass) still takes millions of years.
everything is finite except space and human stupidity.
True, but some things are much more finite than others. Solar energy, for example, will be available to us in abundance for millions of years, guaranteed. Fossil fuels, which may run out within decades or centuries, are much more finite. Hmm, perhaps we need to look into stupidity-powered vehicles...;^)
In any case, I'm not against using what fossil fuels we have, but it would be nicer to use them in an environmentally friendly fashion. Separating the hydrogen out from the fossil fuels in large processing centers with state-of-the-art pollution controls, and distributing the resulting hydrogen as clean fuel at the consumer level, would be a good way to do that, and has the secondary benefit of not obsoleting all the hydrogen-powered machines when the fossil fuel supply finally runs out. (they'll still run fine on hydrogen from whatever other source we choose to use)
Generally they piss us off before we do that.
And of course, the best way to piss us of is to not sell cheap oil to us.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bet we have examples of both before Palladium is publicly available.
Of course, offsetting the above is the fact that movies take an order of magnitude more money to produce than music CDs do. (Yes, they do. Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably referring to the obscene amounts of money spent on the promotion of certain CDs... a cost which is an artifact of a flawed business model, and not a cost that is inherent to the medium itself)
Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling announced an ambitious new technology that will protect investors from fraud. "Sure, everybody who wants to invest will have to buy our product first, but once they do, they'll be perfectly safe from all the, um, bad people who would otherwise take advantage of them", said Skilling.
Technically, you're correct, but in the larger view, there is a historical pattern where free code gets 'adopted' by a company, and the company adds lots of functionality to the free code, so that eventually the free code is no longer competitive, and everyone switches over to using the closed-source product. At that point, the code is no longer free (except for the "old" code which is no longer useful or used, and thus doesn't count). This is what happened to Unix in the 70's and 80's, leading to Unix's fragmentation and irrelevance as a platform. With GPL code, you don't have to worry so much about v2.0 coming out as closed-source, leaving you with a choice between staying with v1.0 or losing the benefits of open source.
I think the GPL people would say that FreeBSD isn't Free in the "Free Willy" sense... GPL software cannot be captured back into proprietary software and made non-free again, whereas BSD licensed software can be (and often is). So while Linux code will always roam the wild plains, BSD code spends some of its time laboring in the Microsoft prison camps.... or something like that.
Okay, I'll give it a shot... Britney Spears does have talent. Not talent for singing or songwriting, perhaps, but talent for projecting an image that can be sold to pre-adolescents, resulting in CD sales and profit. With the music industry, sales are the driving factor, not the production of quality music.
The replicas' silent operation gives you the opportunity to make the appropriate sounds yourself.
It's a valid point, but then double taxation is a pretty common and accepted thing. For example, I pay income tax on my money when I earn it, and then I pay sales tax on the same money when I spend it.
No need to 'get over it' -- I simply won't use it. There are plenty of free alternatives that do the things I want, on the software and hardware that I use.
I suspect there isn't any LA support for a number of (essentially) dead systems. Too bad. This is the way the world works.
And therefore LA won't get used by people who use those systems. Too bad. That is the way the world works.
If you want it that badly, write it yourself or run something that can handle it.
As I said, I don't want it that badly. It doesn't offer me anything that mp3 doesn't give me now, and it doesn't meet my needs. So I'll happily ignore it. And as a previous poster said, even if I did want it that badly, I probably couldn't write the software myself due to the technical and legal barriers thrown up by LA to keep their format "secure". (ha ha)
Kvetching about it not supporting your dead-as-a-doornail OS is about as good as horse buggy makers complaining about the Model T
I wasn't "kvetching", I was just pointing out what it was that would keep me from using it. And keep in mind that someday, every OS will be "dead-as-a-doornail" -- even your beloved 'mainstream' OS. At that point, your thousands of dollars invested in LA files will be lost, as you will no longer have any way to play them. (and if you are counting on LA to write a new version of their player for whatever OS you upgrade to... then you haven't been watching the software industry for very long. I give 50/50 odds LA won't even exist in 5 or 10 years)
Does the mp3 format support this?
Whereas Liquid Audio is a free, open format with no royalty payments required. Oh, wait....
I can't play it using my favorite software and hardware (BeOS and SoundPlay, FWIW, although I'm sure you can think of any number of other hardware and software platforms that Liquid Audio is never going to support). I'm also not entirely comfortable with the thought of having audio files with my fingerprint in them.... would I be liable if someone hacked my machine and started distributing copies of my files?
The key phrase in your paragraph above is "long term". In the long term, you are just as likely to accidentally leave your wad of cash somewhere as you are to find someone else's wad of cash lying around. You will be happier (less worried/paranoid) living in a world where you have a reasonable expectation of getting your lost cash back, than in a world where it's every man for himself. Not keeping the money you found is the price you pay for this sense of security, but in the long term, it is worth the sacrifice.
Likewise, we believe that when someone gives their life to save others, as a number of firemen did on the morning of September 11, they are doing a good and moral thing. How can this be the case if their goal should actually be nothing more than their own long-term happiness?
Hm. I'd better expand my rules a bit. As the previous poster pointed out, biology plays a major role here. A person isn't solely interested in the care and maintenance of their own body, but also in the preservation of their genome. Which means that it is sometimes in people's 'best interest' (biologically speaking) to sacrifice themselves if that will help others who share their genes. This is seen in families, societies, and even regarding humanity as a whole (since we all share mostly the same genes...).
I'm not sure I'd know a 'deontic proposition' if it came up and bit me, but let me attempt to describe a basis for morality that does not depend on the existence of God:
It seems to me that invoking God is unnecessary... we have plenty of justification for morality in that moral behaviour is better for the condition of mankind than immoral behaviour would be. (Not that I am defending any particular system of morality... I'm just saying the idea of having morality is sound, even if God isn't involved)
Hm, I would pay cash money for a DVD or even a Divx or mpg download of this film... TMBG are pretty innovative with the eMusic thing and all; perhaps they might distribute it on line?
Perhaps so, but avoiding buffer overflows isn't rocket science. It's a simple matter of bounds checking. There's really no excuse.
It seems we are witnessing the first complete implementation of the Electric Monk
If it was going to cost me three hundred billion dollars to lock my windows, I would do just that. Especially if I realized that any idiot would be able to trivially defeat the locked-windows 'system' directly as well (i.e. throw a rock, or a few dozen decoy missiles).
There have been a number of democracies that the US has tried to topple, so that "friendlier" dictators could be placed in power. Our government tried to pull off a coup in Venezuela just a month or so ago. We also sell arms to countries like Turkey, even though they have a history of violentry oppressing their minorities and violating human rights. Not to mention giving economic preference to countries like China, despite their suppression of free speech and dentention of political dissidents. Shenannigans like that is what gives our "beacon of the free world" its hypocritical stench. The USA talks a good line when it wants to, but when it comes down to action, principles go right out the window and it's all about money.
You should fall on your knees and thank whatever god you answer to that it was the United States [...] Until you have a better solution, and can find the modicum of courage to offer it publicly, zip it "You Fucking Coward"
The above is an excellent example of the arrogance and ignorance that so many find offensive about Americans. I suggest you read up on what the US government is really doing before declaring it the saviour of the world... (here's a hint: your TV isn't giving you the whole story.)
Hm, I thought it was caused by limitations in the accuracy of the universe's floating-point format. I would think that a dereferenced NULL pointer would cause the universe to be halted with an error, and then auto-restarted. (ObDouglasAdams: "some say this has already occurred")
I see a VERY big problem with that. Every terrorist nut-job in the known universe will come out of the wood-work to dig up some nice nuclear waste to make 'dirty bombs' with, and then irradiate all of our major cities, making them unusable. So any nuclear dumping grounds will need fences, alarms, guards, etc, UNTIL THE END OF TIME.
Very expensive, that...
Nuclear energy isn't a viable alternative either, not until we come up with a good way to dispose of nuclear waste. The chance of it getting into the environment accidentally is bad enough, but with the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on it and spreading it around on purpose, the attendant risks and security costs make nuclear a non-starter. Not to mention that nuclear energy shares one of fossil energy's problems: it's running on a non-renewable fuel. When they dig up the last of the uranium, what then?
If you want a real innovative solution, how about a solar chimney? It combines the best parts of wind and solar power to give us cheap, clean, reliable energy 24/7/365.
It's not quite the same, is it? In all your examples, the perpetrators are also the people in a position of power. In the US-vs.-terrorists case, it's the US that has all the power. If the US abuses its power, and the powerless parties see no other way to rectify that abuse, then terrorism is a probable eventual reaction It's not a morally justifiable reaction, but it's nonetheless the way things work -- if you're the big bully on the block and continually take unfair advantage of your strength to get what you want at the expense of the other kids, eventually one of the kids might be inspired to set you up for a fall.
Perhaps, but nobody is getting thrown in jail for not wearing their seat belt. The worst that happens is you pay a fine, and even then only if you are pulled over for something else first. (around here, anyway)
in this country (the United States), and many others, you are free to do as you wish as long as it doesn't harm OTHERS
Just to play Devil's Advocate... Joe doesn't wear his seat belt, Joe gets badly hurt in an accident, Joe isn't insured, morality doesn't allow us to just write Joe off and leave him for dead, therefore society has to pay for his medical care. Isn't that harming others (by burdening them with an unecessary expense)?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that 'replaced' in that context means that oil from another (previously unknown) reservoir is seeping in to the areas where oil is being drilled. If that is the case, then it's not accurate to say the oil is being 'regenerated' -- it's merely moving around. Actual generation of new fossil fuels (from biomass) still takes millions of years.
everything is finite except space and human stupidity.
True, but some things are much more finite than others. Solar energy, for example, will be available to us in abundance for millions of years, guaranteed. Fossil fuels, which may run out within decades or centuries, are much more finite. Hmm, perhaps we need to look into stupidity-powered vehicles...
In any case, I'm not against using what fossil fuels we have, but it would be nicer to use them in an environmentally friendly fashion. Separating the hydrogen out from the fossil fuels in large processing centers with state-of-the-art pollution controls, and distributing the resulting hydrogen as clean fuel at the consumer level, would be a good way to do that, and has the secondary benefit of not obsoleting all the hydrogen-powered machines when the fossil fuel supply finally runs out. (they'll still run fine on hydrogen from whatever other source we choose to use)
Generally they piss us off before we do that.
And of course, the best way to piss us of is to not sell cheap oil to us.