While I agree with limiting distribution and derivative works are the main problem, I really see no need in having long lasting copyright either, all works have a significant input from society, that created them and as long as you are limiting them in some way you are limiting their distribution and derivations.
Any licensing fee even a small discourages derivative works, face it all works are derivative. You end up reinventing the wheel. Imagine a world in which we had to pay the inventor of the wheel descendants a percentage of you product say something reasonable like 1% per wheel you used. After all a car wouldn't work with out a wheel would it. Put that together with every other component you used in the thing you probably end up with more than 100%, and you would pay your accountants and lawyers a lot of money to figure out who and what to pay.
How would we send our children to school to learn ideas that somebody else has already come up with?
The only thing that should be long lived is the right to claim an creation as your creation (basically trademark), also not yours you don't want someone using your name to sell dodgy products. Most people want to pay the original creator for their work some money, they just won't do it without bound.
It is fair to allow the creator to profit from the creation of content, but it is also fair and beneficial eventually return that content back to the society that inspired it. No one needs to be paid for the rest of their life for a creation that took a couple of hours to create. We need a fairer system maybe something that ties duration of copyright/patient to amount invested.
100TB is a lot of movies, and would cost a lot of money to maintain 25 hard drives (4 TB each) (no backups) a couple are bound to die each year. Plus the cost of powering them must get expensive. I agree he is a hoarder there is no way he is actually going to watch all those movies. But greedy I don't know? He has probably spent more money on hording than a normal person would pay to watch the movies. Storing those movies does not really deprive anybody else the ability to watch them.
I don't see how the grandparent was suggesting socialism but anyway.
Just because you don't believe in socialism doesn't mean that having people who do effectively no work and waste huge amounts or resources is right.
There are many things in between pure socialism and pure capitalism, and maybe even other ways that are not either.
I believe in both hard work, intelligence, risk taking,... should be rewarded, but their also needs to be a level of fairness as well. It does not have to be totally fair life's tough get over it, but the extremes can be eliminated. The top 10 CEOs in the US earn other $100 million the average wage is about 0.04 Million you are in a dream world if you think these people work 2500 times harder, better, smarter than the average worker.
Also the reward does not necessarily need to be money.
I think you are missing out lucky, you don't have to smart to be born int wealth.
Even then their wealth was not originally created by hard work, or even smart work, it created by taking resources that belonged to everyone and using it to benefit themselves. Ok their ancestors where smart thieves, but not smart workers.
Its not about spying, I would be surprised if there was a country that didn't spy. It is about scale, when you start spying on everyone, indiscriminately it is a problem.
The government should put under surveillance people that they have reason to suspect of a crime, or has some important information, not just anyone.
It surprises me when there is outrage when spying happens diplomatic figures like Angela Merkel, but not when it is done on everyone. They are people in positions of power who's decisions may have serious implications, what do you expect? It goes to show the politicians think that privacy is important, but just their own.
But when you start spying on everyone, no matter who they are, no matter what they have done, then you are now granting the spies far too much unnecessary power.
Not sure about that, a manufacturing defect would be more random. You maybe killing off a higher proportion of idiots with human driven cars, lets call it natural selection.
Note I am not saying innocent, or perfectly capable drivers don't get killed, just that the proportion may vary. Also the just the notion of the lack of control maybe enough to require a significantly higher safety rate, for purpose of sales.
Suppliers will lower their prices until the can no longer to afford to be in business, they will innovate to reduce costs. That of course relies on competition. That is why you need competition. Otherwise yes they will charge as much as they can. They will produce it inefficiently as well because there is no driver to reduce costs, in fact high costs can be used to justify a high price.
That is why when you hear a pricing scheme that goes along the lines well product A replaces B so lets about the same price as B, even though product A is much cheaper to produce. You know you don't have much competition since it does not take into account production costs. In an environment with healthy competition competitors would simply come in and undercut you.
It works the same way for only one consumer. If you only have one consumer and many produces then the consumer can basically set the price to any point until the produce is no longer making enough profit to survive.
I didn't say why they spy, how on earth would I know? I could only take a slightly informed guess. Since the former chief deceiver of a agency specifically set up to spy (deceive) says why they are spying, it is actually less believable than some random person that probably has no vested interest protecting that agencies secrets.
Are you denying that the US government would never spy on another country to gain an unfair market advantage? Or if they did that they wouldn't deny it?
First the question way do I pay unnecessary tax, the answer was yes. The second part do most individuals pay unnecessary tax, the answer was probably.
Your answer is basically what I believe is wrong with the corporate structure in general, there is no way to actually know what the shareholders want apart from money. Even if you had a vote on this most of the shareholder are probably not even direct investors rather people who have money in managed funds, so you still wouldn't know what they wanted. That is why I believe companies inherently lack morals.
So you end up with a structure inevitably tries to push the law to its bounds, ripping of as many people as possible (legally of course, not morally, well illegally sometimes if its financial beneficial to break the law) , customers, suppliers, tax payers since their only true goal can be to make money.
If shareholders can sue directors, for behaving ethically then the law needs to change. I am sure no government would have a problem with companies voluntarily paying more tax. This of course is irrelevant because companies will continue to do the same thing, because fear of being sued by the stock holders is not the reason this occurs. It is the challenge of making your company the most successful and the resulting personal wealth that the directors acquire.
I do, I sometimes don't claim back charitable donations. I don't claim depreciation on my rental property I do not think it is valid expense. I claim deductions that I believe to be fair and for business purposes, I do not claim ones i don't, legal or not.
But the real reason is probably everybody could get away with paying less tax if they knew what they where doing. The reason normal people don't is it is not feasible for the average person to pay millions to an accountancy firm to set up tax shelters. Once a company starts making billions however those admin costs become insignificant.
Why couldn't you set up a company in Ireland and contract out of that instead of being directly employed by your company. (they would think you where dodgy but only because it isn't common practice). Your employer is paying you the same amount, what difference does it make to them. The hassle is just not worth it, at least for the common man.
Budget is not everything, Lets assume it actually takes the NSA (there is no back door) a reasonable amount of resource to decrypt each message, if every message is encrypted then it will may make it significantly harder spy on Brasil. You will not just be able to look at a message and say that's encrypted lets decode it, all messages are encrypted.
Brazil should be able to implement an encryption algorithm with no back door (as long as there is no US agent creating it)
Also the US is spying on many countries not just Brazil.
I am not saying that it will make it impossible to spy, just harder, and that is enough, no security is 100%. If the US really wanted information they could always send a team of spies to apply advanced integration techniques on the right people.
If every person encrypted every email as standard, it would severely impact on the NSAs ability to spy.
Management/Government have no Idea what the hell they are doing, and are too proud arrogant to admit they are that they don't.
My company recently purchased software to speed up development, every developer in the company said it was rubbish, but they still did it as a result we now have to work with to work with a system that appears to have been written by a teenager hacking something together in the 1980. I wouldn't be surprised if this if this as delayed development by 2 to 3 times and definitely will have large ongoing maintenance costs.
Also I don't think management quite realize the impact of good vs bad developers. A single good developer can be 100 times more productive than a bad one, and as the code base builds up the effect is multiplied. I once had someone working on a piece of code for 6 months,and it was still buggy, deleted the code and wrote it again in a day.
Also the more money you have the more you waste, Its true on an individual scale (definitely for me at least), and on an organizational scale. That's why monopolies are so bad, their is no driving pressure to keep cost down. The government is the biggest monopoly of them all.
Well its not the intended part solution, but what is wrong with a decreasing GDP, far too often get caught up in optimizing a metric as opposed real goal.
Isn't the real goal that we more people live happier longer lives? not that we have a few people at the top being ultra rich, while every body else struggles to survive.
We have reached the level that GDP, that we can produce enough for everyone to survive comfortably, and it no longer needs to be our main goal to endlessly increase production of goods we don't need.
It seems strange that when things can be made more efficiently we get more people in poverty, shouldn't everybody be better of? If the current system cannot distribute resources, then the system needs to change.
I am not suggesting communism, I think effort, skill, risk, needs to be rewarded but there must be a limit, and fairness to this reward.
Not quite, the whole system it actually consumed more than it produced. The power outputted by the lasers was less than was produced. There are inefficiencies in the lasers so net power is negative.
So Martian dwellers will not die of thirst and possibly starvation. There are still the following to deal with; 1. suicide 2. homicide 3. radiation 4. equipment failure 5. missed supply missions 6. funding cuts which end supply missions.
Water is only one part of the equation.
All of which can happen right here on earth, I am sure people have died in droughts from "funding cuts" (not meeting aid promises), and missed supply missions. The chances are just higher on mars. Suicide and homicide, we don't really have any statistics to show how likely that is to happen.
It always concerns me when someone says a group of people need to be "educated", I read it as I am right, the other group is clearly wrong, and so dumb that they just clearly don't know what they are doing.
In life I find that there is very rarely, a right answer, people think something is logical but it turns out to be totally incorrect. There is some evidence that violent video games do effect aggression, but the evidence is hardly overwhelming. I would think there are many factors in a child's life that effect there behavior (the video games they play a very minor one). I personally would not let my child play GTA but that is my opinion and I have no desire to force it on others.
Have I "educated" you enough, or do you find a statement like that just insulting if you disagree. There is no reason my opinion is any better than anybody else's, but I do have the right to state it. In fact debating with someone who disagrees with you is much more interesting, and much better opportunity to learn.
You are probably right about DNA, the tests are probably too slow, and expensive to run right now. (falling fast http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/05/costs-of-dna-sequencing-falling-fast-look-at-these-graphs/) But other biometrics, Voice it's not inconceivable that you could record the password and play it back. Even generate the words of your choice with enough recording, maybe not now (I don't know) but it doesn't seem impossible (with low cost equipment). Retna scan well Ok maybe you need to shine a lazer into your eye (again I don't really know). But if it became common place would you really want to using the same eye to log into your porn site as your bank?
What about DNA? (you would probably have to compromise the scanner, but you certainly leave it lying around) Facial recognition if you have cameras around. Frankly all biometrics are fundamentally flawed because once they are compromised you can't change them. Ok plastic surgery may be one way to change your face.
Both parties are the same, they are just their to give the appearance you have a choice. At least in china they are honest about it.
There might be independents, but they are massively out advertised by the major parties. The rich don't want to have to buy out 3 parties, it is cheaper just to have 2.
What are the chances of neither a democrat or a republican becoming the next president. Clearly there is only 2 main ways (Ok 1 way with minor differences) of running a country of 311 million could come up with.
Technology does destroy jobs (well sometimes creates jobs in other areas as well), but the same is produced for less, so in effect society is better off. The problem is not with technology but with the method of resource distribution. As you need less and less jobs the wealth gets distributed more unevenly.
The current system (capitalism) was ok, and maybe even necessary when we where not producing enough for people to survive, it encouraged people to produce more, but now we are producing enough to survive, to excess even. Society has a to find a better way of distributing wealth. If we don't the 99% will either die off because they are not needed, rebel because they don't accept dieing. If the 99% do die then the 1% will be split up again 99% of them will become redundant.
If the goal is to own as much as you can, and it is all based on greed and you can make a robots that can produce anything that you want, why would you want any other person around taking up your natural resources?
I personally found not taking any notes the most productive way of learning in class/lectures, and well just fully listening to the lectures. But that is me and maybe I am a bit strange I am not saying it is better for everyone. I would like to see a study of note taking vs having them handed out.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with limiting distribution and derivative works are the main problem, I really see no need in having long lasting copyright either, all works have a significant input from society, that created them and as long as you are limiting them in some way you are limiting their distribution and derivations.
Any licensing fee even a small discourages derivative works, face it all works are derivative. You end up reinventing the wheel. Imagine a world in which we had to pay the inventor of the wheel descendants a percentage of you product say something reasonable like 1% per wheel you used. After all a car wouldn't work with out a wheel would it. Put that together with every other component you used in the thing you probably end up with more than 100%, and you would pay your accountants and lawyers a lot of money to figure out who and what to pay.
How would we send our children to school to learn ideas that somebody else has already come up with?
The only thing that should be long lived is the right to claim an creation as your creation (basically trademark), also not yours you don't want someone using your name to sell dodgy products. Most people want to pay the original creator for their work some money, they just won't do it without bound.
It is fair to allow the creator to profit from the creation of content, but it is also fair and beneficial eventually return that content back to the society that inspired it. No one needs to be paid for the rest of their life for a creation that took a couple of hours to create. We need a fairer system maybe something that ties duration of copyright/patient to amount invested.
100TB is a lot of movies, and would cost a lot of money to maintain 25 hard drives (4 TB each) (no backups) a couple are bound to die each year. Plus the cost of powering them must get expensive. I agree he is a hoarder there is no way he is actually going to watch all those movies. But greedy I don't know? He has probably spent more money on hording than a normal person would pay to watch the movies. Storing those movies does not really deprive anybody else the ability to watch them.
I don't see how the grandparent was suggesting socialism but anyway.
Just because you don't believe in socialism doesn't mean that having people who do effectively no work and waste huge amounts or resources is right.
There are many things in between pure socialism and pure capitalism, and maybe even other ways that are not either.
I believe in both hard work, intelligence, risk taking, ... should be rewarded, but their also needs to be a level of fairness as well. It does not have to be totally fair life's tough get over it, but the extremes can be eliminated. The top 10 CEOs in the US earn other $100 million the average wage is about 0.04 Million you are in a dream world if you think these people work 2500 times harder, better, smarter than the average worker.
Also the reward does not necessarily need to be money.
I think you are missing out lucky, you don't have to smart to be born int wealth.
Even then their wealth was not originally created by hard work, or even smart work, it created by taking resources that belonged to everyone and using it to benefit themselves. Ok their ancestors where smart thieves, but not smart workers.
Its not about spying, I would be surprised if there was a country that didn't spy. It is about scale, when you start spying on everyone, indiscriminately it is a problem.
The government should put under surveillance people that they have reason to suspect of a crime, or has some important information, not just anyone.
It surprises me when there is outrage when spying happens diplomatic figures like Angela Merkel, but not when it is done on everyone. They are people in positions of power who's decisions may have serious implications, what do you expect? It goes to show the politicians think that privacy is important, but just their own.
But when you start spying on everyone, no matter who they are, no matter what they have done, then you are now granting the spies far too much unnecessary power.
Not sure about that, a manufacturing defect would be more random. You maybe killing off a higher proportion of idiots with human driven cars, lets call it natural selection.
Note I am not saying innocent, or perfectly capable drivers don't get killed, just that the proportion may vary. Also the just the notion of the lack of control maybe enough to require a significantly higher safety rate, for purpose of sales.
Suppliers will lower their prices until the can no longer to afford to be in business, they will innovate to reduce costs. That of course relies on competition. That is why you need competition. Otherwise yes they will charge as much as they can. They will produce it inefficiently as well because there is no driver to reduce costs, in fact high costs can be used to justify a high price.
That is why when you hear a pricing scheme that goes along the lines well product A replaces B so lets about the same price as B, even though product A is much cheaper to produce. You know you don't have much competition since it does not take into account production costs. In an environment with healthy competition competitors would simply come in and undercut you.
It works the same way for only one consumer. If you only have one consumer and many produces then the consumer can basically set the price to any point until the produce is no longer making enough profit to survive.
I didn't say why they spy, how on earth would I know? I could only take a slightly informed guess. Since the former chief deceiver of a agency specifically set up to spy (deceive) says why they are spying, it is actually less believable than some random person that probably has no vested interest protecting that agencies secrets.
Are you denying that the US government would never spy on another country to gain an unfair market advantage? Or if they did that they wouldn't deny it?
So you are going to believe the former director of a spy agency?
First the question way do I pay unnecessary tax, the answer was yes. The second part do most individuals pay unnecessary tax, the answer was probably.
Your answer is basically what I believe is wrong with the corporate structure in general, there is no way to actually know what the shareholders want apart from money. Even if you had a vote on this most of the shareholder are probably not even direct investors rather people who have money in managed funds, so you still wouldn't know what they wanted. That is why I believe companies inherently lack morals.
So you end up with a structure inevitably tries to push the law to its bounds, ripping of as many people as possible (legally of course, not morally, well illegally sometimes if its financial beneficial to break the law) , customers, suppliers, tax payers since their only true goal can be to make money.
If shareholders can sue directors, for behaving ethically then the law needs to change. I am sure no government would have a problem with companies voluntarily paying more tax. This of course is irrelevant because companies will continue to do the same thing, because fear of being sued by the stock holders is not the reason this occurs. It is the challenge of making your company the most successful and the resulting personal wealth that the directors acquire.
I do, I sometimes don't claim back charitable donations. I don't claim depreciation on my rental property I do not think it is valid expense. I claim deductions that I believe to be fair and for business purposes, I do not claim ones i don't, legal or not.
But the real reason is probably everybody could get away with paying less tax if they knew what they where doing. The reason normal people don't is it is not feasible for the average person to pay millions to an accountancy firm to set up tax shelters. Once a company starts making billions however those admin costs become insignificant.
Why couldn't you set up a company in Ireland and contract out of that instead of being directly employed by your company. (they would think you where dodgy but only because it isn't common practice). Your employer is paying you the same amount, what difference does it make to them. The hassle is just not worth it, at least for the common man.
The inverse ninja (Orc) law applies, that's a real thing right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_ninja_law#Inverse_Ninja_Law
Budget is not everything, Lets assume it actually takes the NSA (there is no back door) a reasonable amount of resource to decrypt each message, if every message is encrypted then it will may make it significantly harder spy on Brasil. You will not just be able to look at a message and say that's encrypted lets decode it, all messages are encrypted.
Brazil should be able to implement an encryption algorithm with no back door (as long as there is no US agent creating it)
Also the US is spying on many countries not just Brazil.
I am not saying that it will make it impossible to spy, just harder, and that is enough, no security is 100%. If the US really wanted information they could always send a team of spies to apply advanced integration techniques on the right people.
If every person encrypted every email as standard, it would severely impact on the NSAs ability to spy.
Management/Government have no Idea what the hell they are doing, and are too proud arrogant to admit they are that they don't.
My company recently purchased software to speed up development, every developer in the company said it was rubbish, but they still did it as a result we now have to work with to work with a system that appears to have been written by a teenager hacking something together in the 1980. I wouldn't be surprised if this if this as delayed development by 2 to 3 times and definitely will have large ongoing maintenance costs.
Also I don't think management quite realize the impact of good vs bad developers. A single good developer can be 100 times more productive than a bad one, and as the code base builds up the effect is multiplied. I once had someone working on a piece of code for 6 months,and it was still buggy, deleted the code and wrote it again in a day.
Also the more money you have the more you waste, Its true on an individual scale (definitely for me at least), and on an organizational scale. That's why monopolies are so bad, their is no driving pressure to keep cost down. The government is the biggest monopoly of them all.
Well its not the intended part solution, but what is wrong with a decreasing GDP, far too often get caught up in optimizing a metric as opposed real goal.
Isn't the real goal that we more people live happier longer lives? not that we have a few people at the top being ultra rich, while every body else struggles to survive.
In fact it seems that GDP has very little bearing on quality of life measures, equality does, it even improves those measures for the rich.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
We have reached the level that GDP, that we can produce enough for everyone to survive comfortably, and it no longer needs to be our main goal to endlessly increase production of goods we don't need.
It seems strange that when things can be made more efficiently we get more people in poverty, shouldn't everybody be better of? If the current system cannot distribute resources, then the system needs to change.
I am not suggesting communism, I think effort, skill, risk, needs to be rewarded but there must be a limit, and fairness to this reward.
Not quite, the whole system it actually consumed more than it produced. The power outputted by the lasers was less than was produced. There are inefficiencies in the lasers so net power is negative.
So Martian dwellers will not die of thirst and possibly starvation. There are still the following to deal with;
1. suicide
2. homicide
3. radiation
4. equipment failure
5. missed supply missions
6. funding cuts which end supply missions.
Water is only one part of the equation.
All of which can happen right here on earth, I am sure people have died in droughts from "funding cuts" (not meeting aid promises), and missed supply missions. The chances are just higher on mars. Suicide and homicide, we don't really have any statistics to show how likely that is to happen.
It always concerns me when someone says a group of people need to be "educated", I read it as I am right, the other group is clearly wrong, and so dumb that they just clearly don't know what they are doing.
In life I find that there is very rarely, a right answer, people think something is logical but it turns out to be totally incorrect. There is some evidence that violent video games do effect aggression, but the evidence is hardly overwhelming. I would think there are many factors in a child's life that effect there behavior (the video games they play a very minor one). I personally would not let my child play GTA but that is my opinion and I have no desire to force it on others.
Have I "educated" you enough, or do you find a statement like that just insulting if you disagree. There is no reason my opinion is any better than anybody else's, but I do have the right to state it. In fact debating with someone who disagrees with you is much more interesting, and much better opportunity to learn.
You are probably right about DNA, the tests are probably too slow, and expensive to run right now. (falling fast http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/05/costs-of-dna-sequencing-falling-fast-look-at-these-graphs/) But other biometrics, Voice it's not inconceivable that you could record the password and play it back. Even generate the words of your choice with enough recording, maybe not now (I don't know) but it doesn't seem impossible (with low cost equipment). Retna scan well Ok maybe you need to shine a lazer into your eye (again I don't really know). But if it became common place would you really want to using the same eye to log into your porn site as your bank?
What about DNA? (you would probably have to compromise the scanner, but you certainly leave it lying around) Facial recognition if you have cameras around. Frankly all biometrics are fundamentally flawed because once they are compromised you can't change them. Ok plastic surgery may be one way to change your face.
Both parties are the same, they are just their to give the appearance you have a choice. At least in china they are honest about it.
There might be independents, but they are massively out advertised by the major parties. The rich don't want to have to buy out 3 parties, it is cheaper just to have 2.
What are the chances of neither a democrat or a republican becoming the next president. Clearly there is only 2 main ways (Ok 1 way with minor differences) of running a country of 311 million could come up with.
Technology does destroy jobs (well sometimes creates jobs in other areas as well), but the same is produced for less, so in effect society is better off. The problem is not with technology but with the method of resource distribution. As you need less and less jobs the wealth gets distributed more unevenly.
The current system (capitalism) was ok, and maybe even necessary when we where not producing enough for people to survive, it encouraged people to produce more, but now we are producing enough to survive, to excess even. Society has a to find a better way of distributing wealth. If we don't the 99% will either die off because they are not needed, rebel because they don't accept dieing. If the 99% do die then the 1% will be split up again 99% of them will become redundant.
If the goal is to own as much as you can, and it is all based on greed and you can make a robots that can produce anything that you want, why would you want any other person around taking up your natural resources?
I think that this has changed:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/2/4174204/solar-panels-finally-generate-more-energy-than-they-consume
They says it will make that energy within a year. with 50% certainty.
But Macs DON'T GET VIRUSES.
Except when they do.
Fixed that for you.
If I remember correctly believe the statement from apple was: (there was an article a long time ago so I could be wrong)
But Macs DON'T GET PC VIRUSES.
well except when they are running on a cross platform VM. Marketing weasel words.
I personally found not taking any notes the most productive way of learning in class/lectures, and well just fully listening to the lectures. But that is me and maybe I am a bit strange I am not saying it is better for everyone. I would like to see a study of note taking vs having them handed out.