I said surviving comfortably (in the first sentence), not having to worry where the next meal is coming from, or you have a place to sleep tomorrow, not being on the brink of survival. Sure everyone wants more but that is not necessary for creativity it may even be counter-productive there have been studies that show this.
Yes, they need a day job, enough to survive comfortably but you also don't need to pay them millions either. People are basically willing to do it for free as long as they can survive. It just goes into a nice circle movie makes lots of money, people want their cut, movie cost more to make so has to make more, people want bigger cut, continue until movie makes as much as it can (that's a lot), justify amount of money made based on high costs. When reality a large portion costs are a result of the high amount income generated. Technology has made a lot of movie making much more efficient movies should be getting cheaper to make but they are not. You can generate crowds, generate scenery sets, computers are cheaper now, cameras are cheaper, film cost should be about zero. you may have a phone with more process power than 20 year old supercomputer.
What would be ironic if Android phone sales where band in the US only, after years of delaying movies releases into other markets. So US consumers can feel hard done by, by there own laws. What I hope for is that companies like Google start to realise that the patient system is not in there best interest and start to campaign for its overhaul.
Having had 3 kids myself, I can say at birth my children had very different personalities. My first born was with me preferred me over her mother, not a blank slate. Even before birth according to my wife the level of movement when I would talked to the baby would respond differently to other people talking, and differently for different children. Maybe I am projecting my emotions on the child but how do you tell?
Ok I couldn't talk to them at that time so our philosophical debate was limited but something of what I consider a personality was there. Maybe it is just we can't tell the personality is there because of lack of communication skills.
I don't quite get why if a girl drinks (out of her own free will) to much out and then has sex it is rape. If you choose to drink you should be held accountable for your actions. What if the man is drunk is it not rape because he did not know what he was doing. Of course it was, it is no excuse. If they are both drunk are both being raped because they are incapable of giving consent.
I do think that taking advantage of someone while intoxicated is morally wrong, just not rape.
Any point you pick is arbitrary, you can claim an adult is an just collection of cells, pre birth environment has an effect on babies. When do you consider a fetus a person? when have you got enough personality for you to be constituted as human?
The two easiest points happen to be conception and birth.
The fact is we don't know what would have happened without the stimulus, it may have been better it may have been worse it may be longer or shorter. Most economists don't know what they are talking about if they did then we wouldn't be in this mess we are in since they would have predicted it. They are just guessing like the rest of us, based on flawed or incomplete models.
I agree that most people are science-illiterate, but that does not mean that the information should be withheld, given the choice of GM modified food or no food I am fairly certain that most people will choose food no matter how clearly it is labelled GM, so people will not starve.
Producers are quite willing to place deceptive labels on products in their favour. (fat free lollies that are 99% sugar, 80% fat free, slim chips that contain more fat than regular chips....) If the information stops people buying your product then tough luck stop doing it (or prove that it is safe the burden of proof should be on the producer since they should have the knowledge), the free market is about meeting consumer demand, not about fooling people into buying your products. If people don't like red cars stop making them even if they are faster, or more fuel efficient.
Your argument is people aren't smart enough to decide so don't give them the information. Well you could argue people aren't smart enough to decide who to vote for too (you would probably be right). Or drink or whatever you think you know better in. If people choose to buy higher priced products because they are GM free then it is there problem, and it is their choice under a free-market system.
I don't necessarily believe that choice is a good thing, but the current system is built on it, I personally don't l like the idea of an industry deciding what is best for me because they have vested interest, also by extension the government since I believe the industries have a disproportionate say in related legislature.
I have to admit I haven't seen GoT, (not available for free in NZ and I would never pirate it (OK can't be bothered to pirate it, I hear its good)) it maybe that you don't have any central characters, but if there are then once the program becomes successful it is a big risk to remove a central character. Also we now have the technology not have to have on location settings. I am not saying that the cost are not real but with no force driving down costs no one will even try until there is pressure there
No, we need them to find a way to make it cheaper to film these scenes. Introducing competition and forcing prices down is the best way of doing this, the main problem with monopolies from the point of view of economics is they are really inefficient because nothing forces to be so. Why hasn't making films become so much cheaper now? The technology is now so much cheaper, you don't even need actors or a set.
Here are the reasons why I think making films is so expensive: Massive profits and investments mean actors can charge large sums of money once they are established. Since having a well known actor pretty much guarantees you an audience. Same with stories, marvel can sell rights to make a movie to comic book character for millions again because you have a sure fire success (even if the movie is rubbish). Producers have to be paid more because of there "Huge financial investment".
Everyone along the way charges an arm in a leg because the whole thing makes so much money and everyone wants there cut. For example advertising (kind of circular since television have to pay content providers to show their content so have to charge lots for advertising).
Let me just say that I don't think most people in the industry get paid lots, quite the opposite, it just that once in that position since the costs are so high, it is very unlikely that an unknown actor or an "original" unproven stories get made. I also do not blame the people making the big money, if you can make lots of money why not, that is what most people would do. But we need to change the system so this doesn't happen so much. It may hurt some people that that is just the cost of progress, for the common good.
These costs/profits in my opinion have not made movies more interesting but instead made an array of carbon copy movies. If you want originality go to low budget movies, because they can afford the risk. If we want true creativity restored to area we need to make making a movie accessible to everyone, by reducing the cost of production.
I agree, I would just like to add if a factory can't produce it cheaper than a 3D printer then it deserves to die, since isn't that the whole point of a free market that it drives more efficient mechanisms of production?
This would make me uncomfortable, yes but I think the I should be able to say this makes me uncomfortable please don't do it and you should stop.
I would not be scarred for life, no need to sue or take any further unless you refuse to stop.
The problem is different people have different tolerances for this type of behaviour, you should always treat people with respect and try to make them feel conformable. But I only got a C in mind reading class so sometimes I assume I get it wrong.
I think there should be a onus on the person that is offended to inform the person that is offending them first. (Perhaps not when the person has direct authority over them) It is hard but sometimes in life you have to stand up of yourself. Standing up for yourself will make you feel better about yourself as well.
I believe that most people are good I think they probably don't even realise they are offending you.
So the escalation procedure should be: 1. Get offended 2. Clearly Inform the offender 3. Inform manager 4. Law suite
steps 2 and 3 should not be missed unless you where more than just offended or upset.
Or if you don't like other countries copyright laws just don't sell those countries. There would also not be any lost sales from "illegal" copying since any copying could not have lead to a sale.
It is also often easier to give instructions on how to fix something using a CLI as opposed to giving screen shots of every step the user has to follow.
Actually if you look and Greece you see that Germany is helping not out of some desire to help, but with self interest that if the Greek economy collapses it will not be good for the German one. Part of problem is that Greece is part of the Euro it cannot just print money like the US.
People get annoyed no matter what system you have. If a socialist system people don't get rewarded for the effort the put in so they don't try. If you have an totally free market people get used, poor rebel commit crime, get contagious diseases which even the rich can catch. Sometimes it is beneficial to work together, that is how we have the society we have today (although not perfect is much better than what we had 200 years ago).
Everything is about level of risk, if you choose to drive at night, or the rain, you are slightly tired all increase your risk of having an accident, the question is it an acceptable level of risk to impose on someone else.
The problem is that you are not a good judge of how risky it is to drive once you start drinking, so a good way to judge is have I drunk? Yes, Ok I will not drive. If you had a breath tester it might be able to ask am I below 0.04, if so I can drive. But that is not how it happens I have never seen that happen, you need an objective measure.
The problem how do you implement something like that? Once some is appointed as a judge of how educated you are if they disagree with your conclusions then you may not be deemed "smart/educated enough" to vote.
I am reasonably educated in the classical sense, Masters, how educated in the sense you mean, well I know of no accurate measure. But I know I can be fooled and I know I use very limited information to make my decisions about how I vote. I know I can be wrong and my logic can be flawed. When making judgements about the economy, what's best for everyone, I don't think anybody really knows we are just making as informed guesses as we can to get a solution.
We should be teaching our kids how to think analytically but that in itself may require prescribing of structure and how to think. But how that is a much more difficult task. Basic information about the world is also useful.
I don't think politicians have that level of reasoning why would you expect it of voters? Politicians aren't voted in on there analytical thinking skills they are voted in on there sales skills
And buy education I assume you mean brainwashing to think in a prescribed way.
The question is irrelevant, and should relate the thing you are voting on, and also be pretty much anyone who has investigated the issue can get it correct.
also a fail should simply mean go do some reading and try again. You cannot have a question that make somebody not be able to vote, just require them to put some thought into it before the do.
Everybody has the right to vote, You cannot take that away from them. I would just like it if they wouldn't if they can't be bothered finding out about the subject.
There is still value in the wheel but yes the creator (or his/her ancestors) should get nothing for it. Because the value of people being able to develop on that far outweighs the need for creator to benefit. I believe that the creator should be fairly compensated for work of course it is hard determine what is fair. To me fair is based on the effort you put in multiplied by skill/creativity involved. The problem is with intellectual property there is no limit it that too is not fair.
Ok rent seeker that produce nothing, ever wondered why magically after the patent expires an new drug comes out combining coding with paracetamol.
Disney are one of the worst, they sit around making copies of public domain works, snow white, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast,... and then campaign to get copyright extended on already existing works. Disney is a company it does not create anything that people that they employ do. Disney has made very few truly innovative things (I can't think of any doesn't mean that they don't exist) since mickey mouse. Take a know story stick a talking animal on it vola a Disney movie. You say do don't want another tetris clone well I don't want another Snow white movie.
I personally think financial motivation has very little to do with being creative, in fact there a reputable studies that show that it is actually detrimental to creativity. Real artist don't create because the are paid they do it because they love to do it.
Living of something the rest of your life, if you consider that person gifted is a waste of a life. You may think well they have the right to do it, I think of it a loss to society. I believe that the laws and rewards should be there the betterment of society and if someone doesn't get to sit on there backside or buy $25000 dollar sunglasses then so what. If the idea was the only Idea they had then find another job you are obviously not being productive they should do something else.
There are similar games, I don't no what royalties they pay, the problem is determining what exactly is similar enough that some random Judge will award a ruling. You yourself say for "a limited time" the only thing I am arguing is that 38 years sound to me like it is well over the time period that something SO innovative as tetris.
Slashdot Mirror
wouldn't that be the similar, just move move A1 closer A2 then A2 closer A3 ... until you get to B
I said surviving comfortably (in the first sentence), not having to worry where the next meal is coming from, or you have a place to sleep tomorrow, not being on the brink of survival. Sure everyone wants more but that is not necessary for creativity it may even be counter-productive there have been studies that show this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Yes, they need a day job, enough to survive comfortably but you also don't need to pay them millions either. People are basically willing to do it for free as long as they can survive. It just goes into a nice circle movie makes lots of money, people want their cut, movie cost more to make so has to make more, people want bigger cut, continue until movie makes as much as it can (that's a lot), justify amount of money made based on high costs. When reality a large portion costs are a result of the high amount income generated. Technology has made a lot of movie making much more efficient movies should be getting cheaper to make but they are not. You can generate crowds, generate scenery sets, computers are cheaper now, cameras are cheaper, film cost should be about zero. you may have a phone with more process power than 20 year old supercomputer.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films 35/39 inflation adjusted movies where in or after 2003, 16 or 41% where in or after 2009,
What would be ironic if Android phone sales where band in the US only, after years of delaying movies releases into other markets. So US consumers can feel hard done by, by there own laws. What I hope for is that companies like Google start to realise that the patient system is not in there best interest and start to campaign for its overhaul.
Having had 3 kids myself, I can say at birth my children had very different personalities. My first born was with me preferred me over her mother, not a blank slate. Even before birth according to my wife the level of movement when I would talked to the baby would respond differently to other people talking, and differently for different children. Maybe I am projecting my emotions on the child but how do you tell?
Ok I couldn't talk to them at that time so our philosophical debate was limited but something of what I consider a personality was there. Maybe it is just we can't tell the personality is there because of lack of communication skills.
I don't quite get why if a girl drinks (out of her own free will) to much out and then has sex it is rape. If you choose to drink you should be held accountable for your actions. What if the man is drunk is it not rape because he did not know what he was doing. Of course it was, it is no excuse. If they are both drunk are both being raped because they are incapable of giving consent.
I do think that taking advantage of someone while intoxicated is morally wrong, just not rape.
Any point you pick is arbitrary, you can claim an adult is an just collection of cells, pre birth environment has an effect on babies. When do you consider a fetus a person? when have you got enough personality for you to be constituted as human?
The two easiest points happen to be conception and birth.
The fact is we don't know what would have happened without the stimulus, it may have been better it may have been worse it may be longer or shorter. Most economists don't know what they are talking about if they did then we wouldn't be in this mess we are in since they would have predicted it. They are just guessing like the rest of us, based on flawed or incomplete models.
I agree that most people are science-illiterate, but that does not mean that the information should be withheld, given the choice of GM modified food or no food I am fairly certain that most people will choose food no matter how clearly it is labelled GM, so people will not starve.
Producers are quite willing to place deceptive labels on products in their favour. (fat free lollies that are 99% sugar, 80% fat free, slim chips that contain more fat than regular chips ....) If the information stops people buying your product then tough luck stop doing it (or prove that it is safe the burden of proof should be on the producer since they should have the knowledge), the free market is about meeting consumer demand, not about fooling people into buying your products. If people don't like red cars stop making them even if they are faster, or more fuel efficient.
Your argument is people aren't smart enough to decide so don't give them the information. Well you could argue people aren't smart enough to decide who to vote for too (you would probably be right). Or drink or whatever you think you know better in. If people choose to buy higher priced products because they are GM free then it is there problem, and it is their choice under a free-market system.
I don't necessarily believe that choice is a good thing, but the current system is built on it, I personally don't l like the idea of an industry deciding what is best for me because they have vested interest, also by extension the government since I believe the industries have a disproportionate say in related legislature.
I have to admit I haven't seen GoT, (not available for free in NZ and I would never pirate it (OK can't be bothered to pirate it, I hear its good)) it maybe that you don't have any central characters, but if there are then once the program becomes successful it is a big risk to remove a central character. Also we now have the technology not have to have on location settings. I am not saying that the cost are not real but with no force driving down costs no one will even try until there is pressure there
No, we need them to find a way to make it cheaper to film these scenes. Introducing competition and forcing prices down is the best way of doing this, the main problem with monopolies from the point of view of economics is they are really inefficient because nothing forces to be so. Why hasn't making films become so much cheaper now? The technology is now so much cheaper, you don't even need actors or a set.
Here are the reasons why I think making films is so expensive:
Massive profits and investments mean actors can charge large sums of money once they are established. Since having a well known actor pretty much guarantees you an audience. Same with stories, marvel can sell rights to make a movie to comic book character for millions again because you have a sure fire success (even if the movie is rubbish). Producers have to be paid more because of there "Huge financial investment".
Everyone along the way charges an arm in a leg because the whole thing makes so much money and everyone wants there cut. For example advertising (kind of circular since television have to pay content providers to show their content so have to charge lots for advertising).
Let me just say that I don't think most people in the industry get paid lots, quite the opposite, it just that once in that position since the costs are so high, it is very unlikely that an unknown actor or an "original" unproven stories get made. I also do not blame the people making the big money, if you can make lots of money why not, that is what most people would do. But we need to change the system so this doesn't happen so much. It may hurt some people that that is just the cost of progress, for the common good.
These costs/profits in my opinion have not made movies more interesting but instead made an array of carbon copy movies. If you want originality go to low budget movies, because they can afford the risk. If we want true creativity restored to area we need to make making a movie accessible to everyone, by reducing the cost of production.
There a field that hides data its called Steganography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
What if your 4 year old could download a gun and print it out, now that is a bit scary.
I agree, I would just like to add if a factory can't produce it cheaper than a 3D printer then it deserves to die, since isn't that the whole point of a free market that it drives more efficient mechanisms of production?
This would make me uncomfortable, yes but I think the I should be able to say this makes me uncomfortable please don't do it and you should stop.
I would not be scarred for life, no need to sue or take any further unless you refuse to stop.
The problem is different people have different tolerances for this type of behaviour, you should always treat people with respect and try to make them feel conformable. But I only got a C in mind reading class so sometimes I assume I get it wrong.
I think there should be a onus on the person that is offended to inform the person that is offending them first. (Perhaps not when the person has direct authority over them) It is hard but sometimes in life you have to stand up of yourself. Standing up for yourself will make you feel better about yourself as well.
I believe that most people are good I think they probably don't even realise they are offending you.
So the escalation procedure should be:
1. Get offended
2. Clearly Inform the offender
3. Inform manager
4. Law suite
steps 2 and 3 should not be missed unless you where more than just offended or upset.
Or if you don't like other countries copyright laws just don't sell those countries. There would also not be any lost sales from "illegal" copying since any copying could not have lead to a sale.
See problem solved.
It is also often easier to give instructions on how to fix something using a CLI as opposed to giving screen shots of every step the user has to follow.
for example: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5291039/cant-upload-app-an-error-occurred-uploading-to-the-itunes-store on a mac no less. you can even write a script to do it.
Actually if you look and Greece you see that Germany is helping not out of some desire to help, but with self interest that if the Greek economy collapses it will not be good for the German one. Part of problem is that Greece is part of the Euro it cannot just print money like the US.
People get annoyed no matter what system you have. If a socialist system people don't get rewarded for the effort the put in so they don't try. If you have an totally free market people get used, poor rebel commit crime, get contagious diseases which even the rich can catch. Sometimes it is beneficial to work together, that is how we have the society we have today (although not perfect is much better than what we had 200 years ago).
Everything is about level of risk, if you choose to drive at night, or the rain, you are slightly tired all increase your risk of having an accident, the question is it an acceptable level of risk to impose on someone else.
The problem is that you are not a good judge of how risky it is to drive once you start drinking, so a good way to judge is have I drunk? Yes, Ok I will not drive. If you had a breath tester it might be able to ask am I below 0.04, if so I can drive. But that is not how it happens I have never seen that happen, you need an objective measure.
I agree with you that would be great,
The problem how do you implement something like that? Once some is appointed as a judge of how educated you are if they disagree with your conclusions then you may not be deemed "smart/educated enough" to vote.
I am reasonably educated in the classical sense, Masters, how educated in the sense you mean, well I know of no accurate measure. But I know I can be fooled and I know I use very limited information to make my decisions about how I vote. I know I can be wrong and my logic can be flawed. When making judgements about the economy, what's best for everyone, I don't think anybody really knows we are just making as informed guesses as we can to get a solution.
We should be teaching our kids how to think analytically but that in itself may require prescribing of structure and how to think. But how that is a much more difficult task. Basic information about the world is also useful.
Innovation Spurs Innovation, The more innovation other innovation can be based on it.
All that the graphs show is IP encourages people to file patients well Duh.
I don't think politicians have that level of reasoning why would you expect it of voters? Politicians aren't voted in on there analytical thinking skills they are voted in on there sales skills
And buy education I assume you mean brainwashing to think in a prescribed way.
The question is irrelevant, and should relate the thing you are voting on, and also be pretty much anyone who has investigated the issue can get it correct.
also a fail should simply mean go do some reading and try again. You cannot have a question that make somebody not be able to vote, just require them to put some thought into it before the do.
Everybody has the right to vote, You cannot take that away from them. I would just like it if they wouldn't if they can't be bothered finding out about the subject.
There is still value in the wheel but yes the creator (or his/her ancestors) should get nothing for it. Because the value of people being able to develop on that far outweighs the need for creator to benefit. I believe that the creator should be fairly compensated for work of course it is hard determine what is fair. To me fair is based on the effort you put in multiplied by skill/creativity involved. The problem is with intellectual property there is no limit it that too is not fair.
Ok rent seeker that produce nothing, ever wondered why magically after the patent expires an new drug comes out combining coding with paracetamol.
Disney are one of the worst, they sit around making copies of public domain works, snow white, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, ... and then campaign to get copyright extended on already existing works. Disney is a company it does not create anything that people that they employ do. Disney has made very few truly innovative things (I can't think of any doesn't mean that they don't exist) since mickey mouse. Take a know story stick a talking animal on it vola a Disney movie. You say do don't want another tetris clone well I don't want another Snow white movie.
I personally think financial motivation has very little to do with being creative, in fact there a reputable studies that show that it is actually detrimental to creativity. Real artist don't create because the are paid they do it because they love to do it.
Living of something the rest of your life, if you consider that person gifted is a waste of a life. You may think well they have the right to do it, I think of it a loss to society. I believe that the laws and rewards should be there the betterment of society and if someone doesn't get to sit on there backside or buy $25000 dollar sunglasses then so what. If the idea was the only Idea they had then find another job you are obviously not being productive they should do something else.
There are similar games, I don't no what royalties they pay, the problem is determining what exactly is similar enough that some random Judge will award a ruling. You yourself say for "a limited time" the only thing I am arguing is that 38 years sound to me like it is well over the time period that something SO innovative as tetris.