And putting reflectors on existing light-sources is a far less efficient manner of dealing with this than making glow-in-UV-light trees... which will need to be uncovered in daylight because otherwise they won't get enough light.
Yes we get it, gold nanoparticles make cool effects - but they will do absolutly nothing else - its not cheaper, environmentally friendly or reduces light pollution.
Well, if the semantic web starts off, you won't need websites anymore - because you'd just ask your favourite software agent "I want to buy a Brand X cheap t-shirt", press a button and it'll scour the machine-readable servers on the internet and purchase it for you automatically.
I don't see this happening in 5 years though - people are too lazy.
1. Every person who downloaded it was going to purchase it for the price at that period of time. 2. If she was unable to spread the file, every person who downloaded it would have purchased it. 3. That by spreading the file, no extra profit was generated due to popularity increase or whatever
That's the biggest problem. The 14 year old kid who uses his parents' internet connection to download gigabits of mp3s, would probably not have purchased any of them.
It might sound a bit strange at first glance - but why should it?
Should I be demanding a large amount of money for my hobby of shearing sheep into attractive patterns? Why is it that the entertainment industry should be this huge and powerful entity? Who said that music or other art should be sold at such a high price - or at any price at all?
Basic economics - If people value your product at price X, sell it at price X. Times are a-changing. Maybe music should be much cheaper. Maybe the majority of music should be free. The busker who's strumming a guitar and gets some euros every day is working in a model similar to this. When we sat around campfires and told stories to one another, it worked like that as well.
Industries come and go, and lose and gain power. Maybe its time to rethink the entertainment industry?
Perhaps because he does not view the product/service as being worth the price it is being offered at. Perhaps in his opinion it should have been less. Perhaps he does not think that 'rich-music-company' deserves his money. Perhaps if there was no internet, he would have gone without.
There's a degree of 'fuzziness' in this , its not all black and white.
I just bought a cd a few days ago. I know I can easily get it illegally on the internet, but I decided that this band was worthy of my support, and deserved money because of it.
The biggest question is: Does the entertainment industry HAVE to rake in so many billions of euros each year? Do all the popular artists have to own private jets? Who decided that? Economics dictates that the price of an object should be in relation to its perceived value - therefore if people are pirating stuff , should not the prices (and the profits) be reduced considerably?
Because its a civil case instead of a legal one. In the shoplifting example, you pay the fine to the government because you broke the law. In this case the RIAA is claiming that you infringed their rights by filesharing - and are therefore liable to compensation based upon your actions.
No, its meant to show what a very large value the "Hourly Rate" turns out to be when you sell thousands of copies - and yet want more. Its meant to show a bit of proportion to everything - we're not stealing a starving person's 4 dollars an hour here - we're talking about having an N of a few thousand dollars being reduced by the evil filesharing*
*Ignoring such things as popularity - the market's feeling towards your policies and ASSUMING that filesharing causes a net decrease in profits. Citation still needed for this.
Why would anybody go through the trouble and expense to create quality movies, tv, music, books, software etc if it's legal to just take the end product without paying?
I don't know, but yet there are quite a few works released under Creative Commons, or one of the Open Source Licenses. Some people are motivated by more than just dollars. Other people wouldn't mind putting a "Tip Jar" and people who like their work can tip them.
Why not try to get some hourly rates then ? People are still selling Elvis (and other 'classic') music for money - its going to be a huge N, being distributed over a number of different people. Is the amount of effort worth this very large price? Because the entertainment industry seems to be producing a hell of a lot of rich people.
Therefore, for your final answer - yes I do. It gets even worse when obtaining this "1000 x $N" (where N is a very large number) involves suing people who like listening to your work, and who may or may not have purchased other albums, or had plans to do so in the future.
What about the people who get a copy of the song X illegally from a friend, and decide that they like the group and decide to support them? It will not have been the first time that this happened - and for 'smaller' bands, its how they would actually function - through the social aspect. I know a band which actually threw a huge amount of songs as free downloads on their site - are they losing money because of it? In the long run, perhaps not - because aside from giving people a good 'dose' to get to like the band, they are also looking like the 'nice guys' and worthy to be supported finantially.
Slashdot Mirror
Because we're nerds, and we always look for the overly complicated solution to every problem.
"We're sorry :( "
"My plane broke down, I just need some juice to get the engine started again"
Where can I get one for myself...
And putting reflectors on existing light-sources is a far less efficient manner of dealing with this than making glow-in-UV-light trees... which will need to be uncovered in daylight because otherwise they won't get enough light.
Yes we get it, gold nanoparticles make cool effects - but they will do absolutly nothing else - its not cheaper, environmentally friendly or reduces light pollution.
Why not like stick a solar panel on top to power a few LEDs as the lightpost?
I'm pretty sure its cheaper and more environmentally friendly then inserting Gold Nanoparticles and then shining light with a specific wavelenght.
...this article is on Like Donkey Kong. (TM)
Well, if the semantic web starts off, you won't need websites anymore - because you'd just ask your favourite software agent "I want to buy a Brand X cheap t-shirt", press a button and it'll scour the machine-readable servers on the internet and purchase it for you automatically.
I don't see this happening in 5 years though - people are too lazy.
And today COD:MW Black Ops came out. Coincidence!?
I'm pretty sure with the fact that they can be disassembled, anything you break (or want to upgrade) could be slotted in easily.
I wonder why nobody else thought of this concept before. Size matters?
You actually think that they bought Sun for their software?
Its all about the patents. So they can sue larger companies for making Android.
Does this extend also to films? Or will we use other WMDs for that?
That assumes that:
1. Every person who downloaded it was going to purchase it for the price at that period of time.
2. If she was unable to spread the file, every person who downloaded it would have purchased it.
3. That by spreading the file, no extra profit was generated due to popularity increase or whatever
That's the biggest problem. The 14 year old kid who uses his parents' internet connection to download gigabits of mp3s, would probably not have purchased any of them.
Does it matter?
It might sound a bit strange at first glance - but why should it?
Should I be demanding a large amount of money for my hobby of shearing sheep into attractive patterns? Why is it that the entertainment industry should be this huge and powerful entity? Who said that music or other art should be sold at such a high price - or at any price at all?
Basic economics - If people value your product at price X, sell it at price X. Times are a-changing. Maybe music should be much cheaper. Maybe the majority of music should be free. The busker who's strumming a guitar and gets some euros every day is working in a model similar to this. When we sat around campfires and told stories to one another, it worked like that as well.
Industries come and go, and lose and gain power. Maybe its time to rethink the entertainment industry?
Perhaps because he does not view the product/service as being worth the price it is being offered at. Perhaps in his opinion it should have been less. Perhaps he does not think that 'rich-music-company' deserves his money. Perhaps if there was no internet, he would have gone without.
There's a degree of 'fuzziness' in this , its not all black and white.
"Just because it is illegal to copy something, doesn't mean that it would require internet filtering and surveillance."
So, pray, tell, how you're going to catch someone who's doing so? Randomly checking his hard-disks?
But mix-tapes killed the recording industry :(
I just bought a cd a few days ago. I know I can easily get it illegally on the internet, but I decided that this band was worthy of my support, and deserved money because of it.
The biggest question is: Does the entertainment industry HAVE to rake in so many billions of euros each year? Do all the popular artists have to own private jets? Who decided that? Economics dictates that the price of an object should be in relation to its perceived value - therefore if people are pirating stuff , should not the prices (and the profits) be reduced considerably?
Because its a civil case instead of a legal one. In the shoplifting example, you pay the fine to the government because you broke the law. In this case the RIAA is claiming that you infringed their rights by filesharing - and are therefore liable to compensation based upon your actions.
No, its meant to show what a very large value the "Hourly Rate" turns out to be when you sell thousands of copies - and yet want more. Its meant to show a bit of proportion to everything - we're not stealing a starving person's 4 dollars an hour here - we're talking about having an N of a few thousand dollars being reduced by the evil filesharing*
*Ignoring such things as popularity - the market's feeling towards your policies and ASSUMING that filesharing causes a net decrease in profits. Citation still needed for this.
Why would anybody go through the trouble and expense to create quality movies, tv, music, books, software etc if it's legal to just take the end product without paying?
I don't know, but yet there are quite a few works released under Creative Commons, or one of the Open Source Licenses. Some people are motivated by more than just dollars. Other people wouldn't mind putting a "Tip Jar" and people who like their work can tip them.
Why not try to get some hourly rates then ? People are still selling Elvis (and other 'classic') music for money - its going to be a huge N, being distributed over a number of different people. Is the amount of effort worth this very large price? Because the entertainment industry seems to be producing a hell of a lot of rich people.
Therefore, for your final answer - yes I do. It gets even worse when obtaining this "1000 x $N" (where N is a very large number) involves suing people who like listening to your work, and who may or may not have purchased other albums, or had plans to do so in the future.
Yes but what about the gains?
What about the people who get a copy of the song X illegally from a friend, and decide that they like the group and decide to support them? It will not have been the first time that this happened - and for 'smaller' bands, its how they would actually function - through the social aspect. I know a band which actually threw a huge amount of songs as free downloads on their site - are they losing money because of it? In the long run, perhaps not - because aside from giving people a good 'dose' to get to like the band, they are also looking like the 'nice guys' and worthy to be supported finantially.
The fact that human labor is valued by the ability to continue to reap money without doing much work is rather disgusting.
You're not earning any money from posting here - I suggest that you stop.
Linux isn't a 'destruction of value of human labor'
Neither are so many open source, and creative-commons released works.
In fact, when you put your heart and soul into your work because it satisfies you - instead of wanting money - you will often produce better work.