What I really don't understand is why I cannot supply my own phone and get a discount on the plan as they don't have to subsidize the equipment. I would much prefer to pay for my phone upfront (unlocked of course) and then pay a cheaper monthly subscription.
You are making several very large assumption there.
First one is why does a democracy need secrecy? Anything that is paid by the public (i.e. you and me) we should have access right? We paid for it. How do you justify public secret? Even the efficiency argument is bogus how did our secret service not know what Saddam Hussein was doing?
Second you are assuming that some agency will be able to behave itself with the worker mostly private data. This is also an incredibly big assumption. Data is very hard to destroy (ask anyone convicted on email evidence, Bill Gates for example) which mean that we will have to protect any collected data for a very long time to insure its privacy.
Actually I think you are singularly missing common sense.
If the US government start spying on "domestic" calls and email we have and uproar in Congress. If the US listen to foreign domestic conversation i.e. between Canadian in Canada (it does) nobody says anything it is not "domestic" so nobody in Congress cares. How can this be right under common sense?
Don't you think the rest of the world notice that some people are more worthy of others and act accordingly? This is just giving argument to our opponents recruiters. This is one of the worse counter productive measure from the NSA.
I find interesting that no one has pointed out that this are machine capabilities statistics, not actual potential market for a new game. It is quite well known that people with older equipment buy less add-on that people with newer machines. So 1% of brand new machines is not the same than 1% of a three year old installed base. In order to know what game to develop what is important is not the total size of each market segment but the potential sales for each market segments these are very different numbers.
Actually yes it is. I have a library of well over 100 games all legaly purchased out of which less than 20% still run on my current hardware mostly becuase of silly DRMs. Yes now I download and I have downloaded games I have purchased that run on currnet systems when my "legal" copy does not.
There is a very big difference between physical good and non physical good. For physical goods if I have it you don't so the there is no need for an artificial monopoly. To enable us exchange of goods we have created property rights and these are very different from copyrights. I will not go into why there are property rights this would be to long of a discussion.
Copyrights were created, as you properly discuss, to remunerate artist and writers because there is nothing physical to exchange. This is an un-natural monopoly were I can have a copy of your music and you have lost nothing. Because I don't pay you does not mean that the next person will not pay you. I that sense there is no spoliation. If I copy you music you you have only the potential of a gain at that instant, there is nothing that say that I would have given you money for it now or that I will not give you money for it in the future, and that is why it is so difficult. When you talk about theft there is a material act of spaliation, in copyright violation is is all intent and our legal system does not deal very well with intent. Please note that the intent of the copyright is to find a form of remuneration not to prevent others from enjoying your art.
As for the copyright holder I think they have right to some form of compensation but I am not sure that the current system which consisit at pulling a very large number of very popular artist into 4 major corporations is very efficient from a market perspective. As always when the market concentration becomes to big the market fails, this was discovered in teh 19th century and that is why the anti-trust laws were invented. What we are seeing is the market reaction to an abuse of power from the people that exploit this copyright for their own gain instead of the artists. As in the 19th century is necessary to chnage the rules so that the market can continue to function and I am not talking of abolishing copyrights but to regulate them differently from what they are today.
There are a number of things that can be done to the copyright laws. 1- It should be made clear what when you buy a piece of music you are remunerating the artist and therefore the prohibition on format change (analog->digital->CD->mp3) looks a prohibition too far. 2- Most people are honest listening to music or watching a film should be enjoyable. Why does a cartel of companyies think they can appropriate some of my time and force me to watch teh FBI warning each time I want to watch DVD? This is no market there are no DVD without the FBI warning (or so few it is not even worth mentioning). 3- If you have the copyright it should be you duty to make it public at a reasonable cost. I cannot see why we maintain the copyright of books that are out of print. Clearly the remuneration argument is not valid in that case and therefore the copyright should cease to exist. 4- Copyritght used to be 30 years and we should probably go back to this.
Those are just my ideas I am not trying to abolish copyright but to reform it. The alternative is obvious it is called bittiorrent or allofmp3 and I am sure none of the artists where remunerated.
Re:And once they stop "robbing" RIAA, sales go up?
on
Allofmp3 Shut Down, Again
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I would disagree with you. Copyright by nature is a temporary monopoly granted by the state to an artist so that he can profit form his labor. This lands the copyrightholder with mauch higher standard of behavior than other regular business. I think most of the major have forgotten why they can collect a rent money and have tilted the playing unduly to their advantage. We should remind our represenative that this is not acceptable behavior and there is a good occasion for this in the coming election.
I would tend to disagree with you Microsoft is a recognized monopoly and this means that they have some obligation. They were convicted to abusing their monopoly status once and they may be doing it again. It is not because Windows Genuine Advantage has not yet been brought to the attention of a court that it will not be, and I think there are some good reason for it, in particular on privacy and repect for other people property grounds.
What make tyou think you should use your phone while driving. This is outlawed in quite a few country around the world and it should probably be in the US too at least without a handfree set.
Onthat same note there is nothing that disturb me as much has having the taxi driver making call while driving; I am paying him to drive me safely and his personnal conversation should wait for when I am not in the car.
I would put it to a pay check comparison. A Creative pay check is probably much higher than an accountant so it make sense to minimize the down time. Also as noted they are the bread an butter of the company so it make sense to have a priority in keeping the production line humming right and let the accountants wait a bit.
Actually DST is an invention from a English Lord in 1915 that wished he could play golf in the evening. It was fist implemented by the German and immediately all of Europe followed suit, and quickly abandoned the idea after the the war. It was revived in the 1970s as an energy saving tool but the saving have never been demonstrated. The only measurable effect is on golf...
Actually yes I have talked to a lot of average Mac Users.
The situation reminds me of the 80s when Toyota introduced a new concept in the US: a car that would run reliably for 300k. With that they went on to push aside all the US manufacturer that with their crap quality and car that would break down and require large amount of maintenance. It was not that Toyotas would never break but consumer recognized that, in practice, they were running a lot more often than the competition.
The same thing is happening. Go around Mac users and all the machines, even badly maintained, are functional. You can perform all the tasks you need to without undue annoyance for unscheduled maintenance. Most users know that his Mac can break like and driver knows that his car can break, it is just that with some equipment it is more likely than with others and therefore is or is not a daily preoccupation.
You know I find your comment very rude. I am not a US citizen I do not live in the US, why would the US government have any "rights" to spy on me.
That distinction between domestic and non domestic or citizen and non citizen is extremely offensive. Why create two class of people I thought that the entire point of the human right declaration was to say that all humans would be respected.
I am also saying that keeping ID paper in order is a lot easier when you live in an affluent neighborhood than when you sleep ruff. So this is a regressive system as it put the poorer citizen at a disadvantage.
I could argue quite a few. But you are barking at the wrong tree. The real problem is efficiency.
It has been shown that human being are quite good at detecting lie when they are on their guards. The introduction of any form of ID "proof" exonerate the other party of making a assessment of the counterpart in the transaction whether it is a purchase or requesting services. The best example of this is that having cashier request ID does not reduce the level of fraud it merely cover the ass of the manager as best practice.
Justifying the ID based on fraud detection is absolute non sense. If you want to fraud building a fake ID is easy the only one that are bothered with ID control are the less favored class in our society. In short ID (paper, card, whatever) are a regressive measure that hurt most the least favored citizen.
I think I agree with you but I want to add one thing.
Laying off employees while making money and returning cash to shareholder just mean one thing: That the executives of the company are short of imagination and vision. They cannot find any good business idea to use those assets (human and money). I am an engineer and a company owner I can understand this attitude this is honesty when you cannot solve a problem stop spending your customer money. If you run out of idea free the assets so that someone more clever that you can use them.
It may be the right thing to do but this is certainly not a victory for the board. This is what in MBA school they call milking the cow. Short term strategy...
How do you decide what is the "right" charitable cause?
This is exactly my point a manager has no right to decide what is a valuable cause, he is paid to manage a corporation and therefore maximize profit. He has no authority to decide what is a "right" cause for society.
In a liberal democracy it is up to the citizen or their elected representatives to decide what is a "good cause" or not. It is certainly not up to some none elected manager or busy body that make pressure on them to decide. Go an vote.
Note: I am not rich I have a few pension funds and they are invested in shares. I need them to pay my pension one day.
What is wrong with that? You appear to imply this is a bad thing.
As a shareholder I am paying a manager to create dividents so that I can retire one day. I dont want him to give away my money. If I decide to support any charitable cause this is my decision with my own money not his with MY money.
The ancestor to Carbon is the port environment that was developper by Apple for QuickTime. and is still used today. This is never said but when you install QT on Windows you install Carbon as a side effect. You can even compile against it!! Take the include file on a Mac and compile link against the QT lib you will get a working application.
Just to say that Carbon already exist on Windows what is missing is the support.
Slashdot Mirror
What I really don't understand is why I cannot supply my own phone and get a discount on the plan as they don't have to subsidize the equipment. I would much prefer to pay for my phone upfront (unlocked of course) and then pay a cheaper monthly subscription.
You are making several very large assumption there.
First one is why does a democracy need secrecy? Anything that is paid by the public (i.e. you and me) we should have access right? We paid for it. How do you justify public secret? Even the efficiency argument is bogus how did our secret service not know what Saddam Hussein was doing?
Second you are assuming that some agency will be able to behave itself with the worker mostly private data. This is also an incredibly big assumption. Data is very hard to destroy (ask anyone convicted on email evidence, Bill Gates for example) which mean that we will have to protect any collected data for a very long time to insure its privacy.
And who would have given them the rights on others? The Pope?
Actually I think you are singularly missing common sense.
If the US government start spying on "domestic" calls and email we have and uproar in Congress. If the US listen to foreign domestic conversation i.e. between Canadian in Canada (it does) nobody says anything it is not "domestic" so nobody in Congress cares. How can this be right under common sense?
Don't you think the rest of the world notice that some people are more worthy of others and act accordingly? This is just giving argument to our opponents recruiters. This is one of the worse counter productive measure from the NSA.
I find interesting that no one has pointed out that this are machine capabilities statistics, not actual potential market for a new game. It is quite well known that people with older equipment buy less add-on that people with newer machines. So 1% of brand new machines is not the same than 1% of a three year old installed base. In order to know what game to develop what is important is not the total size of each market segment but the potential sales for each market segments these are very different numbers.
Actually yes it is. I have a library of well over 100 games all legaly purchased out of which less than 20% still run on my current hardware mostly becuase of silly DRMs. Yes now I download and I have downloaded games I have purchased that run on currnet systems when my "legal" copy does not.
I don't think I explained my self very well.
There is a very big difference between physical good and non physical good. For physical goods if I have it you don't so the there is no need for an artificial monopoly. To enable us exchange of goods we have created property rights and these are very different from copyrights. I will not go into why there are property rights this would be to long of a discussion.
Copyrights were created, as you properly discuss, to remunerate artist and writers because there is nothing physical to exchange. This is an un-natural monopoly were I can have a copy of your music and you have lost nothing. Because I don't pay you does not mean that the next person will not pay you. I that sense there is no spoliation. If I copy you music you you have only the potential of a gain at that instant, there is nothing that say that I would have given you money for it now or that I will not give you money for it in the future, and that is why it is so difficult. When you talk about theft there is a material act of spaliation, in copyright violation is is all intent and our legal system does not deal very well with intent. Please note that the intent of the copyright is to find a form of remuneration not to prevent others from enjoying your art.
As for the copyright holder I think they have right to some form of compensation but I am not sure that the current system which consisit at pulling a very large number of very popular artist into 4 major corporations is very efficient from a market perspective. As always when the market concentration becomes to big the market fails, this was discovered in teh 19th century and that is why the anti-trust laws were invented. What we are seeing is the market reaction to an abuse of power from the people that exploit this copyright for their own gain instead of the artists. As in the 19th century is necessary to chnage the rules so that the market can continue to function and I am not talking of abolishing copyrights but to regulate them differently from what they are today.
There are a number of things that can be done to the copyright laws.
1- It should be made clear what when you buy a piece of music you are remunerating the artist and therefore the prohibition on format change (analog->digital->CD->mp3) looks a prohibition too far.
2- Most people are honest listening to music or watching a film should be enjoyable. Why does a cartel of companyies think they can appropriate some of my time and force me to watch teh FBI warning each time I want to watch DVD? This is no market there are no DVD without the FBI warning (or so few it is not even worth mentioning).
3- If you have the copyright it should be you duty to make it public at a reasonable cost. I cannot see why we maintain the copyright of books that are out of print. Clearly the remuneration argument is not valid in that case and therefore the copyright should cease to exist.
4- Copyritght used to be 30 years and we should probably go back to this.
Those are just my ideas I am not trying to abolish copyright but to reform it. The alternative is obvious it is called bittiorrent or allofmp3 and I am sure none of the artists where remunerated.
I would disagree with you. Copyright by nature is a temporary monopoly granted by the state to an artist so that he can profit form his labor. This lands the copyrightholder with mauch higher standard of behavior than other regular business. I think most of the major have forgotten why they can collect a rent money and have tilted the playing unduly to their advantage. We should remind our represenative that this is not acceptable behavior and there is a good occasion for this in the coming election.
I would tend to disagree with you Microsoft is a recognized monopoly and this means that they have some obligation. They were convicted to abusing their monopoly status once and they may be doing it again. It is not because Windows Genuine Advantage has not yet been brought to the attention of a court that it will not be, and I think there are some good reason for it, in particular on privacy and repect for other people property grounds.
What make tyou think you should use your phone while driving. This is outlawed in quite a few country around the world and it should probably be in the US too at least without a handfree set.
Onthat same note there is nothing that disturb me as much has having the taxi driver making call while driving; I am paying him to drive me safely and his personnal conversation should wait for when I am not in the car.
I would put it to a pay check comparison. A Creative pay check is probably much higher than an accountant so it make sense to minimize the down time. Also as noted they are the bread an butter of the company so it make sense to have a priority in keeping the production line humming right and let the accountants wait a bit.
Actually DST is an invention from a English Lord in 1915 that wished he could play golf in the evening. It was fist implemented by the German and immediately all of Europe followed suit, and quickly abandoned the idea after the the war. It was revived in the 1970s as an energy saving tool but the saving have never been demonstrated. The only measurable effect is on golf...
Actually yes I have talked to a lot of average Mac Users.
The situation reminds me of the 80s when Toyota introduced a new concept in the US: a car that would run reliably for 300k. With that they went on to push aside all the US manufacturer that with their crap quality and car that would break down and require large amount of maintenance. It was not that Toyotas would never break but consumer recognized that, in practice, they were running a lot more often than the competition.
The same thing is happening. Go around Mac users and all the machines, even badly maintained, are functional. You can perform all the tasks you need to without undue annoyance for unscheduled maintenance. Most users know that his Mac can break like and driver knows that his car can break, it is just that with some equipment it is more likely than with others and therefore is or is not a daily preoccupation.
The art of Taxation consists of so plucking the goose as to obtain the greatest amount of feathers with the least amount of hissing.
Jean Baptiste Colbert (French Economist and Minister of Finance under King Louis XIV of France. 1619-1683)
You know I find your comment very rude. I am not a US citizen I do not live in the US, why would the US government have any "rights" to spy on me.
That distinction between domestic and non domestic or citizen and non citizen is extremely offensive. Why create two class of people I thought that the entire point of the human right declaration was to say that all humans would be respected.
I am not talking about rights???
I am disclaiming the efficiency of an ID system.
I am also saying that keeping ID paper in order is a lot easier when you live in an affluent neighborhood than when you sleep ruff. So this is a regressive system as it put the poorer citizen at a disadvantage.
I could argue quite a few. But you are barking at the wrong tree. The real problem is efficiency.
It has been shown that human being are quite good at detecting lie when they are on their guards. The introduction of any form of ID "proof" exonerate the other party of making a assessment of the counterpart in the transaction whether it is a purchase or requesting services. The best example of this is that having cashier request ID does not reduce the level of fraud it merely cover the ass of the manager as best practice.
Justifying the ID based on fraud detection is absolute non sense. If you want to fraud building a fake ID is easy the only one that are bothered with ID control are the less favored class in our society. In short ID (paper, card, whatever) are a regressive measure that hurt most the least favored citizen.
I think I agree with you but I want to add one thing.
Laying off employees while making money and returning cash to shareholder just mean one thing: That the executives of the company are short of imagination and vision. They cannot find any good business idea to use those assets (human and money). I am an engineer and a company owner I can understand this attitude this is honesty when you cannot solve a problem stop spending your customer money. If you run out of idea free the assets so that someone more clever that you can use them.
It may be the right thing to do but this is certainly not a victory for the board. This is what in MBA school they call milking the cow. Short term strategy...
Actually you have a point. French as in French Fries comes from the old English word to Trench (cut) and has nothing to do with France.
The liberty Fries only exist because of some legistator wanted to show his knowledge to the world -:)
How do you decide what is the "right" charitable cause?
This is exactly my point a manager has no right to decide what is a valuable cause, he is paid to manage a corporation and therefore maximize profit. He has no authority to decide what is a "right" cause for society.
In a liberal democracy it is up to the citizen or their elected representatives to decide what is a "good cause" or not. It is certainly not up to some none elected manager or busy body that make pressure on them to decide. Go an vote.
Note: I am not rich I have a few pension funds and they are invested in shares. I need them to pay my pension one day.
What is wrong with that? You appear to imply this is a bad thing.
As a shareholder I am paying a manager to create dividents so that I can retire one day. I dont want him to give away my money. If I decide to support any charitable cause this is my decision with my own money not his with MY money.
The Battle of Hastings 1066
May be you should do a bit of research.
The ancestor to Carbon is the port environment that was developper by Apple for QuickTime. and is still used today. This is never said but when you install QT on Windows you install Carbon as a side effect. You can even compile against it!! Take the include file on a Mac and compile link against the QT lib you will get a working application.
Just to say that Carbon already exist on Windows what is missing is the support.
There is an intersting concept here why do we need to restart a computer. Why not devise devices that just work when solicited.
May be you should revise your physics
The SI tempature unit is Kelvin not centigrade.