I play in classical orchestras and we need to pay for rights to perform a work. Once or twice this has meant that we did not play the piece we wanted, because we thought the fees were beyond us. But when we do pay, the money goes to the composer. Composers also are paid if we commision a new work, and while many modern works nowadays are only performed a few times, I think composers need every penny they can get. If we want composers we need to protect their copyrights.
In general, you're right. We could make music free. Popular music wouldn't die away. Nowadays amateur hobbyists have the resources to do what used to require big companies with lots of money. But, if we want professional artists, then we need to protect their copyrights.
I love this really dumb argument that we shouldn't have too many choices. We should have only one car company, one airline, one oil company,.... That way we would always know for sure which one was best. Is this just a tech problem with micosoft or are all consumers fools?
mathematicians and scientists have their own languages
Where did you get this idea? Scientists and mathematicians speak and write English like everyone else (except chemists speak German). They define new words but they don't often define new syntactical constructs.
Actually it states every 24-36 months transistor count will double. Since clock speed is proportional to transistor count by Almgren's Theorem, the statements are equivalent (one might say that the theorems were discovered independently).
And in a few more years, Moore's Law will say that every 36-48 months processor speed will double; basically, it's how well you can fit a curve to a graph.
Actually, yes, that's a good point. I'm not sure whether that could have biased him because I don't know the numbers but it's certainly possible.
On the other hand, Buffett wasn't the only one to endorse the ad (actually, he didn't sign it, but he was quoted in the Times as saying he thought it didn't go far enough -- or something to that effect). I bet that most of the people on the list had nothing to do with insurance.
You say the top 1% in this country pay 23% of the federal tax bill. You seem to be suggesting that they should pay only 1%; that's only fair, right?
But what you don't say is that the top 1% in this country have 90% of the wealth! The bottom 50% have about 5% of the wealth. So if they're paying 4% of the taxes, then they are paying their fair share easy. And the taxes on the top 1% should be quadrupled.
So sorry, but it is not "fair" that the rich should pay so much less in taxes when they have a greatly disproportionate amount of wealth. It is unfair for all the rest of us.
I think this post was a joke. The "search for 'knowledge'" -- what is 'knowledge' or why is it in quotes? Why was this moderated insightful? Some people take themselves too seriously.
Everyone on/. is (of course) worried about this, because they think now the government will take encryption away from them.
But the more basic, direct point is that encryption in the wrong hands can be dangerous. This is a fact: none of us want Osama's life to be any easier. It may not be possible to stop him from using encryption, with his very sophisticated global network, but encryption regulations would restrict less well-financed criminal operations. To me, this is a very tangible good.
I think/. folks shouldn't just have a knee-jerk reaction but should try to think of reasonable government encryption regulation. Key escrow certainly could be reasonable.
Now I know most of us use encryption not because we need it but because we like feeling that we're more powerful than the government, but for lots of encryption uses, key escrow isn't so bad. That's just my opinion; what do you guys think?
One objection to this is that, by regulating encryption, we are changing are very society, and thus giving terrorists like bin Laden a victory. I don't really agree, but this is a reasonable point of view.
Another poster commented that chemistry should be restricted, and perhaps it should be in the sense that large fertilizer sales should be tracked (eg., by inserting chemical "tags" into the fertilizer).
Apple's OS is the Real Thing. Sure you can skin Windows or Linux so it looks like a Mac, but those are just cheap, low-quality imitations. Or so Apple's advertising would have to go if knock-off interfaces were legal. And their advertisitng is already overly elitist*.
Why does this always come up on Slashdot? I know we all care about free speech but I don't think Apple is posing such a serious threat to us. Apple is paranoid, yes, but they have good reason to be, from their experience with Microsoft. Apple sells a look & feel for an OS. Should anyone be free to copy it?
I want Apple to stay in business and keep on innovating; everyone else is just trying to copy each other. At least it sometimes seems like that.
I think the government only takes your taxes at gunpoint if you're in some fundamentalist cult. Most of our taxes go to social security, then defense. You seem to be calling this "welfare."
Okay, I just realized there's no point arguing with someone who makes blanketing (and false) generalizations. Oh well.
I have no trouble with blaming the GOP and their "Let them eat cake" policies toward California (see Krugman's editorial in today's Times). It's all a representation issue: Bush got elected because Californians are underrepresented in national government. Now the federal government won't lift a finger to help California out (for example by price caps or many other options). Why? Because Californians are underrepresented.
This government buys heating oil for the Northeast; why is it okay for national politicians like Bush to simply ignore California?
You know, Apple's iMacs are still using G3's. I thought that Apple had fallen behind in the MHz battles, but really... to think that a telephone has as much processing power as an iMac.:(
The operating expenses are quite high, actually. More importantly, there is still a huge debt to be serviced. Motorola and the government should let it die. Especially the government which has no reason for being involved anyway. Spend your money supporting up-and-coming companies, not companies on the brink of death.
Why do you think that using linked lists and binary trees can only be done in console applications? In my CS classes I wrote some pretty sophisticated algorithms that nonetheless had polished UIs. The two aren't mututally exclusive; they are complementary. It is fun to write a nice UI for a nice program (if you have a nice API:).
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, wait.
This isn't really accurate. Cocoa apps (like Mail) are generally found to be fast enough. Carbon apps (like IE and the Finder) are pretty slow.
Another one is that IE performs really badly in its beta-carbonized form
On the bright side, there are lots of alternatives to IE. You can use OmniWeb, iCab, Netscape, the classic version of IE, and -- eventually -- Opera.
And -- newly arrived on the Macintosh -- you can now browse with lynx!
Open-sourced. Or maby be will not be.
In general, you're right. We could make music free. Popular music wouldn't die away. Nowadays amateur hobbyists have the resources to do what used to require big companies with lots of money. But, if we want professional artists, then we need to protect their copyrights.
... and this in itself seems to be pretty firm evidence for the greenhouse effect. :)
... and this in itself seems to be pretty firm evidence for the greenhouse effect. :)
I love this really dumb argument that we shouldn't have too many choices. We should have only one car company, one airline, one oil company, .... That way we would always know for sure which one was best. Is this just a tech problem with micosoft or are all consumers fools?
Where did you get this idea? Scientists and mathematicians speak and write English like everyone else (except chemists speak German). They define new words but they don't often define new syntactical constructs.
And in a few more years, Moore's Law will say that every 36-48 months processor speed will double; basically, it's how well you can fit a curve to a graph.
On the other hand, Buffett wasn't the only one to endorse the ad (actually, he didn't sign it, but he was quoted in the Times as saying he thought it didn't go far enough -- or something to that effect). I bet that most of the people on the list had nothing to do with insurance.
But what you don't say is that the top 1% in this country have 90% of the wealth! The bottom 50% have about 5% of the wealth. So if they're paying 4% of the taxes, then they are paying their fair share easy. And the taxes on the top 1% should be quadrupled.
So sorry, but it is not "fair" that the rich should pay so much less in taxes when they have a greatly disproportionate amount of wealth. It is unfair for all the rest of us.
I think this post was a joke. The "search for 'knowledge'" -- what is 'knowledge' or why is it in quotes? Why was this moderated insightful? Some people take themselves too seriously.
I mean out.
But the more basic, direct point is that encryption in the wrong hands can be dangerous. This is a fact: none of us want Osama's life to be any easier. It may not be possible to stop him from using encryption, with his very sophisticated global network, but encryption regulations would restrict less well-financed criminal operations. To me, this is a very tangible good.
I think /. folks shouldn't just have a knee-jerk reaction but should try to think of reasonable government encryption regulation. Key escrow certainly could be reasonable.
Now I know most of us use encryption not because we need it but because we like feeling that we're more powerful than the government, but for lots of encryption uses, key escrow isn't so bad. That's just my opinion; what do you guys think?
One objection to this is that, by regulating encryption, we are changing are very society, and thus giving terrorists like bin Laden a victory. I don't really agree, but this is a reasonable point of view.
Another poster commented that chemistry should be restricted, and perhaps it should be in the sense that large fertilizer sales should be tracked (eg., by inserting chemical "tags" into the fertilizer).
Why does this always come up on Slashdot? I know we all care about free speech but I don't think Apple is posing such a serious threat to us. Apple is paranoid, yes, but they have good reason to be, from their experience with Microsoft. Apple sells a look & feel for an OS. Should anyone be free to copy it?
I want Apple to stay in business and keep on innovating; everyone else is just trying to copy each other. At least it sometimes seems like that.
*Yes, you can be overly elitist.
Okay, I just realized there's no point arguing with someone who makes blanketing (and false) generalizations. Oh well.
This government buys heating oil for the Northeast; why is it okay for national politicians like Bush to simply ignore California?
We should secede!
(And, just for the sake of argument,) I think Ashcroft probably does have an opinion on the Microsoft case; it's Bush who doesn't have a clue. :)
:)
Hear, hear. He sounds like an interesting guy.
The operating expenses are quite high, actually. More importantly, there is still a huge debt to be serviced. Motorola and the government should let it die. Especially the government which has no reason for being involved anyway. Spend your money supporting up-and-coming companies, not companies on the brink of death.
Joe Average mac user may not know about it or care but some of the other mac users might. And this helps bsd.
Why do you think that using linked lists and binary trees can only be done in console applications? In my CS classes I wrote some pretty sophisticated algorithms that nonetheless had polished UIs. The two aren't mututally exclusive; they are complementary. It is fun to write a nice UI for a nice program (if you have a nice API :).