I'd take C++ over java or objective C any day. =)
Has nothing to do with the hype. Having programmed with all three:
The Java language gets in the way, Objective C is very convoluted to do simple things like concatenate strings.
I'm not saying C++ is perfect, nor am I saying that either Java or Objective C are bad. It's just harder for me to produce easily readable code with them, and I can do the same things with less code (most of the time) with C++.
It's actually simple economics. Since the supply is infinite, the price goes to zero. Therefore there is one and only one reason to pay the artist, you want them to produce more music. I've spent more money on shows and merchandise than I ever would have spent on music. This is a direct result of downloading both legal and 'illegal' music. I know I can get music for free, and I may even have already downloaded the album for free. But if I'm at a show, it's entirely likely that I'll buy a cd (depending on the artist). The only time I'll buy the cd is when I know the money is going directly to the artist. No label in the middle.
The economic part of this is that more artists will die off quickly. You may find that to be a bad thing. Economics, however, dictates that the only artists who fail and don't get any money for their troubles will be the artists who society determined weren't any good. See, if tons of people download their songs because they are immensely popular and really good, then tons more people will go to shows, buy merchandise, buy albums just to support the artists. Will there be a bunch of people who manage to freeload and gain the benefits of everyone else supporting the artist? Of course, but that's life. We all benefit from culture regardless of who foots the bill for it. A few of the most successful artists I know of release all of their music under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license. This means, for strange slashdotters who don't know, that it is completely free to download all their music and play it for personal use, you just cannot gain commercially for their music. People post youtube videos of their shows, put up their music. They even put up their music. Why are they so successful? Because as a direct result of embracing the culture of sharing, they gained tons of free publicity. They leverage the free videos, content, and stuff that people put online as a means to get people to come down to the show and buy tickets. As a way of getting people to buy shirts, posters, etc.
They survive because enough people have decided they are really good and deserve to continue making their music, and thus give them money either buy paying for the shows or donating. They chose a price that the market was willing to pay them and it has. The value for music is not in the recordings. The value for any person who enjoys and loves music is in seeing the artist perform live. It's in getting their autograph.
I'm a software engineer. I don't finish a piece of software for the company and relax on the sales and royalties, I need to continue to work to continue to get paid. Why should an artist be any different? Make one recording and make money on it forever? How is that fair? They should continue to work, whether it is to produce more music or just to perform in person often. I'm not saying it's easy, but everyone continues to say "there is no free lunch" in regards to the downloading of music. Why can't I tell the artists that there is no free lunch in regards to their music. They can't just make one album and expect to live off of it for ever. They shouldn't. They should have to continue to work to continue to make money. For those who ask, "what about recuping money for the time invested in coming up with the music?" that's what the live shows are for. The income someone gets from a live show is due more to the time they spent coming up with the music then the actual performance itself. If they hadn't spent the time to come up with it, then they wouldn't have anything to perform =).
Studies have shown that artists are making more money on average today than they ever have, yet music sales have gone down. The answer that most studies have shown is that live performance sales have gone up. Aside from the economic recession causing people to buy less and try to get more bang for their buck, as it were, this can also be attributed to music downloads getting more people than ever to hear about certain music. Then going and seeking out shows which get the artist money.
I believe he means that he wants the burden for gathering evidence/policing/actively enforcing copyright to stay upon the rights owners. That 3rd party commercial businesses should not be involved in it. I agree with this. ISP's should not police it, search engines should not have to police it. It should stay as the law states, the rights holders are the ones who must enforce, police, and send take down requests.
you don't need a smartphone to have friends. In fact I didn't get my first cell phone until I had gotten my driver's license. My parents got it for me with the reasoning that I should always have it when I'm driving in case something happens. Would I have used a cell phone before then? sure. Was I a social outcast as a result? Nope. In fact a lot of these problems such as sexting, kids texting in class rather than paying attention, etc. are caused because they have a cell phone that they don't need. If your kid doesn't have a need for the cell phone beyond calling/texting friends, then they don't need a cell phone.
Man is flawed. This is established in pretty much all major religions. God's word was written down by man to form the bible. Therefore the bible must be flawed and cannot be the "One True Word of God". People will quibble over which parts are correct and which are not. Portions will be added and portions will be removed. However it is impossible to claim that everything in the bible is actually the word of god, since it cannot be proved what are and what are not the portions which are flawed. At best the bible is a collection or orated stories passed down by those who believe themselves important enough to claim to know the word of god.
Not that I know of. I have a nice pink piece of paper that says I own the car, how much I paid and how much came from the loan. Under law I own the car. That's why it's called 'repossessing' when you fail to pay your loan. The Loan company claims ownership. You don't have to claim ownership if you already have it."
When I buy a car, the loan company "subsidizes" the purchase of the car in return for me paying them back the money they put up front. However, the dealership retains no ownership rights to the car even while I'm still paying it off. In fact the only way I lose ownership of the car is if I fail to continue to pay. Why should it be different for a smartphone? The phone is mine when I purchase it regardless of the subsidization. Instead of repossessing like they do with cars, they just charge the ETF. Thus the phone is mine to do what I please with. The carrier has no ownership over the device regardless of subsidization.
I don't seem to have as much faith in the market as you because when the market invents its competition. The larger monopoly company will just buy up all the competition again. Once a trust happens, there is no way without government or mismanagement for the trust to be broken up. Every time competition arises, it will simply be gobbled up by the existing monopoly preventing any new competitors from staying in the market. Not only that, but the large monopoly with more resources would then be able to abuse its monopoly to grow into other industries.
Again, I'm not saying that all regulation is good. I'm not saying that every government interaction with the economy is good. What I am saying, is that both extremes are bad. Too much government regulation and too little government regulation will both be bad for consumers.
So, price fixing, trust building, and cartels couldn't possibly exist without government?
Without government regulations, larger companies would just buy up all their competitors until competition ceased. Thus creating a monopoly. If any competitor can just be bought out due to an established company being big enough with no anti-trust regulation, then nothing can prevent the monopoly that the company would have.
You seem to forget the example you're using, AT&T, was knocked off of its Monopoly when Ma Bell was broken up by the government. I don't pretend that government doesn't cause problems. However, the "Free Market" does not fix everything. The Free Market wouldn't prevent a company with large influence in one industry from using it in a different industry to hinder competition. Anti-trust laws do.
The difference is the idea that EA had to change this facet of a game to appease people who weren't going to buy the game anyways. It means that we can expect game developers, in this case at least EA, to not push the envelope. That they will avoid topics that may possibly be perceived as "offensive" whether they be tangential to the game (like them being named Taliban) or integral to a plot for a game. If people are willing to buy your game, why should you have to censor yourself or change some facet, large or small, of your game to prevent 'offending' anyone? Put it out as is and if enough people buy it, great. Why change the meaning of the game for some of your audience because a number of people, most of which won't ever play your game anyways, are 'offended' by it.
It's just damn stupid and bad for games if this behavior becomes common place.
How would you like it if someone made a game about a murderer that went on a killing spree and happened to kill your family? Do you think you wouldn't complain at all?
I would express that I would not buy the game due to the memories it would bring up. That's about it. Why? Would you try to get the game banned and interfere with other people's ability to enjoy a game?
Competition in wireless pretty much negates the need for much regulation there.
Except, ya know. When every one of the wireless providers follows suit and caps their data plans. And when every one of the wireless providers start providing "priority" service on the wireless networks. From what I've seen, I don't see as much competition as people seem to think there is in wireless. Now, if we removed the carrier lock that keeps happening....we might have that competition....
There is no incentive for an ISP to do that though. They can make more money by doing it this way and if all the ISPs band together to do this, they all make money. No government in the economy at all? Monopolies would form and abuse the market. Cartels would form and abuse the market. "Free Market" with no regulations is by no means "Free". Not every industry has competition to force it to follow the market.
How about an example where a patent has stifled innovation
You can point to the MPEG LA as attempting to stifle innovation by claiming that Theora and WebM violate patents, if they do eventually sue and win, then it is quite obvious they are stifling innovation.
Oracle vs Google, if Oracle wins the lawsuit it will be stifling innovation.
All of the small companies that have died due to patents or all of the innovations that will never come to fruition due to patents. That's stifling innovation.
All the lawsuits flying about in the mobile space with Apple/HTC/Nokia, all of the lawsuits are attempts at stifling innovation.
It's very simple, especially when it comes to software. Any good product is a good idea that consists of using or improving on something that came before it in a specific way. If you remove the ability for people to say 'Hey, that's a good idea. But what if you did this with it?' then you stifle innovation. This isn't a case of making a derivative of a patent or implementing it a different way or what not that would be allowed. I'm talking about using an idea that is currently patented as a part of another idea. If you can't afford to license the patent, or have nothing of enough value to cross-license, then you simply cannot move forward with your idea. How is that not stifling innovation?
Gah, "Free software" does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean "give away the software for free." Even using the GPL with FLOSS you are completely at will to charge for your software and no one will look down on you for it.
Just because the result is the same, it doesn't mean the actions are.
Scenario 1:
You jump off a bridge
You die
Scenario 2:
I push you off a bridge
You die
The net difference is I don't go to jail for murder. If you weren't going to kill yourself anyways, then nothing wrong happened since you were going to die anyways. By your logic I shouldn't go to jail for murder. However, if you were going to kill yourself anyways, and I killed you before you did. Then it would be the same as you just killing yourself, except I beat you too it. Clearly it's obvious that suicide is the same as murder, how can you disagree?
Not to make light of either suicide or murder, but I think my point is made. The end result is not the only thing that matters in a given situation. You not getting paid is NOT the same as stealing because...I didn't steal that $20 from you.
They are saying nothing of hurting those that don't pay.
It's simple network management. If you prioritize one source of packets and the network reaches a saturation point, the mere fact that you've prioritized one means you have to de-prioritize others. There's limited resources, if you always send Company A's packets before you send Company B's, then Company B will have degraded service.
Also, TFA said so:
... senior executives from BT and TalkTalk said they would be happy to put selected apps into the fast lane, at the expense of their rivals.
Hmm, I wonder what 'expense of their rivals' means....
The difference here is that the episode of Stargate is already copyrighted. Therefore distributing my legal copy would be violating the copyright of SyFy who owns the copyright to Stargate.
You own no copyright to the message you left on my voicemail because you can't copyright spoken conversation. Therefore there's no copyright issue here. You consented to being recorded, therefore live with the consequences of it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you need to raise the price of your app....nothing is stopping you. If you think it's worth that much.....
I'd take C++ over java or objective C any day. =) Has nothing to do with the hype. Having programmed with all three: The Java language gets in the way, Objective C is very convoluted to do simple things like concatenate strings. I'm not saying C++ is perfect, nor am I saying that either Java or Objective C are bad. It's just harder for me to produce easily readable code with them, and I can do the same things with less code (most of the time) with C++.
It's actually simple economics. Since the supply is infinite, the price goes to zero. Therefore there is one and only one reason to pay the artist, you want them to produce more music. I've spent more money on shows and merchandise than I ever would have spent on music. This is a direct result of downloading both legal and 'illegal' music. I know I can get music for free, and I may even have already downloaded the album for free. But if I'm at a show, it's entirely likely that I'll buy a cd (depending on the artist). The only time I'll buy the cd is when I know the money is going directly to the artist. No label in the middle.
The economic part of this is that more artists will die off quickly. You may find that to be a bad thing. Economics, however, dictates that the only artists who fail and don't get any money for their troubles will be the artists who society determined weren't any good. See, if tons of people download their songs because they are immensely popular and really good, then tons more people will go to shows, buy merchandise, buy albums just to support the artists. Will there be a bunch of people who manage to freeload and gain the benefits of everyone else supporting the artist? Of course, but that's life. We all benefit from culture regardless of who foots the bill for it. A few of the most successful artists I know of release all of their music under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license. This means, for strange slashdotters who don't know, that it is completely free to download all their music and play it for personal use, you just cannot gain commercially for their music. People post youtube videos of their shows, put up their music. They even put up their music. Why are they so successful? Because as a direct result of embracing the culture of sharing, they gained tons of free publicity. They leverage the free videos, content, and stuff that people put online as a means to get people to come down to the show and buy tickets. As a way of getting people to buy shirts, posters, etc.
They survive because enough people have decided they are really good and deserve to continue making their music, and thus give them money either buy paying for the shows or donating. They chose a price that the market was willing to pay them and it has. The value for music is not in the recordings. The value for any person who enjoys and loves music is in seeing the artist perform live. It's in getting their autograph.
I'm a software engineer. I don't finish a piece of software for the company and relax on the sales and royalties, I need to continue to work to continue to get paid. Why should an artist be any different? Make one recording and make money on it forever? How is that fair? They should continue to work, whether it is to produce more music or just to perform in person often. I'm not saying it's easy, but everyone continues to say "there is no free lunch" in regards to the downloading of music. Why can't I tell the artists that there is no free lunch in regards to their music. They can't just make one album and expect to live off of it for ever. They shouldn't. They should have to continue to work to continue to make money. For those who ask, "what about recuping money for the time invested in coming up with the music?" that's what the live shows are for. The income someone gets from a live show is due more to the time they spent coming up with the music then the actual performance itself. If they hadn't spent the time to come up with it, then they wouldn't have anything to perform =).
Studies have shown that artists are making more money on average today than they ever have, yet music sales have gone down. The answer that most studies have shown is that live performance sales have gone up. Aside from the economic recession causing people to buy less and try to get more bang for their buck, as it were, this can also be attributed to music downloads getting more people than ever to hear about certain music. Then going and seeking out shows which get the artist money.
Sorry abo
I doubt the labels see the irony in it. =P
I believe he means that he wants the burden for gathering evidence/policing/actively enforcing copyright to stay upon the rights owners. That 3rd party commercial businesses should not be involved in it. I agree with this. ISP's should not police it, search engines should not have to police it. It should stay as the law states, the rights holders are the ones who must enforce, police, and send take down requests.
you don't need a smartphone to have friends. In fact I didn't get my first cell phone until I had gotten my driver's license. My parents got it for me with the reasoning that I should always have it when I'm driving in case something happens. Would I have used a cell phone before then? sure. Was I a social outcast as a result? Nope. In fact a lot of these problems such as sexting, kids texting in class rather than paying attention, etc. are caused because they have a cell phone that they don't need. If your kid doesn't have a need for the cell phone beyond calling/texting friends, then they don't need a cell phone.
Man is flawed. This is established in pretty much all major religions. God's word was written down by man to form the bible. Therefore the bible must be flawed and cannot be the "One True Word of God". People will quibble over which parts are correct and which are not. Portions will be added and portions will be removed. However it is impossible to claim that everything in the bible is actually the word of god, since it cannot be proved what are and what are not the portions which are flawed. At best the bible is a collection or orated stories passed down by those who believe themselves important enough to claim to know the word of god.
Now show me a hard link in windows :)
Not that I know of. I have a nice pink piece of paper that says I own the car, how much I paid and how much came from the loan. Under law I own the car. That's why it's called 'repossessing' when you fail to pay your loan. The Loan company claims ownership. You don't have to claim ownership if you already have it."
When I buy a car, the loan company "subsidizes" the purchase of the car in return for me paying them back the money they put up front. However, the dealership retains no ownership rights to the car even while I'm still paying it off. In fact the only way I lose ownership of the car is if I fail to continue to pay. Why should it be different for a smartphone? The phone is mine when I purchase it regardless of the subsidization. Instead of repossessing like they do with cars, they just charge the ETF. Thus the phone is mine to do what I please with. The carrier has no ownership over the device regardless of subsidization.
I don't seem to have as much faith in the market as you because when the market invents its competition. The larger monopoly company will just buy up all the competition again. Once a trust happens, there is no way without government or mismanagement for the trust to be broken up. Every time competition arises, it will simply be gobbled up by the existing monopoly preventing any new competitors from staying in the market. Not only that, but the large monopoly with more resources would then be able to abuse its monopoly to grow into other industries.
Again, I'm not saying that all regulation is good. I'm not saying that every government interaction with the economy is good. What I am saying, is that both extremes are bad. Too much government regulation and too little government regulation will both be bad for consumers.
So, price fixing, trust building, and cartels couldn't possibly exist without government?
Without government regulations, larger companies would just buy up all their competitors until competition ceased. Thus creating a monopoly. If any competitor can just be bought out due to an established company being big enough with no anti-trust regulation, then nothing can prevent the monopoly that the company would have.
You seem to forget the example you're using, AT&T, was knocked off of its Monopoly when Ma Bell was broken up by the government. I don't pretend that government doesn't cause problems. However, the "Free Market" does not fix everything. The Free Market wouldn't prevent a company with large influence in one industry from using it in a different industry to hinder competition. Anti-trust laws do.
The difference is the idea that EA had to change this facet of a game to appease people who weren't going to buy the game anyways. It means that we can expect game developers, in this case at least EA, to not push the envelope. That they will avoid topics that may possibly be perceived as "offensive" whether they be tangential to the game (like them being named Taliban) or integral to a plot for a game. If people are willing to buy your game, why should you have to censor yourself or change some facet, large or small, of your game to prevent 'offending' anyone? Put it out as is and if enough people buy it, great. Why change the meaning of the game for some of your audience because a number of people, most of which won't ever play your game anyways, are 'offended' by it.
It's just damn stupid and bad for games if this behavior becomes common place.
How would you like it if someone made a game about a murderer that went on a killing spree and happened to kill your family? Do you think you wouldn't complain at all?
I would express that I would not buy the game due to the memories it would bring up. That's about it. Why? Would you try to get the game banned and interfere with other people's ability to enjoy a game?
Competition in wireless pretty much negates the need for much regulation there.
Except, ya know. When every one of the wireless providers follows suit and caps their data plans. And when every one of the wireless providers start providing "priority" service on the wireless networks. From what I've seen, I don't see as much competition as people seem to think there is in wireless. Now, if we removed the carrier lock that keeps happening....we might have that competition....
There is no incentive for an ISP to do that though. They can make more money by doing it this way and if all the ISPs band together to do this, they all make money. No government in the economy at all? Monopolies would form and abuse the market. Cartels would form and abuse the market. "Free Market" with no regulations is by no means "Free". Not every industry has competition to force it to follow the market.
You tell him. Until people start voting for the third-party candidate, then people shouldn't vote for the third-party candidate...
...wait a tick....
How about an example where a patent has stifled innovation
You can point to the MPEG LA as attempting to stifle innovation by claiming that Theora and WebM violate patents, if they do eventually sue and win, then it is quite obvious they are stifling innovation.
Oracle vs Google, if Oracle wins the lawsuit it will be stifling innovation.
All of the small companies that have died due to patents or all of the innovations that will never come to fruition due to patents. That's stifling innovation.
All the lawsuits flying about in the mobile space with Apple/HTC/Nokia, all of the lawsuits are attempts at stifling innovation.
It's very simple, especially when it comes to software. Any good product is a good idea that consists of using or improving on something that came before it in a specific way. If you remove the ability for people to say 'Hey, that's a good idea. But what if you did this with it?' then you stifle innovation. This isn't a case of making a derivative of a patent or implementing it a different way or what not that would be allowed. I'm talking about using an idea that is currently patented as a part of another idea. If you can't afford to license the patent, or have nothing of enough value to cross-license, then you simply cannot move forward with your idea. How is that not stifling innovation?
Gah, "Free software" does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean "give away the software for free." Even using the GPL with FLOSS you are completely at will to charge for your software and no one will look down on you for it.
Just because the result is the same, it doesn't mean the actions are.
Scenario 1:
You jump off a bridge
You die
Scenario 2:
I push you off a bridge
You die
The net difference is I don't go to jail for murder. If you weren't going to kill yourself anyways, then nothing wrong happened since you were going to die anyways. By your logic I shouldn't go to jail for murder. However, if you were going to kill yourself anyways, and I killed you before you did. Then it would be the same as you just killing yourself, except I beat you too it. Clearly it's obvious that suicide is the same as murder, how can you disagree?
Not to make light of either suicide or murder, but I think my point is made. The end result is not the only thing that matters in a given situation. You not getting paid is NOT the same as stealing because...I didn't steal that $20 from you.
Wish I had some mod points. Definitely "Informative"
I agree completely. I did not say they are currently doing it, only that they outright said they would like to.
I guess the next time someone says that Net Neutrality is a solution without a problem we can point to these guys =P
They are saying nothing of hurting those that don't pay.
It's simple network management. If you prioritize one source of packets and the network reaches a saturation point, the mere fact that you've prioritized one means you have to de-prioritize others. There's limited resources, if you always send Company A's packets before you send Company B's, then Company B will have degraded service.
Also, TFA said so:
... senior executives from BT and TalkTalk said they would be happy to put selected apps into the fast lane, at the expense of their rivals.
Hmm, I wonder what 'expense of their rivals' means....
But it's not copyrighted by default.
The difference here is that the episode of Stargate is already copyrighted. Therefore distributing my legal copy would be violating the copyright of SyFy who owns the copyright to Stargate.
You own no copyright to the message you left on my voicemail because you can't copyright spoken conversation. Therefore there's no copyright issue here. You consented to being recorded, therefore live with the consequences of it.
And when someone falsely claims copyright for something under the DMCA, then there should be a punishment of some kind.