The corollary is that securing your infrastructure isn't worthwhile if it's more expensive to do so than the value of ensuring your infrastructure isn't compromised. There's no sense in buying a $500 safe to protect a $20 tool.
Stallman himself probably wouldn't have a problem with such a thing, as I don't believe he treats the 'mission pack' as software. Likewise, I can't think of any packages put into that kind of status merely because they are not useful without non-free non-software elements. Media players, image and comic viewers are going to be used overwhelmingly with non-free video and images. Gnash is actually in debian-main and is a GNU project.
I will acknowledge the concern over consoles, although FOSS doesn't have to be copyleft, if that's a big enough concern. However, I see no reason why needing a complete package would be prohibited by a FOSS model. Unreal is a commodity engine, and it's part of countless complete packages. There were a number of id engine based games that were complete packages, included the beloved Chex Quest. FOSS visual novel engines have been used in popular VNs, sold as part of complete packages (Fate/Stay Night using KiriKiri, for example). However, on the flip side, a number of dojin have been sold separate from the underlying engine, such as RPG Maker games.
CEOs often do get rewarded for their failures, but this was a success, just not for the company he was CEO of. But we pretty much knew this or something like it was coming.
Companies pay their devs to scratch their own itch or pay outside devs to scratch it for them. They put less in and get more out. Indie devs can make use of it even if they can't afford to pay anything up front, but if successful, might fund development in the same way. It's the same model for many FOSS projects, including the Linux kernel and web browsers.
Actually, I don't think it would be all that difficult to have a FOSS model for gaming. There is plenty of engine reuse already, and if major studios dropped half as much into funding FOSS development of these engines as they do for licensing, they could probably get much better engines out of it.
However, you seem to be implying that the FOSS model doesn't work in the real world. However, in many of the markets where there is more or less equal footing, such as most anything web based), FOSS projects dominate. The areas where it is weaker are those with firmly entrenched proprietary incumbents. It's hard to displace Windows or Photoshop with their big head start and aggressive use of possibly illegal tactics and lock-in, but Apache, Wordpress, Drupal, etc. are largely considered the standard.
So, you mean that because they have long running franchises still making up a decent portion of their catalog, they aren't innovative, regardless of the other newer titles they have?
That's not a terribly difficult obstacle. If the brakes are only not completely disabled, then it will work acceptably under light conditions, and may only fail after heavy braking is used, which is often when it will be most problematic to not have brakes.
I think he's making the wrong argument. The question is not about how much money Edison is making, but rather, how much technological progress is being made in that time. Edison engaged in illegal activities in the motion picture business, and a lot of what GE did probably would have been illegal had an investigation been sought. We do have evidence that we make as much or more progress without patents, while we don't have any solid evidence of the opposite, other than the 'evidence' of greater progress in the period since patents were introduced than the period afterwards. However, progress has been exponential throughout human history, and the correlation is much more strongly tied to the ability of ideas to proliferate (such as the spread of mass communication), so all that it's evidence of is that patents don't slow us down enough to reverse the tides of progress.
I dunno, Kirobo is more adorable than most humans, and I suspect Japan is just getting started with the cuteness factor. Plus, robots can be programmed to never be assholes.
The notion of a great inventor is a myth. There are people who contribute more than others, but it is a function of the flow of information and some other factor more than the greatness. Basically, we are standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. That said, Edison was nothing special even amongst those, certainly not to the extent that school children are taught about him.
He wasn't a great inventor. He was a marginally talented inventor with a knack for business. His contributions were not great technological advances, but they often did have great commercial value in the environment he operated within. The carbon filament, for example was a very minor element in the advancement of lightbulbs. However, it made a big impact in the commercial viability. Better vacuums were the really heavy lifting, and Edison's filament was replaced soon anyway. He had a gift for being an opportunist, which isn't inherently bad, but he was mediocre in regards to his abilities as an inventor. If he had any gift, it was in his work ethic.
Edison was a convicted monopolist who tortured puppies to slander competitors and proudly used inefficient methods of research. Yes, technology advanced through his companies, but it would have probably advanced faster had he never been born.
Actually, a slippery slope argument is only a fallacy when there's not a compelling reason to believe an action will set a hard-to-reverse trend in motion. Slippery slopes do play out in reality sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
You can keep the laws as is, you just have to redefine 'human.'
Plus, sending cash doesn't tend to work well over the internet. It keeps clogging up my ethernet ports.
The corollary is that securing your infrastructure isn't worthwhile if it's more expensive to do so than the value of ensuring your infrastructure isn't compromised. There's no sense in buying a $500 safe to protect a $20 tool.
Stallman himself probably wouldn't have a problem with such a thing, as I don't believe he treats the 'mission pack' as software. Likewise, I can't think of any packages put into that kind of status merely because they are not useful without non-free non-software elements. Media players, image and comic viewers are going to be used overwhelmingly with non-free video and images. Gnash is actually in debian-main and is a GNU project.
I will acknowledge the concern over consoles, although FOSS doesn't have to be copyleft, if that's a big enough concern. However, I see no reason why needing a complete package would be prohibited by a FOSS model. Unreal is a commodity engine, and it's part of countless complete packages. There were a number of id engine based games that were complete packages, included the beloved Chex Quest. FOSS visual novel engines have been used in popular VNs, sold as part of complete packages (Fate/Stay Night using KiriKiri, for example). However, on the flip side, a number of dojin have been sold separate from the underlying engine, such as RPG Maker games.
CEOs often do get rewarded for their failures, but this was a success, just not for the company he was CEO of. But we pretty much knew this or something like it was coming.
Companies pay their devs to scratch their own itch or pay outside devs to scratch it for them. They put less in and get more out. Indie devs can make use of it even if they can't afford to pay anything up front, but if successful, might fund development in the same way. It's the same model for many FOSS projects, including the Linux kernel and web browsers.
Actually, I don't think it would be all that difficult to have a FOSS model for gaming. There is plenty of engine reuse already, and if major studios dropped half as much into funding FOSS development of these engines as they do for licensing, they could probably get much better engines out of it.
However, you seem to be implying that the FOSS model doesn't work in the real world. However, in many of the markets where there is more or less equal footing, such as most anything web based), FOSS projects dominate. The areas where it is weaker are those with firmly entrenched proprietary incumbents. It's hard to displace Windows or Photoshop with their big head start and aggressive use of possibly illegal tactics and lock-in, but Apache, Wordpress, Drupal, etc. are largely considered the standard.
That's not a ridiculous request, but it may have been beyond what was feasible in-game.with the technology of the time.
So, you mean that because they have long running franchises still making up a decent portion of their catalog, they aren't innovative, regardless of the other newer titles they have?
Then please tell me what innovation you have seen from other consoles,
Podracer was a great game, it just happened to based off a horrible movie.
Love hotels are quite different. The closest US equivalent would be a 'no-tell motel,' but love hotels don't have quite the same vibe.
That's not a terribly difficult obstacle. If the brakes are only not completely disabled, then it will work acceptably under light conditions, and may only fail after heavy braking is used, which is often when it will be most problematic to not have brakes.
I don't see why you need something patent-like for capitalism to work. Free markets create plenty of innovation by themselves.
I think he's making the wrong argument. The question is not about how much money Edison is making, but rather, how much technological progress is being made in that time. Edison engaged in illegal activities in the motion picture business, and a lot of what GE did probably would have been illegal had an investigation been sought. We do have evidence that we make as much or more progress without patents, while we don't have any solid evidence of the opposite, other than the 'evidence' of greater progress in the period since patents were introduced than the period afterwards. However, progress has been exponential throughout human history, and the correlation is much more strongly tied to the ability of ideas to proliferate (such as the spread of mass communication), so all that it's evidence of is that patents don't slow us down enough to reverse the tides of progress.
I dunno, Kirobo is more adorable than most humans, and I suspect Japan is just getting started with the cuteness factor. Plus, robots can be programmed to never be assholes.
The notion of a great inventor is a myth. There are people who contribute more than others, but it is a function of the flow of information and some other factor more than the greatness. Basically, we are standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. That said, Edison was nothing special even amongst those, certainly not to the extent that school children are taught about him.
He wasn't a great inventor. He was a marginally talented inventor with a knack for business. His contributions were not great technological advances, but they often did have great commercial value in the environment he operated within. The carbon filament, for example was a very minor element in the advancement of lightbulbs. However, it made a big impact in the commercial viability. Better vacuums were the really heavy lifting, and Edison's filament was replaced soon anyway. He had a gift for being an opportunist, which isn't inherently bad, but he was mediocre in regards to his abilities as an inventor. If he had any gift, it was in his work ethic.
Edison was a convicted monopolist who tortured puppies to slander competitors and proudly used inefficient methods of research. Yes, technology advanced through his companies, but it would have probably advanced faster had he never been born.
Econophysicists are just aspiring botanopsychologists who couldn't cut it.
You can now install an electric engine in a Honda Civic.
Have they fixed the lack of options for decent previews? Selecting a picture or video by a 20px preview just doesn't cut it anymore.
I've asked American men and women about this subject. Women have mixed views, but men are nearly universally in favor of the idea.
Actually, a slippery slope argument is only a fallacy when there's not a compelling reason to believe an action will set a hard-to-reverse trend in motion. Slippery slopes do play out in reality sometimes.