I don't have a problem with an analog gauge, but all of the reasons for choosing a knob over a fader are gone, especially in an environment without multitouch.
True, but the majority of it's real world usage today, making image macros, is well handled by software like imagemagick, which has led to websites that basically provide a command line interface to users
Most software doesn't, but there is a lot of software that does. Pro audio tools are the worst for that. Reason was the most annoying instances of it I can recall, making a bunch of inconsistently functioning rackmount units, usually having knobs despite being used in a keyboard and mouse environment.
"Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power."
It is civil disobedience. What it is not is political activism.
It changes a lot: it means I can pay security guards to stop you getting back into the house you thought was yours. Government's not involved, so good luck raising your own army.
Assuming you aren't a total idiot or insane*, you'll only pay security guards to take over someone's house if their house is worth paying the security guards. Outside of law enforcement and the military, violence for hire to the extent that there's a good chance someone will try to kill them is usually quite expensive, so it's almost certainly not going to be worthwhile unless the house is incredibly valuable. In such a case, they are in usually going to be just as rich or more than you are, so they will be just as capable of hiring a private army.
*if this is the case, you and your money will soon part.
You are confusing addiction and impulse control. Someone may have no impose control in a certain area and not be addicted. I will gorge myself on certain kinds of candy when I have the option, but I might go years without it with no adverse effects. The same applies to tangerines that I can only get about once a year.
I think the issue is that the number of computer users, and the number of users that are concerned with being in control of their computer has become a smaller percentage of the overall user base. Media cartels and governments favor walled gardens, and the value in pleasing them has risen. So, we've got more users that don't care, and more pressure from important partners to take away user freedom. The angry nerds are no longer a real concern for these companies.
The use of the term 'piracy' predates the Statute of Anne, so it is you that is ignorant. It was used by the Stationer's Company, a truly horrible organization.
And for Radio Caroline, the appropriate term would probably be 'unlicensed' radio. Radio Caroline wasn't even illegal, so piracy would be an inaccurate term. However, I'm quite sure that a number of organizations saw a benefit in demonizing this entity that the law couldn't touch, and 'pirate' was an easy label to affix.
Through nationalized systems like the CPB and NIH. Keep in mind, even with a budget of $0, it's better than legal monopolies, because they actually reduce the rate of innovation.
Competition is good. But we need to reward those who put in effort without any guarantee of a good return on their investment of time. Giving them a monopoly on their invention is surely the simplest way of rewarding them without relating a patronage system.
Except for the problem of it not working. Legal monopolies have a net negative effect.The free market mops the floor with them. Supporting legal monopolies is like supporting medicine based upon balance of humours. It has no business in this century.
Probably - but let's face it, even TPB has magnet links to Linux distros, The GIMP, etc. That doesn't suddenly make TPB the 'go to' place for all things F/L/OSS - and judges would be similarly unimpressed by the argument that the site 'also links to' when that is an insignificant component of the site's functioning and intent.
It wasn't an insignificant amount of the links posted, and they would make the same amount off of ads whether or not the links were legal or illegal. Your argument is not on based upon evidence towards a specific legal crime. Instead, you are doing hardly anything more than saying that this business doesn't feel legitimate, so let's punish them. That is contrary to how law should work. They punished him under a law that doesn't make any sense here to get around the precedent that linking sites like his are not copyright infringement.
Except the UK had ruled that linking sites were legal. Also, I seem to recall the site in question linking to legitimate sources as well, such as Hulu and iTunes.
It is quite important to draw these distinctions. Had Romeo not been a Montague, or Juliet not been a Capulet, then perhaps they wouldn't have been star-crossed lovers with only a fleeting romance. Likewise, by conflating the infringing of a legal monopoly with theft or piracy, the argument is tainted and hope of rational argument quickly goes out of the window. Accepting the propaganda labels of cartels that the important distinctions aren't important is a major loss to finding a reasonable outcome.
What's your point? Legal monopolies are the least efficient way of allocating resources. If we are going to give handouts because free markets can't get adequate returns on their own (something that doesn't really have good evidence), do it directly by subsidizing R&D.
The point being made is that it doesn't matter whether or Samsung is copying. What matters is whether or not said copying will reduce the amount of useful innovation we have, and the answer is quite clearly that it won't, and will, in fact, probably lead to a greater rate of innovation.
The USPTO is self-financed only because they only deal with a small portion of the costs. Taxpayers pay both for the costs of our court systems (and the congestion an excessive number of drawn out lawsuits bring) and in the social costs of legal monopolies.
They can patent new inventions, but those new inventions are almost always going to be dependent upon old, patented inventions. The graduates didn't enter the market, nor was it reasonable for them to do so in this legal environment. Thus, the market is deprived of true competition.
Sure, that is a fair enough characterisation. To be more precise patents over novel ideas were the only survivors of the numerous letters patent and other prerogative monopolies to survive the cull of these "crude tools." They survived because the clear benefit they bestowed. Arguably, by reconciling market forces with technological development, they were instrumental in giving birth both to capitalism and the industrial revolution. Copyright, for course, has a separate history.
How could the people that crafted those systems accurately conclude that they have a 'clear benefit'? Creating a system that results in a net benefit requires a strong grasp of psychology, economics, and quite a few other fields. However, even assuming that parliament had the greatest knowledge of anyone in the world on those subjects for their time, the Statute of Monopolies was 1624 and the Statute of Anne was 1710. This predates the birth of Sigmund Freud and Adam Smith, so they didn't have even remotely modern tools at their disposal. It would be a miracle for them to create a system that was actually useful, let alone one that is the best option available, especially since it was merely slight modification of an existing tool with an entirely different purpose. It's really just the result of simplistic motivational logic: Offer a reward to encourage a certain behavior. However, it fails to take into consideration that monopolies are a very inefficient way of granting those rewards, and that external reward mechanisms result in a tunnel-like focus. Such a focus is great for accomplishing simple task that require little to no lateral thought. But for coming up with innovative ideas, a tunnel-like focus is detrimental.
Capitalism would have arose without patents and copyright (legal monopolies are pretty much the antithesis of the free as in freedom market that is the root of capitalism), and the industrial revolution would have most likely occurred even faster without them.
People who have studied history. When governments don't have to follow rules, you get tyranny. A better thing to say BIG DEAL about is the fact that this guy was selling drugs. Who cares that he's selling drugs? That's between him and his clients.
There is no baby. Copyright and patents were crude tools used by kings for censorship and nepotism respectively. They were repurposed with the eventual intent of benefiting society, but it is a tool incapable of that process, regardless of how well meaning those that craft the system are.
Actually, the US constitution was ratified in 1788 (it was created 1787), and the Bill of Rights was proposed in 1789 (and ratified in 91). Two of the thirteen states, North Carolina and Rhode Island didn't ratify the Constituion until the Bill of Rights had been proposed. Complaining about at what could at most be a four year gap (and ignoring that the states protected many of those rights already via their own constitutions) is rather nitpicky, especially given the environment.
Also, the statement that all people had inalienable rights via the Declaration of Independence predated the US Constitution by more than a decade, and the DoI is far more celebrated in American culture than the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a problem with an analog gauge, but all of the reasons for choosing a knob over a fader are gone, especially in an environment without multitouch.
True, but the majority of it's real world usage today, making image macros, is well handled by software like imagemagick, which has led to websites that basically provide a command line interface to users
Most software doesn't, but there is a lot of software that does. Pro audio tools are the worst for that. Reason was the most annoying instances of it I can recall, making a bunch of inconsistently functioning rackmount units, usually having knobs despite being used in a keyboard and mouse environment.
"Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power."
It is civil disobedience. What it is not is political activism.
Assuming you aren't a total idiot or insane*, you'll only pay security guards to take over someone's house if their house is worth paying the security guards. Outside of law enforcement and the military, violence for hire to the extent that there's a good chance someone will try to kill them is usually quite expensive, so it's almost certainly not going to be worthwhile unless the house is incredibly valuable. In such a case, they are in usually going to be just as rich or more than you are, so they will be just as capable of hiring a private army.
*if this is the case, you and your money will soon part.
You are confusing addiction and impulse control. Someone may have no impose control in a certain area and not be addicted. I will gorge myself on certain kinds of candy when I have the option, but I might go years without it with no adverse effects. The same applies to tangerines that I can only get about once a year.
I think the issue is that the number of computer users, and the number of users that are concerned with being in control of their computer has become a smaller percentage of the overall user base. Media cartels and governments favor walled gardens, and the value in pleasing them has risen. So, we've got more users that don't care, and more pressure from important partners to take away user freedom. The angry nerds are no longer a real concern for these companies.
Most users do not install their own OS, and being on by default is problematic.
The use of the term 'piracy' predates the Statute of Anne, so it is you that is ignorant. It was used by the Stationer's Company, a truly horrible organization.
And for Radio Caroline, the appropriate term would probably be 'unlicensed' radio. Radio Caroline wasn't even illegal, so piracy would be an inaccurate term. However, I'm quite sure that a number of organizations saw a benefit in demonizing this entity that the law couldn't touch, and 'pirate' was an easy label to affix.
Through nationalized systems like the CPB and NIH. Keep in mind, even with a budget of $0, it's better than legal monopolies, because they actually reduce the rate of innovation.
Except for the problem of it not working. Legal monopolies have a net negative effect.The free market mops the floor with them. Supporting legal monopolies is like supporting medicine based upon balance of humours. It has no business in this century.
It wasn't an insignificant amount of the links posted, and they would make the same amount off of ads whether or not the links were legal or illegal. Your argument is not on based upon evidence towards a specific legal crime. Instead, you are doing hardly anything more than saying that this business doesn't feel legitimate, so let's punish them. That is contrary to how law should work. They punished him under a law that doesn't make any sense here to get around the precedent that linking sites like his are not copyright infringement.
Except the UK had ruled that linking sites were legal. Also, I seem to recall the site in question linking to legitimate sources as well, such as Hulu and iTunes.
It is quite important to draw these distinctions. Had Romeo not been a Montague, or Juliet not been a Capulet, then perhaps they wouldn't have been star-crossed lovers with only a fleeting romance. Likewise, by conflating the infringing of a legal monopoly with theft or piracy, the argument is tainted and hope of rational argument quickly goes out of the window. Accepting the propaganda labels of cartels that the important distinctions aren't important is a major loss to finding a reasonable outcome.
Free competition. If that is inadequate, direct funding of R&D. Try reading my post next time.
What's your point? Legal monopolies are the least efficient way of allocating resources. If we are going to give handouts because free markets can't get adequate returns on their own (something that doesn't really have good evidence), do it directly by subsidizing R&D.
The point being made is that it doesn't matter whether or Samsung is copying. What matters is whether or not said copying will reduce the amount of useful innovation we have, and the answer is quite clearly that it won't, and will, in fact, probably lead to a greater rate of innovation.
The USPTO is self-financed only because they only deal with a small portion of the costs. Taxpayers pay both for the costs of our court systems (and the congestion an excessive number of drawn out lawsuits bring) and in the social costs of legal monopolies.
They can patent new inventions, but those new inventions are almost always going to be dependent upon old, patented inventions. The graduates didn't enter the market, nor was it reasonable for them to do so in this legal environment. Thus, the market is deprived of true competition.
True, but I don't think any clients have as bad of a track record as Adobe. Adobe is very bad at security.
How could the people that crafted those systems accurately conclude that they have a 'clear benefit'? Creating a system that results in a net benefit requires a strong grasp of psychology, economics, and quite a few other fields. However, even assuming that parliament had the greatest knowledge of anyone in the world on those subjects for their time, the Statute of Monopolies was 1624 and the Statute of Anne was 1710. This predates the birth of Sigmund Freud and Adam Smith, so they didn't have even remotely modern tools at their disposal. It would be a miracle for them to create a system that was actually useful, let alone one that is the best option available, especially since it was merely slight modification of an existing tool with an entirely different purpose. It's really just the result of simplistic motivational logic: Offer a reward to encourage a certain behavior. However, it fails to take into consideration that monopolies are a very inefficient way of granting those rewards, and that external reward mechanisms result in a tunnel-like focus. Such a focus is great for accomplishing simple task that require little to no lateral thought. But for coming up with innovative ideas, a tunnel-like focus is detrimental.
Capitalism would have arose without patents and copyright (legal monopolies are pretty much the antithesis of the free as in freedom market that is the root of capitalism), and the industrial revolution would have most likely occurred even faster without them.
People who have studied history. When governments don't have to follow rules, you get tyranny. A better thing to say BIG DEAL about is the fact that this guy was selling drugs. Who cares that he's selling drugs? That's between him and his clients.
I would think that cell phone providers are a great deal rarer than IR cameras.
How the fuck is a cell phone a 'public' form of communication? You're argument could apply to CB radio, but not cell phones..
There is no baby. Copyright and patents were crude tools used by kings for censorship and nepotism respectively. They were repurposed with the eventual intent of benefiting society, but it is a tool incapable of that process, regardless of how well meaning those that craft the system are.
Actually, the US constitution was ratified in 1788 (it was created 1787), and the Bill of Rights was proposed in 1789 (and ratified in 91). Two of the thirteen states, North Carolina and Rhode Island didn't ratify the Constituion until the Bill of Rights had been proposed. Complaining about at what could at most be a four year gap (and ignoring that the states protected many of those rights already via their own constitutions) is rather nitpicky, especially given the environment.
Also, the statement that all people had inalienable rights via the Declaration of Independence predated the US Constitution by more than a decade, and the DoI is far more celebrated in American culture than the Constitution.