so what your saying is... cookie cutter responses would be wildly distributed, but custom work, specific work or low volume high quality work would need to be paid for upfront before it can exist.. Compared to now where cookie cutter responses have the financial support of the masses so they also have high quality and a distributed price tag, which reduce the demand for custom and specific work... which means less professionals and more monopolies thanks to reduced demand in the custom and once of sectors (the biggest driver of small business, which is the backbone of all modern economies).
yeah, i don't see the down side. i earn more money as a professional in the industry if there is no value in over-engineering a product to suite everyone (and take my customers out from under my feet), the average professional stands to make more money in the industry.
I'm entitled to line up my 1's and 0's however i desire and for whatever reason. You're not entitled to money just because they match something you came up with first if you parse them through a whole bunch of conversion processes.
musicians are entitled to whatever was agreed to transfer the digital information to the 3rd party. if there is no agreement then there is no entitlement, i never signed an agreement to say "yes, your song is worth this much and i will pay that to have on going access to this pattern, and i give you full rights to remove this pattern from my hardware should you see fit".
Obviously the law doesn't see it this way, but at this stage its safe to assume that the law isn't in societies interests at all, so also a moot point.
. If the producers can't earn a living wage, the number and quality of entertainers will fall.
considering entertainment is hardly a job producing industry, not a vital service, nor even a real necessity.... why should it get more legal protection than any other industry? Surely if a form of entertainment cant sustain itself, it needs to die.
I'm going to loose more sleep because we don't have a Neil Armstrong of our time, not because we don't have a George Lucas.
are you the same guy that estimates the street value of drugs when the cops make a big bust? maybe a mobile phone salesman regarding the "$10000 value" of the mobile plan only costing $30 a month?
now, i don't know about you, but in east ubexiztan(made up country so i don't have to find 1 of the hundred out there, china? i thought all art is public works in communist countries? at least at one stage it was.) there is no legal requirement to pay a create of works if you store a copy.
by that metric, the individual is carrying around nearly $100 worth of hardware and probably $300 worth of data? (data transmission does actually have a value, unlike the pattern your copying, which is made up.).
so your value only exists in the heads of people who think they deserve that much, the real value is quite considerably lower.
I think his point was that enforcing a "right to listen" is morally wrong, and that the recording companies only got away with having laws worded this way because previously there was always a physical attribute to the content you buy, so the consumer doesn't consider the song "a right to listen", however sees it as "i purchased this flat disc with rased bumps in it, if i put this in a record player then i can hear a tune i like". i paid for physical something, and now i have a physical something that i can do what i want with, because i own it!
we both know that the law is not written to be morally correct.
an analogy would be if i'm a carpenter and i have a very skilled way of whittling wood, 20 years ago i sold you a chair for $100, its your chair, i can still whittle my wood and make money selling chairs, no government intervention required.
skip forward to today, where CNC machines are standard household appliance. i still have my skill of whittling wood, i can either, "sell" my ability to an engineer who would convert my whittling skills to a CNC equivilant digital version, but i can only make money if the government enforces it.
my other option is to not have a digital copy of my chair (i don't have to give it out you know) and then charge a premium for original content, or custom work. because everyone can just download chairs now, but my 40 - 50 years of skill is always going to be better quality then the cookie cutter response, so i can now charge $400-$500 and my service changes from a consumer service to a premium service. maybe you want fancy chairs to draw a big crowd?
alternatively, i could freely give out my base chair design out on the internet with a suggesting custom jobs (think concert) come at a premium and generate my work from that way.
3 different options to have the actual generator of the valuable item maintain profit.
only one requires extensive government support (and your tax dollars), only one maintains a middle man that is just not nessisary these days. only one option requires foreigners in sovereign countries to follow our law in their own land for the system to even work.
unfortunately, its the system they are running with:/
er, i will gladly blame the players who are actively changing the game so that they win more often. this is called cheating and anyone older than 2 can recognize it. its expected some people will do this, but its hardly blameless behavior.
fair call. putting something in place and then asserting that you deserve to get paid is a different ball game to trying to make extra money out of the company in a mutually beneficial exchange.
thats pretty much how it was when i was working in government.
I got the fuck outta there so i could actually DO something in IT instead of be just a computer tech and be up to date on possibly relevant technology.
now i do all those things under the "IT" umbrella. infrastructure, contracts, the data, hardware, software, business streamlining, online (everything but the actual marketing).
"The engineering department at a TV station *IS* an IT department. They manage the electronic equipment and the maintenance of the equipment which facilitates the business." no, the engineering department at a TV station is a PC tech work house, NOT an IT department. there is a lot more to managing IT infastructure than just keeping "the equipment going". Identifying avenues for digital optimisation and progression is important.
I'm not saying hold your manager over a barrel? if he doesn't want to pay he isn't going to pay?
All i'm suggesting is that you could approach your manager with a solution, if he says "no, can't afford it" then don't supply it. that's all there is to it, the software isn't without value as you've spent personal time developing / designing.
If your manager demands that you implement anyway, simply say that you can't afford the cost of the software?
"look I wrote this application even though you told me there were no funds available, and even though the application makes my job significantly easier, I still want you to pay me for it or I'm not going to give you the application."
"look, i have found a product (shows example of prototype) even though you previously said that the company can't afford the implementation. here is a cost vs benefit analysis on how this product will improve our processes and save us money (justify the expense), I can have the product license signed over to your company so we can have absolute control over any changes to future requirements of the company, the software costs this much to install and has a license fee of x per year... what do you think? "
There no need to tell your manager that you wrote it, its pretty irrelevant if you did, you're not selling your skill (angling for a promotion) you're selling a solution. its much safer (and more professional) this way. if your boss isn't interested sell it elsewhere?
I may have a specific job title, but my real job is helping the my team, co-workers and company be successful.
no, your real job is still whats on that title. you're just taking it upon yourself to be a team-member not an employee.
there is nothing wrong with having the self confidence to identify when your value to the company isn't re-enumerated. just because someone pays you a wage doesn't mean that the company owns you. They pay you a wage to do whats in your contract, there is nothing wrong with NOT doing what ISN'T in your contract without payment.
i think you answered the question perfectly, but seemed to give the OP some meaning that he didn't have.
clearly he wants to know how to avoid getting rolled by his boss, and maximise his profits..
basically. tell your boss you've found a solution for an ongoing problem to your job, however its outside of your scope to impliment. you could ask for either an amendment to your contract (and a payrise) for the extra responsibility OR to sell the solution outright to your boss. but make sure he(/she) understands that there is no free lunches. basically talk to your boss as if someone else is selling the software and you're just found a good "deal",
SQLServer certainly does. (our implementation is rubish though, 2 million records and no primary key or proper relational databases, who would have though that would lead to problems!?). but if used properly mySQL should be no worse.
i think he is saying that he doesn't want the law that makes apple "right" to apply, he makes no statement about that it should still apply to others, infact he says the opposite.
So while I expect Apple is probably legally correct, all that means is that the law is clearly wrong and needs fixing
what he is saying is "i want justice, not the universal application of outdated law that benefits no one but the company with the most lawyers"
American based Infrastructure can be routed around. the only control you should have over the internet is what is held within your borders. and you've already shown you can't be trusted hosting.com domains.
then mock them for trying to protect their innovations.
I'll never understand why techy types place little to no value in the innovation of user interactivity.
there is huge value to it, but i don't think it should be somethign that can be protected by patent law.
think of it this way, a User interface is normally only "user friendly" because its what everyone is use to.
if i made a car with the accelerator and front brake on the steering wheel, and rear brake and clutch as foot pedals, it won't sell very well, because the "user friendly" interface is the one everyone is used to and expects.
similarly, imagine how difficult just jumping into a car and driving around IF the ford T protected their design layout for the user interface of their vehicle (it was one of the first with a "modern" design layout of steering wheel and foot pedals). so that other companies have to come up with a different interface.
the reality is, if you come up with an interface that's easy to use to utilize your product, and your product blows the market wide open, others are going to copy the user interface to utilize their product, because that's what the customer is expecting from that device, not because they want to cheap out on unique designs.
thats not a fair assesment at all. it would be more accurate to say "ah, selective application of the legal system based on whether you think that particular law in question is valid", which is a damn site better than "selective application of the legal system based on how many lawyers you have"
similarly, why is company A investing so much time and money into something that can just be coppied at little to no cost.
that's equivalent to company A spending millions / billions on getting the "perfect pencil grip", and then is surprised when they don't make a return on their investment. its not up to the consumers or competitors to ensure a company returns a profit, that is the sole responsibility of the company trying to turn a profit.
what? i've earnt myself quite a lot of money and haven't patented anything, in fact, patents stop my ability to build unique, company specific software as easily as i would have been otherwise... with patents the value of the work gets distributed to some lucky individuals, leaving a lot less for the MAJORITY of developers.
PATENTS ARE COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO OUR INDUSTRY. don't you dare suggest its the only think keeping it alive.
Slashdot Mirror
so what your saying is... cookie cutter responses would be wildly distributed, but custom work, specific work or low volume high quality work would need to be paid for upfront before it can exist..
Compared to now where cookie cutter responses have the financial support of the masses so they also have high quality and a distributed price tag, which reduce the demand for custom and specific work... which means less professionals and more monopolies thanks to reduced demand in the custom and once of sectors (the biggest driver of small business, which is the backbone of all modern economies).
yeah, i don't see the down side. i earn more money as a professional in the industry if there is no value in over-engineering a product to suite everyone (and take my customers out from under my feet), the average professional stands to make more money in the industry.
100%!
I'm entitled to line up my 1's and 0's however i desire and for whatever reason. You're not entitled to money just because they match something you came up with first if you parse them through a whole bunch of conversion processes.
musicians are entitled to whatever was agreed to transfer the digital information to the 3rd party. if there is no agreement then there is no entitlement, i never signed an agreement to say "yes, your song is worth this much and i will pay that to have on going access to this pattern, and i give you full rights to remove this pattern from my hardware should you see fit".
Obviously the law doesn't see it this way, but at this stage its safe to assume that the law isn't in societies interests at all, so also a moot point.
. If the producers can't earn a living wage, the number and quality of entertainers will fall.
considering entertainment is hardly a job producing industry, not a vital service, nor even a real necessity.... why should it get more legal protection than any other industry?
Surely if a form of entertainment cant sustain itself, it needs to die.
I'm going to loose more sleep because we don't have a Neil Armstrong of our time, not because we don't have a George Lucas.
are you the same guy that estimates the street value of drugs when the cops make a big bust? maybe a mobile phone salesman regarding the "$10000 value" of the mobile plan only costing $30 a month?
now, i don't know about you, but in east ubexiztan(made up country so i don't have to find 1 of the hundred out there, china? i thought all art is public works in communist countries? at least at one stage it was.) there is no legal requirement to pay a create of works if you store a copy.
by that metric, the individual is carrying around nearly $100 worth of hardware and probably $300 worth of data? (data transmission does actually have a value, unlike the pattern your copying, which is made up.).
so your value only exists in the heads of people who think they deserve that much, the real value is quite considerably lower.
I think his point was that enforcing a "right to listen" is morally wrong, and that the recording companies only got away with having laws worded this way because previously there was always a physical attribute to the content you buy, so the consumer doesn't consider the song "a right to listen", however sees it as "i purchased this flat disc with rased bumps in it, if i put this in a record player then i can hear a tune i like". i paid for physical something, and now i have a physical something that i can do what i want with, because i own it!
we both know that the law is not written to be morally correct.
an analogy would be if i'm a carpenter and i have a very skilled way of whittling wood, 20 years ago i sold you a chair for $100, its your chair, i can still whittle my wood and make money selling chairs, no government intervention required.
skip forward to today, where CNC machines are standard household appliance. i still have my skill of whittling wood, i can either, "sell" my ability to an engineer who would convert my whittling skills to a CNC equivilant digital version, but i can only make money if the government enforces it.
my other option is to not have a digital copy of my chair (i don't have to give it out you know) and then charge a premium for original content, or custom work. because everyone can just download chairs now, but my 40 - 50 years of skill is always going to be better quality then the cookie cutter response, so i can now charge $400-$500 and my service changes from a consumer service to a premium service. maybe you want fancy chairs to draw a big crowd?
alternatively, i could freely give out my base chair design out on the internet with a suggesting custom jobs (think concert) come at a premium and generate my work from that way.
3 different options to have the actual generator of the valuable item maintain profit.
only one requires extensive government support (and your tax dollars), only one maintains a middle man that is just not nessisary these days. only one option requires foreigners in sovereign countries to follow our law in their own land for the system to even work.
unfortunately, its the system they are running with :/
er, i will gladly blame the players who are actively changing the game so that they win more often. this is called cheating and anyone older than 2 can recognize it. its expected some people will do this, but its hardly blameless behavior.
right about the same time you could actually claim that a pattern was yours to begin with.
fair call. putting something in place and then asserting that you deserve to get paid is a different ball game to trying to make extra money out of the company in a mutually beneficial exchange.
thats pretty much how it was when i was working in government.
I got the fuck outta there so i could actually DO something in IT instead of be just a computer tech and be up to date on possibly relevant technology.
now i do all those things under the "IT" umbrella. infrastructure, contracts, the data, hardware, software, business streamlining, online (everything but the actual marketing).
"The engineering department at a TV station *IS* an IT department. They manage the electronic equipment and the maintenance of the equipment which facilitates the business." no, the engineering department at a TV station is a PC tech work house, NOT an IT department. there is a lot more to managing IT infastructure than just keeping "the equipment going". Identifying avenues for digital optimisation and progression is important.
the only good ones i've met work in government.
take pure profits away from sales and marketing and they become quite responsible and reasonable individuals business wise.
I'm not saying hold your manager over a barrel? if he doesn't want to pay he isn't going to pay?
All i'm suggesting is that you could approach your manager with a solution, if he says "no, can't afford it" then don't supply it. that's all there is to it, the software isn't without value as you've spent personal time developing / designing.
If your manager demands that you implement anyway, simply say that you can't afford the cost of the software?
"look I wrote this application even though you told me there were no funds available, and even though the application makes my job significantly easier, I still want you to pay me for it or I'm not going to give you the application."
"look, i have found a product (shows example of prototype) even though you previously said that the company can't afford the implementation. here is a cost vs benefit analysis on how this product will improve our processes and save us money (justify the expense), I can have the product license signed over to your company so we can have absolute control over any changes to future requirements of the company, the software costs this much to install and has a license fee of x per year... what do you think? "
There no need to tell your manager that you wrote it, its pretty irrelevant if you did, you're not selling your skill (angling for a promotion) you're selling a solution. its much safer (and more professional) this way. if your boss isn't interested sell it elsewhere?
without being asked by his boss to do the code, c, d, and e are all entirely justifiable.
they can, after all, simply continue what they were doing before using the new software that wasn't asked for?
I may have a specific job title, but my real job is helping the my team, co-workers and company be successful.
no, your real job is still whats on that title. you're just taking it upon yourself to be a team-member not an employee.
there is nothing wrong with having the self confidence to identify when your value to the company isn't re-enumerated. just because someone pays you a wage doesn't mean that the company owns you. They pay you a wage to do whats in your contract, there is nothing wrong with NOT doing what ISN'T in your contract without payment.
its much harder to get job satisfaction when all you save is your bosses ass.
picture yourself on your death bed looking back over your life... what do you want to see?
well, i don't want to see about 20 years of poverty after retirement.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here
i think you answered the question perfectly, but seemed to give the OP some meaning that he didn't have.
clearly he wants to know how to avoid getting rolled by his boss, and maximise his profits..
basically. tell your boss you've found a solution for an ongoing problem to your job, however its outside of your scope to impliment. you could ask for either an amendment to your contract (and a payrise) for the extra responsibility OR to sell the solution outright to your boss. but make sure he(/she) understands that there is no free lunches. basically talk to your boss as if someone else is selling the software and you're just found a good "deal",
SQLServer certainly does. (our implementation is rubish though, 2 million records and no primary key or proper relational databases, who would have though that would lead to problems!?). but if used properly mySQL should be no worse.
i think he is saying that he doesn't want the law that makes apple "right" to apply, he makes no statement about that it should still apply to others, infact he says the opposite.
So while I expect Apple is probably legally correct, all that means is that the law is clearly wrong and needs fixing
what he is saying is "i want justice, not the universal application of outdated law that benefits no one but the company with the most lawyers"
When the general view of "Freedom" is defined better by some other state,
.. well, freedom is well defined in the American constitution. if only it was applied to American politics.
American based Infrastructure can be routed around. the only control you should have over the internet is what is held within your borders. and you've already shown you can't be trusted hosting .com domains.
then mock them for trying to protect their innovations.
I'll never understand why techy types place little to no value in the innovation of user interactivity.
there is huge value to it, but i don't think it should be somethign that can be protected by patent law.
think of it this way, a User interface is normally only "user friendly" because its what everyone is use to.
if i made a car with the accelerator and front brake on the steering wheel, and rear brake and clutch as foot pedals, it won't sell very well, because the "user friendly" interface is the one everyone is used to and expects.
similarly, imagine how difficult just jumping into a car and driving around IF the ford T protected their design layout for the user interface of their vehicle (it was one of the first with a "modern" design layout of steering wheel and foot pedals). so that other companies have to come up with a different interface.
the reality is, if you come up with an interface that's easy to use to utilize your product, and your product blows the market wide open, others are going to copy the user interface to utilize their product, because that's what the customer is expecting from that device, not because they want to cheap out on unique designs.
thats not a fair assesment at all. it would be more accurate to say "ah, selective application of the legal system based on whether you think that particular law in question is valid", which is a damn site better than "selective application of the legal system based on how many lawyers you have"
similarly, why is company A investing so much time and money into something that can just be coppied at little to no cost.
that's equivalent to company A spending millions / billions on getting the "perfect pencil grip", and then is surprised when they don't make a return on their investment. its not up to the consumers or competitors to ensure a company returns a profit, that is the sole responsibility of the company trying to turn a profit.
what? i've earnt myself quite a lot of money and haven't patented anything, in fact, patents stop my ability to build unique, company specific software as easily as i would have been otherwise... with patents the value of the work gets distributed to some lucky individuals, leaving a lot less for the MAJORITY of developers.
PATENTS ARE COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO OUR INDUSTRY. don't you dare suggest its the only think keeping it alive.
true, but significant value of the product is in the brand name, not the functionality of the product, but again, thats hardly abnormal either.
i'm not sure how this is relevant to anything in the original discussion though.