I like the original purpose of copyrights/patents as an incentive to create, as opposed to a perpetual reward for having created. Depending on the discount rate you choose, a dollar 40 years from now is worth a nickel to you today. I.e., it's not much of an incentive.
My vote is for copyrights lasting a maximum of 40 years.
Yep, publishers can take advantage of authors. Authors can (and do) self publish instead. Yet the authors that command the largest audiences have (so far) stuck with publishers.
How do you feel about a self-published author's copyright?
But books and songs are a small part of the market.
The company that writes a piece of software gets most of the revenue, bestbuy got ~20% a few years ago and probably less today.
Pharma companies (loathe them or hate them) keep most of the revenue from their patented drug sales; wholesalers keep a larger % from generics.
Well, the creative process 500 years ago largely depended on either being wealthy enough not to have to support yourself via your creations or having a wealthy patron to pay the bills. What percentage of today's authors/inventors could continue to create full time under that model or a donation model?
Also, a lot of works today don't rely on just a few man-years of labor. Drugs come out of a several hundred million dollar development/approval process and an equal amount of opportunity cost. Who foots the bill for that if Dr. Reddy can put put out a generic equivalent the same day your drug is approved?
Basically, in Germany, authors got paid bigger advances and their strategy was high volume, low margin. Getting to the market first was very important for them.
Why would a modern publisher pay an author an advance without a copyright? Getting to market first isn't much of an advantage if the book can be scanned and the.epub is available on Mobilism later that week. Also, the author could turn around and sell his work without giving the publisher a cut.
but not been shown to be useful as CPUs, in part because of the reasons I mentioned. Have any figures for the size and watts of an intel atom made out of graphene?
If high bandwidth mesh networks arise, someone still has to pay peerage fees to the backbone. Most of the (legal, residential) traffic is Netflix, not sharing files with your neighbors. And If the mesh networks can't provide high bandwidth to each node, then people will stick with fiber/cable/dsl.
I'm not sure what the Swiss military would do if a company saturated a community's mesh network with its traffic as opposed to paying for T1 lines.
Shoot them?
Like it or not, protection of a work is needed to keep the creative process going.
That is false, was false and will keep being false.
That is true, was true, and will keep being true. The argument is over what level of protection, for which works, and for how long. If there was no protection, intermediaries wouldn't bother paying the authors at all.
Even if someone does solve the energy leakage/inefficiency of graphene transistors,
how do mesh networks escape the tragedy of the commons? I.e., broadband connections would still be too expensive to give away for free, and the spectra available to host them are limited.
People who have been proven right time after time, such as Snopes or the Bad Astronomy guy, are frequently cited as rebuttals.
I wish that would work, but reputation and fame will always be abused and exploited. The only way to improve the level of discourse is to improve the level of discourse:
expect people to back their opinions with relevant facts; request that they to do so when they haven't. If they can't, recognize that their opinion is just an opinion, no matter how well regarded the author is.
To instill some sort of ability to judge credibility. For example, two people make conflicting medical claims. One is an unknown but licensed medical doctor who trained at a well regarded university and the other is a famous and popular actress. That the actress' lack of relative credibility would require extraordinary evidence of her claims.
If you're reading it on the internet you probably shouldn't believe the doctor either. Well regarded medical schools are adding integrative/alternative med to their curricula, and quacks like Andrew Weil are on their way to creating board certifications for it. Money talks, evidence (often) walks these days.
I generally agree with you, but allow me to play devil's advocate on one point. It may be there's been a shift and today's developers differ from their predecessors in that they aren't going to be happy staying at even the ideal company for more than 2-3 years.
I don't think you have to go that far. Say instead they will be happy staying at the ideal company, and furthermore be generous and say that 1 in 10 companies are ideal. 2-3 years from now that list of ideal companies has turned over due to changes in management, technology, and the market, so only 3 of the original 10 are still ideal. 2-3 years after that you're down to 1. At the 5 year mark only 1% of companies have remained ideal.
there is no difference in between 25 fps, or 30 fps or 40 fps to the human eye playing a game. other than the counter fraps shows. there wasnt any difference in between these with respect to human physiology and eye-brain connections either.
The historic way people benchmarked their performance for gaming was the maximum/average frame rate for the game. This was great for hardware blogs and the overclocking hobby: new hardware and tweaks happily produced longer bars in the barcharts (see "overcock" comment upthread), which in turn created advertising dollars for the blogs and buzz for the overclocking community. Who can argue that 144 isn't better than 130 FPS?
But the metric that matters for gaming is a lot closer to the minimum framerate, or even better "the number of seconds that the frame rate was below X". These are measures that come a lot closer to telling you whether a setup will be annoyingly or unplayably slow for a given game. They also tend to flatten the differences seen between all but the most drastic changes in hardware and overclocking, which is not good news for hardware blogs or the overclocking community - who cares if your setup has a 10% difference in average FPS if still bogs down just as often? Those metrics (finally!) become common over the past few years, but were hard or impossible to find ten or fifteen years ago. How much of the benefits seen during the "golden age" of overclocking would disappear if appropriate metrics were used instead?
There is no monopoly on trash collection. You're free to 1, hire a private service to haul it away or 2, find a landfill that will take it and drive it there yourself. Plenty of people already do one or the other. #3 is a bit more complicated. You're right, anyone can own land: so if you find some that is zoned for landfill space and you are willing to secure the necessary permits, install the correct liners, etc, then you can dump your garbage in your own landfill.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the original purpose of copyrights/patents as an incentive to create, as opposed to a perpetual reward for having created. Depending on the discount rate you choose, a dollar 40 years from now is worth a nickel to you today. I.e., it's not much of an incentive. My vote is for copyrights lasting a maximum of 40 years.
Yep, publishers can take advantage of authors. Authors can (and do) self publish instead. Yet the authors that command the largest audiences have (so far) stuck with publishers. How do you feel about a self-published author's copyright? But books and songs are a small part of the market. The company that writes a piece of software gets most of the revenue, bestbuy got ~20% a few years ago and probably less today. Pharma companies (loathe them or hate them) keep most of the revenue from their patented drug sales; wholesalers keep a larger % from generics.
Well, the creative process 500 years ago largely depended on either being wealthy enough not to have to support yourself via your creations or having a wealthy patron to pay the bills. What percentage of today's authors/inventors could continue to create full time under that model or a donation model? Also, a lot of works today don't rely on just a few man-years of labor. Drugs come out of a several hundred million dollar development/approval process and an equal amount of opportunity cost. Who foots the bill for that if Dr. Reddy can put put out a generic equivalent the same day your drug is approved?
Basically, in Germany, authors got paid bigger advances and their strategy was high volume, low margin. Getting to the market first was very important for them.
Why would a modern publisher pay an author an advance without a copyright? Getting to market first isn't much of an advantage if the book can be scanned and the .epub is available on Mobilism later that week. Also, the author could turn around and sell his work without giving the publisher a cut.
Ink-jet printed graphene circuits have been demonstrated. .
but not been shown to be useful as CPUs, in part because of the reasons I mentioned. Have any figures for the size and watts of an intel atom made out of graphene?
The incentives for cooperative mesh networking are in their physics. Why waste energy just so you can spoil a "commons"? If you want to see an example of how community resilience can effectively deal with aggression, look up the Swiss military.
If high bandwidth mesh networks arise, someone still has to pay peerage fees to the backbone. Most of the (legal, residential) traffic is Netflix, not sharing files with your neighbors. And If the mesh networks can't provide high bandwidth to each node, then people will stick with fiber/cable/dsl. I'm not sure what the Swiss military would do if a company saturated a community's mesh network with its traffic as opposed to paying for T1 lines. Shoot them?
anecdote = data? Would you and Louis be OK with someone writing up his material as a book and selling it? How about if they don't say he's the author?
Like it or not, protection of a work is needed to keep the creative process going.
That is false, was false and will keep being false.
That is true, was true, and will keep being true. The argument is over what level of protection, for which works, and for how long. If there was no protection, intermediaries wouldn't bother paying the authors at all.
Even if someone does solve the energy leakage/inefficiency of graphene transistors, how do mesh networks escape the tragedy of the commons? I.e., broadband connections would still be too expensive to give away for free, and the spectra available to host them are limited.
People who have been proven right time after time, such as Snopes or the Bad Astronomy guy, are frequently cited as rebuttals.
I wish that would work, but reputation and fame will always be abused and exploited. The only way to improve the level of discourse is to improve the level of discourse: expect people to back their opinions with relevant facts; request that they to do so when they haven't. If they can't, recognize that their opinion is just an opinion, no matter how well regarded the author is.
"the warped bullshit ones" include medical care. Most personal bankruptcies are due to medical costs.
To instill some sort of ability to judge credibility. For example, two people make conflicting medical claims. One is an unknown but licensed medical doctor who trained at a well regarded university and the other is a famous and popular actress. That the actress' lack of relative credibility would require extraordinary evidence of her claims.
If you're reading it on the internet you probably shouldn't believe the doctor either. Well regarded medical schools are adding integrative/alternative med to their curricula, and quacks like Andrew Weil are on their way to creating board certifications for it. Money talks, evidence (often) walks these days.
I generally agree with you, but allow me to play devil's advocate on one point. It may be there's been a shift and today's developers differ from their predecessors in that they aren't going to be happy staying at even the ideal company for more than 2-3 years.
I don't think you have to go that far. Say instead they will be happy staying at the ideal company, and furthermore be generous and say that 1 in 10 companies are ideal. 2-3 years from now that list of ideal companies has turned over due to changes in management, technology, and the market, so only 3 of the original 10 are still ideal. 2-3 years after that you're down to 1. At the 5 year mark only 1% of companies have remained ideal.
there is no difference in between 25 fps, or 30 fps or 40 fps to the human eye playing a game. other than the counter fraps shows. there wasnt any difference in between these with respect to human physiology and eye-brain connections either.
Cite?
But the metric that matters for gaming is a lot closer to the minimum framerate, or even better "the number of seconds that the frame rate was below X". These are measures that come a lot closer to telling you whether a setup will be annoyingly or unplayably slow for a given game. They also tend to flatten the differences seen between all but the most drastic changes in hardware and overclocking, which is not good news for hardware blogs or the overclocking community - who cares if your setup has a 10% difference in average FPS if still bogs down just as often? Those metrics (finally!) become common over the past few years, but were hard or impossible to find ten or fifteen years ago. How much of the benefits seen during the "golden age" of overclocking would disappear if appropriate metrics were used instead?
There is no monopoly on trash collection. You're free to 1, hire a private service to haul it away or 2, find a landfill that will take it and drive it there yourself. Plenty of people already do one or the other. #3 is a bit more complicated. You're right, anyone can own land: so if you find some that is zoned for landfill space and you are willing to secure the necessary permits, install the correct liners, etc, then you can dump your garbage in your own landfill.