Just to clarify.. the 78% is a theoretical maximum which to reach you'd have to modulate the base current along with the signal that's to be transmitted.
Digital radio has negligible benefits for normal people compared to AM / FM, and public broadcasting services should serve people's interests. The real purpose of these changes is mainly just to force people replacing perfectly good devices or buy digital decoders to enrich the pockets of a select few companies. (with the TV, it also provided the rich with better image to look at on their fancy plasma whatever screens.) Oh, did i mention digital emitters are less efficient too, because they require class AB amplifiers with a max efficiency of about 78% as opposed to class C which can do something over 90% ?
Ahahahah... i dunno about Spain, but if they showed uninvited to a Slovak village wedding and tried to stir shit up... i bet that they'd leave with a blue eye and a kick in the arse.
No , i meant there are more cases of companies abusing this and screwing normal people than normal people with legitimate lawsuits who lose them (and thus would get screwed over by the new system)
But that's not the usual case. Usually the trouble is big companies suing here and there because even if they lose they can financially bleed their opponent to death. In other countries, loser paying court costs is the standard practice.
Given that a victory in a lawsuit is supposed to represent that the side was right, why should it ever be that the "winner" , in these cases defendant, in a lawsuit ends up in a worse situation than before he won? It essentially reduces to someone being legally able to pay money to cause a loss to someone else.
You realise what would be the costs of supplying several kilotons of the stuff into stratosphere via airplane? The point of the whole method is to do something that's cheap enough to not throttle our industry
See, it's all to do with the fact that while the zeros of a digital signal are smooth and pass through well, the ones can get caught and cause a data block, if the cable is of poor quality, or bent.
Not really. Sulphur dioxide only has a really important effect on the wavelengths you want to keep out if you want to deal with global warming - it's particulates that shade everything. Besides, earth doesn't have a problem with low sunlight - usually the limiters to plant growth are what's in the soil, which is why we bother with fertilisers.
The only thing you have to do is to inject the sulphur dioxide or similar stuff into the stratosphere which has hardly any weather and as such it will stay there for a long enough time to make the whole operation feasible , and rather cheap.
We had a talk of it at the university - one of the professors in there is working on the delivery system - you have to pump quite a quantity of material quite high... besides the tubes have to hold themselves up (by baloon / air anchor)
See, the point is, if someone pays you for your work, they need for you to do such things where such money will come back somehow, so you'll be stuck doing interesting and useful tasks (in my case , lots of CAD and assembling + testing prototypes plus assorted workshop work)
If they don't pay you , it's more than likely they will throw you around doing unskilled work which is little risk in the case you show up to be a total fail,and which doesn't take time away from their paid employees.
The article talks about unpaid internships which are a robbery. If you create value for someone , you should get paid for it. Otherwise you are either a slave or a mug.
I am studying engineering in the UK and the internship i did last summer was a paid one. There are unpaid ones, but mostly, they are for people who are low-grade and no place that gives a salary wants them, it seems.
Not really. Putting asides the fact that some of the best content in every form i know is distributed for free already, abolishing copyrights would force those megacorps to innovate too, as they wouldn't be able to milk one cow for ages and ages.
If you remove the free alternative, then the price that these people are willing to pay would be much higher.
Why? These items are non-essential. Therefore there's no reason why anyone should feel compelled to pay any more than their perceived value for them, regardless of alternatives.
But that says nothing about what value it has. If someone "pirates" it, all that shows is that for him,it has more value than the price of electricity he's paying while it's downloading. the price of bandwith, plus any risk there is from him getting caught
All of that is far below the price they ask.
As a side point to this - i have a rather large collection of DVD's at home , all legit. Why did i bother buying? Well, because a) they were sold in newspaper stands (convenience) b) they were sold for an euro or at most , two (it's cheap enough not to bother with downloads) and three , it were older films and TV shows , which are interesting and fun, and some are hard to find even on the internet (provides value)
As an alternative example of music - i got in a shop a CD of Oleg Gazmanov for about 5 euro, which had about a dozen albums of his in clean mp3 format on it. Again, clearly a good purchase - it'd take a great deal of hunting to find all songs off there I guess if the companies out there behaved more like these examples, people would pirate less. It's silly to restate it yet again, but whether or not other pathways to get it for less are available, selling 5 bucks worth of content for 50 bucks just won't appeal to a large segment of the population.
Well, that's your problem - why should doing what you do be a protected method of living? Get a job like the rest of people and if you want, create stuff in your spare time.. Advances in industry made plenty other occupations redundant, or turned them into the public, after all
In the time that's coming it very well might be that professional content producers will lose it to the public, just like newspaper are slowly losing out to other information sources on the internet
The only way you can hold onto information is not to release it into the public. That's it.
And well, you are misstating it heavily with the 99 cents.. Perhaps get a paycheck for developing the app from the hardware manufacturer who after all needs apps for his platform (a very likely source of income for folk like you if copyrights and such are abolished)
Still made quite the money, as do plenty of Free To Play MMO's on the internet (eg. World of Tanks).
In other words, what you need is a) to adopt methods (as the above) that aren't endangered by piracy much, because you are providing an actual service, not just copiable data , and , on the other hand, notice that there's no use wanting it all - there will be some piracy losses, but there is such a thing as acceptable loss, where trying to fight it is unrentable.
Note Starcraft for example. It had primitive copy protection, and got pirated a lot, but it made Blizzard a profit and is sold in some numbers even now.
I said you can have all the paychecks i'll get in 20 years for work i do now. Because that's just what these folk get - money for work done long in the past.
I'd be rather you put your modeling skills to use in industry - stuff like finite element analysis and such. Unlike the other two occupations, it's useful for something.
The hillarious thing is , that I mostly do - mainly because i don't give much of a damn about crap that's produced now. In the last two or so years, the only new thing i watched , and even bought was HTTYD Most of the music i hear is from 80s and 90s as well.
I had a job producing copyrighted content (video games). Believe me, nobody would have invested in creating these in the first place without the guaranteed monopoly that copyright protection provides.
What kind of argument is that? I mean, there are a ton of far more useful jobs a programmer can do. In the same way, the invention of the refrigerator spelled death for the ice industry, and whoever worked on mining and storing ice had to find another job related to his skills.
Really? I don't know about you, but when i do some work , i only get paid for it once, not for years to go.
Why should i support folk who are far more privileged than myself - they get paid for the same work for years!?
In other words, you can take all the paycheck i'll get in 20 years for work i do now - all of the zero bucks.
Let's hope that if enough of those with different interests to RIAA-like scum, and with full wallets to actually persuade the important folks up there will hold opinions like this, the situation will begin to change
Telecoms are quite the profitable enterprise and copyrightists are slowly beginning to step on more and more toes in their mad race for more profits.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to clarify.. the 78% is a theoretical maximum which to reach you'd have to modulate the base current along with the signal that's to be transmitted.
Digital radio has negligible benefits for normal people compared to AM / FM, and public broadcasting services should serve people's interests.
The real purpose of these changes is mainly just to force people replacing perfectly good devices or buy digital decoders to enrich the pockets of a select few companies. (with the TV, it also provided the rich with better image to look at on their fancy plasma whatever screens.)
Oh, did i mention digital emitters are less efficient too, because they require class AB amplifiers with a max efficiency of about 78% as opposed to class C which can do something over 90% ?
Ahahahah... i dunno about Spain, but if they showed uninvited to a Slovak village wedding and tried to stir shit up... i bet that they'd leave with a blue eye and a kick in the arse.
No , i meant there are more cases of companies abusing this and screwing normal people than normal people with legitimate lawsuits who lose them (and thus would get screwed over by the new system)
But that's not the usual case. Usually the trouble is big companies suing here and there because even if they lose they can financially bleed their opponent to death.
In other countries, loser paying court costs is the standard practice.
Given that a victory in a lawsuit is supposed to represent that the side was right, why should it ever be that the "winner" , in these cases defendant, in a lawsuit ends up in a worse situation than before he won?
It essentially reduces to someone being legally able to pay money to cause a loss to someone else.
Silly, that's what a "high speed" cable does.
You realise what would be the costs of supplying several kilotons of the stuff into stratosphere via airplane? The point of the whole method is to do something that's cheap enough to not throttle our industry
As far as i remembered , it reflected only certain wavelengths of light, far from everything in the spectrum. I might be wrong though.
See, it's all to do with the fact that while the zeros of a digital signal are smooth and pass through well, the ones can get caught and cause a data block, if the cable is of poor quality, or bent.
Not really. Sulphur dioxide only has a really important effect on the wavelengths you want to keep out if you want to deal with global warming - it's particulates that shade everything.
Besides, earth doesn't have a problem with low sunlight - usually the limiters to plant growth are what's in the soil, which is why we bother with fertilisers.
The only thing you have to do is to inject the sulphur dioxide or similar stuff into the stratosphere which has hardly any weather and as such it will stay there for a long enough time to make the whole operation feasible , and rather cheap.
We had a talk of it at the university - one of the professors in there is working on the delivery system - you have to pump quite a quantity of material quite high... besides the tubes have to hold themselves up (by baloon / air anchor)
See, the point is, if someone pays you for your work, they need for you to do such things where such money will come back somehow, so you'll be stuck doing interesting and useful tasks (in my case , lots of CAD and assembling + testing prototypes plus assorted workshop work) ,and which doesn't take time away from their paid employees.
If they don't pay you , it's more than likely they will throw you around doing unskilled work which is little risk in the case you show up to be a total fail
The article talks about unpaid internships which are a robbery.
If you create value for someone , you should get paid for it. Otherwise you are either a slave or a mug.
I am studying engineering in the UK and the internship i did last summer was a paid one. There are unpaid ones, but mostly, they are for people who are low-grade and no place that gives a salary wants them, it seems.
Not really. Putting asides the fact that some of the best content in every form i know is distributed for free already, abolishing copyrights would force those megacorps to innovate too, as they wouldn't be able to milk one cow for ages and ages.
If you remove the free alternative, then the price that these people are willing to pay would be much higher.
Why? These items are non-essential. Therefore there's no reason why anyone should feel compelled to pay any more than their perceived value for them, regardless of alternatives.
But that says nothing about what value it has. ,it has more value than the price of electricity he's paying while it's downloading. the price of bandwith, plus any risk there is from him getting caught
If someone "pirates" it, all that shows is that for him
All of that is far below the price they ask.
As a side point to this - i have a rather large collection of DVD's at home , all legit. Why did i bother buying? Well, because a) they were sold in newspaper stands (convenience) b) they were sold for an euro or at most , two (it's cheap enough not to bother with downloads) and three , it were older films and TV shows , which are interesting and fun, and some are hard to find even on the internet (provides value)
As an alternative example of music - i got in a shop a CD of Oleg Gazmanov for about 5 euro, which had about a dozen albums of his in clean mp3 format on it. Again, clearly a good purchase - it'd take a great deal of hunting to find all songs off there
I guess if the companies out there behaved more like these examples, people would pirate less. It's silly to restate it yet again, but whether or not other pathways to get it for less are available, selling 5 bucks worth of content for 50 bucks just won't appeal to a large segment of the population.
Well, that's your problem - why should doing what you do be a protected method of living? Get a job like the rest of people and if you want, create stuff in your spare time..
Advances in industry made plenty other occupations redundant, or turned them into the public, after all
In the time that's coming it very well might be that professional content producers will lose it to the public, just like newspaper are slowly losing out to other information sources on the internet
The only way you can hold onto information is not to release it into the public. That's it.
And well, you are misstating it heavily with the 99 cents.. Perhaps get a paycheck for developing the app from the hardware manufacturer who after all needs apps for his platform (a very likely source of income for folk like you if copyrights and such are abolished)
Still made quite the money, as do plenty of Free To Play MMO's on the internet (eg. World of Tanks).
In other words, what you need is a) to adopt methods (as the above) that aren't endangered by piracy much, because you are providing an actual service, not just copiable data , and , on the other hand, notice that there's no use wanting it all - there will be some piracy losses, but there is such a thing as acceptable loss, where trying to fight it is unrentable.
Note Starcraft for example. It had primitive copy protection, and got pirated a lot, but it made Blizzard a profit and is sold in some numbers even now.
I said you can have all the paychecks i'll get in 20 years for work i do now. Because that's just what these folk get - money for work done long in the past.
I'd be rather you put your modeling skills to use in industry - stuff like finite element analysis and such.
Unlike the other two occupations, it's useful for something.
The hillarious thing is , that I mostly do - mainly because i don't give much of a damn about crap that's produced now. In the last two or so years, the only new thing i watched , and even bought was HTTYD
Most of the music i hear is from 80s and 90s as well.
I had a job producing copyrighted content (video games). Believe me, nobody would have invested in creating these in the first place without the guaranteed monopoly that copyright protection provides.
What kind of argument is that? I mean, there are a ton of far more useful jobs a programmer can do. In the same way, the invention of the refrigerator spelled death for the ice industry, and whoever worked on mining and storing ice had to find another job related to his skills.
Really? I don't know about you, but when i do some work , i only get paid for it once, not for years to go.
Why should i support folk who are far more privileged than myself - they get paid for the same work for years!?
In other words, you can take all the paycheck i'll get in 20 years for work i do now - all of the zero bucks.
Let's hope that if enough of those with different interests to RIAA-like scum, and with full wallets to actually persuade the important folks up there will hold opinions like this, the situation will begin to change
Telecoms are quite the profitable enterprise and copyrightists are slowly beginning to step on more and more toes in their mad race for more profits.