Talk about the pot calling the sterling silver tea kettle black. Your numbers are more than an order of magnitude greater than every estimate I can find that doesn't come from a biased source, such as the GAO.
So, what you are saying is that you worked less than a thousand hours over the course of 2-3 years. Now lets assume billy manages to work 3 months full time, and 9 months part time, say 15 hours a week, at a job that pays $6.00/hr:
480 full time hours + 540 part time hours = 1,020 hour total * $6.00/hr = $6,120 dollars per year * 2 years = $12,240
So, Billy could make around $12,000 in 2 years, not including interest if he put it in a savings account. That also assumes that he doesn't get a raise because he works just hard enough to not get fired. And, it also assumes his parents never put any money away for his education and that he didn't get or save any money over the holidays. It also assumes that he got things like video games, computers, music, etc. the way my nephews did, as holiday and birthday gifts.
He would have to work while going to college, but I am fairly certain he could get manage that as people do that every single year.
You forgot the small fact that there has been less than a trillion dollars, in total, have been allocated in total for the wars. No where close to the "trillion dollars a year" he tossed out there.
You are just fucking stupid if you think they are spending a trillion dollars a year on Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. How you got modded "Insightful" is beyond me because you dont' know what you are talking about. The total cost of the wars to date is less than 1 trillion in total.
You can't be "the smart, hardworking, disappearing upper middle class" because smart people actually research there points BEFORE spouting off and proving that they are ignorant.
But, you want to know what will cost a trillion dollars per year? The healthcare bills being put together in Congress.
Please show me where in the Constitution, or anywhere in any level of government in the United States, it says one has a right to a college education.
Money is being siphoned off into the pockets of the university administrators, but not as much as you might think. After all, the university has to pay for all the other stuff students expect above and beyond educators.
The thing that I really don't understand, is you have a world leader country in terms of money, lifestyle, technology, science and research, why is it that poorer country immigrants are working for you, rather than you being paid large amounts of money to go over to their countries and bring them up to speed?
Did you even read this sentence? A "poorer country" paying "large amounts of money"? Think about that for a few minutes to see if you can figure out what is wrong with that idea. And, remember, we provide foreign aid to many of those countries and one of the things they spend that money on is subsidizing their colleges.
He pulled in work for his employer. If the thousands of out of work American software engineers did they wouldn't be out of work
Unless, of course, he did it for a cheaper wage and the was the primary reason for hiring him. H1-B visas are not supposed to be cost-cutting measures. Also, he did not pull in that work BEFORE he was hired, therefore it is not a reason to provide him with an H1-B.
And, what was it he was willing to do? To work longer hours for lower pay? To do the work of a senior level job with a junior level job title?
H1-B visas are granted on potential because there is no way for the government, who is the grantor of said visa, to know if the grantee has the actual ability to accomplish the task.
Visas are for the convenience of the state, not the people and not to people.
You say "if you can pull your weight" but how do you tell if one can do so beforehand? Your suggestion would result in accepting everyone and then sending back those that need assistance. So, how and when does that occur?
Your argument is a red herring. This is not about illegal immigrants or people working in the U.S. illegally but rather about people being given permission to work in the U.S. in positions that can and would be filled by citizens.
Also, your statement implies that no action is taken against illegal immigrants who do "menial labor" when action is taken. And, apparently you have quickly forgotten the results of the raids on poultry and meat packing plants. The day after the illegal aliens were taken into custody, hundreds of citizens and legal immigrants were in line to apply for the jobs.
Which is why we need to do away with H1-B visa. There is no need for H1-B visas in this economic climate.
Remember H1-B visas are supposed to fill positions for which there are no American suitable candidates, but with so many workers, including IT people, out of work, it should not be a problem to fill those positions with Americans.
Attracting them at expense of other Americans, improving their lives, having them become citizens, then run back where they came from at the first sign of economic trouble is a losing proposition.
Apparently, you have no clue how actually the actual immigration process works, because you are describing the process where an H1-B visa, which is a non-immigration visa, holder comes to the US and then works to be come an immigrant.
H1-B visas are supposed to fill holes in the skill sets of the American workforce but are being used by American companies to higher foreign workers are lower pay and longer hours.
With so many out of work software engineers who are American citizens, why should your H1-B visa, which is supposed to be used to fill critical positions, requiring a specialized skill set, for which an American citizen can not be found. Sounds to me like while you worked hard and worked long hours, you did nothing that any one of the thousands of out of work American software engineers could not do.
You should never have been granted the H1-B visa in the first place.
I think your memory and reasoning are both a bit faulty.
First off, why should companies bother to try to create a demand for Linux when they already have a demand for Windows based products? Especially when current data shows that this would only increase their market by about 5%.
ASUS introduced the EEE series and it was mildly successful. It became a major success only AFTER they introduced the WinXP version. And, sales of the WinXP version vastly outstripped the sales of the Linux version
You use as your barometer of public interest industry specific items, non-user applications, and installation imposed by corporate governance. That is disingenuous as the general public does not read IT trade magazines or attend IT conferences, or have home servers. You state we don't hear about the major installations, but fail to name any or provide any support for your contention. And,you fail to mention companies returning to Windows installations.
A number major computer manufactures have tried to introduce Linux based platforms, with disappointing results and higher numbers of calls for assistance and complaints.
Are you sure you want to use Google to measure interest? There are three times as many pages for Windows than for Linux, and when one considers that Linux users are much more likely to have a website devoted to their preferred OS than Windows users, things do not looks as rosy as you paint them.
Dell has spreads almost every day in free newspapers here in London, I would like to see the same kind of commitment and effort put towards a line of machines runing Linux exclusively
You are putting the cart before the horse. Again, why should Dell, or any company for that matter, spend that kind of money to attempt to create a demand for a product that will start off with, at best, 5% market share? That is just bad business sense.
What I find most amusing about your comment is that you seem to think it is the computer manufacturers' job to promote Linux. Computer manufacturers do not run commercials for Windows, nor do they create the demand for Windows. Microsoft does that. It is the responsibility of those that create and support Linux to create the demand for Linux, and thus far, they have done a terrible job of creating that demand. You want Dell to create ads for a Linux based line, but there is not a great enough demand in the general market to warrant such a thing.
The companies you should be looking to for ads and creating demand are RedHat, SuSE, and Canonical. They are the ones who have a stake in increasing general user adoption of Linux. They and the community have to improve Linux's image as user-unfriendly, difficult to use and support, and application poor. And, the community has to improve its own image, which is that it is hostile to anyone who doesn't know enough about their computer and Linux to answer one's own question.
If he fails to define the term, then the term must be taken at face value. Welcome to reality.
Please explain in detail the difference between "copyrighting industry" and "copyright industry". Especially in light of your definition of "industry of copyrighting works (and also of enforcing those copyrights)" which seems to be a fine definition of "copyrighting industry".
When you say
Innovation has come from the creative side not the part involved in copyrighting.
you are making my argument for me.
In fact creativity has been regularly shown to be stiffled[sic] by forceful copyrighting.
That is a temporary side effect of copyright's main purpose which is
Your argument seems to be that one should not be allowed to control the results and make a profit off of one's work if such control may interfere with someone else taking advantage, using, and possibly making a profit off said work or even is some else merely can not or does not wish to pay the asking price for the work. This is disingenuous.
for example the copyright on a GPL product enables the author to dictate that it cannot be redistributed under a proprietary licence.
So, it is OK for an author to dictate the use and terms of redistribution of his work when you agree with those terms and they benefit you, but not when they only benefit the author, which is the true reason for copyright in the first place? How hypocritical of you.
Nice of you to cherry pick your argument, but I won't allow you to do so. Either explain why a company which exists solely to manage copyrighted works would innovate in the realm of creating and distributing said works? Creation and distribution of works and the technologies involved in such are the realm of third parties.
If you want to use a car analogy, how about using an appropriate one? The one you have chosen is not appropriate because there is no logical comparison. Blacksmiths were the first manufacturers if automobiles, and there has been no invention that is supplanting copyright or copyrighted material, but rather an invention that has made it much easier to violate copyright.
Before cars , there were no speed limits and few, if any, traffic laws. But, once cars became both faster than horse-drawn carriages and popular, speed limits and traffic laws came into existence. A change in technology made it necessary to change the laws to reign in the use of said technology.
The biggest failure in your analogy is that people who violate copyright aren't making anything new. People, probably including yourself, are taking what someone else has created has the legal right to control the copying of and making unauthorized copies, thereby violating someone elses' rights. Then, those same people are claiming they somehow have a right to violate those others' rights. But, when that claim is examined, that claimed right is revealed as "I want it but either don't want or can't pay the going rate so it is OK for me to take it."
If it's going to kill you, it usually kills you on the first shot. Which never happens in real life.
Real life you say? Do you really want a game like UT to be like real life where a single shot will kill or incapacitate you?
You know, real life where, you may not die on the first shot, but instead get shot in the leg and not be able to walk, let alone run, as you slowly bleed to death while waiting for someone to take the time to kill you off?
Maybe you want a gut shot, with its slow, painful death while immobilized on the floor? Do you want the agonized screaming, too?
Or, are you thinking about movie "real life" where people can be shot a few times and still run around popping off shots and end up killing the bad guy?
Back when said magazines were in 7-11, they were kept in a rack behind the counter with a plate covering most of the cover so one could see the name of the magazine but not the picture on the cover if said picture was too revealing.
I would say their past actions has shown your supposition to be false.
If such entities "exist solely to manage the copyrights of artists and performers", why would they be creating "innovation in either the creation or distribution of works"?
It is not a misinterpretation of his words. It is basic logic.
If they exist solely for A, why would they be doing B?
To suggest that they are some how deficient for not doing B when they exist solely for doing A is disingenuous.
"I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries.
By definition, a "copyright industry" would be an industry that produces copyrighted works. Such industries would not necessarily be creating "innovation in either the creation or distribution of works" and to suggest so is disingenuous.
It also leaves out conglomerates, such as Sony, parent of Sony Music, who happens to be responsible for BluRay technology. He also neglects the DVD, which was developed by a consortium of companies including Sony and TimeWarner. Maybe he has never heard of the Sony Music division, but how could he not have heard of TimeWarner?
Is the author of that quote lying or just ignorant? If the former, nothing he says can be considered reliable. If the latter, his opinion is worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about the pot calling the sterling silver tea kettle black. Your numbers are more than an order of magnitude greater than every estimate I can find that doesn't come from a biased source, such as the GAO.
You are just a fool.
Let's see:
So, what you are saying is that you worked less than a thousand hours over the course of 2-3 years. Now lets assume billy manages to work 3 months full time, and 9 months part time, say 15 hours a week, at a job that pays $6.00/hr:
So, Billy could make around $12,000 in 2 years, not including interest if he put it in a savings account. That also assumes that he doesn't get a raise because he works just hard enough to not get fired. And, it also assumes his parents never put any money away for his education and that he didn't get or save any money over the holidays. It also assumes that he got things like video games, computers, music, etc. the way my nephews did, as holiday and birthday gifts.
He would have to work while going to college, but I am fairly certain he could get manage that as people do that every single year.
Or Billy can work while he is in high school, save his money and use it to pay for part of his college instead of all the crap he spends it on.
You forgot the small fact that there has been less than a trillion dollars, in total, have been allocated in total for the wars. No where close to the "trillion dollars a year" he tossed out there.
You are just fucking stupid if you think they are spending a trillion dollars a year on Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. How you got modded "Insightful" is beyond me because you dont' know what you are talking about. The total cost of the wars to date is less than 1 trillion in total.
You can't be "the smart, hardworking, disappearing upper middle class" because smart people actually research there points BEFORE spouting off and proving that they are ignorant.
But, you want to know what will cost a trillion dollars per year? The healthcare bills being put together in Congress.
Then don't go to college and make due with a high school diploma. Problem solved.
Please show me where in the Constitution, or anywhere in any level of government in the United States, it says one has a right to a college education.
Money is being siphoned off into the pockets of the university administrators, but not as much as you might think. After all, the university has to pay for all the other stuff students expect above and beyond educators.
Did you even read this sentence? A "poorer country" paying "large amounts of money"? Think about that for a few minutes to see if you can figure out what is wrong with that idea. And, remember, we provide foreign aid to many of those countries and one of the things they spend that money on is subsidizing their colleges.
Unless, of course, he did it for a cheaper wage and the was the primary reason for hiring him. H1-B visas are not supposed to be cost-cutting measures. Also, he did not pull in that work BEFORE he was hired, therefore it is not a reason to provide him with an H1-B.
And, what was it he was willing to do? To work longer hours for lower pay? To do the work of a senior level job with a junior level job title?
H1-B visas are granted on potential because there is no way for the government, who is the grantor of said visa, to know if the grantee has the actual ability to accomplish the task.
Visas are for the convenience of the state, not the people and not to people.
You say "if you can pull your weight" but how do you tell if one can do so beforehand? Your suggestion would result in accepting everyone and then sending back those that need assistance. So, how and when does that occur?
Your argument is a red herring. This is not about illegal immigrants or people working in the U.S. illegally but rather about people being given permission to work in the U.S. in positions that can and would be filled by citizens.
Also, your statement implies that no action is taken against illegal immigrants who do "menial labor" when action is taken. And, apparently you have quickly forgotten the results of the raids on poultry and meat packing plants. The day after the illegal aliens were taken into custody, hundreds of citizens and legal immigrants were in line to apply for the jobs.
And, H1-B visa holders are not immigrants.
The evidence does not support your post.
But, is there no American who can do the job? Critical AND not fillable by a qualified American are the criteria.
What makes you think they will allow you to work in their country the way we let them work in ours?
Which is why we need to do away with H1-B visa. There is no need for H1-B visas in this economic climate.
Remember H1-B visas are supposed to fill positions for which there are no American suitable candidates, but with so many workers, including IT people, out of work, it should not be a problem to fill those positions with Americans.
Attracting them at expense of other Americans, improving their lives, having them become citizens, then run back where they came from at the first sign of economic trouble is a losing proposition.
Apparently, you have no clue how actually the actual immigration process works, because you are describing the process where an H1-B visa, which is a non-immigration visa, holder comes to the US and then works to be come an immigrant.
H1-B visas are supposed to fill holes in the skill sets of the American workforce but are being used by American companies to higher foreign workers are lower pay and longer hours.
With so many out of work software engineers who are American citizens, why should your H1-B visa, which is supposed to be used to fill critical positions, requiring a specialized skill set, for which an American citizen can not be found. Sounds to me like while you worked hard and worked long hours, you did nothing that any one of the thousands of out of work American software engineers could not do.
You should never have been granted the H1-B visa in the first place.
You are correct about the lawsuit, which is why that provision was taken out of the OEM licensing agreement. Anti-trust rulings and all that.
I think your memory and reasoning are both a bit faulty.
First off, why should companies bother to try to create a demand for Linux when they already have a demand for Windows based products? Especially when current data shows that this would only increase their market by about 5%.
ASUS introduced the EEE series and it was mildly successful. It became a major success only AFTER they introduced the WinXP version. And, sales of the WinXP version vastly outstripped the sales of the Linux version
You use as your barometer of public interest industry specific items, non-user applications, and installation imposed by corporate governance. That is disingenuous as the general public does not read IT trade magazines or attend IT conferences, or have home servers. You state we don't hear about the major installations, but fail to name any or provide any support for your contention. And,you fail to mention companies returning to Windows installations.
A number major computer manufactures have tried to introduce Linux based platforms, with disappointing results and higher numbers of calls for assistance and complaints.
Are you sure you want to use Google to measure interest? There are three times as many pages for Windows than for Linux, and when one considers that Linux users are much more likely to have a website devoted to their preferred OS than Windows users, things do not looks as rosy as you paint them.
You are putting the cart before the horse. Again, why should Dell, or any company for that matter, spend that kind of money to attempt to create a demand for a product that will start off with, at best, 5% market share? That is just bad business sense.
What I find most amusing about your comment is that you seem to think it is the computer manufacturers' job to promote Linux. Computer manufacturers do not run commercials for Windows, nor do they create the demand for Windows. Microsoft does that. It is the responsibility of those that create and support Linux to create the demand for Linux, and thus far, they have done a terrible job of creating that demand. You want Dell to create ads for a Linux based line, but there is not a great enough demand in the general market to warrant such a thing.
The companies you should be looking to for ads and creating demand are RedHat, SuSE, and Canonical. They are the ones who have a stake in increasing general user adoption of Linux. They and the community have to improve Linux's image as user-unfriendly, difficult to use and support, and application poor. And, the community has to improve its own image, which is that it is hostile to anyone who doesn't know enough about their computer and Linux to answer one's own question.
RTFM N00B!!!
If he fails to define the term, then the term must be taken at face value. Welcome to reality.
Please explain in detail the difference between "copyrighting industry" and "copyright industry". Especially in light of your definition of "industry of copyrighting works (and also of enforcing those copyrights)" which seems to be a fine definition of "copyrighting industry".
When you say
you are making my argument for me.
That is a temporary side effect of copyright's main purpose which is
Your argument seems to be that one should not be allowed to control the results and make a profit off of one's work if such control may interfere with someone else taking advantage, using, and possibly making a profit off said work or even is some else merely can not or does not wish to pay the asking price for the work. This is disingenuous.
So, it is OK for an author to dictate the use and terms of redistribution of his work when you agree with those terms and they benefit you, but not when they only benefit the author, which is the true reason for copyright in the first place? How hypocritical of you.
Nice of you to cherry pick your argument, but I won't allow you to do so. Either explain why a company which exists solely to manage copyrighted works would innovate in the realm of creating and distributing said works? Creation and distribution of works and the technologies involved in such are the realm of third parties.
If you want to use a car analogy, how about using an appropriate one? The one you have chosen is not appropriate because there is no logical comparison. Blacksmiths were the first manufacturers if automobiles, and there has been no invention that is supplanting copyright or copyrighted material, but rather an invention that has made it much easier to violate copyright.
Before cars , there were no speed limits and few, if any, traffic laws. But, once cars became both faster than horse-drawn carriages and popular, speed limits and traffic laws came into existence. A change in technology made it necessary to change the laws to reign in the use of said technology.
The biggest failure in your analogy is that people who violate copyright aren't making anything new. People, probably including yourself, are taking what someone else has created has the legal right to control the copying of and making unauthorized copies, thereby violating someone elses' rights. Then, those same people are claiming they somehow have a right to violate those others' rights. But, when that claim is examined, that claimed right is revealed as "I want it but either don't want or can't pay the going rate so it is OK for me to take it."
Real life you say? Do you really want a game like UT to be like real life where a single shot will kill or incapacitate you?
You know, real life where, you may not die on the first shot, but instead get shot in the leg and not be able to walk, let alone run, as you slowly bleed to death while waiting for someone to take the time to kill you off?
Maybe you want a gut shot, with its slow, painful death while immobilized on the floor? Do you want the agonized screaming, too?
Or, are you thinking about movie "real life" where people can be shot a few times and still run around popping off shots and end up killing the bad guy?
Really?
Back when said magazines were in 7-11, they were kept in a rack behind the counter with a plate covering most of the cover so one could see the name of the magazine but not the picture on the cover if said picture was too revealing.
I would say their past actions has shown your supposition to be false.
Does doing so make the game more fun for most players?
If such entities "exist solely to manage the copyrights of artists and performers", why would they be creating "innovation in either the creation or distribution of works"?
It is not a misinterpretation of his words. It is basic logic.
If they exist solely for A, why would they be doing B?
To suggest that they are some how deficient for not doing B when they exist solely for doing A is disingenuous.
By definition, a "copyright industry" would be an industry that produces copyrighted works. Such industries would not necessarily be creating "innovation in either the creation or distribution of works" and to suggest so is disingenuous.
It also leaves out conglomerates, such as Sony, parent of Sony Music, who happens to be responsible for BluRay technology. He also neglects the DVD, which was developed by a consortium of companies including Sony and TimeWarner. Maybe he has never heard of the Sony Music division, but how could he not have heard of TimeWarner?
Is the author of that quote lying or just ignorant? If the former, nothing he says can be considered reliable. If the latter, his opinion is worthless.