Those aren't the only options. There are shareholder resolutions... Frequently ineffective, but, hey, that's the reality of modern advanced capitalist society. Now run along. People who make thousands of time more than you do have important decisions to make.
Ur Fascism (Umberto Eco) I'm not sure that it's a terribly useful definition for the internet. It, is however, a definition.
The closest Eco comes to denouncing corporatism is in this paragraph.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view – one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
I just installed fsv, which was inspired by SGI's 3D file viewer. It's almost a joke. Perhaps I have things misconfigured, but I can't even get my scroll wheel to work with it. Visualization is essentially limited to "this is a big file," so it gets a big Gouraud shaded rectangle. On a modern file browser, at least the image files get thumbnail icons. Even MP3s can be associated with album artwork.
But there's very little beyond "Wow, you've got a lot of big files in your "downloads" directory.
To be fair, the original was developed for SGI workstations. Some of those had specialized hardware for interacting with 3D objects, and even stereo imaging. Such a machine would (typically) be operated by users with intuitive understanding of 3D space. Perhaps some small advantage beyond eye candy could be realized.
I still am suffering under the illusion that the effects that Exposé and Spaces enhance the usability of those programs. Perhaps, with the addition of head tracking, stereo displays and 3d gestures, a meaningful 3d interface might be possible.
So, in your opinion, the boundaries of 3D User Interfaces have been fully explored, no innovation is possible, and designers should stick to 2D graphics, or better yet, green screens?
What makes the New York Times worth paying for that I can't find from 100 or 1000 free sources via news.yahoo.com or news.google.com?
A large fraction of those sources are simply reprints of the AP story, or rehashes of the AP story, or links to rehashes of the AP story. The New York Times pretends to independent analysis. Even if the reporting is largely the same, there's value in independent confirmation. The job of a journalist is to go beyond he said/she said, and construct a plausible explanatory narrative that gets at the core truths of a story--what's really going on.
For a trivial example of this, consider THX Caught With Pants Down Over Lexicon Blu-ray Player Ultimately, it was a single source story (not from the AP), with fanboys commenting. Either they trusted audioholics and thought the analysis was sufficient to pour scorn on Lexicon and THX, or they trusted Lexicon/THX and believed that audioholics was bashing them to sell their products. There was no independent engineer who could step in and verify that the components measured identically, that the audioholics analysis was sufficient. From one standpoint, this might seem redundant. But redundancy lends credibility.
If you invest 100 million, and only make one million a year from those investments, on average, that isn't a terribly respectable rate of return. You might choose to invest those monies elsewhere, perhaps in something that will generate five or six million a year. That choice will depend on your preference for journalism or profits.
By the way, a back of the envelope calculation based on numbers plucked from the air doesn't constitute a viable business plan.
This bit seems a bit odd At her death in 1997, Jean Conan Doyle bequeathed her father’s copyrights to the Royal National Institute of Blind People. The institute sold the rights back to the Doyle heirs, who transferred them into a family-owned company.
You might know that the British copyright to Peter Pan is currently held by the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital (GOSH). Even though Peter Pan is out of copyright in the United States, a British purchase of that same book will "help sick children", and, iirc, purchases will continue to do so indefinitely. The moral arguments against perpetual copyright are thus arrayed against innocent lives. This may be an unique arrangement, but the RNIBP exists for a similarly charitable purpose. Might they too have a special exemption from the normal rules of copyright, an exemption that somehow was transferred back to a private, non-charitable corporation?
It would probably kill off the short story genre. For ten or twenty bucks, I can purchase a book containing stories by perhaps a dozen of my favorite SF authors, and a dozen more besides. Why? Good authors often possess a surfeit of short stories-- simple vignettes that are too difficult to develop into a novels, but remain unsold to the magazines who buy publication rights. So the remainder, the ones that don't fit current needs, pile up. If the sale of manuscript meant that the author would lose control over the copyright, such manuscripts would be sold dearly, if at all. Consider film screenplays. Most truly good adaptations are not adaptations of novels, but adaptations of short stories and novels. Fans excoriated Peter Jackson for leaving out important parts of the The Lord of the Rings and the "theatrical editions" are derided as "worthless" or "bastardized". But the prospect of spending 4 and half hours in a movie theater does not appeal to most people. Novellas allow the director the freedom to make an independent artistic statement that is nonetheless faithful to the original.
It's really easy to conjure up a scenario in which the writer, surviving on pennies a word, is rather too busy to deal with the niceties of copyright law, leaving the task to lawyers twenty years after the fact. Hollywood accounting is often employed in the book trade.
Similar to how Quentin Tarantino and other Hollywood cognoscenti occassionally promote a third rate director of schlock films to the status of auteur, mass market authors sometimes create new audiences for once forgotten authors. HP Lovecraft, for instance, died of malnutrition, and yet his literary works are now celebrated by the like of Stephen King. Arthur Machen's popularity waxed and waned during his lifetime. This is not because the works were adapted by better writers, empowered by a climate of copyright uncertainty, but because those better writers were in a position to say: "This author is really good. Read him."
At least one derived work. There may be others that predate the 1899 stage play. A good lawyer could keep the courts busy for years, provided that the copyright claim hadn't yet lapsed.
In some countries, copyrights include "moral rights", which are inalienable, but (IIRC) die with the author. Most often, the phrase is included in book written by pseudonymous authors.
Suppose a US publisher obtained the rights to republish John LeCarré's novels. If not specifically bound by contract, the publisher could print, say "The Spy who came in from the Cold, by David Cornwall", and David Cornwall would have little recourse. In other places in the world, David Cornwall could claim that he wants to be known as "John LeCarré", and his moral rights to be known by a pseudonym would outweigh inexpertly drafted contracts.
Monty Python's flying circus was adapted for American audiences in the 1970s by ABC. The adaptation was inexpert and missed the Pythonesque humor. The members of the Python troupe sued ABC for "trademark dilution", and failed. In a climate of "moral rights", Monty Python would have a strong case, but in the US, they had to go through the Lanham Act. (People who hadn't seen the Python show, but had heard that it was good, would now judge the Pythons on the basis of a bowdlerized import.)
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, it's the Uncanny Valley in action.
You'd have to do something about the anti-bigamy laws, but they're of dubious necessity anyway.
On the other hand, it could make a good court case, should Roberts et al decide to take it that far.
Hint. Fire your workers and employ consultants instead. OK, you could get a temp agency to run the mailroom.
It depends. Is Fascism politically distinct from Naziism?
Is that authoritarianism distinct from totalitarianism, or is it the kind of of authoritarianism that overlaps with totalitarianism?
Ah. LPAC stands for LaRouchePAC. I thought the rhetorical style was familiar.
Those aren't the only options. There are shareholder resolutions... Frequently ineffective, but, hey, that's the reality of modern advanced capitalist society. Now run along. People who make thousands of time more than you do have important decisions to make.
Benito Mussolini didn't know what he was talking about.
Ur Fascism (Umberto Eco) I'm not sure that it's a terribly useful definition for the internet. It, is however, a definition.
The closest Eco comes to denouncing corporatism is in this paragraph.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view – one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
big Gouraud shaded rectangle
Sorry. I should have said "flat shaded."
ogl.c:79: glShadeModel( GL_FLAT );
I just installed fsv, which was inspired by SGI's 3D file viewer. It's almost a joke. Perhaps I have things misconfigured, but I can't even get my scroll wheel to work with it. Visualization is essentially limited to "this is a big file," so it gets a big Gouraud shaded rectangle. On a modern file browser, at least the image files get thumbnail icons. Even MP3s can be associated with album artwork.
But there's very little beyond "Wow, you've got a lot of big files in your "downloads" directory.
To be fair, the original was developed for SGI workstations. Some of those had specialized hardware for interacting with 3D objects, and even stereo imaging. Such a machine would (typically) be operated by users with intuitive understanding of 3D space. Perhaps some small advantage beyond eye candy could be realized.
I still am suffering under the illusion that the effects that Exposé and Spaces enhance the usability of those programs. Perhaps, with the addition of head tracking, stereo displays and 3d gestures, a meaningful 3d interface might be possible.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Come on -- you're asking a loaded question.
"Been there done that" is a loaded response.
So, in your opinion, the boundaries of 3D User Interfaces have been fully explored, no innovation is possible, and designers should stick to 2D graphics, or better yet, green screens?
Morality is relative.
Gamey and tough.
I only read comment titles to save my time. Wait, what was your post about, again?
Analogies. Possibly about pizza, or cars.
Astrophysical Journal is pretty expensive.
What makes the New York Times worth paying for that I can't find from 100 or 1000 free sources via news.yahoo.com or news.google.com?
A large fraction of those sources are simply reprints of the AP story, or rehashes of the AP story, or links to rehashes of the AP story. The New York Times pretends to independent analysis. Even if the reporting is largely the same, there's value in independent confirmation. The job of a journalist is to go beyond he said/she said, and construct a plausible explanatory narrative that gets at the core truths of a story--what's really going on.
For a trivial example of this, consider THX Caught With Pants Down Over Lexicon Blu-ray Player Ultimately, it was a single source story (not from the AP), with fanboys commenting. Either they trusted audioholics and thought the analysis was sufficient to pour scorn on Lexicon and THX, or they trusted Lexicon/THX and believed that audioholics was bashing them to sell their products. There was no independent engineer who could step in and verify that the components measured identically, that the audioholics analysis was sufficient. From one standpoint, this might seem redundant. But redundancy lends credibility.
If you invest 100 million, and only make one million a year from those investments, on average, that isn't a terribly respectable rate of return. You might choose to invest those monies elsewhere, perhaps in something that will generate five or six million a year. That choice will depend on your preference for journalism or profits.
By the way, a back of the envelope calculation based on numbers plucked from the air doesn't constitute a viable business plan.
This bit seems a bit odd
At her death in 1997, Jean Conan Doyle bequeathed her father’s copyrights to the Royal National Institute of Blind People. The institute sold the rights back to the Doyle heirs, who transferred them into a family-owned company.
You might know that the British copyright to Peter Pan is currently held by the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital (GOSH). Even though Peter Pan is out of copyright in the United States, a British purchase of that same book will "help sick children", and, iirc, purchases will continue to do so indefinitely. The moral arguments against perpetual copyright are thus arrayed against innocent lives. This may be an unique arrangement, but the RNIBP exists for a similarly charitable purpose. Might they too have a special exemption from the normal rules of copyright, an exemption that somehow was transferred back to a private, non-charitable corporation?
It would probably kill off the short story genre. For ten or twenty bucks, I can purchase a book containing stories by perhaps a dozen of my favorite SF authors, and a dozen more besides. Why? Good authors often possess a surfeit of short stories-- simple vignettes that are too difficult to develop into a novels, but remain unsold to the magazines who buy publication rights. So the remainder, the ones that don't fit current needs, pile up.
If the sale of manuscript meant that the author would lose control over the copyright, such manuscripts would be sold dearly, if at all. Consider film screenplays. Most truly good adaptations are not adaptations of novels, but adaptations of short stories and novels. Fans excoriated Peter Jackson for leaving out important parts of the The Lord of the Rings and the "theatrical editions" are derided as "worthless" or "bastardized". But the prospect of spending 4 and half hours in a movie theater does not appeal to most people. Novellas allow the director the freedom to make an independent artistic statement that is nonetheless faithful to the original.
It's really easy to conjure up a scenario in which the writer, surviving on pennies a word, is rather too busy to deal with the niceties of copyright law, leaving the task to lawyers twenty years after the fact. Hollywood accounting is often employed in the book trade.
Similar to how Quentin Tarantino and other Hollywood cognoscenti occassionally promote a third rate director of schlock films to the status of auteur, mass market authors sometimes create new audiences for once forgotten authors. HP Lovecraft, for instance, died of malnutrition, and yet his literary works are now celebrated by the like of Stephen King. Arthur Machen's popularity waxed and waned during his lifetime. This is not because the works were adapted by better writers, empowered by a climate of copyright uncertainty, but because those better writers were in a position to say: "This author is really good. Read him."
At least one derived work. There may be others that predate the 1899 stage play. A good lawyer could keep the courts busy for years, provided that the copyright claim hadn't yet lapsed.
In some countries, copyrights include "moral rights", which are inalienable, but (IIRC) die with the author. Most often, the phrase is included in book written by pseudonymous authors.
Suppose a US publisher obtained the rights to republish John LeCarré's novels. If not specifically bound by contract, the publisher could print, say "The Spy who came in from the Cold, by David Cornwall", and David Cornwall would have little recourse. In other places in the world, David Cornwall could claim that he wants to be known as "John LeCarré", and his moral rights to be known by a pseudonym would outweigh inexpertly drafted contracts.
Monty Python's flying circus was adapted for American audiences in the 1970s by ABC. The adaptation was inexpert and missed the Pythonesque humor. The members of the Python troupe sued ABC for "trademark dilution", and failed. In a climate of "moral rights", Monty Python would have a strong case, but in the US, they had to go through the Lanham Act. (People who hadn't seen the Python show, but had heard that it was good, would now judge the Pythons on the basis of a bowdlerized import.)