Many countries (and companies) have a "not invented here" mentality - have you seen the profusion of power plugs around the world?!
I saw a website covering this once. There seem to be at least 7 currently in use, with a whole lot that are outdated and not used anywhere, as well as 2 (well, 4 but nobody's too fussy about the difference between 220 and 240) different voltage levels and two different frequencies.
It's ironic that the only worldwide standard power supply I've seen is one that most people never see - the two connector types in a PC that power hard drives and floppies.
Apparently one of the most protracted (and unresloved) arguments in the EU was whose power jacks to standardise on.
I get the feeling this will remain unresolved. At least they all have one fo two standards at the other side of the cable. While I sympathise with your difficulties, it's easier to find 40 kettle leads than rewire the entire office, and replace every single plug in the building. Especially since half those plus are going to have bilt in transformers.
The multiple plugs aspect is fine, but it's possible to damage equipment if you set the power too high, and in some cases simply if you use the wrong polarity.
Bizarre. several people have decided to moderate this dull and largely harmless comment. Aren't there any mopre suitable commentsd? What a waste of mod points.
Make these things standard! I an really annoyed by the dozen different types of connectors, 5 different voltage levels, and 2 possible polarities. I want one PSU that can recharge everything.
Seems to be more a way of handling bidding. Not quite sure how it works, but it looks more like an automated system where the probability of display is related to the bid.
would a plumber be a plumber if money wasn't involved?
Doess becoming a plumber require heart and soul?
would you be a programmer or network specialist or anything else for that matter if there wasn't a way to pay your bills and support yourself involved?
Yep. I like coding. I'd have to take a proper job to survive, but at least this would mean I could face coding when I got back.
Fair enough. I totally respect that artists deserve to survive. And since what they do provides pleasure to others, I don't think they're overpaid.
What I do think is that the current method of providing a reward is broken. Too much money goes into promotion and middlemen, and the options for the artist are limited if they want any hope of making it big.
Unfortunately, I don't actually have a better idea at the moment.
As an aside, a lot of my downloaded music is music that I simply couldn't buy. I would never download an entire album, since I feel if I want all the songs then I can afford them.
I also feel that the actual damage done through piracy is severely overstated. Most people simply don't buy the idea that if you give away a copy, it's depriving the creator of a sale, at least any more than lending it to them is. The important thing is not to prevent people from copying, but to encourage people to buy more. Rather than focuissing on stopping people from copying, they should encourage people to buy music. There is something to be said for an actual disc. There's also sometyhing to be said for legally purchased downloaded music where you can be sure of the quality.
Can you give me one example of another place where this method works?
I know of a toll bridge where you only have to pay to cross in one direction. The same principle applies. The people going in one direction pay for those travelling in the opposite direction. As long as the same number of people go each way, it makes no difference overall.
That's great, leave the responsibilty up to other people.
Huh!? Never said anything about that. I'm just relying on statistics to make sure that people are fairly compensated.
Not to mention the musicians should be getting revenue for everyone that listens to their music.
No they shouldn't.
If you don't feel that the artist is worth your money, then don't listen. Simple as that.
Then they still don't get any money. If I pay for half of my music then half of them get money. This means that this works out better for them than my buying nothing.
Do you have any idea how much goes into becoming a musician? Year and years of practice, heart and soul.
Yep. And is they're any good, financial reward is not why they do it.
You probably expect (If not you specifically then the readers) a fat paycheck for all the years you've spent learning programming,
Bad example. Like the majority of programmers in the world, I write custom software which typically has a single customer. If they copy it, I don't care, as long as they pay me.
So how do you feel about eBooks? Would you apply the same rules to authors?
I'll apply the same rule to everyone. If they get more money from me than I cost them, then the arrangement benefits them.
Alter your analogy a little. Imagine going into one store and buying several items. Then walking to a shop nextdoor taking several items without paying.
Does the shop next door retain possession of the items I stole? If not then the analogy is broken. The shop next door has to pay to replace those items.
Not only does one artist not get paid at all for what you take,
The others do though. It all balances out. Somone else will buy their music and copy other music.
but don't hurt the artists because of that spite
I'm not hurting the artists. This would be making a point of keeping the number of purchases
roughly equalt to the number of downloads. They think they should charge me.
But that wasn't really my point. The point is that even if you use RIAA maths, anyone who buys more music than they download is providing the record industry with a net profit. Since the record industry is making a profit, and the consumer is getting more music for his money, it seems to me that nobody loses out in the situation. Throwing me in prison would mean that they have lost that one net sale
If you abide by a law 100 times does it make it right to break it 99 times?
No, I guess not.
I'm not talking about whether or not the law is just, but whether prior compliance with a law makes it alright to disregard the law later.
But if I concede that it is wrong to break the law (at least in the situation above), then the question of whether the law is just is a lot more important. There's also the question of whether the law is sensible. A law that can't be enforced and is flouted that much makes a mockery of the legal system.
Well, why the hell not? Normally if I give someone in a shop some money, and take away an item worth less than the amount that I gave them, it would not be considered stealing.
Why is it a crime in the first place when the record company has made money from it? Who has been injured?
If I was put in jail instead, they wouldn't have had that one single sale. Therefore, the punishment is punishing the victim as well.
Does this bill also contain credit for all the CD's I've legally purchased? I mean, say I have 100 legally purchased songs on CD, and I've pirated 99 songs on mp3, this still represents a net sale of 1 song by the record industry.
Using RIAA screwy logic, does this mean that I haven't actually cost them anything?
You can't do "lw $1 $2" to copy from one reg to another either. You have to do "add $1 $2 $zero". Nertheless,m the assembly language specification does give you the move instruction, and simply substitutes it with the add.
Well, I thought it was a little odd. Sensible, but odd.
Slashdot Mirror
A low bitrate audio codec is useless if it can't compress in real time. Will my 300MHz Linux box be able to compress my voice in real-ish time?
One criticism with bash is that it's a little bloated. Hardly a problem these days, I guess, but 512K is quite a lot for a command line.
Many countries (and companies) have a "not invented here" mentality - have you seen the profusion of power plugs around the world?!
I saw a website covering this once. There seem to be at least 7 currently in use, with a whole lot that are outdated and not used anywhere, as well as 2 (well, 4 but nobody's too fussy about the difference between 220 and 240) different voltage levels and two different frequencies.
It's ironic that the only worldwide standard power supply I've seen is one that most people never see - the two connector types in a PC that power hard drives and floppies.
Apparently one of the most protracted (and unresloved) arguments in the EU was whose power jacks to standardise on.
I get the feeling this will remain unresolved. At least they all have one fo two standards at the other side of the cable. While I sympathise with your difficulties, it's easier to find 40 kettle leads than rewire the entire office, and replace every single plug in the building. Especially since half those plus are going to have bilt in transformers.
The multiple plugs aspect is fine, but it's possible to damage equipment if you set the power too high, and in some cases simply if you use the wrong polarity.
Bizarre. several people have decided to moderate this dull and largely harmless comment. Aren't there any mopre suitable commentsd? What a waste of mod points.
Make these things standard! I an really annoyed by the dozen different types of connectors, 5 different voltage levels, and 2 possible polarities. I want one PSU that can recharge everything.
Seems to be more a way of handling bidding. Not quite sure how it works, but it looks more like an automated system where the probability of display is related to the bid.
I thought the poilitically correct term these days was "Native America"
would a plumber be a plumber if money wasn't involved?
Doess becoming a plumber require heart and soul?
would you be a programmer or network specialist or anything else for that matter if there wasn't a way to pay your bills and support yourself involved?
Yep. I like coding. I'd have to take a proper job to survive, but at least this would mean I could face coding when I got back.
Fair enough. I totally respect that artists deserve to survive. And since what they do provides pleasure to others, I don't think they're overpaid.
What I do think is that the current method of providing a reward is broken. Too much money goes into promotion and middlemen, and the options for the artist are limited if they want any hope of making it big.
Unfortunately, I don't actually have a better idea at the moment.
As an aside, a lot of my downloaded music is music that I simply couldn't buy. I would never download an entire album, since I feel if I want all the songs then I can afford them.
I also feel that the actual damage done through piracy is severely overstated. Most people simply don't buy the idea that if you give away a copy, it's depriving the creator of a sale, at least any more than lending it to them is. The important thing is not to prevent people from copying, but to encourage people to buy more. Rather than focuissing on stopping people from copying, they should encourage people to buy music. There is something to be said for an actual disc. There's also sometyhing to be said for legally purchased downloaded music where you can be sure of the quality.
Can you give me one example of another place where this method works?
I know of a toll bridge where you only have to pay to cross in one direction. The same principle applies. The people going in one direction pay for those travelling in the opposite direction. As long as the same number of people go each way, it makes no difference overall.
That's great, leave the responsibilty up to other people.
Huh!? Never said anything about that. I'm just relying on statistics to make sure that people are fairly compensated.
Not to mention the musicians should be getting revenue for everyone that listens to their music.
No they shouldn't.
If you don't feel that the artist is worth your money, then don't listen. Simple as that.
Then they still don't get any money. If I pay for half of my music then half of them get money. This means that this works out better for them than my buying nothing.
Do you have any idea how much goes into becoming a musician? Year and years of practice, heart and soul.
Yep. And is they're any good, financial reward is not why they do it.
You probably expect (If not you specifically then the readers) a fat paycheck for all the years you've spent learning programming,
Bad example. Like the majority of programmers in the world, I write custom software which typically has a single customer. If they copy it, I don't care, as long as they pay me.
So how do you feel about eBooks? Would you apply the same rules to authors?
I'll apply the same rule to everyone. If they get more money from me than I cost them, then the arrangement benefits them.
Alter your analogy a little. Imagine going into one store and buying several items. Then walking to a shop nextdoor taking several items without paying.
Does the shop next door retain possession of the items I stole? If not then the analogy is broken. The shop next door has to pay to replace those items.
Not only does one artist not get paid at all for what you take,
The others do though. It all balances out. Somone else will buy their music and copy other music.
but don't hurt the artists because of that spite
I'm not hurting the artists. This would be making a point of keeping the number of purchases roughly equalt to the number of downloads. They think they should charge me.
But that wasn't really my point. The point is that even if you use RIAA maths, anyone who buys more music than they download is providing the record industry with a net profit. Since the record industry is making a profit, and the consumer is getting more music for his money, it seems to me that nobody loses out in the situation. Throwing me in prison would mean that they have lost that one net sale
Yes. Violation of copyright is not stealing. It's violation of copyright.
We're not taking anything. We're copying.
Using that logic, you might as well say that taking a photo of someone is stealing.
If you abide by a law 100 times does it make it right to break it 99 times?
No, I guess not.
I'm not talking about whether or not the law is just, but whether prior compliance with a law makes it alright to disregard the law later.
But if I concede that it is wrong to break the law (at least in the situation above), then the question of whether the law is just is a lot more important. There's also the question of whether the law is sensible. A law that can't be enforced and is flouted that much makes a mockery of the legal system.
We're not talking about stealing here. We're talking about copyright infringement. i.e. violation opf their exclusive right to reproduce.
You wussy liberals and your prison sentences. That's not going to straighten 'em out.
Hang 'em all! That's what I say.
Well, why the hell not? Normally if I give someone in a shop some money, and take away an item worth less than the amount that I gave them, it would not be considered stealing.
Why is it a crime in the first place when the record company has made money from it? Who has been injured?
If I was put in jail instead, they wouldn't have had that one single sale. Therefore, the punishment is punishing the victim as well.
Does this bill also contain credit for all the CD's I've legally purchased? I mean, say I have 100 legally purchased songs on CD, and I've pirated 99 songs on mp3, this still represents a net sale of 1 song by the record industry.
Using RIAA screwy logic, does this mean that I haven't actually cost them anything?
Reminds me of this story
But that just means that the competitors should sue for unfair trade practices. Not that Amazon should be obliged to pay its customers.
Why!?
Who is actually harmed by a mispriced item? I started off without a PDA. I now have no PDA. Net loss - zero
Yes. Those were strange numbers whatever the reason. £7.52? Makes no senseat all.
You can't do "lw $1 $2" to copy from one reg to another either. You have to do "add $1 $2 $zero". Nertheless,m the assembly language specification does give you the move instruction, and simply substitutes it with the add.
Well, I thought it was a little odd. Sensible, but odd.
And what's up with slashdot. Why did that not seem to post the first time?