As someone else pointed out, glass is a terrible insulator and it is the inert gases between the layers of glass that do the insulating. The only reason that glass is used is because it can hold the inert gases in place and is transparent, it adds virtually nothing to the insulating value.
And if wood was a good insulator (it isn't) then everyone would have log cabins. Even newer log cabin kits come with logs that are hollowed out and filled with insulation, as solid wood is terrible for keeping out the cold. Great for keeping out wind, however.
Likely, very much an overstatement. Wood and glass are terrible insulators, and since houses need windows and wood studs (generally), you will still need more BTUs than a candle to heat it. Windows and doors are your major heat losers right now. At least where I live (NC), you are required to put insulation in the walls and attic of any home you build, or remodel over 50%, so it isn't like the homes don't already have reasonable insulation.
Still, it would be a much *better* insulation that could cut heat bills by a large degree, but not 99%.
I don't get it. RH is a very accepted standard, whether or not it is more or less "influential" than Debian. RH isn't fly by night, has been around as a commercial product for many, many years, has the backing of the parent corporation, which is actually profitable. The CentOS project was born from it, which makes the RH system completely free for use by people such as myself.
And being used by a number of other distros has nothing to do with market penetration or quality. RH (and CentOS) haven't been forked to death because they already do exactly what many businesses want: provide a steady and reliable server platform. This isn't nearly as sexy or cutting edge as desktops for a reason. I don't want my Linux web server to be "cutting edge", I want it up 99.99% of the time.
RH isn't the only choice, and isn't always the best choice, but it is certainly a viable choice for many applications.
He was worried about being laid off as a programmer, so they obviously had more than one programmer. Once you start noticing that the machines are breaking down twice as often as normal, and no physical parts are needed to fix them, its gets obvious that it is a software issue. Assuming they pay attention to the breakage rate, which any normal company would. Might have been how they figured it out.
I've seen "computer administrators" that work out for small companies do very similar things. It is typically very difficult to prove, so accusing them or telling the owners usually results in you looking bad yourself. Or they just take 5 hours to do what really takes 10 minutes. Same concept. I'm having to deal with some of that as we speak, and the owner doesn't believe it. It took him two weeks to export a database of around 10k items x 5 fields, something I would normally do in about 10 minutes. Instead he made a grand or more for it.
In all cases, artificially creating work this way is the sign of a true douchebag.
You just miss the point completely. There is no waste heat when you are USING the heat. When both the light AND heat are used, it is efficient for that particular task.
Saying you have no sympathy only means you have no understanding of the applications in which the incandescent IS the most efficient choice. And manufacturing them is trivial and relatively low carbon compared to a fluorescent, as well as non toxic.
(yes I know the mercury issue of CFLs I'm ignoring that for the moment)
I work with fluorescent bulbs by the tens and hundreds of thousands. I don't ignore mercury. I know what it is, what it can do, and how hard it is to deal with at a manufacturing and distribution level when you follow the law and good practice.
I switches to CFLs over 10 years ago, back when they were expensive, for the purpose of saving money. It works. Of course, I have a way to dispose of the old lamp easily (most people don't know how to) but some still get broken and recapturing the mercury at that level is impossible for the consumer. Impossible for the company as well, which is why it is stored in large barrels along with the broken glass, and we pay $1 per pound of total material to someone else to deal with it.
We can't ignore the mercury problem, we already have high levels in most waterways in almost every state in the union. This aside, there are still applications where incandescent lamps ARE the best choice, and the net result actually produces less carbon. These applications are few, but the law has the net effect of creating more carbon in these circumstances by assuming we are not capable of deciding that for ourselves.
Soon in America, you will be able to buy all the guns and ammo that you can carry, but can't buy an incandescent light bulb or smoke in a bar, even if you are the owner. Again, we aren't so stupid we need to be "ruled" by the government. Most people are already using CFLs *right now*, without any government interference or help.
One of the problems with adding a disincentive is how easy it is to bypass it, so US companies end up paying it, importers often do not. In theory, I have no problem adding a *reasonable* tax to them, not by wattage but per unit. (ie: per use). I'm not big on taxes, but a 25c to 50c tax phased in is much better than an outright ban. I don't think it is actually necessary however, as the price is likely to go up as their volume is naturally going down. People are already overwhelmingly choosing CFL's because they are more economical in almost every circumstance. That doesn't change the fact that in the applications where the old bulbs are better, the CFL won't work at all, and using something different may actually create more carbon than the bulb would. IE: adding a heater instead of a 40w/60/100w bulb, which will end up using more than 40-100w. Not many 40w heaters out there, unless you use a soldering gun as one. And likely they cost a lot more to make and buy, and create more carbon than many light bulbs combined.
no better than the people that slap another name on OSS and try to sell it to unknowing consumers.
That would appear to only be valid if the end customer doesn't know. If Canonical is being upfront about it, and not trying to hide it, then I am not sure it is "wrong" in any broad sense of the phrase. Not preferable to Banshee? Perhaps, as you state, the license clearly allows it. Banshee has actively chosen an license that specifically allows this, if it is a big deal, they can change licenses. Based on comments above, the developers aren't the ones who are complaining anyway, just the bloggers.
I have previously made this exact comment, for the exact reasons, and others tried to explain to me how to compensate for it....like I needed that. The point is, if we really believe that the market place should decide, then let it.
There ARE (and always will be) applications were an old fashioned light bulb works best. Easy Bake® ovens come to mind. Now, they are being forced to redesign them, which will make them more expensive of course. For once, they need to think of the children;)
Actually, you make a very good point. One point though, for all intent and purposes, people bookmark the title of a page, not the domain name, so their bookmarks would be just as usable as they are now, including the ability to change the name of the bookmark. In that scenario, Yahoo and others might have had a stranglehold on search before Google was even started, and Microsoft *might* have gotten serious earlier in the game. Or not at all in time. We would be looking at a completely different scene in search, although there is no telling what it would have looked like. Too many variables.
Another point that just struck my mind is the fact that there would be no domain squatting. Spam would be likely be somewhat more difficult to do (for lots of not obvious reasons), and commercialization might have been a bit slower due to the "less usable" nature of the internet. The hosting business would look and be configured differently, but would be just as viable. No real limit to how many IPs you can run to one box via aliasing, after all. Prices would be a little higher as each host requires one IP address or more.
One other point: We would have run out of IPV4 space a long time ago, and been forced to move to IPV6, likely in the 2000-2003 range. Maybe earlier. This would have been easier because technically the internet was smaller at the time, if you consider the actual number of hosts facing outwards would have equaled the number of IP4 addresses, instead of being much higher as it is now.
In many ways, the internet might have been a better place, ironically.
For the same reason you put an address on an envelope, or dial a phone number. Or type in an email address. Not sure how you can even conclude that NOT typing in the url is a better idea. Fake URLs are exactly how phishing happens, and if people paid more attention to the URL, there would be considerably less of it.
Relying on a search engine to provide you a do-clicky link is not only DANGEROUS (ie: toolbar spam/viruses, as someone pointed out) it is also expensive for businesses, takes more time, and makes it easy for people to fool you into clicking onto an unrelated (and potentially dangerous) website. People should learn about URLs and if they can't understand an URL (how easy a thing to understand, a damn address) then they don't belong on the "information superhighway", just as people who don't understand white and yellow lines, or PRND21 don't need to be on the regular highway.
Of course, it does make Google a shit load of money, which is likely why they are doing it.
To add to your point, I can tell half the people I know, over the phone, to type in "www.whatever.com" in their address bar, and they don't get it.
No, the address bar, NO, THE ADDRESS BAR. THE TOP BAR. TOP!!! TOP!!! They don't fucking get it, and still say they need to go to google or yahoo to type in an address. My brother (who has a technical job, stringing network and cable tv cabling for the govt. for 20 years) kept telling me my domain didn't work. He was going to google and didn't see it in the listings, instead of just typing it in the address bar.
I'm talking about people who are otherwise, more intelligent than average. Yet AOL has managed to completely teach people what the internet is, in the most wrong fashion possible, so they will never learn properly.
The people in the military who die are no different than you or I. They have fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and it is these people who decide where and how to have the funeral, just like any normal person. The military does not, and legally can not, tell someone where to hold the funeral.
If you are saying that person's who die in the service of their country should have funerals in restricted areas, well, then you are daft. They have the exact same rights and expectations of respect that you have. Not less, not more.
Great, except he is talking about encryption in the hardware, not the software. If you followed the whole thread, you would know that. Doing it in hardware would have better performance, for starters.
Re:Wow, that would be redonkulously profitable.
on
AMD Sale to Dell Rumored
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No, Apple did the exact opposite: Dropped developing their own CPU/MB combos in favor of something that Intel offers and designs for them.
If you look only at Mac computers, and not the iphone, itouch, iwhatever, then Apple is a company that *designs* computers and has created and maintains a popular operating system. They don't actually build the gooey innards for their boxes, ATI (AMD), and Intel do, as well as other parts suppliers.
Don't forget the potential of asking to someone to use a condom, and they do, then you say they didn't. Or you don't say anything about a condom, but later claim you did. Granted, these do NOT apply in this situation, but it is clear that "using a condom" or not, by itself, doesn't fit the traditional view of rape.
As a matter of fact, it would be irrelevant to the issue of traditionally defined rape, as "forced intercourse or sexual acts". I think that is what has gotten everyone so off track about this issue. Either he raped her (not likely) or he intentionally broke a condom (possible, immoral and potentially illegal but not rape) or something else. But whatever happened, it was certainly not rape as traditionally defined.
Well, kind of. In the pursuit of profit, some times you do run across something remarkable. The problem is, much of the time the discovery is either held back as a trade secret, or patented. At least when it is patented, the public gets to see it, and eventually use it royalty free.
Same with the military. They have invented some neat stuff, all the in the pursuit of a better way to defend a country and/or kill other humans. The internet is the most obvious, but even Velcro® (hook and loop fasteners) has a foundation in the military complex.
My point is that there is the opportunity for discovery in all areas. Academia has a somewhat better track record for releasing information, although they also have the worst record for falsifying documents (cold fusion, cough cough) in order to get more funding.
Since it is not considered a "security update", you can always not install it. Or uninstall it easily from the built in "add/remove programs" menu in the control panel.
This is not remotely the same thing as your strawman argument makes it out to be.
I think the short summary is that I can't change OS X any more than I can change Windows, no matter how much BSD code is in it.
To be fair, there is still Darwin. Apple only releases source now, and could do more, but that is still infinitely more than MS does with their source code.
You see two products on the shelf. One is made in the USA, the other is made in China. Both are the same quality, but the USA made one costs $100, and the Chinese produced product costs $32. Which are you going to buy? 99% of people are going to buy the cheaper one, "outsourcing" the manufacturing jobs.
It is all fine and dandy to get on a high horse and preach to everyone about how think outsourcing is bad, but the vast majority of us only vote with our lips, and not with our wallet. Most people would call that hypocritical.
To add to the point, their Hyundai commercial was recorded and shot entirely in their basement, and they had full control over the content (see their talking videos on this). So obviously others think their quality, both artistic and technical, are quite good. Even if you aren't into their music, quality isn't the issue.
As an old musician, I personally think they kick ass and take names.
When the government, at any level, acts to curtail speech, that is censorship. Whether they make it a rule of employment is meaningless.
Why not make a rule of employment that all female workers must sexually service the boss? Oh right, that is illegal. Same with censorship, as it violates the Constitution, and this type of speech isn't subject to an exception. In both cases, it being a rule, or in writing, or even agreed to by the employees is meaningless as it is simply illegal and unenforceable as a condition of employment.
Part of the issue is that commercial music used to be scarce. It took money to buy instruments, record the music, press a vinyl album, tour. Even lessons to learn to play took money.
Now, thanks to the internet and autotune, the cost to produce a reasonable quality song in a distributable format is almost zero, and everyone and their uncle is doing it. Some people want to sell it as if it were still a scarce resource, when it fact it is a cheap commodity with more supply than demand. Particularly since the 2nd through 10 billionth copy costs about the same thing, near zero.
Not justifying pirating, it is just a fact. Just as it is hard to sell porn when plenty of people are giving it away: videos of people screwing are no longer a scarce resource. Most people screw, and if not, we know that at least their parents did.
Since Amazon can't just sell any book it wants without an agreement and payment to the author and publisher, I'm guessing the price Amazon has to pay per unit sold is very much a non-zero number. Even if bandwidth is counted as free, everyone who got the ebook to the point to where it can be downloaded wants to get paid. It isn't like you can sell the first one for $10 million and give the others away free.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone else pointed out, glass is a terrible insulator and it is the inert gases between the layers of glass that do the insulating. The only reason that glass is used is because it can hold the inert gases in place and is transparent, it adds virtually nothing to the insulating value.
And if wood was a good insulator (it isn't) then everyone would have log cabins. Even newer log cabin kits come with logs that are hollowed out and filled with insulation, as solid wood is terrible for keeping out the cold. Great for keeping out wind, however.
Likely, very much an overstatement. Wood and glass are terrible insulators, and since houses need windows and wood studs (generally), you will still need more BTUs than a candle to heat it. Windows and doors are your major heat losers right now. At least where I live (NC), you are required to put insulation in the walls and attic of any home you build, or remodel over 50%, so it isn't like the homes don't already have reasonable insulation.
Still, it would be a much *better* insulation that could cut heat bills by a large degree, but not 99%.
I don't get it. RH is a very accepted standard, whether or not it is more or less "influential" than Debian. RH isn't fly by night, has been around as a commercial product for many, many years, has the backing of the parent corporation, which is actually profitable. The CentOS project was born from it, which makes the RH system completely free for use by people such as myself.
And being used by a number of other distros has nothing to do with market penetration or quality. RH (and CentOS) haven't been forked to death because they already do exactly what many businesses want: provide a steady and reliable server platform. This isn't nearly as sexy or cutting edge as desktops for a reason. I don't want my Linux web server to be "cutting edge", I want it up 99.99% of the time.
RH isn't the only choice, and isn't always the best choice, but it is certainly a viable choice for many applications.
He was worried about being laid off as a programmer, so they obviously had more than one programmer. Once you start noticing that the machines are breaking down twice as often as normal, and no physical parts are needed to fix them, its gets obvious that it is a software issue. Assuming they pay attention to the breakage rate, which any normal company would. Might have been how they figured it out.
I've seen "computer administrators" that work out for small companies do very similar things. It is typically very difficult to prove, so accusing them or telling the owners usually results in you looking bad yourself. Or they just take 5 hours to do what really takes 10 minutes. Same concept. I'm having to deal with some of that as we speak, and the owner doesn't believe it. It took him two weeks to export a database of around 10k items x 5 fields, something I would normally do in about 10 minutes. Instead he made a grand or more for it.
In all cases, artificially creating work this way is the sign of a true douchebag.
You just miss the point completely. There is no waste heat when you are USING the heat. When both the light AND heat are used, it is efficient for that particular task.
Saying you have no sympathy only means you have no understanding of the applications in which the incandescent IS the most efficient choice. And manufacturing them is trivial and relatively low carbon compared to a fluorescent, as well as non toxic.
(yes I know the mercury issue of CFLs I'm ignoring that for the moment)
I work with fluorescent bulbs by the tens and hundreds of thousands. I don't ignore mercury. I know what it is, what it can do, and how hard it is to deal with at a manufacturing and distribution level when you follow the law and good practice.
I switches to CFLs over 10 years ago, back when they were expensive, for the purpose of saving money. It works. Of course, I have a way to dispose of the old lamp easily (most people don't know how to) but some still get broken and recapturing the mercury at that level is impossible for the consumer. Impossible for the company as well, which is why it is stored in large barrels along with the broken glass, and we pay $1 per pound of total material to someone else to deal with it.
We can't ignore the mercury problem, we already have high levels in most waterways in almost every state in the union. This aside, there are still applications where incandescent lamps ARE the best choice, and the net result actually produces less carbon. These applications are few, but the law has the net effect of creating more carbon in these circumstances by assuming we are not capable of deciding that for ourselves.
Soon in America, you will be able to buy all the guns and ammo that you can carry, but can't buy an incandescent light bulb or smoke in a bar, even if you are the owner. Again, we aren't so stupid we need to be "ruled" by the government. Most people are already using CFLs *right now*, without any government interference or help.
One of the problems with adding a disincentive is how easy it is to bypass it, so US companies end up paying it, importers often do not. In theory, I have no problem adding a *reasonable* tax to them, not by wattage but per unit. (ie: per use). I'm not big on taxes, but a 25c to 50c tax phased in is much better than an outright ban. I don't think it is actually necessary however, as the price is likely to go up as their volume is naturally going down. People are already overwhelmingly choosing CFL's because they are more economical in almost every circumstance. That doesn't change the fact that in the applications where the old bulbs are better, the CFL won't work at all, and using something different may actually create more carbon than the bulb would. IE: adding a heater instead of a 40w/60/100w bulb, which will end up using more than 40-100w. Not many 40w heaters out there, unless you use a soldering gun as one. And likely they cost a lot more to make and buy, and create more carbon than many light bulbs combined.
no better than the people that slap another name on OSS and try to sell it to unknowing consumers.
That would appear to only be valid if the end customer doesn't know. If Canonical is being upfront about it, and not trying to hide it, then I am not sure it is "wrong" in any broad sense of the phrase. Not preferable to Banshee? Perhaps, as you state, the license clearly allows it. Banshee has actively chosen an license that specifically allows this, if it is a big deal, they can change licenses. Based on comments above, the developers aren't the ones who are complaining anyway, just the bloggers.
I have previously made this exact comment, for the exact reasons, and others tried to explain to me how to compensate for it....like I needed that. The point is, if we really believe that the market place should decide, then let it.
There ARE (and always will be) applications were an old fashioned light bulb works best. Easy Bake® ovens come to mind. Now, they are being forced to redesign them, which will make them more expensive of course. For once, they need to think of the children ;)
Actually, you make a very good point. One point though, for all intent and purposes, people bookmark the title of a page, not the domain name, so their bookmarks would be just as usable as they are now, including the ability to change the name of the bookmark. In that scenario, Yahoo and others might have had a stranglehold on search before Google was even started, and Microsoft *might* have gotten serious earlier in the game. Or not at all in time. We would be looking at a completely different scene in search, although there is no telling what it would have looked like. Too many variables.
Another point that just struck my mind is the fact that there would be no domain squatting. Spam would be likely be somewhat more difficult to do (for lots of not obvious reasons), and commercialization might have been a bit slower due to the "less usable" nature of the internet. The hosting business would look and be configured differently, but would be just as viable. No real limit to how many IPs you can run to one box via aliasing, after all. Prices would be a little higher as each host requires one IP address or more.
One other point: We would have run out of IPV4 space a long time ago, and been forced to move to IPV6, likely in the 2000-2003 range. Maybe earlier. This would have been easier because technically the internet was smaller at the time, if you consider the actual number of hosts facing outwards would have equaled the number of IP4 addresses, instead of being much higher as it is now.
In many ways, the internet might have been a better place, ironically.
Why do you think that people should type in URLs?
For the same reason you put an address on an envelope, or dial a phone number. Or type in an email address. Not sure how you can even conclude that NOT typing in the url is a better idea. Fake URLs are exactly how phishing happens, and if people paid more attention to the URL, there would be considerably less of it.
Relying on a search engine to provide you a do-clicky link is not only DANGEROUS (ie: toolbar spam/viruses, as someone pointed out) it is also expensive for businesses, takes more time, and makes it easy for people to fool you into clicking onto an unrelated (and potentially dangerous) website. People should learn about URLs and if they can't understand an URL (how easy a thing to understand, a damn address) then they don't belong on the "information superhighway", just as people who don't understand white and yellow lines, or PRND21 don't need to be on the regular highway.
Of course, it does make Google a shit load of money, which is likely why they are doing it.
To add to your point, I can tell half the people I know, over the phone, to type in "www.whatever.com" in their address bar, and they don't get it.
No, the address bar, NO, THE ADDRESS BAR. THE TOP BAR. TOP!!! TOP!!! They don't fucking get it, and still say they need to go to google or yahoo to type in an address. My brother (who has a technical job, stringing network and cable tv cabling for the govt. for 20 years) kept telling me my domain didn't work. He was going to google and didn't see it in the listings, instead of just typing it in the address bar.
I'm talking about people who are otherwise, more intelligent than average. Yet AOL has managed to completely teach people what the internet is, in the most wrong fashion possible, so they will never learn properly.
The people in the military who die are no different than you or I. They have fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and it is these people who decide where and how to have the funeral, just like any normal person. The military does not, and legally can not, tell someone where to hold the funeral.
If you are saying that person's who die in the service of their country should have funerals in restricted areas, well, then you are daft. They have the exact same rights and expectations of respect that you have. Not less, not more.
Great, except he is talking about encryption in the hardware, not the software. If you followed the whole thread, you would know that. Doing it in hardware would have better performance, for starters.
No, Apple did the exact opposite: Dropped developing their own CPU/MB combos in favor of something that Intel offers and designs for them.
If you look only at Mac computers, and not the iphone, itouch, iwhatever, then Apple is a company that *designs* computers and has created and maintains a popular operating system. They don't actually build the gooey innards for their boxes, ATI (AMD), and Intel do, as well as other parts suppliers.
Don't forget the potential of asking to someone to use a condom, and they do, then you say they didn't. Or you don't say anything about a condom, but later claim you did. Granted, these do NOT apply in this situation, but it is clear that "using a condom" or not, by itself, doesn't fit the traditional view of rape.
As a matter of fact, it would be irrelevant to the issue of traditionally defined rape, as "forced intercourse or sexual acts". I think that is what has gotten everyone so off track about this issue. Either he raped her (not likely) or he intentionally broke a condom (possible, immoral and potentially illegal but not rape) or something else. But whatever happened, it was certainly not rape as traditionally defined.
Well, kind of. In the pursuit of profit, some times you do run across something remarkable. The problem is, much of the time the discovery is either held back as a trade secret, or patented. At least when it is patented, the public gets to see it, and eventually use it royalty free.
Same with the military. They have invented some neat stuff, all the in the pursuit of a better way to defend a country and/or kill other humans. The internet is the most obvious, but even Velcro® (hook and loop fasteners) has a foundation in the military complex.
My point is that there is the opportunity for discovery in all areas. Academia has a somewhat better track record for releasing information, although they also have the worst record for falsifying documents (cold fusion, cough cough) in order to get more funding.
Since it is not considered a "security update", you can always not install it. Or uninstall it easily from the built in "add/remove programs" menu in the control panel.
This is not remotely the same thing as your strawman argument makes it out to be.
I think the short summary is that I can't change OS X any more than I can change Windows, no matter how much BSD code is in it.
To be fair, there is still Darwin. Apple only releases source now, and could do more, but that is still infinitely more than MS does with their source code.
You see two products on the shelf. One is made in the USA, the other is made in China. Both are the same quality, but the USA made one costs $100, and the Chinese produced product costs $32. Which are you going to buy? 99% of people are going to buy the cheaper one, "outsourcing" the manufacturing jobs.
It is all fine and dandy to get on a high horse and preach to everyone about how think outsourcing is bad, but the vast majority of us only vote with our lips, and not with our wallet. Most people would call that hypocritical.
To add to the point, their Hyundai commercial was recorded and shot entirely in their basement, and they had full control over the content (see their talking videos on this). So obviously others think their quality, both artistic and technical, are quite good. Even if you aren't into their music, quality isn't the issue.
As an old musician, I personally think they kick ass and take names.
Go listen to Pomplamoose and tell me how the quality is a small value of reasonable.
When the government, at any level, acts to curtail speech, that is censorship. Whether they make it a rule of employment is meaningless.
Why not make a rule of employment that all female workers must sexually service the boss? Oh right, that is illegal. Same with censorship, as it violates the Constitution, and this type of speech isn't subject to an exception. In both cases, it being a rule, or in writing, or even agreed to by the employees is meaningless as it is simply illegal and unenforceable as a condition of employment.
Part of the issue is that commercial music used to be scarce. It took money to buy instruments, record the music, press a vinyl album, tour. Even lessons to learn to play took money.
Now, thanks to the internet and autotune, the cost to produce a reasonable quality song in a distributable format is almost zero, and everyone and their uncle is doing it. Some people want to sell it as if it were still a scarce resource, when it fact it is a cheap commodity with more supply than demand. Particularly since the 2nd through 10 billionth copy costs about the same thing, near zero.
Not justifying pirating, it is just a fact. Just as it is hard to sell porn when plenty of people are giving it away: videos of people screwing are no longer a scarce resource. Most people screw, and if not, we know that at least their parents did.
What's the marginal cost of an ebook?
Since Amazon can't just sell any book it wants without an agreement and payment to the author and publisher, I'm guessing the price Amazon has to pay per unit sold is very much a non-zero number. Even if bandwidth is counted as free, everyone who got the ebook to the point to where it can be downloaded wants to get paid. It isn't like you can sell the first one for $10 million and give the others away free.