The bottom line is that there are still market forces at work, even with the existance of copyright. Copyright doesn't force anyone to pay for anything that they don't feel is worth the money. It also doesn't guarantee that anyone who makes a copyrighted work will profit from it. It simply insures that those who create works which are perceived to have some value to the market will be rewarded for their efforts. What's wrong with that?
The reality is that nearly all those who rail against copyright have never created anything of any perceived value to the marketplace. They are consumers, not producers. As such, their opinions on the matter are not worth much, IMO.
You know what? If people would stop buying Britney Spears albums and going to her her concerts, she would go away. As it is, I've heard she's pretty popular.;)
Apparently, the RIAA is simply giving people what they want. Don't you think that they're interested in making a buck or two?
You don't like mainstream music? Fine, don't listen to it. There are plenty of alternatives out there. Just don't expect anyone else to be impressed by the fact that you're "above it all", though.
Yeah, that'd be great. No one would write books anymore. No one would make music anymore. No one would make movies anymore. No one would write software anymore. Oh, except for the part-time hobbyists who do these things for fun and don't really have any motivation for doing the best job they possibly can because no one is getting paid for anything.
Honestly, the lack of real-world vision on this site is mind boggling sometimes.
Bob Herbert is an opinion columnist and this article appears on the Op/Ed page of the Times. Herbert is not a news reporter. He is a columnist paid to offer his opinion on many things. He is also a noted left winger with an axe to grind against large corporations.
Call me when this is on the front page of the Washington Post or some reputable publication. The Timeshas already destroyed their reputation earlier this year as the place where they report "All the News That's Fir to Print."
Of the estimated 8 million computer users who seek technical support from software manufacturers every year, about a third never get the help they need.
Disclaimer: I am not advocating software piracy.
This is an excellent argument against buying software instead of just pirating it. One of the primary benefits to buying software is the access to technical support. If a user can't even expect to get that for their money, how can these companies expect people to purchase it instead of simply downloading it off P2P?
I think of it this way. If you had a magical machine that could instantly make a copy of any product, and you went to a car dealership and made a copy of a dodge viper, and this was something you could never afford anyways, would it be wrong? Dodge is not loosing a product they need to pay to get replaced, because it is a copy, and they are not loosing money in the form of you getting something for free that you would have normally payed for without your copying machine, because you could never afford it anyways, and would not otherwise have it. Is that really morally wrong? Now it becomes morally wrong, imho, when you go and copy the car you can afford, but just don't want to pay for.
I assume you are familiar with the Law of Supply and Demand. If someone is able to produce an exact copy of anything, then the supply begins to outweigh the demand for that product. Now, expand that out a thousand-fold, and you begin to see the problem. Soon, the price that Dodge can charge for that Viper begins to plummet. Eventually, they are unable to turn a profit because the price point is so low that they cannot justify the cost of production. No more Vipers, and no more jobs for people that make Vipers.
So go ahead and tell yourself that you're not hurting anyone by downloading free music, but the fact remains that you're reducing the demand for a given product, and that has a negative effect on the people paid to produce that product. Don't be surprised if that product goes away someday.
You're assuming the average Slashdotter is employed...
Regardless, nobody's forcing anything on anyone. No one has to have a computer, and those who do don't have to use Microsoft products. If you're using them at work, and you hate it that much, find another job that uses Linux or Solaris or Apple products. I don't even have a Windows machine at work.
Seriously, businesses make the decisions they make based on what will maximize profits. They're probably using Microsoft products for a reason: it makes the most sense from a business standpoint. If you think you can do better, quit your job and start your own business without using Microsoft.
Nothing's entirely original. Everything created has roots in something that came before it.
As for your question, I think Fantasia was probably the most original work that Disnay is responsible for. And I do consider it to be innovative and groundbreaking. Same with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, although not as original as Fantasia, IMO.
I'm sure there are a million remedies out there, but this one almost always works for me.
1) Take a glass of water. 2) Bend forward at the waist so your legs and torso are at about a 45 degree angle. 3) Take a drink from the cup while in this position. Be careful! You need to drink from the opposite side of the cup. 4) After drinking, remain in that position for a few seconds. 5) Stand up and see if hiccups are still there. If yes, repeat the procedure.
"The researchers state that the discovery could be important in the design of micromachines, and argue that the probability of thermodynamic systems running 'in reverse' will increase as they become smaller."
So does this mean that there is the possibility of creating perpetual motion machines at the microscopic level? What are the possible consequences of this?
Everyone has some opinion about this subject.
The only way to answer this question satisfactorily is for an independent firm to conduct a scientific study that is completely untainted by money or politics.
Clearly you couldn't have been replying to me because I said when I'm downloading IE for Solaris, I have not paid for anything. You can continue on your analogy to hardware stores if you like, but the fact is that IE is free to me if I use it without a Microsoft OS.
In your world, free appears to mean something other than something provided without cost to me. Certainly, a lot of effort went into developing IE as it is a quality product, but that means nothing to my pocketbook.
Actually, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Windows Update allows you to set it to download and install automatically if you desire. The default is to download the patch and install with a click iin order to be able to analyze the fix before installation.
Today's fighters are nearly completely computer driven as it is. The F-16 is actually so UNSTABLE in flight that the human response time is unable to correct it quickly enough to avoid dumping it. The brain of the F-16 is the computer. Don't even get me started about the F-22. These planes have multiple backup systems in case of failure. The human makes the decisions, but the computers do all the work.
The only difference here is that the pilot is on the ground instead of in the cockpit. He/she still makes all the decisions. It's not a robot, just a very expensive remote controlled toy.
You don't know anything about our environment. We design VLSI ICs for high-speed networking applications. We are limited to an architecture that supports the tools we need to do deep-submicron IC design. Those tools don't exist on Linux: only on Solaris. There is no place-and-route tool for doing this kind of CAD work available on Linux, mainly because the computing demands are too high for anything other than the highest-end hardware. When there is, we'll consider it, but for the time being, Linux doesn't come close to meeting our needs.
What's the point of using Linux on anything other than x86 hardware? Why would you use it on Sparc instead of Solaris when Sun's engineers tune Solaris to work on that platform. Linux is not going to provide you with any benfits over Solaris other than savings on hardware. It certainly won't outperform Solaris on Sparc. Solaris is already free as in beer.
Honestly, I can't think of a single reason to use Linux over Solaris other than to save money on hardware.
One of our Sun servers here has *28* UltraSparcs and 28 GB of RAM. How many CPUs can Linux support, 4? How much RAM, 4 GB? Not to mention that Solaris has NFS support that actually works well. And what do you mean "filesystem support"? Are you saying that being able to read/write FAT32 is something to crow about?
Linux is not in the same league as Solaris for anything other that ease of use.
Linux can't come close to this kind of setup, and I doubt it will anywhere in the near future. Now admittedly, Linux is hurting Sun in a big way. Sun hardware is damn expensive. But we need that kind of hardware here in our shop, and Linux simply won't cut it.
Sun is doing this because Linux is hurting them on low end hardware, not because Linux is in any way better than Solaris for anything other than skinning your desktop.
The Nikon D1X is super cool and I would love to have one, BUT it costs over $5000 just for the body! This is out of the range for anyone but the rich or professional photographers. As a serious amatuer, I can't justify spending that kind of cash for a camera that will not generate images as sharp as my Nikon N65 film SLR that I got for $250.
The resolution of something like Fuji Velvia slide film is estimated to be around 30 Megapixels. The Nikon D1X is at the high end of digital cameras for resolution, and it's only around 5 Megapixels.
Digital has a long way to go before it becomes cost-effective for anything other than simple point-and-shoot. If you actually want prints made from your images, you're still going to have to pay for them either having a third party generate them for you, or running your own digital darkroom.
IMO, the predicted demise of film is greatly exaggerated. Film has a lot of life left in it.
Actually, I've found that WMA is excellent at very low bitrates. If you don't believe me, listen to some of these samples at 20 Kbs (assuming you have a player that can decode them):
These sound amazing considering the bitrates. I have a very hard time telling the difference from 128 Kbs MP3s, and MP3s at a comparable bitrate sound like utter garbage.
Not that I want WMA to be a standard, but it's a damn good codec for small files.
Agreed. Security and usability are at the opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The average computer user has enough trouble maintaining and using a computer running Windows (or a Mac) as it is. Passing the burden of security along to the user is, IMO, a bad idea that will only lead to frustration.
Security issues should be addressed by software vendors in such a way that it is transparent to the user. While this is difficult, it can be done (e.g. Mac OS X hiding root from the user while still providing multi-user UNIX security).
Until software vendors can provide the user with a computing experience that is at least as trouble-free as the current situation, tying the user's hands with more secure software won't do anything other than piss him off.
Slashdot Mirror
The bottom line is that there are still market forces at work, even with the existance of copyright. Copyright doesn't force anyone to pay for anything that they don't feel is worth the money. It also doesn't guarantee that anyone who makes a copyrighted work will profit from it. It simply insures that those who create works which are perceived to have some value to the market will be rewarded for their efforts. What's wrong with that?
The reality is that nearly all those who rail against copyright have never created anything of any perceived value to the marketplace. They are consumers, not producers. As such, their opinions on the matter are not worth much, IMO.
You know what? If people would stop buying Britney Spears albums and going to her her concerts, she would go away. As it is, I've heard she's pretty popular. ;)
Apparently, the RIAA is simply giving people what they want. Don't you think that they're interested in making a buck or two?
You don't like mainstream music? Fine, don't listen to it. There are plenty of alternatives out there. Just don't expect anyone else to be impressed by the fact that you're "above it all", though.
And how, exactly, is this different from the current situation? I don't see the masses flocking from Microsoft to Linux, do you?
Yeah, that'd be great. No one would write books anymore. No one would make music anymore. No one would make movies anymore. No one would write software anymore. Oh, except for the part-time hobbyists who do these things for fun and don't really have any motivation for doing the best job they possibly can because no one is getting paid for anything.
Honestly, the lack of real-world vision on this site is mind boggling sometimes.
Bob Herbert is an opinion columnist and this article appears on the Op/Ed page of the Times. Herbert is not a news reporter. He is a columnist paid to offer his opinion on many things. He is also a noted left winger with an axe to grind against large corporations.
Call me when this is on the front page of the Washington Post or some reputable publication. The Timeshas already destroyed their reputation earlier this year as the place where they report "All the News That's Fir to Print."
Of the estimated 8 million computer users who seek technical support from software manufacturers every year, about a third never get the help they need.
Disclaimer: I am not advocating software piracy.
This is an excellent argument against buying software instead of just pirating it. One of the primary benefits to buying software is the access to technical support. If a user can't even expect to get that for their money, how can these companies expect people to purchase it instead of simply downloading it off P2P?
I thought the U.S. destroyed all the Republican Guard divisions.
I think of it this way. If you had a magical machine that could instantly make a copy of any product, and you went to a car dealership and made a copy of a dodge viper, and this was something you could never afford anyways, would it be wrong? Dodge is not loosing a product they need to pay to get replaced, because it is a copy, and they are not loosing money in the form of you getting something for free that you would have normally payed for without your copying machine, because you could never afford it anyways, and would not otherwise have it. Is that really morally wrong? Now it becomes morally wrong, imho, when you go and copy the car you can afford, but just don't want to pay for.
I assume you are familiar with the Law of Supply and Demand. If someone is able to produce an exact copy of anything, then the supply begins to outweigh the demand for that product. Now, expand that out a thousand-fold, and you begin to see the problem. Soon, the price that Dodge can charge for that Viper begins to plummet. Eventually, they are unable to turn a profit because the price point is so low that they cannot justify the cost of production. No more Vipers, and no more jobs for people that make Vipers.
So go ahead and tell yourself that you're not hurting anyone by downloading free music, but the fact remains that you're reducing the demand for a given product, and that has a negative effect on the people paid to produce that product. Don't be surprised if that product goes away someday.
The difference in popular opinion is roughly that between garbage collecter and movie star.
:)
Yet more proof Java is not used at Microsoft!
You're assuming the average Slashdotter is employed...
Regardless, nobody's forcing anything on anyone. No one has to have a computer, and those who do don't have to use Microsoft products. If you're using them at work, and you hate it that much, find another job that uses Linux or Solaris or Apple products. I don't even have a Windows machine at work.
Seriously, businesses make the decisions they make based on what will maximize profits. They're probably using Microsoft products for a reason: it makes the most sense from a business standpoint. If you think you can do better, quit your job and start your own business without using Microsoft.
Nothing's entirely original. Everything created has roots in something that came before it.
As for your question, I think Fantasia was probably the most original work that Disnay is responsible for. And I do consider it to be innovative and groundbreaking. Same with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, although not as original as Fantasia, IMO.
I'm sure there are a million remedies out there, but this one almost always works for me.
1) Take a glass of water.
2) Bend forward at the waist so your legs and torso are at about a 45 degree angle.
3) Take a drink from the cup while in this position. Be careful! You need to drink from the opposite side of the cup.
4) After drinking, remain in that position for a few seconds.
5) Stand up and see if hiccups are still there. If yes, repeat the procedure.
This hardly ever fails me or anyone I show it to.
From the article:
"The researchers state that the discovery could be important in the design of micromachines, and argue that the probability of thermodynamic systems running 'in reverse' will increase as they become smaller."
So does this mean that there is the possibility of creating perpetual motion machines at the microscopic level? What are the possible consequences of this?
Everyone has some opinion about this subject. The only way to answer this question satisfactorily is for an independent firm to conduct a scientific study that is completely untainted by money or politics.
Until then everything is mere speculation.
In your world, free appears to mean something other than something provided without cost to me. Certainly, a lot of effort went into developing IE as it is a quality product, but that means nothing to my pocketbook.
If it's not free, why can I download it for Solaris? I haven't paid Microsoft a dime in that situation.
Actually, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Windows Update allows you to set it to download and install automatically if you desire. The default is to download the patch and install with a click iin order to be able to analyze the fix before installation.
Today's fighters are nearly completely computer driven as it is. The F-16 is actually so UNSTABLE in flight that the human response time is unable to correct it quickly enough to avoid dumping it. The brain of the F-16 is the computer. Don't even get me started about the F-22. These planes have multiple backup systems in case of failure. The human makes the decisions, but the computers do all the work.
The only difference here is that the pilot is on the ground instead of in the cockpit. He/she still makes all the decisions. It's not a robot, just a very expensive remote controlled toy.
You don't know anything about our environment. We design VLSI ICs for high-speed networking applications. We are limited to an architecture that supports the tools we need to do deep-submicron IC design. Those tools don't exist on Linux: only on Solaris. There is no place-and-route tool for doing this kind of CAD work available on Linux, mainly because the computing demands are too high for anything other than the highest-end hardware. When there is, we'll consider it, but for the time being, Linux doesn't come close to meeting our needs.
What's the point of using Linux on anything other than x86 hardware? Why would you use it on Sparc instead of Solaris when Sun's engineers tune Solaris to work on that platform. Linux is not going to provide you with any benfits over Solaris other than savings on hardware. It certainly won't outperform Solaris on Sparc. Solaris is already free as in beer.
Honestly, I can't think of a single reason to use Linux over Solaris other than to save money on hardware.
You're kidding, right?
One of our Sun servers here has *28* UltraSparcs and 28 GB of RAM. How many CPUs can Linux support, 4? How much RAM, 4 GB? Not to mention that Solaris has NFS support that actually works well. And what do you mean "filesystem support"? Are you saying that being able to read/write FAT32 is something to crow about?
Linux is not in the same league as Solaris for anything other that ease of use.
Here's the configuration for our largest server:
HOSTNAME: grande, OS: SOLARIS 5.8, MACHINE TYPE: E6500 , USER: Server
MEMORY: 28GB, SWAP: 9GB, PROCESSORS: 28 400MHZ, DISK: Fibre Channel Raid 136GB
Linux can't come close to this kind of setup, and I doubt it will anywhere in the near future. Now admittedly, Linux is hurting Sun in a big way. Sun hardware is damn expensive. But we need that kind of hardware here in our shop, and Linux simply won't cut it.
Sun is doing this because Linux is hurting them on low end hardware, not because Linux is in any way better than Solaris for anything other than skinning your desktop.
The resolution of something like Fuji Velvia slide film is estimated to be around 30 Megapixels. The Nikon D1X is at the high end of digital cameras for resolution, and it's only around 5 Megapixels.
Digital has a long way to go before it becomes cost-effective for anything other than simple point-and-shoot. If you actually want prints made from your images, you're still going to have to pay for them either having a third party generate them for you, or running your own digital darkroom.
IMO, the predicted demise of film is greatly exaggerated. Film has a lot of life left in it.
These sound amazing considering the bitrates. I have a very hard time telling the difference from 128 Kbs MP3s, and MP3s at a comparable bitrate sound like utter garbage.
Not that I want WMA to be a standard, but it's a damn good codec for small files.Agreed. Security and usability are at the opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The average computer user has enough trouble maintaining and using a computer running Windows (or a Mac) as it is. Passing the burden of security along to the user is, IMO, a bad idea that will only lead to frustration.
Security issues should be addressed by software vendors in such a way that it is transparent to the user. While this is difficult, it can be done (e.g. Mac OS X hiding root from the user while still providing multi-user UNIX security).
Until software vendors can provide the user with a computing experience that is at least as trouble-free as the current situation, tying the user's hands with more secure software won't do anything other than piss him off.