True. Point to be made, though: It doesn't need to be impoverishing to be done, either.
True artists aren't in it for the money.
Nor are true landlords, automotive assembly-line workers, and grocers. What a sad world we live in, though, where a "true" artist can't find fellow pure brethren to provide him food, housing, and transport without that awful reliance on the monetary system.
Honestly, this argument is meaningless and destructive. I'd put more initial weight in the "truth" of a career artist who is able make a living from their work, than one who claims to live poor or work a side job as a testament to their "truth". For one, it's a clear testament that they are talented and savvy enough to command a premium for their work. For another, it shows they're dedicated enough to make their trade front-and-center in their life, not just a side job. As for poverty, any old twit can go out on the street, be broke, and call themselves a "true artist". I'll grant that some choose it, but for many more, it chooses them.
This "starving artist" idea, upon examination, either makes artists look like little more than easily-manipulated suckers, or devalues art as little more than play, without any value in and of itself. It's just another more fuel for laughing at the blustery, over-principled/underactive art-wankers, and that just people making real effective communicative art look laughable by association.
There would still be enough money around to make a decent living, which is all anyone really deserves.
There would still be enough money around... in other people's wallets. How, exactly, do you propose that this money magically get to the artist's wallet? Don't forget, as well, the high prices you'll often see on artistic supplies, in any medium, from the fact that pro-level artistic endeavors are a fringe activity.
Through what medium? Credit cards? There are a whole lot of folks online who are under 18 and can't get a card. For everyone else, it's past the threshold of inconvenience, and the practice just screams "scam". For any business based on gaining viewers and subscribers, this would be a shot in the foot.
Yes. And if I were to commission you to make a film, you would quite rightly expect money in return. But if I buy a film from you and then make a copy and give it to my friend, what service are you providing in the second instance?
The work has been timeshifted and subdivided. Sure, creative work is unique in that it can be timeshifted, moved, and subdivided, but that's why there is a legal framework in place to compensate for this. If this weren't the case, the only lucrative art would be patronized, which I'm certain would be comparitively rather dull, at best.
For action options and results, computer games rely on only the factors that the authors included (excepting, in part, GM-controlled computer games, which are basically computer-aided tabletop). Tabletop involves the moment-to-moment decisions of the GM, which means that the "universe" is as granular as it needs to be at any given time. With a computer game, you can jump in the car. With a tabletop game, you can read the owner's manual. It's not even a matter of the technology. It's just the fact that the people making the game have to give up somewhere in the "level of detail" department, because they have to think wide, as well as deep, while to the tabletop GM, the rest of the city is completely irrelevant if the players are in a room.
I suppose I'm just too practical a thinker. I've got a lot of stories in my head, but I know that if I tried, in earnest, to novelize them, I'd be out months of work, and for that have a few readers at best, many of whom are just reading out of respect to me. If I make a game or system out of it, though, it's more idea and less plot detail, and I know I'll at least get a good few games out of it.
As for the overarching question (and completely outside the scope of your message), I think different people PnPRPG for a slew of different reasons. For many people, it's simply that someone introduced them to RPGing. It's a more creative alternative to sitting around and watching TV, reading, or even playing video games (although they're interactive, they're often limited in scope.) For what programming I do (I'm a much better graphic designer, but I've done a bit of scripting here and there) I wouldn't say that it's a "strict numerical law" attraction at all. To the contrary, both programming and RPGing are things that allow me to do things and influence people by building structures in a virtually (no pun) unlimited and open-ended environment.
Yeah, but for most people, (the lucrative "most" of people) the enjoyment of the music comes from that 20,000Hz range in the middle, not the fidelity of the bits on the outsides. In a pinch, many can even rock out to a 128kbps MP3.
I did a bit of a perfunctory search, and from what I see, it will apply to the particular GPL3'd piece of software that the patent suit is being applied to. Otherwise, I would think that this could give third-party developers an open license to violate patents of any company with risk sunk into GPLed code.
Still, though, if there is any sort of warranty covering defects in materials or workmanship, that sounds to me like a "defect in materials or workmanship" that should be covered.
But, if you replace the tape, and take only some of the money (an amount completely unrelated to either of your deposits), and lodge a complaint as well, I imagine you could get away with it.
Then I realized, that you'd still leave a trail. What dumbass uses a broken ATM twice at two different times?
Perhaps if you had use of someone else's card to make the final "withdrawal".
From a marketing standpoint, I suppose I can understand it. It's much easier for the masses to want "browser" than "browser plugin", but from a technical standpoint, I think it lacks, in that I can't have the browser tailored to ME, unless I fit one of the pre-made profiles. If I'm, say, a web developer with a penchant for blogging, I could run two browsers (or more likely cut my losses and choose one) or two plugins.
Of course, I suppose that is the difference between power-users and the less configu-centric variety: A power-user will tailor the app to their uses, while a common user will more likely bend their use to the app, if the app suits otherwise acceptably.
I'm not talking about whether Flock is good or not, but are the benefits going to be clear to joe-schmoe. With tabs and pop-up blockers, it's rather easy to show those things to my parents and explain, this is why you want this browser. Are the benefits that clear with Flock? I'll tell you, I'm not even sure I understand what's supposed to be good about this new browser yet.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you aren't the target market.
Plus, since it's community-created software, as long as it has a community enough to create it, who cares if it ranks 1, 2, or 20 in the browser logs.
That said, I'd be much more receptive to this if the features were developed as a FF Extension rather than a full-on browser distro, so I didn't have to make the "total switch" commitment. Of course, maybe the features run deeper... I haven't really looked into it.
All well and good, but could we cut it out with the "Web 2.0"? It's like calling things "modern" back in the 1940s and '50s. It's all going to look quite silly when we wake up from it tomorrow.
As a distant third-party browser, though, could you really expect this to be the latest fad for the AOLuser crowd? Although this might be the tool for the social touchy-feely type, chances are that most of the users of something like this will be the more involved touchy-feely types, who use the stuff often enough, and know enough about those technologies, that they won't be stuck scratching their heads.
What's more, it's copyright free, being from the government and all. There, and NationalAtlas.gov are two decent places to start if you're looking for pub-dom maps.
I'd also recommend the FirstGov graphics link list as a starting-point for any manner of public-domain graphics you might be looking for.
Slashdot Mirror
Art doesn't need to be lucrative to be done.
True. Point to be made, though: It doesn't need to be impoverishing to be done, either.
True artists aren't in it for the money.
Nor are true landlords, automotive assembly-line workers, and grocers. What a sad world we live in, though, where a "true" artist can't find fellow pure brethren to provide him food, housing, and transport without that awful reliance on the monetary system.
Honestly, this argument is meaningless and destructive. I'd put more initial weight in the "truth" of a career artist who is able make a living from their work, than one who claims to live poor or work a side job as a testament to their "truth". For one, it's a clear testament that they are talented and savvy enough to command a premium for their work. For another, it shows they're dedicated enough to make their trade front-and-center in their life, not just a side job. As for poverty, any old twit can go out on the street, be broke, and call themselves a "true artist". I'll grant that some choose it, but for many more, it chooses them.
This "starving artist" idea, upon examination, either makes artists look like little more than easily-manipulated suckers, or devalues art as little more than play, without any value in and of itself. It's just another more fuel for laughing at the blustery, over-principled/underactive art-wankers, and that just people making real effective communicative art look laughable by association.
There would still be enough money around to make a decent living, which is all anyone really deserves.
There would still be enough money around... in other people's wallets. How, exactly, do you propose that this money magically get to the artist's wallet? Don't forget, as well, the high prices you'll often see on artistic supplies, in any medium, from the fact that pro-level artistic endeavors are a fringe activity.
Through what medium? Credit cards? There are a whole lot of folks online who are under 18 and can't get a card. For everyone else, it's past the threshold of inconvenience, and the practice just screams "scam". For any business based on gaining viewers and subscribers, this would be a shot in the foot.
Yes, and its logo includes a dolphin, not a little running guy. Clearly a flawed metaphor.
Yes. And if I were to commission you to make a film, you would quite rightly expect money in return. But if I buy a film from you and then make a copy and give it to my friend, what service are you providing in the second instance?
The work has been timeshifted and subdivided. Sure, creative work is unique in that it can be timeshifted, moved, and subdivided, but that's why there is a legal framework in place to compensate for this. If this weren't the case, the only lucrative art would be patronized, which I'm certain would be comparitively rather dull, at best.
For action options and results, computer games rely on only the factors that the authors included (excepting, in part, GM-controlled computer games, which are basically computer-aided tabletop). Tabletop involves the moment-to-moment decisions of the GM, which means that the "universe" is as granular as it needs to be at any given time. With a computer game, you can jump in the car. With a tabletop game, you can read the owner's manual. It's not even a matter of the technology. It's just the fact that the people making the game have to give up somewhere in the "level of detail" department, because they have to think wide, as well as deep, while to the tabletop GM, the rest of the city is completely irrelevant if the players are in a room.
Of course, one could say that "escapism" is just a negative euphamism for many types of "entertainment".
That's my style right there.
I suppose I'm just too practical a thinker. I've got a lot of stories in my head, but I know that if I tried, in earnest, to novelize them, I'd be out months of work, and for that have a few readers at best, many of whom are just reading out of respect to me. If I make a game or system out of it, though, it's more idea and less plot detail, and I know I'll at least get a good few games out of it.
As for the overarching question (and completely outside the scope of your message), I think different people PnPRPG for a slew of different reasons. For many people, it's simply that someone introduced them to RPGing. It's a more creative alternative to sitting around and watching TV, reading, or even playing video games (although they're interactive, they're often limited in scope.) For what programming I do (I'm a much better graphic designer, but I've done a bit of scripting here and there) I wouldn't say that it's a "strict numerical law" attraction at all. To the contrary, both programming and RPGing are things that allow me to do things and influence people by building structures in a virtually (no pun) unlimited and open-ended environment.
Then there's the matter that revolutionaries rarely make good governors.
Yeah, but for most people, (the lucrative "most" of people) the enjoyment of the music comes from that 20,000Hz range in the middle, not the fidelity of the bits on the outsides. In a pinch, many can even rock out to a 128kbps MP3.
Anybody read the books?
Anyone?
C'mon, you don't have to be ashamed.
I am.
Yeah.
I did a bit of a perfunctory search, and from what I see, it will apply to the particular GPL3'd piece of software that the patent suit is being applied to. Otherwise, I would think that this could give third-party developers an open license to violate patents of any company with risk sunk into GPLed code.
Still, though, if there is any sort of warranty covering defects in materials or workmanship, that sounds to me like a "defect in materials or workmanship" that should be covered.
I was going to say:
But, if you replace the tape, and take only some of the money (an amount completely unrelated to either of your deposits), and lodge a complaint as well, I imagine you could get away with it.
Then I realized, that you'd still leave a trail. What dumbass uses a broken ATM twice at two different times?
Perhaps if you had use of someone else's card to make the final "withdrawal".
From a marketing standpoint, I suppose I can understand it. It's much easier for the masses to want "browser" than "browser plugin", but from a technical standpoint, I think it lacks, in that I can't have the browser tailored to ME, unless I fit one of the pre-made profiles. If I'm, say, a web developer with a penchant for blogging, I could run two browsers (or more likely cut my losses and choose one) or two plugins.
Of course, I suppose that is the difference between power-users and the less configu-centric variety: A power-user will tailor the app to their uses, while a common user will more likely bend their use to the app, if the app suits otherwise acceptably.
That sounds like the spot where a preference-matching agent comes into play. Give greater weight to rankings by similar folks. We have the technology.
I'm not talking about whether Flock is good or not, but are the benefits going to be clear to joe-schmoe. With tabs and pop-up blockers, it's rather easy to show those things to my parents and explain, this is why you want this browser. Are the benefits that clear with Flock? I'll tell you, I'm not even sure I understand what's supposed to be good about this new browser yet.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you aren't the target market.
Plus, since it's community-created software, as long as it has a community enough to create it, who cares if it ranks 1, 2, or 20 in the browser logs.
That said, I'd be much more receptive to this if the features were developed as a FF Extension rather than a full-on browser distro, so I didn't have to make the "total switch" commitment. Of course, maybe the features run deeper... I haven't really looked into it.
All well and good, but could we cut it out with the "Web 2.0"? It's like calling things "modern" back in the 1940s and '50s. It's all going to look quite silly when we wake up from it tomorrow.
As a distant third-party browser, though, could you really expect this to be the latest fad for the AOLuser crowd? Although this might be the tool for the social touchy-feely type, chances are that most of the users of something like this will be the more involved touchy-feely types, who use the stuff often enough, and know enough about those technologies, that they won't be stuck scratching their heads.
Huh? Where's the innovation in what? I'm not following you.
The innovation comes when someone comes up with something new. The business comes when they use a patent to protect it.
I'm in a hotel, EVERYTHING (including the food) is VHS quality.
By George, I think you may have just hit upon my next snappy saying du jour.
What's more, it's copyright free, being from the government and all. There, and NationalAtlas.gov are two decent places to start if you're looking for pub-dom maps.
I'd also recommend the FirstGov graphics link list as a starting-point for any manner of public-domain graphics you might be looking for.
You're being sarcastic, right?
No?!?
And even if you're wrong... you have tea!
Not until you mentioned it, but...
Solution: Scientists need to start writing Bibles.