But how are you going to start classifying what's useless crap, and what's useful?
To you a gaming console may be useless crap, to someone else it may be a fantastic release from their long day working at a manufacturing plant building tractors to work the fields. Without said console they may little fun and their quality of life decreases.
Are books useless? They don't contribute anything meaningful in a physical product sense... so surely they're useless crap too?
It's a slippery slope when you try to start judging the 'worth' of items based purely on whether you 'need' them to survive.
The free in linux refers to freedom, not "free of charge". But it's sold as in free as in beer... and being that one of the major sticking points people have with Windows is its price (although I have to say, on looking at OEM prices of Vista Home Premium running at $170AUS, I don't think that's terrible for an OS that is most likely going to be fully supported for 5 years or more, seeing as games run at $90AUS and they give you but a few weeks of fun), then if Linux starts being something that also is something you have to pay for then people are going to pretty quickly get shitty with its 'quirks' and 'issues' when things don't go right. When you haven't paid for it you can live with a few issues around the edges, cause, hey, it's free... but if I'm paying $5 a month just to be able to play games, and then find that they take 10 times as long to install, don't look as good as they should once they do, AND run slower... no thanks, give me the $170 up front...
Having said that, I'm off to download a Ubuntu LiveCD
You'll never read this as you're a cowardly AC, however I must state that you sir are the less than brainy individual.
My point is that one of the big selling points of Linux is that it's free. One of the sticking points of Windows is its cost. However. Being that I can get Vista for about $170AUS, and Cedega costs $6.45US a month (current rates) then I get about two years of less than stellar game performance complete with instabilities and it not making full use of my hardware for same price as buying the system that the games run natively in, which will remain as a fully supported operating system for a good 5 or more years.
I'm just saying, as soon as you start paying to make the machine start doing the things you want it to, you've got to compare it to the 'evil' Windows.
People like _you_ are just making it worse for everyone else by being a rude, ignorant little shit... but hey, you can't even be bothered to post as you.
Did you read the article? The experiences he had with Cedega were less than stellar, problems, low framerates etc. Not ideal
And $5 a month? I thought one of the points of Linux was that it was free... surely by paying $5 a month you're just paying the same amount as windows over a longer period of time, and all for less performance, installs that take 10 times as long as their Windows counterparts (read the article), and worse graphics and performance.
To me it sounds like they just blamed everything and everyone they could for why they broke up... The fact of the matter is, from the few tracks I just listened to...
They were sensational! I loved the music, really great voice on the lead, great playing from the band... if they married this with a great live presence there is no reason at all that they shouldn't be able to make it if they really invested the time to find out how they can get gigs etc.
I would so much prefer to hear their music on the radio than most of the crud that there is currently.
(Of course, I'm in Australia, so we do have slightly different tastes:P)
A friend and I have set up a website mp3read.com where we're trying to out these horrendous scam sites. And do you know what the best source is to find the urls of all these dodgy sites? Our own Adsense ads! Each day I go to our site, view the ads and grab the urls, scam site after scam site... We add those sites to our Adsense block list, and the next day we get a new raft of dodgy scam ads...
It's very hard when you're trying to have a website that is ousting these site, only to end up with AdSense ads to the very sites you're trying to out right there on your site... we're just trying to make enough money to cover the hosting, but we don't want to do it at the expense of actually sending people off to these horrible sites.
We're slowly getting more real, legit adverts on our site, but the flood of scam sites advertising via Adsense is insane...
Please do come to our site and report scam sites you hate, we've only just started in the last week or so, but we have a list of 35 so far.
I really don't give a rat's hindquarters who claims victory, just as long as one of them does soon, and it sticks and we're left with ONE HD movie format. Please can this HD war be over?
Windows Media DRM has had fewer security breaches than Apple's FairPlay, yet WM DRM is licensed out the wazoo: there are more than a dozen companies with WM DRM licenses. Hang on... so in this case, where it's a Microsoft product that's fairing better you apparently can being into play the 'well, it's not used on nearly as many devices as the Apple version' shtick. Yet when OSX fares better than Windows in virus threats you aren't allowed to use the exact same and just as legitimate argument that Windows is installed on VASTLY more machines than OSX, and as such is a MUCH greater target for compromise?
But it's an operating system, it just launches applications and provides base services, file system, GUi etc.. You're missing the point...
While there is nothing else wanting to use the memory, the OS should be using it to cache data, pre-fetch things, and whatever it can use it for to make your use of the system more responsive and pleasant.
As long as the system gives these RAM resources over to an application/game when it's requested for there is NO PROBLEM.
Ranting and raving often isn't necessary unless you fail to read the fine print. I know to read the fine print and ask specific questions. I also know how to enforce my rights if the fine print isn't followed. If I don't agree with fine print, I go elsewhere. That was my entire point. The gp was suggesting that once they bought a machine, if they then got an upgrade version of Vista they would go and complain to all and sundry, whereas just checking the fine print to begin with would have made it clear what version of Vista you would get. No ranting required.
I buy a brand new PC that comes preinstalled with XP because Vista wasn't ready yet, but says I get a free Vista OS, I sure as hell expect a full version. If I don't get that then I take it up with MS customer service. If they don't give me a full version then I go to the vendor or my state attorney's office. One way or another I get the full OS. You're prepared to rant and rave at anyone and everyone in that case, but are you prepared to take just a few seconds to read any fine print before you buy an entire new PC to ensure that what you THINK you should be getting is what you ARE getting? I mean, it'll say one way or the other in the material you'll be privy to before buying, so you have no excuse to go mental if you then find out it is otherwise because you couldn't be bothered to read.
"Ok since this is slashdot home of people who know nothing about hiphop but love to comment on it, let me explain to you how this works."
Look, very true, I was merely commenting on the information available within the article, no more, no less... if the article had included more of the information as you state it, it would be a stronger case against the RIAA.
If he's being sent the material then all power to him... the article never mentioned either way.
Exactly... the whole thing is making out like he's doing a huge service to the industry, uncovering little known acts etc. Which he may well be doing BUT: a) He's doing it for profit, he SELLS the mixtapes, therefore he's making a profit from someone else's material WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION b) He doesn't have permission from the original artists.
Now, the article goes on to say that many artists are thrilled when they make one of his mixtapes, and I'm sure many are, and that's even more of a reason for him to ask permission first... surely no-one would turn him down, he'd have a legit license to use the recording, the artist gets their exposure, everyone would be happy.
As it is, while he may be doing some good in promoting these artists, he's still making money from their work without asking to.
OK, firstly, that says that he was supposed to have died from his bladder exploding, not from water intoxication as she did. Then further to that, the wikipedia article states "Recent investigations have suggested that Tycho did not die from urinary problems but instead from mercury poisoning: toxic levels of it have been found in his hair and hair-roots."
So, really, a poor example of someone else dying this way.
an interface as good as my Razr's. I'm sorry... you say what?
My last phone was a Motorolla e398, same interface as a Razr. My workmate sitting next to me right now has a Razr, and I've used it.
We both hate, hate, hate the interface, and due to it, neither will ever get a Motorolla again (I now have a Sony Ericsson, and couldn't be happier). How can you possibly like the ugly, clunky, slow, and just plain useless interface that is the Razr/any other Motorolla phone for the past few years?
I'm a writer. I write so that people hire me for my knowledge that I don't write about -- I keep something aside. That only works for non-fiction writers though... surely? There wouldn't be a lot of job openings for a fantasy writer to be brought on board for their knowledge of dragons. (yes, occasionally, like for a movie adviser or similar)
Let's say you are a photographer or a painter or a writer and someone steals your copywritten work. What can you do? Do you think that 99% of creative "artists" out there can handle a copyright-violation lawsuit, or even afford a C&D letter? Doubtful. Copyright is not helping them. But that's a slight on the legal system, which is indeed f*cked up, not on the need for copyright as such.
Paintings and the like are hard to copy, but things like photos, especially in our digital world, are easy to. Hence, someone finds a great photo online and starts selling prints of it... it's not theirs, so why should they profit? Without copyright they would be able to without issue.
Getting rid of copyright entirely doesn't work for me, and I don't think people would be able to ever convince me of it. Sure, being able to say that your works are non-copyrighted, 'go right ahead and copy them', is fine. That's the individual artist's choice, and all power to those that chose to... but in a number of cases and types of art, it just doesn't work.
And I never suggest that works shouldn't come out of copyright and become public domain... what I'm saying is that the less incentive you give for people to spend time creating truly great works, the less great works you're going to get.
There'd still be a few, as some people really do create for the love of creating. But even those that do would be stifled if they had no way of gaining a living from their works... hence copyright, or something similar, is needed... and for people to dance around saying that everything should be in the public domain from day dot smacks of just wanting to get things for free... and it's kind of only ascribing worth to manual labour and 'tasks' rather than creative works.. which is a little skewed to me.
Your entire post, while being both condescending and rude, is also complete tripe. You're assigning incorrect attributes to objects.
In the case of the guitar, you're trying to say that the physical guitar is like a copyrighted work, where it's really the design of the guitar. If I created a new design for a guitar, and spent some time doing it, and it's better than others, then I should be able to be the only one making that design for some time. The physical guitar is just like a physical CD as sold by the musician. Do YOU follow?
Ditto with Nike, the design of the shoe is the creative work, the shoe itself is merely a copy of that work, sold to you to do with as you will. Do You follow now?
Again with the architect, the design of the house is the creative work. He can either give it to you to use as many times as you want, OR he can chose to say you can only make that one house with his design, any further ones using the same design must ask him, as he spent the years in school, and has the talent to design it.
All well and good for creative acts that can perform their works live. But what about some forms of music which can't readily be played live, yet are no less legitimate?
And what about * Books * Painting/Drawing etc. * Photography * Sculpture
?
How can they keep 'performing' their works live? Why should anyone be able to make copies of their works and profit from them?
Then the thing should be made available to everyone in society so new, better things can be built without having to start from scratch. This makes sense from a mechanical, product, 'make things work' standpoint... but it doesn't really hold, for me, for works of art. So, by having short copyright I can take Harry Potter, chop it up a bit, put a couple of different names in it and make a new book out of it? How does that work?
To argue for infinite copyrights is to argue that you should be able to use stuff that came before you, but no one after you should have the same opportunity. I never said infinite copyright... I said copyright for the life of the creator... I still don't see a problem with that. There's an awful lot of stuff created by people long dead that you could go ape with in the public domain under this model.
[quote]Otherwise, it is risk/reward: you're out there competing against thousands or tens of thousands of bands, the risk is huge for a very slim chance of a huge reward. Why is this? Because the content is controlled by copyright -- any one band invests 200 hours total in making an album. 1000 bands do this. 1 band succeeds and never has to work again. 999 bands fail and continue to try. Why is the first band any better than the others? Usually because they're colluding with the distribution monopolies (designed this way by the FCC, mind you) who control copyright.[/quote]
You say it's down to the distribution/marketing lot... but that aside, how is reducing copyright going to fix this problem? How does making the music, that you say is no better than the other artists, become public domain fix anything? Surely if the need to work another 200 hours in X years rather than Y years means diddly if the 'monopolies' are sitll controlling everything.
I just don't see the link between band X being great but unnoticed and band Y being not so great but having great success, and copyright lengths... I just don't.
I guess I still just don't get how someone else can make profit from something that I created just because X years have gone by. If the thing I created 10 years ago is no longer making money because no-one wants to buy it, then that'll make me create something else. But if I've created something that is desirable to people for decades after I first made it, and there continues to be people who want to buy it... why shouldn't I be making money from it, rather than someone else?
The whole 'It will make you do more work' point seems a little off to me... A creative person will create based on the desire to create more so than to make money... those who do it purely to make more money probably aren't really making worthwhile contributions anyway.
I dunno... I suppose my measure for it being a good argument is that I can agree with the reason and convince someone else... and I just can't see the point of it being forced into the public domain while the original creator could still be making a living from it. Being able to extend indefinitely past the creator's death is a load of bull, and does nothing to benefit the creators of the works... but during their life? Hmmm... not an easy sell to me.
In some other discussion here about copyright I said why not have copyright last as long as the artist lives, or 30 years, whichever is longest? (In case the artist dies shortly after creating a work, their family should benefit from profits).
Why shouldn't an artist continue to reap the rewards of a creation of theirs for the entire lives?
Because that's the spirit of copyright. You're protected for 30 years, then it falls into the public domain.You're not getting paid for something you did 30 years ago (say, hammer a nail), why should they be? In fact, even with 30 years of copyright, if successful, they could sit on their asses and do nothing for 30 years if they're popular enough. And I suppose the question is "Why shouldn't they be able to sit on their arses if what they did is popular enough to still be desirable to people?" I mean, the hammer and nail analogy is different... I'm providing a once off service to you by hammering in those nails, and you pay me for it. And the same is true with the creative work too... I pay once to get it (ignoring format shifts etc.)... if I like your movie, I buy it once, and that's it.
The analogy is more like me creating something really useful... a great new widget. People love it, buy them, and continue to buy them... I set up a manufacturing plant, or have someone else do it, and continue to make money off my great widget invention until I die... I don't see an issue with that or continuing to make money off a movie or song you made that people still want to buy.
It can become public domain after I die (or, perhaps 30 years after or when I die, whichever comes last), so that others don't continue to make money off something they didn't create.
I just don't see why something that I create has to become public domain while I'm still around to benefit from sales of it... to say that I should be creating something else is a little poor I would think, what if it took me 30 years to create said work?
Slashdot Mirror
But how are you going to start classifying what's useless crap, and what's useful?
To you a gaming console may be useless crap, to someone else it may be a fantastic release from their long day working at a manufacturing plant building tractors to work the fields. Without said console they may little fun and their quality of life decreases.
Are books useless? They don't contribute anything meaningful in a physical product sense... so surely they're useless crap too?
It's a slippery slope when you try to start judging the 'worth' of items based purely on whether you 'need' them to survive.
Having said that, I'm off to download a Ubuntu LiveCD
You'll never read this as you're a cowardly AC, however I must state that you sir are the less than brainy individual.
My point is that one of the big selling points of Linux is that it's free. One of the sticking points of Windows is its cost. However. Being that I can get Vista for about $170AUS, and Cedega costs $6.45US a month (current rates) then I get about two years of less than stellar game performance complete with instabilities and it not making full use of my hardware for same price as buying the system that the games run natively in, which will remain as a fully supported operating system for a good 5 or more years.
I'm just saying, as soon as you start paying to make the machine start doing the things you want it to, you've got to compare it to the 'evil' Windows.
People like _you_ are just making it worse for everyone else by being a rude, ignorant little shit... but hey, you can't even be bothered to post as you.
Did you read the article? The experiences he had with Cedega were less than stellar, problems, low framerates etc. Not ideal
And $5 a month? I thought one of the points of Linux was that it was free... surely by paying $5 a month you're just paying the same amount as windows over a longer period of time, and all for less performance, installs that take 10 times as long as their Windows counterparts (read the article), and worse graphics and performance.
Sorry, doesn't cut it for me.
To me it sounds like they just blamed everything and everyone they could for why they broke up... The fact of the matter is, from the few tracks I just listened to...
:P)
They were sensational! I loved the music, really great voice on the lead, great playing from the band... if they married this with a great live presence there is no reason at all that they shouldn't be able to make it if they really invested the time to find out how they can get gigs etc.
I would so much prefer to hear their music on the radio than most of the crud that there is currently.
(Of course, I'm in Australia, so we do have slightly different tastes
A friend and I have set up a website mp3read.com where we're trying to out these horrendous scam sites. And do you know what the best source is to find the urls of all these dodgy sites? Our own Adsense ads! Each day I go to our site, view the ads and grab the urls, scam site after scam site... We add those sites to our Adsense block list, and the next day we get a new raft of dodgy scam ads...
It's very hard when you're trying to have a website that is ousting these site, only to end up with AdSense ads to the very sites you're trying to out right there on your site... we're just trying to make enough money to cover the hosting, but we don't want to do it at the expense of actually sending people off to these horrible sites.
We're slowly getting more real, legit adverts on our site, but the flood of scam sites advertising via Adsense is insane...
Please do come to our site and report scam sites you hate, we've only just started in the last week or so, but we have a list of 35 so far.
I really don't give a rat's hindquarters who claims victory, just as long as one of them does soon, and it sticks and we're left with ONE HD movie format. Please can this HD war be over?
Please?
How does that work?
Thanks for that link, some pretty amazing simulations there! :)
While there is nothing else wanting to use the memory, the OS should be using it to cache data, pre-fetch things, and whatever it can use it for to make your use of the system more responsive and pleasant.
As long as the system gives these RAM resources over to an application/game when it's requested for there is NO PROBLEM.
"Ok since this is slashdot home of people who know nothing about hiphop but love to comment on it, let me explain to you how this works."
Look, very true, I was merely commenting on the information available within the article, no more, no less... if the article had included more of the information as you state it, it would be a stronger case against the RIAA.
If he's being sent the material then all power to him... the article never mentioned either way.
Exactly... the whole thing is making out like he's doing a huge service to the industry, uncovering little known acts etc. Which he may well be doing BUT:
a) He's doing it for profit, he SELLS the mixtapes, therefore he's making a profit from someone else's material WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION
b) He doesn't have permission from the original artists.
Now, the article goes on to say that many artists are thrilled when they make one of his mixtapes, and I'm sure many are, and that's even more of a reason for him to ask permission first... surely no-one would turn him down, he'd have a legit license to use the recording, the artist gets their exposure, everyone would be happy.
As it is, while he may be doing some good in promoting these artists, he's still making money from their work without asking to.
For anyone who thinks only a moron could die this particular way:
Tycho Brahe
OK, firstly, that says that he was supposed to have died from his bladder exploding, not from water intoxication as she did. Then further to that, the wikipedia article states "Recent investigations have suggested that Tycho did not die from urinary problems but instead from mercury poisoning: toxic levels of it have been found in his hair and hair-roots."So, really, a poor example of someone else dying this way.
My last phone was a Motorolla e398, same interface as a Razr. My workmate sitting next to me right now has a Razr, and I've used it.
We both hate, hate, hate the interface, and due to it, neither will ever get a Motorolla again (I now have a Sony Ericsson, and couldn't be happier). How can you possibly like the ugly, clunky, slow, and just plain useless interface that is the Razr/any other Motorolla phone for the past few years?
I just can't believe someone actually likes it!
Paintings and the like are hard to copy, but things like photos, especially in our digital world, are easy to. Hence, someone finds a great photo online and starts selling prints of it... it's not theirs, so why should they profit? Without copyright they would be able to without issue.
Getting rid of copyright entirely doesn't work for me, and I don't think people would be able to ever convince me of it. Sure, being able to say that your works are non-copyrighted, 'go right ahead and copy them', is fine. That's the individual artist's choice, and all power to those that chose to... but in a number of cases and types of art, it just doesn't work.
And I never suggest that works shouldn't come out of copyright and become public domain... what I'm saying is that the less incentive you give for people to spend time creating truly great works, the less great works you're going to get.
There'd still be a few, as some people really do create for the love of creating. But even those that do would be stifled if they had no way of gaining a living from their works... hence copyright, or something similar, is needed... and for people to dance around saying that everything should be in the public domain from day dot smacks of just wanting to get things for free... and it's kind of only ascribing worth to manual labour and 'tasks' rather than creative works.. which is a little skewed to me.
Your entire post, while being both condescending and rude, is also complete tripe. You're assigning incorrect attributes to objects.
In the case of the guitar, you're trying to say that the physical guitar is like a copyrighted work, where it's really the design of the guitar. If I created a new design for a guitar, and spent some time doing it, and it's better than others, then I should be able to be the only one making that design for some time. The physical guitar is just like a physical CD as sold by the musician. Do YOU follow?
Ditto with Nike, the design of the shoe is the creative work, the shoe itself is merely a copy of that work, sold to you to do with as you will. Do You follow now?
Again with the architect, the design of the house is the creative work. He can either give it to you to use as many times as you want, OR he can chose to say you can only make that one house with his design, any further ones using the same design must ask him, as he spent the years in school, and has the talent to design it.
Do you follow now Mr condescending?
All well and good for creative acts that can perform their works live. But what about some forms of music which can't readily be played live, yet are no less legitimate?
And what about
* Books
* Painting/Drawing etc.
* Photography
* Sculpture
?
How can they keep 'performing' their works live? Why should anyone be able to make copies of their works and profit from them?
I don't get it at all.
Am I just being dense?
[quote]Otherwise, it is risk/reward: you're out there competing against thousands or tens of thousands of bands, the risk is huge for a very slim chance of a huge reward. Why is this? Because the content is controlled by copyright -- any one band invests 200 hours total in making an album. 1000 bands do this. 1 band succeeds and never has to work again. 999 bands fail and continue to try. Why is the first band any better than the others? Usually because they're colluding with the distribution monopolies (designed this way by the FCC, mind you) who control copyright.[/quote]
You say it's down to the distribution/marketing lot... but that aside, how is reducing copyright going to fix this problem? How does making the music, that you say is no better than the other artists, become public domain fix anything? Surely if the need to work another 200 hours in X years rather than Y years means diddly if the 'monopolies' are sitll controlling everything.
I just don't see the link between band X being great but unnoticed and band Y being not so great but having great success, and copyright lengths... I just don't.
I guess I still just don't get how someone else can make profit from something that I created just because X years have gone by. If the thing I created 10 years ago is no longer making money because no-one wants to buy it, then that'll make me create something else. But if I've created something that is desirable to people for decades after I first made it, and there continues to be people who want to buy it... why shouldn't I be making money from it, rather than someone else?
The whole 'It will make you do more work' point seems a little off to me... A creative person will create based on the desire to create more so than to make money... those who do it purely to make more money probably aren't really making worthwhile contributions anyway.
I dunno... I suppose my measure for it being a good argument is that I can agree with the reason and convince someone else... and I just can't see the point of it being forced into the public domain while the original creator could still be making a living from it. Being able to extend indefinitely past the creator's death is a load of bull, and does nothing to benefit the creators of the works... but during their life? Hmmm... not an easy sell to me.
In some other discussion here about copyright I said why not have copyright last as long as the artist lives, or 30 years, whichever is longest? (In case the artist dies shortly after creating a work, their family should benefit from profits).
Why shouldn't an artist continue to reap the rewards of a creation of theirs for the entire lives?
The analogy is more like me creating something really useful... a great new widget. People love it, buy them, and continue to buy them... I set up a manufacturing plant, or have someone else do it, and continue to make money off my great widget invention until I die... I don't see an issue with that or continuing to make money off a movie or song you made that people still want to buy.
It can become public domain after I die (or, perhaps 30 years after or when I die, whichever comes last), so that others don't continue to make money off something they didn't create.
I just don't see why something that I create has to become public domain while I'm still around to benefit from sales of it... to say that I should be creating something else is a little poor I would think, what if it took me 30 years to create said work?