No, you make a ridiculous assertion - that they refuse to save the climate, so they can get funding to study it more? It's not a small group either you make this ridiculous, slandering accusation against.
I didn't say you were religious. I said you use fantastical arguments.
I don't think it's possible convince you of anything when you make such arguments.
"Think of all the funding they would lose" is a classic anti-science conspiracy theory. That creationists love such arguments should be enough to make you stop using it.
There's geoengineering and there's geoengineering... If you could scrub CO2 by churning up rock in Yemen, speeding up weathering of rocks, that sounds pretty safe, if it would work. But you also have some truly crazy schemes, like seeding the oceans, pumping aerosols into the atmosphere, trying to change the planet's albedo etc. These have the potential to be way more painful than reducing energy consumption - which, while inconvenient, is a good idea for several reasons.
This thing isn't on the market yet, so who knows? But I'd be surprised if it wasn't. All the other things you can plugin have had the data streams reverse-engineered by various wiimote libraries.
"It makes me feel like the author just went with the LaTeX defaults"
And thus spends his time thinking about how to write a good book instead of making it look fancy;) Can't say I prefer Utopia, but thanks for the link to the interesting survey.
When there are enough patrons to choose from, there is just as much a free market as there is under the current regime. If you choose the catholic church as your patron, you may find that "Piss Christ" gets your deal terminated. If you choose a teenage audience, you may find they don't buy your records anymore when you suddenly switch to calm, folksy accordeon music. No difference.
It's only your first work you may need to give away for free. It's only fair, the audience has no reason to believe that your new rock album has any value whatsoever - there are hundreds of thousands already! But if they like it, they can make sure you make more with tools like fundable.org.
You take a big economic risk in the beginning, but you do that today, too.
Oh, I don't know. I like Computer Modern myself, especially in educational books. It instinctively makes me feel the author is a competent, professional fellow.
But a guy at my office, he hates Computer Modern. He tells us about how happy everyone were when they could finally use postscript fonts in TeX, etc.
Oh, this is just nonsense. Artists in the middle ages had a choice of patrons, just as artists today have a choice in what audience they will try to appeal to. The choice may have been smaller, but that was mostly because it was a society with far smaller surplus for such luxuries as professional musical entertainment. Today or yesterday, "There ain't no such thing as a free artist", to paraphrase Henry Ford.
Comparing either patronage or our current system with communist censorship is just ridiculous.
We don't need half the "content creators" out there. The inefficiency of their fighting for our attention dwarfs the inefficiency of any alternative collection system (when you think about it, trying to collect payment for _every single performance_ of a work is pretty bloody inefficient too).
This alternative system that you disparage also exists already. Check out fundable.org. Granted, most people don't get it, and try to use it for simple begging instead, but there are some progressive individuals who fund their "content" this way. So far it's mostly role playing modules and indie computer game expansions, but I see no reason to think it would work any worse for larger works.
If by "information" you mean things commonly shared through pirate bay, then did it ever occur to you that the production of such material would essentially grind to a halt without that monopoly?
What if it would? Let's say 999 out of 1000 small hobby bands, losing the promise of a buck every time their music is played, decide to quit. So what?
Maybe that last band, which kept playing because of commissioned pieces, live performances or (gasp!) just the pleasure of it, can go a way to replace those 999 others. Considering we can make as many copies of their music as we want.
But quality will suffer, you might say, since there is so much less talent to choose from.
And maybe that would be true, if in today's environment, the most talented always floated to the top. But of course it doesn't work like that. A successful band might like to think that they've succeeded on their own artistic merits - after all, they've practised so much, right? But plenty of bands that are good don't succeed, and more succeed that haven't invested as much in their music (as opposed to their looks, image and so on).
But let's imagine it did anyway, and the pool of talent was actually reduced thousandfold. Well, the pool of talent would still be vastly larger than it was, say, at Mozart's time - and he didn't collect any recording royalties either!
The copyright regime probably isn't going to change, it's too entrenched. But the world wouldn't go under if it did.
They aren't sent to prison. They don't pay the fine. They appeal.
The headline is misleading, the case isn't over. In fact we knew it wouldn't be over, both parties had stated that they would file appeals to higher courts if they lost.
It won't be over until it's in the Swedish high court, and that can take a couple of years.
But I would add that IMO, we don't get the best of one in a million songwriters, or one in fifty thousand actors. The commercial-professional system isn't nearly accurate enough to give us that - it doesn't need to either, since the 1 in 100000 actor really isn't appreciably worse than the 1 in 10000000 actor.
Maybe Uncle Jim can actually perform Bob Dylan's song with more skill than Bob Dylan. And maybe you would prefer the record anyway... art is about far more than the dimension called "skill". Not sure what I'm trying to say with this, sorry.
I think that many of these "addictions" you list can be considered harmful, actually. There are far more child prodigy instrumentalists out there than there are job openings for them. For every one that is lauded for his achievements, seen as a great example of skill etc. there are ten people who have spent an extreme amount of effort for very little return. This is why it's cruel to try to lead your child down that path.
Music is the crown example. But it's very much the case with chess, sports, novels, etc.
I think people would be happier if the ideals of Amateurism made a comeback. We might even get better art in some ways.
But would you be content taking a pawn, resetting the game one step back, and then repeating the move for hours on end? Would it provide the same false sense of progress?
The line between tactics and strategy is blurry. Chess primarily teaches you to play chess, it doesn't automatically make you better at long-term planning.
I don't play collectibles (neither of the games I mention are that). It doesn't matter if it's made by gamers, most board/card games are. The inside jokes aren't funny the fifth time.
I've tried In Nomine. It had lots of great theme and ideas, but the mechanics weren't of the same quality.
Jackson just doesn't seem to test his games very much.
He may be getting role-playing gamers, but not all gamers. Munchkin, Ninja Burger, Chez geek, Junta etc. are games that people buy because of the funny themes, but they rarely get played much, because as games they frankly suck.
"Since the Hasbro buyout, they've moved further and further into a campaign of systematically alienating and angering every one of their customers, partners, authors and fans."
I think Dave Arneson cast a curse on D&D, to cause whatever entity which owned it to be hideously mismanaged.
The judicial branch does not have to be undemocratic and unaccountable. Juries work pretty OK, maybe they could replace judges if
1. They were larger 2. They were truly randomly selected (a non-randomly selected jury is a joke) 3. They were not required to be unanimous (another joke, it does nothing to help ensure correct verdicts)
Also, a more controversial reform... The more independently jury members reach their decisions, the more likely the jury majority is to be correct (assuming they have at least slightly more than 50% chance of choosing correctly), so it's possible jury deliberation does more harm than good.
Also: The harder laws are to change, the more power judges have. If a judge makes a controversial interpretation, the legislative should be able to slap him and say "no, that's not what we meant, and we're amending the law to make it clear, you dolt". If laws are hard to change (like regular US laws), you get powerful judges. If they are extremely hard to change (like the US constitution), you get extremely powerful Supreme Court judges. If the laws are actually impossible to change within the context of the legal system, you get the Iranian Guardian Council.
Empowering the legislative branch is a way to rein in would-be High Priests of the Laws. The legislative is the branch actually most accountable to the people (although sadly not by very much in the US).
Magic carpet's graphics were absolutely sensational when it came. It, Populous, and Dungeon Keeper had great gameplay, too. Where I think things started to go downhill was with Black & White, when PM fell in love with certain AI ideas, and thought a game about toilet training a giant cow would be fun. It was also apparently very buggy - I didn't play it very much, and not many games afterwards.
Slashdot Mirror
You say that they on purpose ignore some cheap and efficient way to solve the world's climate problem.
That's refusing to save the environment in my book.
No, you make a ridiculous assertion - that they refuse to save the climate, so they can get funding to study it more? It's not a small group either you make this ridiculous, slandering accusation against.
I didn't say you were religious. I said you use fantastical arguments.
I don't think it's possible convince you of anything when you make such arguments.
"Think of all the funding they would lose" is a classic anti-science conspiracy theory. That creationists love such arguments should be enough to make you stop using it.
There's geoengineering and there's geoengineering... If you could scrub CO2 by churning up rock in Yemen, speeding up weathering of rocks, that sounds pretty safe, if it would work. But you also have some truly crazy schemes, like seeding the oceans, pumping aerosols into the atmosphere, trying to change the planet's albedo etc. These have the potential to be way more painful than reducing energy consumption - which, while inconvenient, is a good idea for several reasons.
This thing isn't on the market yet, so who knows? But I'd be surprised if it wasn't. All the other things you can plugin have had the data streams reverse-engineered by various wiimote libraries.
"It makes me feel like the author just went with the LaTeX defaults"
And thus spends his time thinking about how to write a good book instead of making it look fancy ;) Can't say I prefer Utopia, but thanks for the link to the interesting survey.
When there are enough patrons to choose from, there is just as much a free market as there is under the current regime. If you choose the catholic church as your patron, you may find that "Piss Christ" gets your deal terminated. If you choose a teenage audience, you may find they don't buy your records anymore when you suddenly switch to calm, folksy accordeon music. No difference.
It's only your first work you may need to give away for free. It's only fair, the audience has no reason to believe that your new rock album has any value whatsoever - there are hundreds of thousands already! But if they like it, they can make sure you make more with tools like fundable.org.
You take a big economic risk in the beginning, but you do that today, too.
Oh, I don't know. I like Computer Modern myself, especially in educational books. It instinctively makes me feel the author is a competent, professional fellow.
But a guy at my office, he hates Computer Modern. He tells us about how happy everyone were when they could finally use postscript fonts in TeX, etc.
I'd say he's the font snob, not you.
Oh, this is just nonsense. Artists in the middle ages had a choice of patrons, just as artists today have a choice in what audience they will try to appeal to. The choice may have been smaller, but that was mostly because it was a society with far smaller surplus for such luxuries as professional musical entertainment. Today or yesterday, "There ain't no such thing as a free artist", to paraphrase Henry Ford.
Comparing either patronage or our current system with communist censorship is just ridiculous.
We don't need half the "content creators" out there. The inefficiency of their fighting for our attention dwarfs the inefficiency of any alternative collection system (when you think about it, trying to collect payment for _every single performance_ of a work is pretty bloody inefficient too).
This alternative system that you disparage also exists already. Check out fundable.org. Granted, most people don't get it, and try to use it for simple begging instead, but there are some progressive individuals who fund their "content" this way. So far it's mostly role playing modules and indie computer game expansions, but I see no reason to think it would work any worse for larger works.
If by "information" you mean things commonly shared through pirate bay, then did it ever occur to you that the production of such material would essentially grind to a halt without that monopoly?
What if it would? Let's say 999 out of 1000 small hobby bands, losing the promise of a buck every time their music is played, decide to quit. So what?
Maybe that last band, which kept playing because of commissioned pieces, live performances or (gasp!) just the pleasure of it, can go a way to replace those 999 others. Considering we can make as many copies of their music as we want.
But quality will suffer, you might say, since there is so much less talent to choose from.
And maybe that would be true, if in today's environment, the most talented always floated to the top. But of course it doesn't work like that. A successful band might like to think that they've succeeded on their own artistic merits - after all, they've practised so much, right? But plenty of bands that are good don't succeed, and more succeed that haven't invested as much in their music (as opposed to their looks, image and so on).
But let's imagine it did anyway, and the pool of talent was actually reduced thousandfold. Well, the pool of talent would still be vastly larger than it was, say, at Mozart's time - and he didn't collect any recording royalties either!
The copyright regime probably isn't going to change, it's too entrenched. But the world wouldn't go under if it did.
2- Where can we donate to help pay the fine?
"Stay calm â" Nothing will happen to TPB, us personally or file sharing whatsoever" --- They're filing an appeal.
Offering to pay off the "content industry" for now would not count as staying calm.
You are not familiar with the Swedish legal system. Or Swedish prisons for that matter.
They aren't sent to prison. They don't pay the fine. They appeal.
The headline is misleading, the case isn't over. In fact we knew it wouldn't be over, both parties had stated that they would file appeals to higher courts if they lost.
It won't be over until it's in the Swedish high court, and that can take a couple of years.
Adding "Bluebeard" to my to-read list.
But I would add that IMO, we don't get the best of one in a million songwriters, or one in fifty thousand actors. The commercial-professional system isn't nearly accurate enough to give us that - it doesn't need to either, since the 1 in 100000 actor really isn't appreciably worse than the 1 in 10000000 actor.
Maybe Uncle Jim can actually perform Bob Dylan's song with more skill than Bob Dylan. And maybe you would prefer the record anyway... art is about far more than the dimension called "skill". Not sure what I'm trying to say with this, sorry.
I think that many of these "addictions" you list can be considered harmful, actually. There are far more child prodigy instrumentalists out there than there are job openings for them. For every one that is lauded for his achievements, seen as a great example of skill etc. there are ten people who have spent an extreme amount of effort for very little return. This is why it's cruel to try to lead your child down that path.
Music is the crown example. But it's very much the case with chess, sports, novels, etc.
I think people would be happier if the ideals of Amateurism made a comeback. We might even get better art in some ways.
But would you be content taking a pawn, resetting the game one step back, and then repeating the move for hours on end? Would it provide the same false sense of progress?
Well, maybe if it improved my ELO rating...
The line between tactics and strategy is blurry. Chess primarily teaches you to play chess, it doesn't automatically make you better at long-term planning.
I don't play collectibles (neither of the games I mention are that). It doesn't matter if it's made by gamers, most board/card games are. The inside jokes aren't funny the fifth time.
I've tried In Nomine. It had lots of great theme and ideas, but the mechanics weren't of the same quality.
Jackson just doesn't seem to test his games very much.
He may be getting role-playing gamers, but not all gamers. Munchkin, Ninja Burger, Chez geek, Junta etc. are games that people buy because of the funny themes, but they rarely get played much, because as games they frankly suck.
"Since the Hasbro buyout, they've moved further and further into a campaign of systematically alienating and angering every one of their customers, partners, authors and fans."
I think Dave Arneson cast a curse on D&D, to cause whatever entity which owned it to be hideously mismanaged.
The judicial branch does not have to be undemocratic and unaccountable. Juries work pretty OK, maybe they could replace judges if
1. They were larger
2. They were truly randomly selected (a non-randomly selected jury is a joke)
3. They were not required to be unanimous (another joke, it does nothing to help ensure correct verdicts)
Also, a more controversial reform... The more independently jury members reach their decisions, the more likely the jury majority is to be correct (assuming they have at least slightly more than 50% chance of choosing correctly), so it's possible jury deliberation does more harm than good.
Also: The harder laws are to change, the more power judges have. If a judge makes a controversial interpretation, the legislative should be able to slap him and say "no, that's not what we meant, and we're amending the law to make it clear, you dolt". If laws are hard to change (like regular US laws), you get powerful judges. If they are extremely hard to change (like the US constitution), you get extremely powerful Supreme Court judges. If the laws are actually impossible to change within the context of the legal system, you get the Iranian Guardian Council.
Empowering the legislative branch is a way to rein in would-be High Priests of the Laws. The legislative is the branch actually most accountable to the people (although sadly not by very much in the US).
That would be awesome! It would be even more cool if the Polish government wrote their laws in prefix form.
A pity the judicial branch is the least democratic, least accountable branch of government.
Magic carpet's graphics were absolutely sensational when it came. It, Populous, and Dungeon Keeper had great gameplay, too. Where I think things started to go downhill was with Black & White, when PM fell in love with certain AI ideas, and thought a game about toilet training a giant cow would be fun. It was also apparently very buggy - I didn't play it very much, and not many games afterwards.