In short, airports stress me clear to hell and gone, and other people probably have far more reason, and none of us are terrorists. I'd guess that your average suicide bomber is more relaxed than I am at an airport.
If someone has proven that behavioral profiling works under these kinds of conditions, that's great and I'd love to hear about it. I just have my doubts.
From my experience, people who have the normal airport stress exhibit a different set of behaviors than someone who us hiding something. They both look stressed, but respond differently to questions posed by a security officer - especially one who doesn't appear so. The key is learning what to use to identify stress and then how to question someone to determine if they warrant further scrutiny. It's not perfect, but it can be effective.
Behavioral profiling - i.e. looking for clues that someone is stressed and then questioning them to see how they respond.
This of course, requires training and to do it well an IQ above room temperature - you could probably train front line supervisors to be on guard and have them flag persons for further review - much as some countries already do.
A quick Google calender search for flights yields:
What looks like a flight crew trip schedule Various reservation details including a person's name, flight # or reservation number and date
I'd be more worried that a jokester friend would cancel my flight than someone breaking in; one did that to a friend going on a honeymoon (canceled the hotel as a joke)without realizing a convention was in town. Real funny.
Similar results can be had with other keywords. Some can be useful - I noticed some hotels put up event schedules.
Personally, I think you would have to pass an intelligence test before you should be allowed to have an Internet connection. You should show that you posses the basic common sense that ensures that you won't let your PC be turned into a zombie. Of course, that means that about 80% of the current population would be barred.
Heh. You realize that most of the bands on MySpace want nothing to do with the Ramrod Inserting Association of America, right?
Clueless Scout: Hey! I'm with FUI Records. I relaly like your music, and I want to discuss getting you signed with us. MySpace Musician: Please do fuck off. I've got a gig to go to.
Because it threatens their business model, and they are scared shitless of change.
It will turn out to be a good deal for them
That's irrelevant. Radio was a good deal for them, and they fought tooth and nail because it threatened their business model. VCRs were a great deal for the movie industry, and look how hard they fought that.
Sure they like a stable environment - but once they figure out how to co-opt internet distribution they'll move forward. Change istn't easy; but the lables that figure out how to use it to their advanrage will do fine.
It removes a level of risk from their business - as long as they have a lock on the major distribution channels they control the serious money.
First of all, they don't want control of the "serious" money, they want control of *all* of the money.
Second, your condition ("as long as they have a lock") is not at all assured. What happens when major artists discover they no longer *need* the "major" distribution channels?
Third, record labels make millions of dollars from artists just starting out that are willing to sign contracts for what can only be charitably described as indentured servitude. When these artists see "hey, I'm paying for this myself anyway, why don't I keep all the money", the big record labels lose a major source of revenue. Steve Albini wrote an excellent essay entitled "The Problem with Music" - it's a must read if you want to know how the music industry works - which you need to if you want to understand their motivations and why they're so scared of the internet.
While the internet changes the geographic reach of a band and can hasten the popularity it's really no different than the old trade a cassette / attend the concert model. That can work well (Think Greatful Dead) but for most bands it doesn't. The internet just makes it easier to swap - and once the mp3 is out there (without DRM) I'd bet many more people will simply copy it rather than buy it. So the band still needs someone to handle tours and maybe distro records with songs not on the internet - something a label can do.
My guess it will cutout the middleman - the person who spots talent; maybe signs them to a small label where they release and album or two before they make it big and sign with a major. Part of the reason that labels structure contracts as they do is because they take on so many bands that turn out to be money losers that the few that do hit it big need to cover those losses - YouTube will help sort the losers out earlier and more efficiently than releasing and album and promoting it to hope you get a hit.
Now the labels can look for whose hot and move in directly - and probably still do it while a band is hot but not yet big; so the band may have some more negotiating power to strike a better deal but it won't be the "record in a garage and release on YouTube and watch the cash roll in" world that would be great for an artist. I think too many people will simply steal the music rather than buy it; look at how many shareware authors truly hit it big vs. the number of shareware programs out there - what % of the regular users of shareware actually buy a copy.
Some labels will adapt and prosper; others will fade away if the fail to adapt.
Because they can stand to make a lot more money sticking with MySpace and YouTube.
The RIAA takes the lion's share of the profits from any album; were an artist to maintain control of their own stuff, they could make more money even if they don't sell as much as they would have otherwise.
And who's to say they won't sell as much without the RIAA? The labels used to be the kingmakers; it's not unreasonable to think that MySpace will become the new kingmaker over the next couple of years.
Part of the question is how big can a band get via MySpace and how will they prevent trading of their music by their fans? I don't see them really being able to make a lot of money off of MySpace, it's more about exposure and building a rep than money.
They may move to more of a Greatful Dead model where the money is in the tour; and decide to do albums that offer more than they have online - which means the labels will get involved.
Plis, if MySpace becomes a kingmaker I'll bet they decide to keep mpre and more of the revenue since *they* are driving the revenue (in their minds, at least).
The entertainment industry fears this like the devil.
Why? It will turn out to be a good deal for them - someone else does all the upfront leg work and spending to put out a product - if they develop a hit, the big media companies can come in and sign them. It removes a level of risk from their business - as long as they have a lock on the major distribution channels they control the serious money. Indie films and music have been around for a long time - and media companies do a good job of co-opting the good ones.
You Tube / My Space is not a serious threat to them - look at blogs - rather than hurt the media they simply buy the most successful.
Sure - some artists will value their independence - but how many, when a company dangles serious money and fame in front of them - will say "No thanks, I'll stick with a few bucks a month from You Tube?"
Except, how do you ensure that the code is 100% theirs, and not derived from someone else's GPL'd code or has had even a minor change or bug fixes - which would mean your code would still be GPL'd even with a license. If then they sell you a different license they will be in violation of the law. First, you can sue them, for selling you what is not theirs. Then I suppose you'll have to find the original authors.
Which is my point - that it is not simply a matter of going to the author, as some have suggested, to license for non-GPL projects GPL'd code due to the way GPL'd code is developed.
It's possible but not as easy as some may think; given the potential uncertainties surrounding actual authorship. It is possible, but the GPL is not the problem here.
Not directly - it is a fine license; but it presents problems if you want to license GPL'd code for other uses. One solution would be to modify the GPL to assign all rights to the FSF or EFF; they could then relicense it as they see fit for commercial purposes - the original code base would be free but usable in non-GPL projects. Of course, the new license could only be used for new code written from scratch since the GPL prevents adding such restrictions to existing code. (since it's already infected with an incurable condition)
Except, how do you ensure that the code is 100% theirs, and not derived from someone else's GPL'd code or has had even a minor change or bug fixes - which would mean your code would still be GPL'd even with a license. At least with commercial code you have a reasonable assurance that it is original and licensable by the owner.
Uh, how is the author's choice of license relevant to whether he obeys copyright? How do you know that the copy of Windows CE source that you licensed doesn't contain GPL conde? How do you know that it doesn't contain code stolen from SGI by spies? How do you know that it doesn't contain code bought by SGI but with a non-transferable license? In the end it has nothing to do with the fact that the software is non-GPL, but rather that you are inclined to trust a big company like MS to keep their code straight.
It's not the author's choice of license that is relevant but the likely development scenario - a company developing its own code is much more likely to have a process to track revisions as well as control over the entire development process; unlike GPL code where multiple submitters have revised it - often independently - such is much harder to determine who actually owns which pieces of code.
In addition, a company that develops its own code is much more likely to be able to indemnify licenses from actions brought on by ownership / copyright issues.
The sample applies to GPL software. If it were BSD or closed it would be no more likely to be clean. How do you know that the shareware app you're licensing wasn't developed on company time at the dev's day-job?
The shareware app is a license to use, so if it were developed on company time then the issue would be who gets the money for it - a battle between the seller and the employer; not the end user.
If you only trust big companies then there is nothing a small dev can do for you no matter what license they pick.
That's the challenge a small developer faces - they lack the resources to ensure GPL'd code is truly theirs to license and protect licensees from suits.
Which gets back to my point - the statement that GPL'd code is easy to license for non-GPL products is not correct.
If you are trying to use someone else's GPLed code, track down that person and try to get a non-GPL license from them. Is that so hard? It's exactly what you'd have to do to get access to someone else's proprietary code, except that you get to preview the source.
Except, how do you ensure that the code is 100% theirs, and not derived from someone else's GPL'd code or has had even a minor change or bug fixes - which would mean your code would still be GPL'd even with a license. At least with commercial code you have a reasonable assurance that it is original and licensable by the owner.
It's possible but not as easy as some may think; given the potential uncertainties surrounding actual authorship.
The ironic thing is the religious right (not aimed at the poster, BTW) pillories Carter as an evil Democratic when he was probably the one modern US president whose personal beliefs closely matched theirs. Here's a man who admits to committing "lust in (his) heart" and says that was a bad thing because the thought is sinful; and gets mocked for it. Were he a Republican they would have lauded him for his honesty and accused the media of being anti-Christian. Meanwhile, their darling, Reagan is a divorced man who is living in sin with Nancy - and they hold him up as a pious representation of their faith. What hypocrites.
Both men had virtues and flaws; it's not about morals but power. If Bush has an affair with an intern the right would spin it as the intern's fault since.
One day the sensible conservatives will take their party back from the wackos; all it will take is a few electorial setbacks because if the base can't deliver votes they'll be a meaningless sideshow.
While your other objections are true, the model the GP described actually partly circumvents the "free rider"/ no-marginal-benefit-to-marginal-contribution (that attaches to e.g. voting) in that every dollar you contribute slightly hastens the release date of the album, meaning your contribution does count.
Great point - I hadn't thought of that. In addition, the effectiveness of this would rest on the artist's reputation for producing material - a few slips or releasing junk right before the escrow expires (i.e. why not have a date where all the money will be refunded if no music is released - an electronic escrow payment system could automate the process relatively cheaply) would mean fans would not continue to pay and the artist's revenue would dry up since they would have no catalog to sell; other than royalties from radio or other commercial play. The model would be self policing to a large extent since contributions would be a good gauge of an artist's marketability - no contributions probably means fewer concerts and less promotion since fans already have voted with their pocketbook.
Value is created by demand and scarcity. The scarcity of digital music is artificial at this time, due to copyright law. If anyone could freely copy/use/alter digital music then much more value would be placed on *production* and *performance* of music than on *distribution* of music, which is as it should be. Artists would make money from concerts and sponsorships, as well as via commissions for new works
The Dead did that for years; along with selling CDs/LPs/DVDs. Tape and trade concerts all you want, they even did sound checks for fans; but don't do that with the stuff they sell cause it's uncool, man.
Not a bad model - fans feel like they are part of the experience and connect with each other; the band gets a real loyal fanbase and gets paid as well.
If Britney Spears promised to release a new album free to the world as soon as her fans had placed a minimum of $15 million into escrow, millions of teenage girls would put anywhere from $0.10 to $10 into the fund, the world would get more Spears (yeehaw...) and Spears would get $15 million. She'd have no distribution costs (sites would gladly trade bandwidth for eyeballs, not to mention the P2P channels), so the only thing she'd have to take out is production costs, which wouldn't be *nearly* as high as now. And she could proceed to trot around the nation doing concerts, just like she does now, and keep more of those profits too. Artists who are not Spears, or as popular as Spears, need to get popular by being good in concert and/or good in marketing, and/or willing to sign deals with the lesser devils that would replace the greater devils of today's industry. Variety would increase, live concerts would abound... what a wonderful world it would be.
This is still a buy the stuff model - except now the artist gets the money upfront with no assurance a new album will be out or that it will be worth buying. In addition, why should I pay into the fund when the music will be free anyway? If the d/l sites want to trade eyeballs for bandwidth chances are they want to feed ads to those eyeballs as well.
n the US, the labor market is a buyer's market - there are more people who need work than employers willing to hire them. Because of this employers are able to impose annoying rules on their employees because they know their employees don't have anywhere else to go, since the employee's only recourse is to quit. If people would start wielding this power to their advantage it would benefit everyone.
There are other solutions as well:
1) Develop a skill that is in high demand and you'll have many opportunities - ever try to get a plumber on short notice?
2) Unionize - while that has it's own problems you increase your bargaining strength
3) Work where your knowledge, not equipment, is what is really valuable. Companies where 90% of the revenue producing assets walk out the door at the end of the day tend to take care of their employees.
France has the shortest (legally mandated) working year in the world. France is also the most productive country in the world.
You can oblige people to spend 2000+ hours per year in the office, but it doesn't mean they're doing anything very useful.
Interestingly enough, based on 2004 OECD data on average hours worked, the average French worker works about 200 hours less than the average American. Belgians, Hollanders, Germans and Norwegians all work less hours than the French. Based on a 40 hour week, the average American works 43 vs France's 38; that doesn't factor in the legal reduction of the work week to 35 hours in France (since repealed if I recall correctly) which puts France and the US a parity in weeks worked.
In terms of GDP per hour worked, France is nowhere near the most productive - it is slightly below the US; both are blown away by countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic (even communism couldn't cancel them) and Korea.
This, of course, is nothing new - markets adjust to new technologies all the time and eventually the opportunities they offered disappear; for example when the telegraph first came out no doubt someone discovered they could buy an item at one place for less then the same item where they were and arbitrage the prices - but as more people started doing that the spread disappeared.
Nor is the creation of pools of money (aka hedge funds) to take advantage of average investors, with the assistance of a captive regulator and compliant media, new. Presumably corruption and illegality could be modeled, too, for fun and profit.
Probably - they certainly would be interesting variables; although what LTCM did was not illegal - they may have not been as smart as they thought but that's not a crime.
As for the average investor, they should stick to index funds and forget trying to "beat the market" - because they can't. More of them get hurt trying stupid investment strategies like Wave Theory or its "Technical Analysis" and Chartist offshoots than by hedge funds.
what no one has heard of Long Term Capitol Managment? Wasn't that their schtick too? The stock market can be reduced to a formula? Didn't they almost collapse the entire US economy!!! Nope, sorry...i'm not buying it.
Not really - they started out with arbitraging the slight price differences in bonds, knowing they could make money as the prices converged. They eventually went into other areas as they got more money; and the small differences required huge positions so they were highly leveraged - when an external crises (Russian default) caused a hiccup in the markets they faced a liquidity crises - in short they ran out of money to pay investors moving to other investments. Had they simply sold off their investments the banks feared a greater drop in values which would seriously hurt them - so they, with some prodding, stepped in to bailout LTCM (I guess 3.5 b$ in losses is better than going under for a bank) and protect themselves from a worsening crises. Which shows the old adage is true - if you can't pay back $100 you have a problem; if you can't pay back $100million the bank has a problem.
IAR, the bond market eventually converged again - but LTCM lacked the cash to ride out the intervening divergence. Sort of like what happened to Orange County (who was neither non-liquid nor bankrupt) - had they stayed in their positions they would have made money.
The market has always been about fundamentals over the long term (10yrs+) and emotions over the short term. This is just a way for money managers to abdicate responsibility for poor performance. "But the software said it should go up..."
No, the software, as I read the article, is not about predicting prices (which is a loser's game anyway) but about arbitraging differences in prices to make money; by discovering them before someone else - like LTCM. The problem, of course, is that the difference in prices is often so small that it takes lots of money to make a decent profit, which means being highly leveraged and thus exposed to sudden market moves.
More importantly, the models provide insight into market inefficiencies to be applied rapidly across asset classes and the vast number of financial instruments within those asset classes. Whole markets can be analysed daily for buy and sell indications at an individual instrument level. This enables portfolios to contain a larger number of instruments and reduce risk through greater diversification of the portfolio.
As inefficiencies are identified (such as when the return / risk ratio is not correct) provides an opportunity to increase returns by taking advantage of them. Of course, as more people use models the inefficiencies will be corrected quicker, leaving less opportunities to exploit. In effect, the market fixes itself. This, of course, is nothing new - markets adjust to new technologies all the time and eventually the opportunities they offered disappear; for example when the telegraph first came out no doubt someone discovered they could buy an item at one place for less then the same item where they were and arbitrage the prices - but as more people started doing that the spread disappeared.
That's the wrong question. People should be asking Apple, "Will it work with Linux?"
Actually, no. ESR has a very valid point - when you are a tiny blip on the radar screen you have to make yourself work with the mainstream, not vice versa; unless you forever want to be a footnote in the industry. Being compatible with key mainstream stuff like iPods (really compatible where you can go seamlessly from one OS to another and have it work out of the box as easily as the mainstream apps (not just be able to kludge together some part time solution), means people don't have to chose between their iPods and your OS.
Most movements eventually breakdown along two lines - those that want to compromise to achieve goals and those who view any compromise as a sellout and would rather see their movement marginalized (but pure) than actually accomplish something.
In the end, users just want stuff that works well and requires minimal if any intervention to add new peripherals or programs; they aren't interested in, no worried about, whether their OS is free, proprietary, or has the same name as a horrible science fiction movie.
Does anyone sincerely think that consultants who make money from pleasing mangement are going to tell us anything but "blame the workers."
Once again an ad-hominem attack passes for facts. You simply aren't credible. For example, you claim that ear plugs double rates of infection - where do you have evidence to back that up (other than I saw..."? Your numbers simply don't add up.
When it comes to information online, it's about as useful as reading the public restroom walls. Don't misunderstand. There are reputable sites in which you can learn about people and events. But even they get it wrong at times which doesn't say much about the less reputable sites.
Slashdot Mirror
In short, airports stress me clear to hell and gone, and other people probably have far more reason, and none of us are terrorists. I'd guess that your average suicide bomber is more relaxed than I am at an airport.
If someone has proven that behavioral profiling works under these kinds of conditions, that's great and I'd love to hear about it. I just have my doubts.
From my experience, people who have the normal airport stress exhibit a different set of behaviors than someone who us hiding something. They both look stressed, but respond differently to questions posed by a security officer - especially one who doesn't appear so. The key is learning what to use to identify stress and then how to question someone to determine if they warrant further scrutiny. It's not perfect, but it can be effective.
Behavioral profiling - i.e. looking for clues that someone is stressed and then questioning them to see how they respond.
This of course, requires training and to do it well an IQ above room temperature - you could probably train front line supervisors to be on guard and have them flag persons for further review - much as some countries already do.
A quick Google calender search for flights yields:
What looks like a flight crew trip schedule
Various reservation details including a person's name, flight # or reservation number and date
I'd be more worried that a jokester friend would cancel my flight than someone breaking in; one did that to a friend going on a honeymoon (canceled the hotel as a joke)without realizing a convention was in town. Real funny.
Similar results can be had with other keywords. Some can be useful - I noticed some hotels put up event schedules.
That's all we need is a plane full of people talking on the phone in flight.
Personally, I think you would have to pass an intelligence test before you should be allowed to have an Internet connection. You should show that you posses the basic common sense that ensures that you won't let your PC be turned into a zombie. Of course, that means that about 80% of the current population would be barred.
But it's always September, somewhere on the net.
MMM ... Leigh Taylor-Young
Do you read before you post?
/.
Welcome to
Heh. You realize that most of the bands on MySpace want nothing to do with the Ramrod Inserting Association of America, right?
Clueless Scout: Hey! I'm with FUI Records. I relaly like your music, and I want to discuss getting you signed with us.
MySpace Musician: Please do fuck off. I've got a gig to go to.
You left out "Here's a large pile of cash..."
Yea, right most bands will turn that down.
Why?
Because it threatens their business model, and they are scared shitless of change.
It will turn out to be a good deal for them
That's irrelevant. Radio was a good deal for them, and they fought tooth and nail because it threatened their business model. VCRs were a great deal for the movie industry, and look how hard they fought that.
Sure they like a stable environment - but once they figure out how to co-opt internet distribution they'll move forward. Change istn't easy; but the lables that figure out how to use it to their advanrage will do fine.
It removes a level of risk from their business - as long as they have a lock on the major distribution channels they control the serious money.
First of all, they don't want control of the "serious" money, they want control of *all* of the money.
Second, your condition ("as long as they have a lock") is not at all assured. What happens when major artists discover they no longer *need* the "major" distribution channels?
Third, record labels make millions of dollars from artists just starting out that are willing to sign contracts for what can only be charitably described as indentured servitude. When these artists see "hey, I'm paying for this myself anyway, why don't I keep all the money", the big record labels lose a major source of revenue. Steve Albini wrote an excellent essay entitled "The Problem with Music" - it's a must read if you want to know how the music industry works - which you need to if you want to understand their motivations and why they're so scared of the internet.
While the internet changes the geographic reach of a band and can hasten the popularity it's really no different than the old trade a cassette / attend the concert model. That can work well (Think Greatful Dead) but for most bands it doesn't. The internet just makes it easier to swap - and once the mp3 is out there (without DRM) I'd bet many more people will simply copy it rather than buy it. So the band still needs someone to handle tours and maybe distro records with songs not on the internet - something a label can do.
My guess it will cutout the middleman - the person who spots talent; maybe signs them to a small label where they release and album or two before they make it big and sign with a major. Part of the reason that labels structure contracts as they do is because they take on so many bands that turn out to be money losers that the few that do hit it big need to cover those losses - YouTube will help sort the losers out earlier and more efficiently than releasing and album and promoting it to hope you get a hit.
Now the labels can look for whose hot and move in directly - and probably still do it while a band is hot but not yet big; so the band may have some more negotiating power to strike a better deal but it won't be the "record in a garage and release on YouTube and watch the cash roll in" world that would be great for an artist. I think too many people will simply steal the music rather than buy it; look at how many shareware authors truly hit it big vs. the number of shareware programs out there - what % of the regular users of shareware actually buy a copy.
Some labels will adapt and prosper; others will fade away if the fail to adapt.
Because they can stand to make a lot more money sticking with MySpace and YouTube.
The RIAA takes the lion's share of the profits from any album; were an artist to maintain control of their own stuff, they could make more money even if they don't sell as much as they would have otherwise.
And who's to say they won't sell as much without the RIAA? The labels used to be the kingmakers; it's not unreasonable to think that MySpace will become the new kingmaker over the next couple of years.
Part of the question is how big can a band get via MySpace and how will they prevent trading of their music by their fans? I don't see them really being able to make a lot of money off of MySpace, it's more about exposure and building a rep than money.
They may move to more of a Greatful Dead model where the money is in the tour; and decide to do albums that offer more than they have online - which means the labels will get involved.
Plis, if MySpace becomes a kingmaker I'll bet they decide to keep mpre and more of the revenue since *they* are driving the revenue (in their minds, at least).
The entertainment industry fears this like the devil.
Why? It will turn out to be a good deal for them - someone else does all the upfront leg work and spending to put out a product - if they develop a hit, the big media companies can come in and sign them. It removes a level of risk from their business - as long as they have a lock on the major distribution channels they control the serious money. Indie films and music have been around for a long time - and media companies do a good job of co-opting the good ones.
You Tube / My Space is not a serious threat to them - look at blogs - rather than hurt the media they simply buy the most successful.
Sure - some artists will value their independence - but how many, when a company dangles serious money and fame in front of them - will say "No thanks, I'll stick with a few bucks a month from You Tube?"
Except, how do you ensure that the code is 100% theirs, and not derived from someone else's GPL'd code or has had even a minor change or bug fixes - which would mean your code would still be GPL'd even with a license.
If then they sell you a different license they will be in violation of the law. First, you can sue them, for selling you what is not theirs. Then I suppose you'll have to find the original authors.
Which is my point - that it is not simply a matter of going to the author, as some have suggested, to license for non-GPL projects GPL'd code due to the way GPL'd code is developed.
It's possible but not as easy as some may think; given the potential uncertainties surrounding actual authorship.
It is possible, but the GPL is not the problem here.
Not directly - it is a fine license; but it presents problems if you want to license GPL'd code for other uses. One solution would be to modify the GPL to assign all rights to the FSF or EFF; they could then relicense it as they see fit for commercial purposes - the original code base would be free but usable in non-GPL projects. Of course, the new license could only be used for new code written from scratch since the GPL prevents adding such restrictions to existing code. (since it's already infected with an incurable condition)
Except, how do you ensure that the code is 100% theirs, and not derived from someone else's GPL'd code or has had even a minor change or bug fixes - which would mean your code would still be GPL'd even with a license. At least with commercial code you have a reasonable assurance that it is original and licensable by the owner.
Uh, how is the author's choice of license relevant to whether he obeys copyright? How do you know that the copy of Windows CE source that you licensed doesn't contain GPL conde? How do you know that it doesn't contain code stolen from SGI by spies? How do you know that it doesn't contain code bought by SGI but with a non-transferable license? In the end it has nothing to do with the fact that the software is non-GPL, but rather that you are inclined to trust a big company like MS to keep their code straight.
It's not the author's choice of license that is relevant but the likely development scenario - a company developing its own code is much more likely to have a process to track revisions as well as control over the entire development process; unlike GPL code where multiple submitters have revised it - often independently - such is much harder to determine who actually owns which pieces of code.
In addition, a company that develops its own code is much more likely to be able to indemnify licenses from actions brought on by ownership / copyright issues.
The sample applies to GPL software. If it were BSD or closed it would be no more likely to be clean. How do you know that the shareware app you're licensing wasn't developed on company time at the dev's day-job?
The shareware app is a license to use, so if it were developed on company time then the issue would be who gets the money for it - a battle between the seller and the employer; not the end user.
If you only trust big companies then there is nothing a small dev can do for you no matter what license they pick.
That's the challenge a small developer faces - they lack the resources to ensure GPL'd code is truly theirs to license and protect licensees from suits.
Which gets back to my point - the statement that GPL'd code is easy to license for non-GPL products is not correct.
If you are trying to use someone else's GPLed code, track down that person and try to get a non-GPL license from them. Is that so hard? It's exactly what you'd have to do to get access to someone else's proprietary code, except that you get to preview the source.
Except, how do you ensure that the code is 100% theirs, and not derived from someone else's GPL'd code or has had even a minor change or bug fixes - which would mean your code would still be GPL'd even with a license. At least with commercial code you have a reasonable assurance that it is original and licensable by the owner.
It's possible but not as easy as some may think; given the potential uncertainties surrounding actual authorship.
Yes, President Carter.
The ironic thing is the religious right (not aimed at the poster, BTW) pillories Carter as an evil Democratic when he was probably the one modern US president whose personal beliefs closely matched theirs. Here's a man who admits to committing "lust in (his) heart" and says that was a bad thing because the thought is sinful; and gets mocked for it. Were he a Republican they would have lauded him for his honesty and accused the media of being anti-Christian. Meanwhile, their darling, Reagan is a divorced man who is living in sin with Nancy - and they hold him up as a pious representation of their faith. What hypocrites.
Both men had virtues and flaws; it's not about morals but power. If Bush has an affair with an intern the right would spin it as the intern's fault since.
One day the sensible conservatives will take their party back from the wackos; all it will take is a few electorial setbacks because if the base can't deliver votes they'll be a meaningless sideshow.
While your other objections are true, the model the GP described actually partly circumvents the "free rider"/ no-marginal-benefit-to-marginal-contribution (that attaches to e.g. voting) in that every dollar you contribute slightly hastens the release date of the album, meaning your contribution does count.
Great point - I hadn't thought of that. In addition, the effectiveness of this would rest on the artist's reputation for producing material - a few slips or releasing junk right before the escrow expires (i.e. why not have a date where all the money will be refunded if no music is released - an electronic escrow payment system could automate the process relatively cheaply) would mean fans would not continue to pay and the artist's revenue would dry up since they would have no catalog to sell; other than royalties from radio or other commercial play. The model would be self policing to a large extent since contributions would be a good gauge of an artist's marketability - no contributions probably means fewer concerts and less promotion since fans already have voted with their pocketbook.
Value is created by demand and scarcity. The scarcity of digital music is artificial at this time, due to copyright law. If anyone could freely copy/use/alter digital music then much more value would be placed on *production* and *performance* of music than on *distribution* of music, which is as it should be. Artists would make money from concerts and sponsorships, as well as via commissions for new works
The Dead did that for years; along with selling CDs/LPs/DVDs. Tape and trade concerts all you want, they even did sound checks for fans; but don't do that with the stuff they sell cause it's uncool, man.
Not a bad model - fans feel like they are part of the experience and connect with each other; the band gets a real loyal fanbase and gets paid as well.
If Britney Spears promised to release a new album free to the world as soon as her fans had placed a minimum of $15 million into escrow, millions of teenage girls would put anywhere from $0.10 to $10 into the fund, the world would get more Spears (yeehaw...) and Spears would get $15 million. She'd have no distribution costs (sites would gladly trade bandwidth for eyeballs, not to mention the P2P channels), so the only thing she'd have to take out is production costs, which wouldn't be *nearly* as high as now. And she could proceed to trot around the nation doing concerts, just like she does now, and keep more of those profits too. Artists who are not Spears, or as popular as Spears, need to get popular by being good in concert and/or good in marketing, and/or willing to sign deals with the lesser devils that would replace the greater devils of today's industry. Variety would increase, live concerts would abound... what a wonderful world it would be.
This is still a buy the stuff model - except now the artist gets the money upfront with no assurance a new album will be out or that it will be worth buying. In addition, why should I pay into the fund when the music will be free anyway? If the d/l sites want to trade eyeballs for bandwidth chances are they want to feed ads to those eyeballs as well.
n the US, the labor market is a buyer's market - there are more people who need work than employers willing to hire them. Because of this employers are able to impose annoying rules on their employees because they know their employees don't have anywhere else to go, since the employee's only recourse is to quit. If people would start wielding this power to their advantage it would benefit everyone.
There are other solutions as well:
1) Develop a skill that is in high demand and you'll have many opportunities - ever try to get a plumber on short notice?
2) Unionize - while that has it's own problems you increase your bargaining strength
3) Work where your knowledge, not equipment, is what is really valuable. Companies where 90% of the revenue producing assets walk out the door at the end of the day tend to take care of their employees.
France has the shortest (legally mandated) working year in the world. France is also the most productive country in the world.
You can oblige people to spend 2000+ hours per year in the office, but it doesn't mean they're doing anything very useful.
Interestingly enough, based on 2004 OECD data on average hours worked, the average French worker works about 200 hours less than the average American. Belgians, Hollanders, Germans and Norwegians all work less hours than the French. Based on a 40 hour week, the average American works 43 vs France's 38; that doesn't factor in the legal reduction of the work week to 35 hours in France (since repealed if I recall correctly) which puts France and the US a parity in weeks worked.
In terms of GDP per hour worked, France is nowhere near the most productive - it is slightly below the US; both are blown away by countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic (even communism couldn't cancel them) and Korea.
This, of course, is nothing new - markets adjust to new technologies all the time and eventually the opportunities they offered disappear; for example when the telegraph first came out no doubt someone discovered they could buy an item at one place for less then the same item where they were and arbitrage the prices - but as more people started doing that the spread disappeared.
Nor is the creation of pools of money (aka hedge funds) to take advantage of average investors, with the assistance of a captive regulator and compliant media, new. Presumably corruption and illegality could be modeled, too, for fun and profit.
Probably - they certainly would be interesting variables; although what LTCM did was not illegal - they may have not been as smart as they thought but that's not a crime.
As for the average investor, they should stick to index funds and forget trying to "beat the market" - because they can't. More of them get hurt trying stupid investment strategies like Wave Theory or its "Technical Analysis" and Chartist offshoots than by hedge funds.
what no one has heard of Long Term Capitol Managment? Wasn't that their schtick too? The stock market can be reduced to a formula? Didn't they almost collapse the entire US economy!!! Nope, sorry...i'm not buying it.
Not really - they started out with arbitraging the slight price differences in bonds, knowing they could make money as the prices converged. They eventually went into other areas as they got more money; and the small differences required huge positions so they were highly leveraged - when an external crises (Russian default) caused a hiccup in the markets they faced a liquidity crises - in short they ran out of money to pay investors moving to other investments. Had they simply sold off their investments the banks feared a greater drop in values which would seriously hurt them - so they, with some prodding, stepped in to bailout LTCM (I guess 3.5 b$ in losses is better than going under for a bank) and protect themselves from a worsening crises. Which shows the old adage is true - if you can't pay back $100 you have a problem; if you can't pay back $100million the bank has a problem.
IAR, the bond market eventually converged again - but LTCM lacked the cash to ride out the intervening divergence. Sort of like what happened to Orange County (who was neither non-liquid nor bankrupt) - had they stayed in their positions they would have made money.
The market has always been about fundamentals over the long term (10yrs+) and emotions over the short term. This is just a way for money managers to abdicate responsibility for poor performance. "But the software said it should go up..."
No, the software, as I read the article, is not about predicting prices (which is a loser's game anyway) but about arbitraging differences in prices to make money; by discovering them before someone else - like LTCM. The problem, of course, is that the difference in prices is often so small that it takes lots of money to make a decent profit, which means being highly leveraged and thus exposed to sudden market moves.
The key comment was:
More importantly, the models provide insight into market inefficiencies to be applied rapidly across asset classes and the vast number of financial instruments within those asset classes. Whole markets can be analysed daily for buy and sell indications at an individual instrument level. This enables portfolios to contain a larger number of instruments and reduce risk through greater diversification of the portfolio.
As inefficiencies are identified (such as when the return / risk ratio is not correct) provides an opportunity to increase returns by taking advantage of them. Of course, as more people use models the inefficiencies will be corrected quicker, leaving less opportunities to exploit. In effect, the market fixes itself. This, of course, is nothing new - markets adjust to new technologies all the time and eventually the opportunities they offered disappear; for example when the telegraph first came out no doubt someone discovered they could buy an item at one place for less then the same item where they were and arbitrage the prices - but as more people started doing that the spread disappeared.
That's the wrong question. People should be asking Apple, "Will it work with Linux?"
Actually, no. ESR has a very valid point - when you are a tiny blip on the radar screen you have to make yourself work with the mainstream, not vice versa; unless you forever want to be a footnote in the industry. Being compatible with key mainstream stuff like iPods (really compatible where you can go seamlessly from one OS to another and have it work out of the box as easily as the mainstream apps (not just be able to kludge together some part time solution), means people don't have to chose between their iPods and your OS.
Most movements eventually breakdown along two lines - those that want to compromise to achieve goals and those who view any compromise as a sellout and would rather see their movement marginalized (but pure) than actually accomplish something.
In the end, users just want stuff that works well and requires minimal if any intervention to add new peripherals or programs; they aren't interested in, no worried about, whether their OS is free, proprietary, or has the same name as a horrible science fiction movie.
Does anyone sincerely think that consultants who make money from pleasing mangement are going to tell us anything but "blame the workers."
Once again an ad-hominem attack passes for facts. You simply aren't credible. For example, you claim that ear plugs double rates of infection - where do you have evidence to back that up (other than I saw..."? Your numbers simply don't add up.
When it comes to information online, it's about as useful as reading the public restroom walls. Don't misunderstand. There are reputable sites in which you can learn about people and events. But even they get it wrong at times which doesn't say much about the less reputable sites.
/.
and then there's