But there are 2 choices here. 1. Single donor system that potentially imposes "cultural tyranny" whereby those select few who have money have the ability to fund authors whom the public may not appreciate or like or even want. 2. Multi donor system that potentially waters down the creative product as authors try to please as many of his donors as possible.
It seems to me the dilemma is thus when considering factors of funding, creative independence, and time that authors need: Abundance Diversity Quality You can pick any two
Also, why so aggressive with personal insults, u mad?
OP rants against the archaic and irrelevant definition of patronage, which may be why he was modded down. Today, with paypal, and a website as a platform, anyone can seek patronage from anyone else. Look at Minecraft for example, it was mostly funded by people who bought an author's promise of a future product. In this modern world where access to ideas and the means to fund them is freer than any moment in history, using cultural tyranny to describe the patronage model is rather ignorant.
the writer gets maybe 30 cents out of that 99 cents. So if your book is popular, you get an income over months or years that may add up to 300000 pre-tax dollars or somewhere slightly above 200000 post-tax dollars. If it takes someone 5 years to a decade to write his book, he'll be seriously struggling. Even if he finishes quickly, he'll be slaving at part time jobs and burning through savings. In such an environment, a patronage model sounds incredibly attractive.
I believe CIA were tracking al-Mihdha and buddies both inside and outside of the US in the months leading up to the attacks. FBI had other pieces of the puzzle, but since they were foreign nationals, they were the primary responsibility of the CIA, even when they were on US soil. Perhaps CIA thought they were on to something bigger and didn't want to compromise their surveillance op too soon, thus the rules on operational secrecy would demand continued compartmentalization.
So it seems the failure here was an agency that played too closely by the book when it should have been bending the rules. But imagine the howling on Slashdot on 9/10/2011 if things had happened differently, and the CIA and FBI stepped out of bounds of their rules and regulations in order to prevent this.
Well, honestly the US took a more backstage role in the whole Libya affair, before (during the embargo) and after (during the war). If one wishes to be righteously indignant, one should direct one's anger at France and UK this time around.
So the Bush Administration began talking and cooperating with Qaddafi in exchange for his abandonment of nuclear ambitions. Perhaps the Obama Administration sought to continue this because they too saw the facts as it stood, that Qaddafi had a hard grip on his country and didn't look like he was going out of power any time soon, and thus cooperation and diplomacy was in order for the interests of the US. Contrary to what idealists on the internet may believe, diplomacy isn't just talk, it's backed up with some quid-pro-quo -- you have to throw a dog a bone if you want some tricks out of him.
I hate when people get on the pedestal about "civil disobedience" when they themselves don't even understand it. If the park property owner was discriminating against certain people gathering, then protesters gathering there would be a form of civil disobedience. This isn't the case is it? They're protesting something else entirely while gathering on private property and continuing to do so even after the owner made a complaint.
It's probably like everywhere else where the worst of the police get trolled into action by the worst of the protesters. Which then makes one side believe police are all pigs and evil and love bashing skulls, and the other believe protesters are all instigators who love nothing more than riling up anarchy. Then reasonable people like me get called out by both sides for being "anti-" just for trying to explain both sides to each other.
What's funny is that when Anon succeeds in hacking, it is a political win for the underdogs and an unleashing of the voice of freedom; but when Anon fails and has a setback, it is just for lulz and no big deal. When one's mission goals are so vacillating, it's no wonder no one takes them seriously.
While the government does need to move away from their unsuccessful strategy, the drug consumers in the USA also need to reexamine their contributions to the problem. While they are pushing for the legalization and taxation, the people who create the demand need to also take some responsibility. Just as ordinary citizens have popularized the issue of blood diamonds, so too should we popularize the issue of blood marijuana and blood heroin. Start a movement. Don't buy drugs that come from South America. Source domestically. If you can't be sure your source is blood-free, then learn to grow without getting caught. If you can't do that, then quit using it.
I would have modded you off-topic had you been modded up previously. This post of you assuming that truth-hating mods can only come from one country, I'd have modded troll. But since you're resting at threshold 1, I leave you alone. Next time, don't be pedantically off-topic and don't jump to trollish conclusions. Thanks and enjoy slashdot.
Consider this, the act of piracy decreases the value of the legitimate product by significantly lowering the price at which that product can be had, while at the same time increases the value of the torrent/ddl/usenet/whatever portal by boosting its visitor/download stats which are critical to ad revenue. While it would be a long stretch to consider this stealing, it is a process through which value is siphoned from the original creators to the operators of those sites.
Currency can also be copied with no loss to the original -- when Kim Jong-il runs his printing presses, he doesn't physically take dollar bills away from the US Treasury, yet when counterfeits hit the market, be they physical- or information-based, they hurt the original creators by devaluing their product. Unauthorized replication therefore hurts the original creators by dis-empowering them in the market while empowering the counterfeiters. It is by this dependent, some may call parasitic, relationship that move IP protection proponents to call copyright infringement "stealing." While you and I may disagree with that final assessment (perhaps to different degrees), I think it's reasonable to look from that perspective and to understand that theirs is not an entirely baseless argument.
Now, we can have a debate on the ethics of artificially inflated prices for digital media, and of the disproportionate influence that publishers wield -- and on those issues I imagine you and I would be on the same side. However, this common "replication doesn't hurt anyone" argument is not convincing when examined under a critical light.
It seems if we accept that 9/11 occurs every day in Iraq, then we must also accept that 9/11 happens every day in Libya. So, fuck those terrorist countries too for causing civilian deaths in a war zone.
We hardly ever remember the millions of Middle Eastern civilians who died in the past century at the hands of European countries. Why make an exception now?
We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We have to embrace a notion that for Apple to win, Apple has to do a really good job. And if others are going to help us that's great, because we need all the help we can get, and if we screw up and we don't do a good job, it's not somebody else's fault, it's our fault.
If the CIA wanted DSK gone they could have created a watertight case and made him unquestionably guilty. They could easily have gotten to the defense lawyers as well. Why would they go to all that trouble only to have their great coup be unraveled by a simple 5-item timeline? It's like loose change all over again.
Slashdot Mirror
Software fuckup is more common than disk failure. That's why recovery partitions are convenient. They also minimize support costs.
But there are 2 choices here.
1. Single donor system that potentially imposes "cultural tyranny" whereby those select few who have money have the ability to fund authors whom the public may not appreciate or like or even want.
2. Multi donor system that potentially waters down the creative product as authors try to please as many of his donors as possible.
It seems to me the dilemma is thus when considering factors of funding, creative independence, and time that authors need:
Abundance
Diversity
Quality
You can pick any two
Also, why so aggressive with personal insults, u mad?
OP rants against the archaic and irrelevant definition of patronage, which may be why he was modded down. Today, with paypal, and a website as a platform, anyone can seek patronage from anyone else. Look at Minecraft for example, it was mostly funded by people who bought an author's promise of a future product. In this modern world where access to ideas and the means to fund them is freer than any moment in history, using cultural tyranny to describe the patronage model is rather ignorant.
the writer gets maybe 30 cents out of that 99 cents. So if your book is popular, you get an income over months or years that may add up to 300000 pre-tax dollars or somewhere slightly above 200000 post-tax dollars. If it takes someone 5 years to a decade to write his book, he'll be seriously struggling. Even if he finishes quickly, he'll be slaving at part time jobs and burning through savings. In such an environment, a patronage model sounds incredibly attractive.
I believe CIA were tracking al-Mihdha and buddies both inside and outside of the US in the months leading up to the attacks. FBI had other pieces of the puzzle, but since they were foreign nationals, they were the primary responsibility of the CIA, even when they were on US soil. Perhaps CIA thought they were on to something bigger and didn't want to compromise their surveillance op too soon, thus the rules on operational secrecy would demand continued compartmentalization.
So it seems the failure here was an agency that played too closely by the book when it should have been bending the rules. But imagine the howling on Slashdot on 9/10/2011 if things had happened differently, and the CIA and FBI stepped out of bounds of their rules and regulations in order to prevent this.
Well, honestly the US took a more backstage role in the whole Libya affair, before (during the embargo) and after (during the war). If one wishes to be righteously indignant, one should direct one's anger at France and UK this time around.
So the Bush Administration began talking and cooperating with Qaddafi in exchange for his abandonment of nuclear ambitions. Perhaps the Obama Administration sought to continue this because they too saw the facts as it stood, that Qaddafi had a hard grip on his country and didn't look like he was going out of power any time soon, and thus cooperation and diplomacy was in order for the interests of the US. Contrary to what idealists on the internet may believe, diplomacy isn't just talk, it's backed up with some quid-pro-quo -- you have to throw a dog a bone if you want some tricks out of him.
Of course, the amount of military parts given by the US pales in comparison to the EU's arms export to Libya -- France, UK, Germany, Malta, and Belgium in particular Maybe they too thought they were getting some safety in return as well?
I hate when people get on the pedestal about "civil disobedience" when they themselves don't even understand it.
If the park property owner was discriminating against certain people gathering, then protesters gathering there would be a form of civil disobedience. This isn't the case is it? They're protesting something else entirely while gathering on private property and continuing to do so even after the owner made a complaint.
that was supposed to be "anti-[their-side]"
It's probably like everywhere else where the worst of the police get trolled into action by the worst of the protesters. Which then makes one side believe police are all pigs and evil and love bashing skulls, and the other believe protesters are all instigators who love nothing more than riling up anarchy. Then reasonable people like me get called out by both sides for being "anti-" just for trying to explain both sides to each other.
What's funny is that when Anon succeeds in hacking, it is a political win for the underdogs and an unleashing of the voice of freedom; but when Anon fails and has a setback, it is just for lulz and no big deal. When one's mission goals are so vacillating, it's no wonder no one takes them seriously.
oops, forgot to add Mexico, Central America, AND South America. edit one sentence and forget another silly me
While the government does need to move away from their unsuccessful strategy, the drug consumers in the USA also need to reexamine their contributions to the problem. While they are pushing for the legalization and taxation, the people who create the demand need to also take some responsibility. Just as ordinary citizens have popularized the issue of blood diamonds, so too should we popularize the issue of blood marijuana and blood heroin. Start a movement. Don't buy drugs that come from South America. Source domestically. If you can't be sure your source is blood-free, then learn to grow without getting caught. If you can't do that, then quit using it.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/08/11/1458205/Cancer-Cured-By-HIV
Incredibly interesting nonetheless.
With 7000 cores, it can probably ray-trace Crysis 0.o
I would have modded you off-topic had you been modded up previously. This post of you assuming that truth-hating mods can only come from one country, I'd have modded troll. But since you're resting at threshold 1, I leave you alone. Next time, don't be pedantically off-topic and don't jump to trollish conclusions. Thanks and enjoy slashdot.
Consider this, the act of piracy decreases the value of the legitimate product by significantly lowering the price at which that product can be had, while at the same time increases the value of the torrent/ddl/usenet/whatever portal by boosting its visitor/download stats which are critical to ad revenue. While it would be a long stretch to consider this stealing, it is a process through which value is siphoned from the original creators to the operators of those sites.
Currency can also be copied with no loss to the original -- when Kim Jong-il runs his printing presses, he doesn't physically take dollar bills away from the US Treasury, yet when counterfeits hit the market, be they physical- or information-based, they hurt the original creators by devaluing their product. Unauthorized replication therefore hurts the original creators by dis-empowering them in the market while empowering the counterfeiters. It is by this dependent, some may call parasitic, relationship that move IP protection proponents to call copyright infringement "stealing." While you and I may disagree with that final assessment (perhaps to different degrees), I think it's reasonable to look from that perspective and to understand that theirs is not an entirely baseless argument.
Now, we can have a debate on the ethics of artificially inflated prices for digital media, and of the disproportionate influence that publishers wield -- and on those issues I imagine you and I would be on the same side. However, this common "replication doesn't hurt anyone" argument is not convincing when examined under a critical light.
It seems if we accept that 9/11 occurs every day in Iraq, then we must also accept that 9/11 happens every day in Libya. So, fuck those terrorist countries too for causing civilian deaths in a war zone.
Let's see... fuck Denmark, fuck Italy, fuck Netherlands, fuck Norway, fuck Sweden, fuck Spain, fuck Turkey, fuck Jordan, fuck Qatar, fuck UAE. Fuck them all.
We hardly ever remember the millions of Middle Eastern civilians who died in the past century at the hands of European countries. Why make an exception now?
You're sure Muslims would disagree with an opposition to Islamism? You sound very prejudiced and misinformed
islamism/islmizm/
Noun: Islamic militancy or fundamentalism.
Because it ain't a "luxury" car if it drives on the same tech the plebes drives on.
the number they came up with is that once night vision came in, it deceased the average life span of the enemy to about 0.3 seconds
HA! one of the rare times when a typo results in a more accurate sentence.
The fanboys never got the memo
We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We have to embrace a notion that for Apple to win, Apple has to do a really good job. And if others are going to help us that's great, because we need all the help we can get, and if we screw up and we don't do a good job, it's not somebody else's fault, it's our fault.
Sounds plausible. But consider this ...
If the CIA wanted DSK gone they could have created a watertight case and made him unquestionably guilty. They could easily have gotten to the defense lawyers as well. Why would they go to all that trouble only to have their great coup be unraveled by a simple 5-item timeline? It's like loose change all over again.