The patron's one rule is that the art he commissions remains unique. Commissioned output is not the same thing as creative output (this is usually reflected in its quality).
Today's publishing system is generally more benign than the patronage system you described: since publishers are paid by the public, there is a better chance of the public being exposed to the artist's output (at least, during the artist's lifetime, if at all).
You do not embarrass Nero by building a knock-off of his golden house. I think you're talking trademarks here:-)
Anyway, Nero's showbiz career was was made possible by the fact that he was a patron: again, not the best example;-)
The example you gave is one where IP laws failed in their stated aim of encouraging further creative output;-)
At risk of offending the original poster, he didn't say his IP was any good - yet he expects to be paid forever.
It's about money, not quality or contribution to mankind.
I was really asking him what he would do with all that money;-)
The answer to that question might lead to a better way of rewarding his contribution to society or the welfare of mankind (and cut out a few middlemen).
what I generate with my brain is MY intellectuall property and thus, I can choose to share it, protect it or commercialize it without Stallman or anyone else calling me a criminal for that. You are lucky enough to live in a society that at least allows for the possibility of you having some choice as to what is done with your ideas (the biggest threat to your IP is the fact that society is made up of indviduals who may not play by the rules).
You should ask yourself why you want to be paid forever for something you do once.
Or, more usefully, try to identify the advantages of a long-term source of income that does not require constant work;-)
I believe that a reasonable answer to this line of inquiry might lead to IP laws that benefit the largest number of people (including the people they are intended to protect).
If the military were to use this, they'd want the same kind of reliability they demanded of the Internet, I'd expect.
Good news for everyone else (although re-sending couldn't be as inexpensive as it is with IP packets, re-routing might be possible in many cases).
The more things change, the more things stay the same. I saw a modern version of one of these in my local hospital: they use it to send samples to the labs, for example. As far as I could make out (just from looking at it), you key in the appropriate code for your destintaion.
If you sunbathe in your neighbourhood there is the chance that 20 people see it, once Google goes around there is the chance that 2000000000 people see it. So the risk of embarrassment increases dramatically Are you saying that some stranger is more important to you than your neighbour? I think "risk" is the key word here: the fear is disproportionate to the reality.
Otherwise, you are saying that you are afraid of a particular individual seeing you: surely, if that individual cannot accept you as you are, that's their problem? Certainly, someone who cannot accept you as you are is not your friend.
So the risk of embarrassment increases dramatically, people will stop sunbathing. That is a real effect. It's a real effect based on either an uncomfortable reality (you have been abusing your body and are ashamed of this) or an irrational fear.
What is so difficult about getting this? People get it, all right - they just don't want to let it rule their lives;-)
That idea made its way into Roman Catholic doctrine because the creators of Roman Catholic doctrine put it there.
It makes sense that the church would want an idea that discouraged travel to prevail among its subjects: otherwise, they would have been exposed to all the other cultures and religions that existed at the time.
Similarly, governments propogate misconceptions about other nations and cultures if those misconceptions can help those governments to stay in place.
Similarly, technology vendors propogate misconceptions about other technologies if those misconceptions can help their products' market share.
etc.
Essentially, in
a. What you said
b. What you said
you get the preconditions for randomly occurring structural and process experiments. Mindless Experimentation instead of Intelligent Design? So we should speak of "ME" instead of "ID"?
There's something Freudian about all this...
Are we not allowed to have more than one oppressive theocratic regime?
Why does it always have to be this "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude? That kind of talk is the stuff that fuels oppression, in fact: by forcing others to conform to [whatever], whether they believe it or not, you are oppressing them.
Things aren't black-and-white in real life: only ingorant, power-hungry or insecure people require "ideal" behaviour of others.
Why bother doing '3.14ssed' here? I'd guess it's because people are more likely to get the joke here than on many other sites. It's a new one on me - thanks, Grump:-)
Pension funds are obligated to do whatever is necessary to maximize the profit of their investment. I'm sure that if they weren't obligated to do this, they would try to do it anyway: they are businesses, too. Their legal "obligation" serves as protection for this behaviour - and, like the RIAA's campaign, it works against the people it purports to serve: in this case, people who work.
In order to survive in the fund managers' world, traded companies must exhibit growth, not stability. Therefore, they must continually find ways to save money so that they may record higher profits in the next quarter. Outsourcing work and hiring contractors can save money (sometimes through more legal loopholes), so companies are "obligated" to do this. As a by-product, companies - even ones with good survival prospects - are creating fewer pensionable jobs.
How about the public sector? This lawsuit is being brought by pension funds that represent public sector workers, after all. Ironically, the public sector is experiencing the same hollowing-out as the private: increased use of contractors, fewer pensionable jobs (larger proportion of positions with fewer benefits).
Money contributed to a pension that cannot change jobs with the employee it covers is "fuel for the fire", since it cannot be later reclaimed by the people who purport to spend it on their behalf. Some countries, in recognition of this drain, have legislated classes of pensions that are transferable across jobs. It's hard to pay contributions out of an unemployment cheque, tho:-(
I agree with your assessment of his condition (and therefore agree with sibling posts:-) but remember: impaired brain function != stupidity. In my assessment, he was smart not to finish the sentence the usual way! I'm sure he's aware of YouTube and The Daily Show.
His presidency didn't start out the way he expected (understatement) and he has been under a lot of pressure ever since, Texas walking style notwithstanding. Concentration problems may be a result of perscribed drugs, rather than historical substance abuse. Or just a result of having a lot on his mind...
MS want to be IBM (they cannot get the ear - or wallet - of big business the way IBM can).
I sort of want them to be IBM too - big enough to ignore:-)
If they become even more like IBM and relocate to India too, maybe we'll see a bit of innovation!
Do you think he couldn't remember the rest of the saying? I reckon he had let his mouth get ahead of his brain and realised - just in time - that the words "shame on me" were going to be on permanent record as spoken by him.
He's not the brightest but he's not the idiot he's made out to be...
If MS could grow their share price by buying back their shares, they'd do it. Maybe in the current climate, it might send the wrong signals (I'm no fund manager).
I have been of the opinion that the Yahoo thing is a scam aimed at the kind of people who would buy SCO stock - until reading the grandparent post (which may be astroturf - your post was a flame;-)
The is the only thing I have heard that suggests that MS may have actually considered completing this purchase: income from businesses - not individuals - and supported by legal aggreements.
I'll be looking out for more info to back up your rumor:-)
by keeping their share price high through an economic dip. People who are looking for a secure investment may be more likely to buy Microsoft because of all this hype.
SCO's share price amply demonstrated that people don't need much motivation to buy:-(
If Microsoft actually spend money on purchasing Yahoo, then they are doing their shareholders a dis-service, as you said.
Slashdot Mirror
If only someone could make a Blu-Ray->HD-DVD copier...
...is a series of tubes :-)
Today's publishing system is generally more benign than the patronage system you described: since publishers are paid by the public, there is a better chance of the public being exposed to the artist's output (at least, during the artist's lifetime, if at all). You do not embarrass Nero by building a knock-off of his golden house. I think you're talking trademarks here
Anyway, Nero's showbiz career was was made possible by the fact that he was a patron: again, not the best example
The example you gave is one where IP laws failed in their stated aim of encouraging further creative output ;-)
;-)
At risk of offending the original poster, he didn't say his IP was any good - yet he expects to be paid forever.
It's about money, not quality or contribution to mankind.
I was really asking him what he would do with all that money
The answer to that question might lead to a better way of rewarding his contribution to society or the welfare of mankind (and cut out a few middlemen).
And they are most likely to be abused when the holder is not the creator.
When they are abused, everybody loses.
You should ask yourself why you want to be paid forever for something you do once.
Or, more usefully, try to identify the advantages of a long-term source of income that does not require constant work
I believe that a reasonable answer to this line of inquiry might lead to IP laws that benefit the largest number of people (including the people they are intended to protect).
If the military were to use this, they'd want the same kind of reliability they demanded of the Internet, I'd expect.
Good news for everyone else (although re-sending couldn't be as inexpensive as it is with IP packets, re-routing might be possible in many cases).
Otherwise, you are saying that you are afraid of a particular individual seeing you: surely, if that individual cannot accept you as you are, that's their problem? Certainly, someone who cannot accept you as you are is not your friend. So the risk of embarrassment increases dramatically, people will stop sunbathing. That is a real effect. It's a real effect based on either an uncomfortable reality (you have been abusing your body and are ashamed of this) or an irrational fear. What is so difficult about getting this? People get it, all right - they just don't want to let it rule their lives
That idea made its way into Roman Catholic doctrine because the creators of Roman Catholic doctrine put it there.
It makes sense that the church would want an idea that discouraged travel to prevail among its subjects: otherwise, they would have been exposed to all the other cultures and religions that existed at the time.
Similarly, governments propogate misconceptions about other nations and cultures if those misconceptions can help those governments to stay in place.
Similarly, technology vendors propogate misconceptions about other technologies if those misconceptions can help their products' market share.
etc.
a. What you said
b. What you said
you get the preconditions for randomly occurring structural and process experiments. Mindless Experimentation instead of Intelligent Design? So we should speak of "ME" instead of "ID"?
There's something Freudian about all this...
Al Jazeera English is based in Qatar, which is rich enough not to be heavily influenced by Murdoch.
They have some top people working for them.
Are we not allowed to have more than one oppressive theocratic regime?
Why does it always have to be this "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude? That kind of talk is the stuff that fuels oppression, in fact: by forcing others to conform to [whatever], whether they believe it or not, you are oppressing them.
Things aren't black-and-white in real life: only ingorant, power-hungry or insecure people require "ideal" behaviour of others.
In order to survive in the fund managers' world, traded companies must exhibit growth, not stability. Therefore, they must continually find ways to save money so that they may record higher profits in the next quarter. Outsourcing work and hiring contractors can save money (sometimes through more legal loopholes), so companies are "obligated" to do this. As a by-product, companies - even ones with good survival prospects - are creating fewer pensionable jobs.
How about the public sector? This lawsuit is being brought by pension funds that represent public sector workers, after all. Ironically, the public sector is experiencing the same hollowing-out as the private: increased use of contractors, fewer pensionable jobs (larger proportion of positions with fewer benefits).
Money contributed to a pension that cannot change jobs with the employee it covers is "fuel for the fire", since it cannot be later reclaimed by the people who purport to spend it on their behalf. Some countries, in recognition of this drain, have legislated classes of pensions that are transferable across jobs. It's hard to pay contributions out of an unemployment cheque, tho
I agree with your assessment of his condition (and therefore agree with sibling posts :-) but remember: impaired brain function != stupidity. In my assessment, he was smart not to finish the sentence the usual way! I'm sure he's aware of YouTube and The Daily Show.
His presidency didn't start out the way he expected (understatement) and he has been under a lot of pressure ever since, Texas walking style notwithstanding. Concentration problems may be a result of perscribed drugs, rather than historical substance abuse. Or just a result of having a lot on his mind...
MS want to be IBM (they cannot get the ear - or wallet - of big business the way IBM can). :-)
I sort of want them to be IBM too - big enough to ignore
If they become even more like IBM and relocate to India too, maybe we'll see a bit of innovation!
Do you think he couldn't remember the rest of the saying? I reckon he had let his mouth get ahead of his brain and realised - just in time - that the words "shame on me" were going to be on permanent record as spoken by him.
He's not the brightest but he's not the idiot he's made out to be...
If MS could grow their share price by buying back their shares, they'd do it. Maybe in the current climate, it might send the wrong signals (I'm no fund manager). ;-)
I have been of the opinion that the Yahoo thing is a scam aimed at the kind of people who would buy SCO stock - until reading the grandparent post (which may be astroturf - your post was a flame
The is the only thing I have heard that suggests that MS may have actually considered completing this purchase: income from businesses - not individuals - and supported by legal aggreements. :-)
I'll be looking out for more info to back up your rumor
I dunno - they're doing all right by having a zillion copies of their OS out there.
Thanks :-)
It's my favourite Groucho quote - and not even his, unless he scripted it!
That version also exists: I prefer the first version myself and don't have the movie around to check :-(
;-)
(Note to self: improve anti-pedantry device
by keeping their share price high through an economic dip. People who are looking for a secure investment may be more likely to buy Microsoft because of all this hype. :-(
SCO's share price amply demonstrated that people don't need much motivation to buy
If Microsoft actually spend money on purchasing Yahoo, then they are doing their shareholders a dis-service, as you said.
..that all the money spent on the Star Wars project didn't go to waste ;-)