Computer programming, for example, will one day be done by just anybody, i.e., with the use of simple gestures to build beautiful 3-D structures from a collection of available components.
That's what they said in the 1990's, when tools like HyperCard came out... "Everybody will be able to program!"
I don't believe it'll ever get there -- you need to apply a certain amount of logical thinking to combine components into programs, and that thinking requires either talent or training, and can't be eliminated by clever user interfaces.
Still, we could improve user interfaces to the point where almost everyone is able to automate simple, linear tasks.
I guess I was a bit vague -- I was thinking of things that were discovered decades ago and considered standard tools by now. For example, when you write a physics paper, you don't need to explain where you get the laws of motion and mechanics from. Or when you write a paper on molecular biology, you don't need to mention who discovered the structure of DNA.
The best ideas I have yet heard from our pirate friends is that musicians would be doomed to a lifetime of concert touring, writers to charging for access to book readings, filmmakers to deriving revenues from movie theaters and nobody has yet adequately explained to me how software developers are supposed to make money in a world where they can't charge people for software licenses.
But that's exactly how most musicians, writers and programmers earn their living today.
Most musicians derive the majority of their income from concerts and merchandise. It's only the stars that get significant income from album sales.
The vast majority of writers derive the majority of their income from writing-related jobs, such s teaching, workshops and journalism -- if they don't just have a day job.
The vast majority of programmers work with writing custom software for a specific customer, and get paid directly by that customer -- not by writing general-purpose software that's sold off-the-shelf.
The problem being that the creators sustain them selves by the same economic rights the pirates want to abolish.
That's another discussion, but here goes: Creators can earn money without copyright.
For example, a lot of music artists have discovered that they earn roughly the same amount of money by putting up their music on the Internet for free, and selling signed copies, merchandise, extra material, and so on. A lot of people are prepared to pay because they want to support the band, they have the cash and can't be bothered to find the material on a filesharing network, or they want to be sure they get the best quality as fast as possible. Plus, the added exposure draws more people to their concerts.
In fact, the only music artists I've seen complain about piracy, are the ones that are already established and have a steady, safe income ("rent") from albums they've already released. But that's a small, small minority of all artists.
People are also prepared to pay to see films at the theatre, and to see them shortly after the release date. A lot of people download the film to see if it's worth watching, then pay to see it at the theatre a second time.
Usually, there are only low-quality copies filmed with hand-held cams available the first few weeks -- but even when high-quality copies are leaked before the premiere, as with the first Spider-Man film, the film still does well if it's any good.
When it comes to writing, there are (and have always been) precious few authors that have been able to support themselves on writing alone. The vast majority need to have a day job, or supplement their income with writing-related jobs, such as journalism, teaching, holding lectures and workshops, and so on. And yet, people keep writing, even when they'd earn more money washing dishes. As an amateur writer, I know.
Also, I accidentally lied in the GP -- the Pirate Party doesn't want to abolish all the creator's economic rights. They only want to legalise private copying. The artist will still have an exclusive right to commercial use.
Well, if something is generally known to experts in the field, there's no need to give credit; everyone already knows who discovered it and won't believe it's you.
I'm not contesting that Bush turned out to be the rightful winner in the end, but both sides did use a lot of dirty tricks to make the decision go their way.
"Left office with a surplus" means that he reduced the debt during his term, not that it was zero when he left. The US national debt has been trillions of dollars since the 1940's. See graph to the right on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#History
But point taken. Clinton was very competent on the issues, despite his embarassing extramarital affairs.
It's doesn't need to be intentional. Every politician agrees the debt needs to be repaid (or at least kept from growing), but they can't agree on where to save, so it keeps increasing. In fact, that seems to be how the US government acquired its current debt.
Does it even have to be a coDoes it even have to be a conspiracy? Can't the party members in the individual districts have tried to dispute the votes on their own initiative, without being sure it'd make a difference?nspiracy?
Because every time you mention Democrats or Republicans in a thread like this, it tends to deteriorate into an argument about which party cheats the most, drawing attention away from the real issue being discussed.
Actually, that isn't how it turns out at all: there is no "ghetto" established, as the laws that the prevailing governing body passes will apply to the entire incorporated area (city, county, state, whatever). The key difference is that without the gerrymandering, there will be no voice in that governing body to represent the extreme minority's interests at all. So it's actually anti-segregationist, since it gives the minority a stronger voice than they would have otherwise.
That's a horrible way to fix the problem. It's better to have a proportional system, where parties are awarded seats in the government/state/county in proportion to the popular vote. The problem only occurs in winner-takes-all systems in the first place.
If we accept gerrymandering to give certain minorities a vote, we're also giving politicians an excuse for abusing the system to further their own power.
And yes, it's segregationist. Segregation means you separate ethnic groups. Having good intentions or giving the group a stronger vote doesn't change that.
Gerrymandering can be used for good too such as creating voting districts consisting of mostly Blacks or other minorities so they can elect a (favored minority) representative and have a say in the political process.
You mean, so the blacks become "equal but separate"?
Interesting perhaps, but not useful. The party that WON using any detectible vote fraud will not let you change anything, certainly not the outcome and probably not even vote methodology, or credential checking in future elections. In fact they probably won't give you access to voting detail numbers at all once it becomes common knowledge that such analysis is possible.
Just because a party won by fraud, it doesn't mean they become dictators for life and can block every attempt to fix the system. Sooner or later another party will win, and the cheating party can't make their manipulations too obvious.
We keep reading that they're being investigated, charged, "fined", but cut to the chase: what actual sums have left Microsoft's account and gone into the Brussels swill trough?
The summary says $1.28 billion, i.e, just slightly more than Apple got from Samsung in a patent lawsuit where the jury didn't understand how prior art worked.
Slashdot Mirror
Computer programming, for example, will one day be done by just anybody, i.e., with the use of simple gestures to build beautiful 3-D structures from a collection of available components.
That's what they said in the 1990's, when tools like HyperCard came out... "Everybody will be able to program!"
I don't believe it'll ever get there -- you need to apply a certain amount of logical thinking to combine components into programs, and that thinking requires either talent or training, and can't be eliminated by clever user interfaces.
Still, we could improve user interfaces to the point where almost everyone is able to automate simple, linear tasks.
I guess I was a bit vague -- I was thinking of things that were discovered decades ago and considered standard tools by now. For example, when you write a physics paper, you don't need to explain where you get the laws of motion and mechanics from. Or when you write a paper on molecular biology, you don't need to mention who discovered the structure of DNA.
Anyway, I get your point.
The best ideas I have yet heard from our pirate friends is that musicians would be doomed to a lifetime of concert touring, writers to charging for access to book readings, filmmakers to deriving revenues from movie theaters and nobody has yet adequately explained to me how software developers are supposed to make money in a world where they can't charge people for software licenses.
But that's exactly how most musicians, writers and programmers earn their living today.
Most musicians derive the majority of their income from concerts and merchandise. It's only the stars that get significant income from album sales.
The vast majority of writers derive the majority of their income from writing-related jobs, such s teaching, workshops and journalism -- if they don't just have a day job.
The vast majority of programmers work with writing custom software for a specific customer, and get paid directly by that customer -- not by writing general-purpose software that's sold off-the-shelf.
The problem being that the creators sustain them selves by the same economic rights the pirates want to abolish.
That's another discussion, but here goes: Creators can earn money without copyright.
For example, a lot of music artists have discovered that they earn roughly the same amount of money by putting up their music on the Internet for free, and selling signed copies, merchandise, extra material, and so on. A lot of people are prepared to pay because they want to support the band, they have the cash and can't be bothered to find the material on a filesharing network, or they want to be sure they get the best quality as fast as possible. Plus, the added exposure draws more people to their concerts.
In fact, the only music artists I've seen complain about piracy, are the ones that are already established and have a steady, safe income ("rent") from albums they've already released. But that's a small, small minority of all artists.
People are also prepared to pay to see films at the theatre, and to see them shortly after the release date. A lot of people download the film to see if it's worth watching, then pay to see it at the theatre a second time.
Usually, there are only low-quality copies filmed with hand-held cams available the first few weeks -- but even when high-quality copies are leaked before the premiere, as with the first Spider-Man film, the film still does well if it's any good.
When it comes to writing, there are (and have always been) precious few authors that have been able to support themselves on writing alone. The vast majority need to have a day job, or supplement their income with writing-related jobs, such as journalism, teaching, holding lectures and workshops, and so on. And yet, people keep writing, even when they'd earn more money washing dishes. As an amateur writer, I know.
Also, I accidentally lied in the GP -- the Pirate Party doesn't want to abolish all the creator's economic rights. They only want to legalise private copying. The artist will still have an exclusive right to commercial use.
Well, if something is generally known to experts in the field, there's no need to give credit; everyone already knows who discovered it and won't believe it's you.
I'm not contesting that Bush turned out to be the rightful winner in the end, but both sides did use a lot of dirty tricks to make the decision go their way.
The Pirate Party is actually clear that they want to retain the creator's right to attribution. It's only the economic rights they want to abolish.
"Left office with a surplus" means that he reduced the debt during his term, not that it was zero when he left. The US national debt has been trillions of dollars since the 1940's. See graph to the right on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#History
But point taken. Clinton was very competent on the issues, despite his embarassing extramarital affairs.
It's doesn't need to be intentional. Every politician agrees the debt needs to be repaid (or at least kept from growing), but they can't agree on where to save, so it keeps increasing. In fact, that seems to be how the US government acquired its current debt.
Most other European countries have proportional systems, and it works well (as politics goes).
The problem with Italy seems to be widespread corruption and a less-than-serious attitude (like when they voted a porn star into the parliament).
In Socialist North Korea, the politicians you vote for are dead..
In the USA, the state declares fraud on YOU.
Does it even have to be a coDoes it even have to be a conspiracy? Can't the party members in the individual districts have tried to dispute the votes on their own initiative, without being sure it'd make a difference?nspiracy?
Because every time you mention Democrats or Republicans in a thread like this, it tends to deteriorate into an argument about which party cheats the most, drawing attention away from the real issue being discussed.
Too bad I've already posted in this thread, or I'd mod you up. You've done your research well.
It's dishonest, but not fraud. Fraud includes an element of secrecy or misleading, not just rigging the system to your benefit.
Actually, that isn't how it turns out at all: there is no "ghetto" established, as the laws that the prevailing governing body passes will apply to the entire incorporated area (city, county, state, whatever). The key difference is that without the gerrymandering, there will be no voice in that governing body to represent the extreme minority's interests at all. So it's actually anti-segregationist, since it gives the minority a stronger voice than they would have otherwise.
That's a horrible way to fix the problem. It's better to have a proportional system, where parties are awarded seats in the government/state/county in proportion to the popular vote. The problem only occurs in winner-takes-all systems in the first place.
If we accept gerrymandering to give certain minorities a vote, we're also giving politicians an excuse for abusing the system to further their own power.
And yes, it's segregationist. Segregation means you separate ethnic groups. Having good intentions or giving the group a stronger vote doesn't change that.
Gerrymandering can be used for good too such as creating voting districts consisting of mostly Blacks or other minorities so they can elect a (favored minority) representative and have a say in the political process.
You mean, so the blacks become "equal but separate"?
Interesting perhaps, but not useful. The party that WON using any detectible vote fraud will not let you change anything, certainly not the outcome and probably not even vote methodology, or credential checking in future elections. In fact they probably won't give you access to voting detail numbers at all once it becomes common knowledge that such analysis is possible.
Just because a party won by fraud, it doesn't mean they become dictators for life and can block every attempt to fix the system. Sooner or later another party will win, and the cheating party can't make their manipulations too obvious.
That's a good point.
But... isn't the cost of the pilot a huge part?
Good point.
I picture you without a girlfriend and stuck in a dead-end job, where the only relief for your frustration is trolling people on Internet forums.
We keep reading that they're being investigated, charged, "fined", but cut to the chase: what actual sums have left Microsoft's account and gone into the Brussels swill trough?
The summary says $1.28 billion, i.e, just slightly more than Apple got from Samsung in a patent lawsuit where the jury didn't understand how prior art worked.
How do you figure? Microsoft clearly violated the terms of the ruling, which resulted in a fine. Are you objecting to
a) the court's interpretation of the law?
b) the anti-monopoly laws in effect in the EU?
c) anti-monopoly laws in general?