I don't see anything wrong with that. What I do see something wrong with is the idea of criminalizing the distribution of information.
Also note that Ansel Adams also at times had patrons. A traditional and successful means of ensuring continued works from an artist.
I'm trying to think of where our education went wrong to the point where people like you think you can truly own an idea, and that others should be punished for enjoying that idea without cost.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Issac McPherson on 13 August 1813, "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
It's the creator's job to figure that out, not for me to figure it out for him. Having laws to protect a flawed business model is not something I can justify in such a manner.
I find it disturbing that you somehow have come to believe that a company should not make money. Also disturbing is the fact that you seem to think that the profits you describe are proportionate to the increases in insurance costs. Please take an accounting course or something.
Also, putting Obamacare in scare quotes just silly.
I like the way you broke it down into supply and demand. I guess that's kind of where I was going but never really broke it down to that point. You're right, the supply is as close to infinite as it can get, confined only by storage limitations. Pretty much renders demand moot, especially in a context where files can be quickly and easily transferred not only in a linear fashion, but in an explosive way as found in p2p technology, where one would not even be getting the file from one single person anymore. I can't say much about traditional bittorrent, but if there's one thing my personal use of btsync to keep my own files synchronized has shown me, it's that the way distribution scales with volunteer hosts is something that would have been unthinkable just a few decades ago, when vinyl records were the norm and lossy cassette dubs were routinely accepted by the music industry.
It's not what I said, but it's an intriguing theory. I see no reason why in a copyright-free world a person could not take a work and rework it to suit their desires, needs, or whims and share it with anyone they pleased.
In today's age of machines that exist almost exclusively to copy and fiddle about with data, the concept of copyright is quaint and outdated. Gone are the obstacles to distribution and duplication that existed in days gone by, and as the past decade or two has shown us, dropping copyright as a concept will do nothing to deter people from creating new works, only remove the incentive for people to create static media for a living.
I fully recognize the benefits that copyrighted works have provided for us in the past, and the incentive it provides for new creation. However, I'm not sure copyright deserves to survive in today's technological world when it does as much to deter creation and innovation as it does to foster it.
The problem is twofold. First, the text actually sent does not show any indication of being any different from the usual ones. Second, if you create an Amber Alert Full and and Amber Alert Lite, everything will be sent as full regardless of the situation.
If you want real results, pipe it through real media channels. Not a series of bad texts that nobody will really read due to a bad track record of irrelevance.
I find it disturbing that I had to scroll through so many potshots at government officials to get to the first instance of this idea. I'm sure the potshots were also warranted, but this is the part that really bugs me.
I'm right there with you, brother. We got left holding the bag for my wife's root canal several years ago by a combination of an office that did not duly attempt to collect on the insurance and insurance that failed to fulfil its obligation.
I'm sorry, did you just say you're too stupid to understand the correlation between the vast and expensive new requirements placed on insurers by Obamacare and the rise in your costs? If that is the case, I'm done discussing the matter with you. Ain't nobody got time fo' that.
you are of course aware of how much healthcare costs have risen as a result of Obamacare, right? And that subsidizing that increase is a lose-lose proposition?
What? You're asking what's not working, when the article was clearly about things not working?
And regarding your parting comments, ah, the old fallacy of people not being able to see doctors without the government making it happen. Pure nonsense.
When the constitution is the only authorization those people have, it is entirely relevant when they lose interest in following it. It's not merely advice or rules. It's the documentation of what was ratified by the states authorizing their authority. When that falls by the wayside, so does the legitimacy of their authority.
Becoming? I've been more scared of well-meaning elected officials for a long time.
"If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." - Henry David Thoreau
I've known from the beginning that Obamacare was never planned to succeed. This past presidential election was solid proof of that. The whole point was to create a perception of need where one did not previously exist. Even Romney was talking about "replacing" Obamacare, while anyone who was likely to oppose increased government involvement (generally conservatives or libertarians) who has been paying attention wanted to know why it needed replacement at all.
The government I'm sure is thankful that most Americans only pay attention to politics enough to know that they hate the guy who has the opposite letter behind his name and are so scared of him that they'll vote for "their guy" whether they like/believe in/want him or not.
Terrorism as defined by the government is not what terrifies the people, but what terrifies people with cushy jobs in the government. Right now, they're terrified that people will find out what they're doing and call them out for it.
Amber Alerts are basically a way of trying to drag everyone into what is almost always a family dispute where a relative takes a kid somewhere and the custodial parents are upset about it for one reason or another. I disabled all the alerts I could on my phone, except the Extreme Alerts. If snowboarders build a halfpipe in my area, I don't want to miss out!
Slashdot Mirror
You seem very stuck in the present. To believe that things would remain in the same specific hands we see today is nonsense.
I don't see anything wrong with that. What I do see something wrong with is the idea of criminalizing the distribution of information.
Also note that Ansel Adams also at times had patrons. A traditional and successful means of ensuring continued works from an artist.
I'm trying to think of where our education went wrong to the point where people like you think you can truly own an idea, and that others should be punished for enjoying that idea without cost.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Issac McPherson on 13 August 1813, "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
It's the creator's job to figure that out, not for me to figure it out for him. Having laws to protect a flawed business model is not something I can justify in such a manner.
I find it disturbing that you somehow have come to believe that a company should not make money. Also disturbing is the fact that you seem to think that the profits you describe are proportionate to the increases in insurance costs. Please take an accounting course or something.
Also, putting Obamacare in scare quotes just silly.
I'm not sure you understand this thread if you think record labels would control music distribution in a copyright-free world.
I like the way you broke it down into supply and demand. I guess that's kind of where I was going but never really broke it down to that point. You're right, the supply is as close to infinite as it can get, confined only by storage limitations. Pretty much renders demand moot, especially in a context where files can be quickly and easily transferred not only in a linear fashion, but in an explosive way as found in p2p technology, where one would not even be getting the file from one single person anymore. I can't say much about traditional bittorrent, but if there's one thing my personal use of btsync to keep my own files synchronized has shown me, it's that the way distribution scales with volunteer hosts is something that would have been unthinkable just a few decades ago, when vinyl records were the norm and lossy cassette dubs were routinely accepted by the music industry.
It's not what I said, but it's an intriguing theory. I see no reason why in a copyright-free world a person could not take a work and rework it to suit their desires, needs, or whims and share it with anyone they pleased.
I'm going to go ahead and declare this +1 Funny. If AC is serious, I'm not following the logic. A cut of a royalty of 0 is still 0.
be that as it may, I sincerely doubt the government is above trying.
In today's age of machines that exist almost exclusively to copy and fiddle about with data, the concept of copyright is quaint and outdated. Gone are the obstacles to distribution and duplication that existed in days gone by, and as the past decade or two has shown us, dropping copyright as a concept will do nothing to deter people from creating new works, only remove the incentive for people to create static media for a living.
I fully recognize the benefits that copyrighted works have provided for us in the past, and the incentive it provides for new creation. However, I'm not sure copyright deserves to survive in today's technological world when it does as much to deter creation and innovation as it does to foster it.
The problem is twofold. First, the text actually sent does not show any indication of being any different from the usual ones. Second, if you create an Amber Alert Full and and Amber Alert Lite, everything will be sent as full regardless of the situation.
If you want real results, pipe it through real media channels. Not a series of bad texts that nobody will really read due to a bad track record of irrelevance.
I find it disturbing that I had to scroll through so many potshots at government officials to get to the first instance of this idea. I'm sure the potshots were also warranted, but this is the part that really bugs me.
I don't see that your article and my assertion are mutually exclusive.
I'm right there with you, brother. We got left holding the bag for my wife's root canal several years ago by a combination of an office that did not duly attempt to collect on the insurance and insurance that failed to fulfil its obligation.
I'm sorry, did you just say you're too stupid to understand the correlation between the vast and expensive new requirements placed on insurers by Obamacare and the rise in your costs? If that is the case, I'm done discussing the matter with you. Ain't nobody got time fo' that.
you are of course aware of how much healthcare costs have risen as a result of Obamacare, right? And that subsidizing that increase is a lose-lose proposition?
What? You're asking what's not working, when the article was clearly about things not working?
And regarding your parting comments, ah, the old fallacy of people not being able to see doctors without the government making it happen. Pure nonsense.
Be that as it may, this one wasn't in my area.
When the constitution is the only authorization those people have, it is entirely relevant when they lose interest in following it. It's not merely advice or rules. It's the documentation of what was ratified by the states authorizing their authority. When that falls by the wayside, so does the legitimacy of their authority.
Becoming? I've been more scared of well-meaning elected officials for a long time.
"If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." - Henry David Thoreau
It sure was nice back when we had a constitution.
Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!
I've known from the beginning that Obamacare was never planned to succeed. This past presidential election was solid proof of that. The whole point was to create a perception of need where one did not previously exist. Even Romney was talking about "replacing" Obamacare, while anyone who was likely to oppose increased government involvement (generally conservatives or libertarians) who has been paying attention wanted to know why it needed replacement at all.
The government I'm sure is thankful that most Americans only pay attention to politics enough to know that they hate the guy who has the opposite letter behind his name and are so scared of him that they'll vote for "their guy" whether they like/believe in/want him or not.
Terrorism as defined by the government is not what terrifies the people, but what terrifies people with cushy jobs in the government. Right now, they're terrified that people will find out what they're doing and call them out for it.
Amber Alerts are basically a way of trying to drag everyone into what is almost always a family dispute where a relative takes a kid somewhere and the custodial parents are upset about it for one reason or another. I disabled all the alerts I could on my phone, except the Extreme Alerts. If snowboarders build a halfpipe in my area, I don't want to miss out!