The problem is that we're paying for licensing the IP (music), not the artist's work (that's work as in labor).
The recording musician, right now, works for free -- they just expect to recoup their losses later on licensing[1].
Musicians are going to have to (just as a matter of economic necessity) start moving towards models like the Street Performer Protocol, and working on comission for income[2].
---
[1] Live performances are another source of income, but see BDR's observations, and note well that not all recording musicians can really perform. (e.g. good segments of electronica)
[2] Visual artists tend to do this already; it's not really that music is unsuited to this approach, it's just that musicians are historically coming from a performance-based model, whereas visual artists (generally) aren't.
If you type at anything more than 60 wpm, it's faster to type, say:
[ESC]:%s/foo/bar/[Enter]
... than it is to navigate most text editor or wordprocessor GUIs (even using only keystrokes) to do the same thing.
(n.b., the [ESC] is supposed to denote one keystroke, making that a total of 14 keystrokes. That's a fixed overhead of 8 keystrokes, and no modifiers.)
...but I work for one of them. And even we have a couple Linux boxen sitting around that I know about (although they're just there in an evaluation capacity, not actually being used for anything).
Hopefully we'll get some secondary implementations quickly, so it's harder for Microsoft to it as a rug to yank out from under non-microsoft implementations.
I wish the original poster had mentioned what issues he saw with the language, though. I only gave it a cursory look, it'd be helpful to see a real analysis.
Oh, and I strongly suspect, that whatever Microsoft does, the name of the language WILL end up being pronounced "CASH".:P
You're not dowloading the actors and movie sets to your computer, are you? no.
Of course not, but you know that, and that's not what you meant anyway. The actor's labor is scarce, the other capital involved is, of course scarce. What we're doing is paying them for their labor, right?
After a fashion. What it basically amounts to is that the production houses provide these movie-making services to the public at a loss, and then trying to make it up by playing toll collector to the resulting information in perpetuity.
i.e. the movies are being made for free (or worse), and then subsidized later. That seems kind of bass-ackwards to me, although it's been the only practical way of doing it for a while.
The thing is, I think particularly as micropayment schemes become more widespread, it's going to become more and more practical to actually pay production houses/groups/what have you _directly_ for the service of making the movie in the first place.
At least movies are an example of where the artists are actually treated somewhat decently. It's certainly not true of the music industry -- you know this big thing about artists being able to eat? There's no way in hell 90% of the signed musicians in the US would be eating if they tried to live on the money they got from their record company.
I'd rather see artists paid for what they do, and how well they do it, rather than expecting them to work for what almost amounts to free.
In the long run, I think systems that don't pay the artist for creating art (and instead indirectly subsidize them by placing onerous restrictions on IP) are wrong, and destined to fail.
DOM2/3 + SVG + ECMAScript + CSS2 is probably enough to do everything you'd need to recreate most old video games, modulo sound.
And, unlike Shockwave, it's all structured XML/text, so it's not a semantic black hole. (e.g. a search engine could conceivably extract useful information from it)
I'm not sure that really applies here, though...
on
Berlin 0.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
It's not as if Berlin just pulled this code out of its collective ass -- a good chunk of it is mature work from the Fresco project, of which Berlin is essentially a continuation.
A lot of the Fresco code was 13 years in development. The only relatively immature code in Berlin is the underlying graphics subsystem, the CORBA stuff, a few aspects of layout, and the new event/input model.
So, they're buliding on an existing system, rather than just trying to redo EVERYTHING from scratch.
You're basically just worried about the right of first sale, aren't you?
That's not specifically addressed or infringed by these technologies.
It seems to me that the state of affairs that the record companies have brought about is this:
When you buy a CD, you buy that round piece of laser-engraved metal and plastic, and you also buy a license to use its information content. (The latter accounts for most of the price of the CD)
The piece of plastic is your property. The information content is just licenced to you.
That's just how it works now.
In this context, right of first sale just means that the license must be transferred with the CD, and nobody is allowed to prevent that.
Where there IS no spoon.. er... CD, and the licensed information is transmitted digitally, then the aforementioned "right of first sale" really doesn't have much meaning anymore. There's no physical media to tie the license to.
Sorry.
I'd also like to note that it's not really possible (semiotically or practically) to impose restrictions on the copying of information while simultaneously allowing its use in any way.
(just try to come up with a 100% consistent definition of a practical "no copying" rule -- keep cacheing and related techniques in mind)
It is relatively more practical to achieve some semblance of control over use directly, however, hence the sort of draconian things that the industry is suggesting.
You paid and own a laser-engraved piece of metal and plastic, but how does that make you the owner of its semantic content (at the very least, legally, it doesn't)?
Strictly speaking, these sorts of "protection" schemes don't take that plastic disc away from you, they only limit the manner in which you may interact with certain aspects of its symbolic content.
They aren't stopping you from playing frisbee with it, using it to resurface your roof along with your AOL CDs, or cleaning the toilet with it.
I suspect the goober will probably get smacked down in metamoderation, anyway.
Family situations aside, though, there are a lot of things that we do now (e.g. campfire singalongs) that violate copyright, it's just that there isn't (currently) a good mechanism to enforce it in those circumstances. (except some ASCAP sabre-rattling now and then)
People ignore the inequities in the law because it's not consistently enforced. Technology is changing that.
Really, my only reservation is that I'd like to make sure there are other ways artists can get equitably paid for their work BEFORE the copyright system falls apart.
Slashdot Mirror
You substantially shorten the lifespan of your hardware by powering it on and off regularly.
There are a lot of factors, but thermal expansion/contraction is probably the most obvious.
The problem is that we're paying for licensing the IP (music), not the artist's work (that's work as in labor).
The recording musician, right now, works for free -- they just expect to recoup their losses later on licensing[1].
Musicians are going to have to (just as a matter of economic necessity) start moving towards models like the Street Performer Protocol, and working on comission for income[2].
---
[1] Live performances are another source of income, but see BDR's observations, and note well that not all recording musicians can really perform. (e.g. good segments of electronica)
[2] Visual artists tend to do this already; it's not really that music is unsuited to this approach, it's just that musicians are historically coming from a performance-based model, whereas visual artists (generally) aren't.
If you type at anything more than 60 wpm, it's faster to type, say:
[ESC]:%s/foo/bar/[Enter]
... than it is to navigate most text editor or wordprocessor GUIs (even using only keystrokes) to do the same thing.
(n.b., the [ESC] is supposed to denote one keystroke, making that a total of 14 keystrokes. That's a fixed overhead of 8 keystrokes, and no modifiers.)
...but I work for one of them. And even we have a couple Linux boxen sitting around that I know about (although they're just there in an evaluation capacity, not actually being used for anything).
...it apparently just relies on the same standard class libraries as VB and friends. ugh.
Hopefully we'll get some secondary implementations quickly, so it's harder for Microsoft to it as a rug to yank out from under non-microsoft implementations.
:P
I wish the original poster had mentioned what issues he saw with the language, though. I only gave it a cursory look, it'd be helpful to see a real analysis.
Oh, and I strongly suspect, that whatever Microsoft does, the name of the language WILL end up being pronounced "CASH".
...it should be good enough for everyone!
[ sorry, but if you're going to sign that post like that, it's just begging for that sort of reaction ]
If you don't owe sales tax on it, you (probably) instead owe use/consumption tax on it, apparently.
After a lot of thought, a national sales tax might not be a bad idea. It's certainly less intrusive than income taxes...
Set up an interrupt handler for SIGCHLD that calls wait() or waitpid() to reap the child process.
(and, btw, the SIGIGN thing is not specific to just Linux, it's mentioned in the HP-UX manpages too, and IIRC Solaris as well)
...
A lot of banks will accept checks written on the back of an envelope with magic marker, even, as long as all the requisite information is there.
Now, that being said, if it looks like an OCR-capable check, but it doesn't work in the OCR equipment, I don't know how they'd deal with that.
I SUPPOSE WRITINGTHESE KINDS OF HEURISTICFILTERS IS ASIMILAR CHALLENGE TOWRITING AN R-P-S BOT, AND PERHAPS SUBJECTTO THE SAME KIND OF ONE-UPMANSHIP.
HEURISTICS CAN BENASTY, THOUGH, ASTHEY WILL NEVER DOEXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT. FINE FORA GAME, NOT SO GOOD FORA PUBLIC FORUM.
3212333
222
399
3212333
322321
... damn lameness filter. No caps. Anywhere... did you see caps?
You're not dowloading the actors and movie sets to your computer, are you? no.
Of course not, but you know that, and that's not what you meant anyway. The actor's labor is scarce, the other capital involved is, of course scarce. What we're doing is paying them for their labor, right?
After a fashion. What it basically amounts to is that the production houses provide these movie-making services to the public at a loss, and then trying to make it up by playing toll collector to the resulting information in perpetuity.
i.e. the movies are being made for free (or worse), and then subsidized later. That seems kind of bass-ackwards to me, although it's been the only practical way of doing it for a while.
The thing is, I think particularly as micropayment schemes become more widespread, it's going to become more and more practical to actually pay production houses/groups/what have you _directly_ for the service of making the movie in the first place.
At least movies are an example of where the artists are actually treated somewhat decently. It's certainly not true of the music industry -- you know this big thing about artists being able to eat? There's no way in hell 90% of the signed musicians in the US would be eating if they tried to live on the money they got from their record company.
I'd rather see artists paid for what they do, and how well they do it, rather than expecting them to work for what almost amounts to free.
In the long run, I think systems that don't pay the artist for creating art (and instead indirectly subsidize them by placing onerous restrictions on IP) are wrong, and destined to fail.
That's either the most sane or the most insane thing I've heard all day.
DOM2/3 + SVG + ECMAScript + CSS2 is probably enough to do everything you'd need to recreate most old video games, modulo sound.
And, unlike Shockwave, it's all structured XML/text, so it's not a semantic black hole. (e.g. a search engine could conceivably extract useful information from it)
It's not as if Berlin just pulled this code out of its collective ass -- a good chunk of it is mature work from the Fresco project, of which Berlin is essentially a continuation.
A lot of the Fresco code was 13 years in development. The only relatively immature code in Berlin is the underlying graphics subsystem, the CORBA stuff, a few aspects of layout, and the new event/input model.
So, they're buliding on an existing system, rather than just trying to redo EVERYTHING from scratch.
You're basically just worried about the right of first sale, aren't you?
.. er ... CD, and the licensed information is transmitted digitally, then the aforementioned "right of first sale" really doesn't have much meaning anymore. There's no physical media to tie the license to.
That's not specifically addressed or infringed by these technologies.
It seems to me that the state of affairs that the record companies have brought about is this:
When you buy a CD, you buy that round piece of laser-engraved metal and plastic, and you also buy a license to use its information content. (The latter accounts for most of the price of the CD)
The piece of plastic is your property. The information content is just licenced to you.
That's just how it works now.
In this context, right of first sale just means that the license must be transferred with the CD, and nobody is allowed to prevent that.
Where there IS no spoon
Sorry.
I'd also like to note that it's not really possible (semiotically or practically) to impose restrictions on the copying of information while simultaneously allowing its use in any way.
(just try to come up with a 100% consistent definition of a practical "no copying" rule -- keep cacheing and related techniques in mind)
It is relatively more practical to achieve some semblance of control over use directly, however, hence the sort of draconian things that the industry is suggesting.
You paid and own a laser-engraved piece of metal and plastic, but how does that make you the owner of its semantic content (at the very least, legally, it doesn't)?
Strictly speaking, these sorts of "protection" schemes don't take that plastic disc away from you, they only limit the manner in which you may interact with certain aspects of its symbolic content.
They aren't stopping you from playing frisbee with it, using it to resurface your roof along with your AOL CDs, or cleaning the toilet with it.
your mass would be dropping...
constant thrust = constant acceleration
Most likely in a practical Mars-bound craft it'd be around 1 or 2 Gs for most of the trip.
Sudden weightlessness when the engines cut out and as the ship turns around.
Make sure everyone's holding onto the floor real quick, and kick in the engines again. Back at a constant 1 or 2 Gs.
He wants to liberate grammar-error from its enslavement at the hands of the despotical Slashdot!
You capitalist swine.
...but apparently some people don't.
I suspect the goober will probably get smacked down in metamoderation, anyway.
Family situations aside, though, there are a lot of things that we do now (e.g. campfire singalongs) that violate copyright, it's just that there isn't (currently) a good mechanism to enforce it in those circumstances. (except some ASCAP sabre-rattling now and then)
People ignore the inequities in the law because it's not consistently enforced. Technology is changing that.
Really, my only reservation is that I'd like to make sure there are other ways artists can get equitably paid for their work BEFORE the copyright system falls apart.
You're the one distributing (performing?) the music without a license, not them.
You're right, and quite frankly that scares me.