"As in something that allows the world to see you."
No. As in something that allows the world to see a document that I created which may not actually be about me in any way. Why does the world need to know my home address and home phone number simply because I posted this document online? You, too, have posted online. I can't help but notice that you didn't include your full real name, home address, email address, and telephone number in your post.
"One major complication is that there is a certain probability that you will have to share the jackpot with other winners..."
Another major complication is that you will lose half your winnings in taxes. Yet another major complication is that what you do get to keep will be diminished by the fact that you don't get one giant payout, but smaller payouts over the course of many, many years.
The end result is that no, it's not a good bet. Ever.
"So, buying more tickets in a 50/50 draw does increase your odds of winning, proportional to your investment"
That's assuming no one else does the same.
If I buy one ticket in a draw where only a handful of other people buy tickets, I have a far better chance of winning than if you buy 100 tickets in a draw where thousands of other people also buy tickets.
Basically, it's not how many tickets you buy that matters, it's how few tickets everyone else buys.
Of course, in terms of mathematical expectation, by definition it's still a losing bet no matter how many tickets you buy.
"...people are looking at XP->Vista and XP->Ubuntu and seeing less difference in the amount of effort each change would take than they had previously believed and seriously thinking of giving Vista a miss."
This is a crucial point. I have Vista on my primary laptop at home, and Ubuntu on my secondary workstation, and have used XP extensively until recently. Vista is a huge leap from XP, enough that the leap to Ubuntu doesn't seem so huge in comparision. Add to that the fact that OpenOffice looks more like past versions of Office than the newest version of Office does, and Microsoft should really be rethinking their whole "let's make everything look completely different" strategy.
Being "read" is not a criteria for placing something under copyright. A painting is not "read". Besides that, Windows code is actually "read" all the time. My computer is doing it right now.
Nevertheless, that's all beside the point. You're trying to put things into the categories of "copyrightable" or "patentable" based on fairly arbitrary determinants. What makes much more sense is to categorize them based on what provides the most benefit. Maskin's argument, based on having actually studied the effects of the different types of IP protection on innovation, is that it is of greater benefit to protect software using copyright law than patent law.
"If I've learned anything from recent Presidential elections, changing your opinions due to new information is a sign of weakness. One must make a choice and ride it all the way down."
At the time of this posting, you've been modded +5, Funny. The sad part, though, is that what you say is absolutely true, and not just of American politics. It's certainly true up here in Canada, as well. If a politician sticks to his guns no matter what new information comes out, then they're seen as being decisive. If they change their minds, they're weak, wishy-washy, and clearly not leadership material.
The problem is that people keep equating "bloat" with "memory usage", when in reality "bloat" means (or at least should mean) "unnecessary memory usage".
I don't expect an application to be small. I just expect it to be as small as possible while still being as effective as possible.
Sometimes, it takes a lot of hard drive space and RAM to do all the things an application must do. Really, this shouldn't be an issue in an age where you can get a TB hard drive for under $200. But an application that's loaded with unnecessary, marketing-driven features and consumes more hard drive space and RAM than it should is a truly "bloated" application.
Re:That's all very well...
on
Pimp Your XP
·
· Score: 1
"That may be the real legacy of Windows Vista. It may be the turning point in the way many of us have slavishly lined up for every new technology that came along, just because it was the latest and greatest."
A part of me completely agrees with this, and all of me hopes this is true. But another part of me remembers reading and writing identical comments about Windows XP.
"I have seriously never, ever seen a small plane that didn't have as good or better rear visibility than most cars."
Then you haven't flown a Cherokee or a Warrior, I'll have to assume.:)
I agree with your point, and I was going to make a similar reply to the GP regarding Cessnas (which most pilots start in -- except military, I suppose, which is probably where he's coming from). But lack of rear visibility is not uncommon in small planes, either.
Books and movies may be a more difficult problem, but likely not unsolvable. I can't truly comment on them, since I'm not as familiar with those industries as I am with the music industry. Although it is noteworthy that freely available books (ie. public libraries) have never prevented authors from making a living.
At any rate, although I'm a strong supporter of radical copyright reform, I do agree with you that the elimination of copyright entirely isn't the answer. My reason for responding was primarily to make the point that copyright does not provide the only financial incentive. Without copyright, creative people will still find ways to make a living. Copyright (the way it was originally intended, not the way it's been perverted these days) does have a use, but people clinging to it as "the only way" for authors/composers/whatever to make a living only strengthens arguments in favour of leaving it as it is (or making it worse).
"...but dropping copyright completely gets rid of any ability for people to profit from their works."
I hear this stated in debates on this issue all the time, but it is simply not true. Dropping copyright simply changes the way people profit from their works.
I am a copyright holder (musician/SOCAN member). There are many ways for me to make money off of my music. Selling CDs in only one of those ways. For the most part, I don't concern myself with that method. I'm more interested in simply getting my music out there for people to hear. If they pay me in the process (and many will, whether there is copyright or not), that's great. If they don't, that's great too. Because I can still play shows -- you know, actually work for my money, rather than sitting back and letting the royalties roll in from some work I did years ago, which is essentially the purpose of copyright. I can also sell other merchandise, for example t-shirts. My recorded music is essentially advertising for my main product -- performance of that music.
Copyright, to me, is a "nice to have", definitely not a "must have".
"DRM would go through the roof if copyright were eliminated..."
Actually, DRM is only possible because of copyright. Without copyright, anyone can strip the DRM from a product and resell it. And guess what.... no DRMed product can possibly compete with a non-DRMed product, so DRM would immediately become unprofitable, and therefore disappear.
"One quirk though, even without copyright, there is still only one source in the first instance for the work of a particular artist."
Without copyright, there's only one source for the initial creation of the content, but multiple sources for purchasing it once it's released. The only thing preventing me from being able to legally burn a Madonna CD and sell it to you for cheaper than the official distributor is copyright law.
"...both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom..." (emphasis mine)
Even better. So, again, when businesses act in morally reprehensible ways, it is not the fault of lawmakers for failing to incorporate all morally reprehensible acts into law, it is, according to Friedman, definitely the responsibility of the people making morally reprehensible business decisions, for they are failing to conform to the basic rules of society as embodied in ethical custom.
I'm not trying to reduce Friedman's position to a single sentence. I'm merely arguing that it is not at all acceptable for business people to act in morally reprehensible ways and then hide behind the lame excuse of "but what I did was legal, so blame the lawmakers". And it seems Friedman agrees with me.
Actually, as another poster pointed out, the actual quote makes no mention of "the constraints provided by law", but rather that the business "engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud".
So it is not, as you stated, the fault of lawmakers if a company's action is morally reprehensible or "wrong", unless you think that all morally reprehensible acts can somehow be crammed into the definitions of "deception" and "fraud".
I'm inclined to believe that they are censoring, and the examples given are good ones. However, I'm curious about this (posted by an anonymous poster elsewhere in this thread):
http://images.google.cn/images?svnum=10&hl=zh-CN&l r=&q=tank+man&btnG=
Maybe it just takes a different search to get "the other side" of Falun Gong on google.cn as well.
Any thoughts?
"...it is actually a "levy" (which is defined, of course, as a type of tax)..."
Crucial difference: a tax goes into the public coffers, a levy goes into private pockets. This is part of why the correct term needs to be used. My government is collecting money from me on behalf of private companies which will not benefit the public in any way, in response to a perceived threat to those companies' business model.
Whether it's a tax or a levy, I don't like it, but I'd prefer it if it were a tax.
Everyone has a sense of ethics. That much I can agree with. However, not everyone is willing to sacrifice their own convenience for their ethics. Many people will shop anywhere, and buy anything, even knowing that doing so is directly and avoidably supporting something that goes against their own ethics.
The issue is not whether I agree with their ethics. The issue is whether they're willing to do anything about it, and the fact that we all have to put up with the bullshit that companies pull over us because there simply aren't enough people willing to act on their sense of ethics.
"Not everything you think is a matter of vital importance is of even mild interest for most other people. It's probably good of you to care, but don't be pissed off if you are the only one."
Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you're saying here. I personally don't even know what the fuck Lik-Sang is, and I certainly won't boycott Sony because of this. I'd be more inclined to boycott them for all kinds of other reasons (rootkit, for one).
Nobody expects you to jump on everyone else's "pet cause". The real way to not be a sheep is to choose your own pet causes, and then to act on them. But you have to recognize that the reason that all these "pet causes" exist in the first place is because companies can get away with pretty much anything they want because people (sheep) let them.
Consumers get fucked by companies because consumers let companies fuck them. Those consumers who try to change this reality are understandably annoyed with those who allow it.
Actually, based on your post, I'd be inclined to say that you're not a sheep. That's kind of what my previous post was about. It appears that, at least to some extent, you try. That's all that anyone can really ask. Nobody can reasonably expect you to be aware of everything and react to everything accordingly. Just try. That's all.
The people who piss me off, and who I refer to as "sheep", are the ones who simply don't give a fuck. And the reason they piss me off is because they are the problem. You said that you try to avoid Sony products since the rootkit scandal. That's awesome. But the whole reason Sony can get away with shit like that (and likely will again in the future) is because most people (sheep) don't care, and refuse to do anything about it. And that pisses me off.
Slashdot Mirror
"As in something that allows the world to see you."
No. As in something that allows the world to see a document that I created which may not actually be about me in any way. Why does the world need to know my home address and home phone number simply because I posted this document online? You, too, have posted online. I can't help but notice that you didn't include your full real name, home address, email address, and telephone number in your post.
"One major complication is that there is a certain probability that you will have to share the jackpot with other winners..."
Another major complication is that you will lose half your winnings in taxes. Yet another major complication is that what you do get to keep will be diminished by the fact that you don't get one giant payout, but smaller payouts over the course of many, many years.
The end result is that no, it's not a good bet. Ever.
"So, buying more tickets in a 50/50 draw does increase your odds of winning, proportional to your investment"
That's assuming no one else does the same.
If I buy one ticket in a draw where only a handful of other people buy tickets, I have a far better chance of winning than if you buy 100 tickets in a draw where thousands of other people also buy tickets.
Basically, it's not how many tickets you buy that matters, it's how few tickets everyone else buys.
Of course, in terms of mathematical expectation, by definition it's still a losing bet no matter how many tickets you buy.
"Something about SoCal punk seems to crank out geeks."
And it's been that way for a while it seems. Let's not forget Milo Aukerman.
"...people are looking at XP->Vista and XP->Ubuntu and seeing less difference in the amount of effort each change would take than they had previously believed and seriously thinking of giving Vista a miss."
This is a crucial point. I have Vista on my primary laptop at home, and Ubuntu on my secondary workstation, and have used XP extensively until recently. Vista is a huge leap from XP, enough that the leap to Ubuntu doesn't seem so huge in comparision. Add to that the fact that OpenOffice looks more like past versions of Office than the newest version of Office does, and Microsoft should really be rethinking their whole "let's make everything look completely different" strategy.
It's not really a nerd culture kind of thing, but I always prefer the Johnny Dangerously brand of swearing.
"You fargin' icehole!"
"That corksucking sumnabatch!"
Being "read" is not a criteria for placing something under copyright. A painting is not "read". Besides that, Windows code is actually "read" all the time. My computer is doing it right now.
Nevertheless, that's all beside the point. You're trying to put things into the categories of "copyrightable" or "patentable" based on fairly arbitrary determinants. What makes much more sense is to categorize them based on what provides the most benefit. Maskin's argument, based on having actually studied the effects of the different types of IP protection on innovation, is that it is of greater benefit to protect software using copyright law than patent law.
"If I've learned anything from recent Presidential elections, changing your opinions due to new information is a sign of weakness. One must make a choice and ride it all the way down."
At the time of this posting, you've been modded +5, Funny. The sad part, though, is that what you say is absolutely true, and not just of American politics. It's certainly true up here in Canada, as well. If a politician sticks to his guns no matter what new information comes out, then they're seen as being decisive. If they change their minds, they're weak, wishy-washy, and clearly not leadership material.
Voters are, by and large, stupid.
The problem is that people keep equating "bloat" with "memory usage", when in reality "bloat" means (or at least should mean) "unnecessary memory usage".
I don't expect an application to be small. I just expect it to be as small as possible while still being as effective as possible.
Sometimes, it takes a lot of hard drive space and RAM to do all the things an application must do. Really, this shouldn't be an issue in an age where you can get a TB hard drive for under $200. But an application that's loaded with unnecessary, marketing-driven features and consumes more hard drive space and RAM than it should is a truly "bloated" application.
"That may be the real legacy of Windows Vista. It may be the turning point in the way many of us have slavishly lined up for every new technology that came along, just because it was the latest and greatest."
A part of me completely agrees with this, and all of me hopes this is true. But another part of me remembers reading and writing identical comments about Windows XP.
Your post has been moderated +5, Insightful. This would be an example of the moderation system working.
"I have seriously never, ever seen a small plane that didn't have as good or better rear visibility than most cars."
Then you haven't flown a Cherokee or a Warrior, I'll have to assume. :)
I agree with your point, and I was going to make a similar reply to the GP regarding Cessnas (which most pilots start in -- except military, I suppose, which is probably where he's coming from). But lack of rear visibility is not uncommon in small planes, either.
Books and movies may be a more difficult problem, but likely not unsolvable. I can't truly comment on them, since I'm not as familiar with those industries as I am with the music industry. Although it is noteworthy that freely available books (ie. public libraries) have never prevented authors from making a living.
At any rate, although I'm a strong supporter of radical copyright reform, I do agree with you that the elimination of copyright entirely isn't the answer. My reason for responding was primarily to make the point that copyright does not provide the only financial incentive. Without copyright, creative people will still find ways to make a living. Copyright (the way it was originally intended, not the way it's been perverted these days) does have a use, but people clinging to it as "the only way" for authors/composers/whatever to make a living only strengthens arguments in favour of leaving it as it is (or making it worse).
"...but dropping copyright completely gets rid of any ability for people to profit from their works."
I hear this stated in debates on this issue all the time, but it is simply not true. Dropping copyright simply changes the way people profit from their works.
I am a copyright holder (musician/SOCAN member). There are many ways for me to make money off of my music. Selling CDs in only one of those ways. For the most part, I don't concern myself with that method. I'm more interested in simply getting my music out there for people to hear. If they pay me in the process (and many will, whether there is copyright or not), that's great. If they don't, that's great too. Because I can still play shows -- you know, actually work for my money, rather than sitting back and letting the royalties roll in from some work I did years ago, which is essentially the purpose of copyright. I can also sell other merchandise, for example t-shirts. My recorded music is essentially advertising for my main product -- performance of that music.
Copyright, to me, is a "nice to have", definitely not a "must have".
"DRM would go through the roof if copyright were eliminated..."
Actually, DRM is only possible because of copyright. Without copyright, anyone can strip the DRM from a product and resell it. And guess what.... no DRMed product can possibly compete with a non-DRMed product, so DRM would immediately become unprofitable, and therefore disappear.
...and how much longer until he gets there?
"One quirk though, even without copyright, there is still only one source in the first instance for the work of a particular artist."
Without copyright, there's only one source for the initial creation of the content, but multiple sources for purchasing it once it's released. The only thing preventing me from being able to legally burn a Madonna CD and sell it to you for cheaper than the official distributor is copyright law.
"2. Unfortunately, the RIAA's monopoly on distribution is ending. The internet is now a better way to distribute music."
I think you misspelled "finally".
"...both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom..." (emphasis mine)
Even better. So, again, when businesses act in morally reprehensible ways, it is not the fault of lawmakers for failing to incorporate all morally reprehensible acts into law, it is, according to Friedman, definitely the responsibility of the people making morally reprehensible business decisions, for they are failing to conform to the basic rules of society as embodied in ethical custom.
I'm not trying to reduce Friedman's position to a single sentence. I'm merely arguing that it is not at all acceptable for business people to act in morally reprehensible ways and then hide behind the lame excuse of "but what I did was legal, so blame the lawmakers". And it seems Friedman agrees with me.
Actually, as another poster pointed out, the actual quote makes no mention of "the constraints provided by law", but rather that the business "engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud".
So it is not, as you stated, the fault of lawmakers if a company's action is morally reprehensible or "wrong", unless you think that all morally reprehensible acts can somehow be crammed into the definitions of "deception" and "fraud".
I read your post and thought, that's an awesome idea! So I wrote one. In 5 minutes. Here it is: http://ldd.lego.com/download/
Oh yeah, and I bought the lego.com domain name to make it look "official". Really, I wrote it. Just for you! :)
I'm inclined to believe that they are censoring, and the examples given are good ones. However, I'm curious about this (posted by an anonymous poster elsewhere in this thread): http://images.google.cn/images?svnum=10&hl=zh-CN&l r=&q=tank+man&btnG=
Maybe it just takes a different search to get "the other side" of Falun Gong on google.cn as well.
Any thoughts?
"...it is actually a "levy" (which is defined, of course, as a type of tax)..."
Crucial difference: a tax goes into the public coffers, a levy goes into private pockets. This is part of why the correct term needs to be used. My government is collecting money from me on behalf of private companies which will not benefit the public in any way, in response to a perceived threat to those companies' business model.
Whether it's a tax or a levy, I don't like it, but I'd prefer it if it were a tax.
"Everybody tries, though. That's right, everybody"
Bullshit.
Everyone has a sense of ethics. That much I can agree with. However, not everyone is willing to sacrifice their own convenience for their ethics. Many people will shop anywhere, and buy anything, even knowing that doing so is directly and avoidably supporting something that goes against their own ethics.
The issue is not whether I agree with their ethics. The issue is whether they're willing to do anything about it, and the fact that we all have to put up with the bullshit that companies pull over us because there simply aren't enough people willing to act on their sense of ethics.
"Not everything you think is a matter of vital importance is of even mild interest for most other people. It's probably good of you to care, but don't be pissed off if you are the only one."
Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you're saying here. I personally don't even know what the fuck Lik-Sang is, and I certainly won't boycott Sony because of this. I'd be more inclined to boycott them for all kinds of other reasons (rootkit, for one).
Nobody expects you to jump on everyone else's "pet cause". The real way to not be a sheep is to choose your own pet causes, and then to act on them. But you have to recognize that the reason that all these "pet causes" exist in the first place is because companies can get away with pretty much anything they want because people (sheep) let them.
Consumers get fucked by companies because consumers let companies fuck them. Those consumers who try to change this reality are understandably annoyed with those who allow it.
"If that makes me a sheep, so be it."
Actually, based on your post, I'd be inclined to say that you're not a sheep. That's kind of what my previous post was about. It appears that, at least to some extent, you try. That's all that anyone can really ask. Nobody can reasonably expect you to be aware of everything and react to everything accordingly. Just try. That's all.
The people who piss me off, and who I refer to as "sheep", are the ones who simply don't give a fuck. And the reason they piss me off is because they are the problem. You said that you try to avoid Sony products since the rootkit scandal. That's awesome. But the whole reason Sony can get away with shit like that (and likely will again in the future) is because most people (sheep) don't care, and refuse to do anything about it. And that pisses me off.