So if it's good for them, why are they not flocking to those fields? Why is it you who gets to decide what's best for women (the tradeoff of higher salary, for working in a field you don't enjoy) instead of them making that decision for themselves? Or are you saying there's some sort of problem women have where they can't make rational choices, and need to be enticed towards them instead?
Yes, because there's absolutely no way around this problem. Uh-uh, no way. Just give up and buy some bonds. You should love the money more than whatever it is you were backing anyway.
Pretty much what you said - there's no way to guarantee people will use the funds for the purpose you've donated them for.
I was talking about a Kickstarter-type model ages ago on my blog, and I pretty much got it all right with Kickstarter except for one thing: I said that a crowdfunding system would have to essentially operate a trust, that released funds as certain project milestones were released, or on receipt of invoices, etc.
Obviously, Kickstarter managed to operate without such a mechanism, but I think it's definitely needed if the crowdfunding concept is going to grow. Maybe not for all projects, but ones that reach a certain amount of capitalisation, certainly.
That was sort of what I was talking about. They'll take any activity, and find some way to work an explosion into it, regardless of the scientific necessity.
No, just create a "People That Suck" group, set your default privacy policy to exclude that group, and add your employer to that group. To your employer, it'll just look like you never use Facebook.
Yes. They will test out which paper plane travels the furthest by considering a number of different launch techniques, one of which will inevitable be being propelled by the force of an explosion.
Yeah, been there. Luckily enough, the guys that tried it with us were incompetent, and we could filter their attack because of it, but always on the lookout in case the next ones that try it are a bit smarter.
As to your "ten years", iirc I started on my Paxil Diaries book almost ten years ago.
Who cares when you started it - when did you publish it? The current copyright countdown (such as it is) doesn't begin until the first publication.
It was published by Gnome Press, a tiny publisher without the clout to properly market it
So why should we be extending a government-enforced monopoly to support lousy publishers that can't market their books properly? As the parent poster said, if they can't make money off of it in 10 years, they should go out of business. And authors should be aware of the risks of giving their material to tiny publishers with no clout. Copyright shouldn't be used to protect authors from bad decisions.
BTW It's on TPB, I put it there myself.
Well, obviously you're not planning on making millions off it, if you're giving it away for free. No amount of copyright protection would be likely to increase that works' chances of profitability.
I have no idea what kind of justification can be given to this, other than "we are Christian country!!!".
I don't know about in the US, but here in Australia, churches are in the exact same tax exempt category as stuff like your local football club or knitting circle. That is, a group of tax-payers pooling their funds for a non-commercial common interest don't get taxed twice (once on earning it, once on contributing to the pool).
Churches that engage in commercial activity (the Anglican church owns a lot of land, and has a lot of rental income) pay taxes on that commercial activity - but not on donations from its members.
I don't know about to emphasize Jesus' divinity, but every time you see LORD in small-caps in your Bible, it's replacing the tetragrammaton, which is used as a placeholder for the name of God, due to the Jews attempting to remove any possibility of violating the third commandment.
I think it's more a case of how important the actors are. Stars get gross deals, people still trying to make it big get peanuts, but take it anyway in hopes of that big break.
You have the freedom to download it from anywhere.
If you want the official version, you download it from official sources. Additionally, they usually publish hashes to verify integrity, which you can compare against if you like. Demanding the developers verify that any third party offering the software is offering it unmodified is a violation of their freedoms.
Because he's trolling. The OP asked if it was including apps sold in the Google marketplace, which is a fair enough point. The parent responds by disparaging the idea that you can use "sold" to describe apps in the Android Marketplace.
Yes, there's a lot of freeware (or adware) there, but there's plenty of for-dollars apps too - even if they don't dominate the place as much as they do on Apple's App Store.
As for potential choices, you left out the entire quadrant of the graph where we have a social safety net but no nanny.
Because it doesn't exist anywhere but on a graph. As the government pays for your lifestyle, it becomes more and more controlling over what your lifestyle is. When it pays for health care, see how long it takes people to start complaining about how overweight people, smokers, or drinkers of alcohol taking "more than their share" - and how the government will reward "correct" lifestyle choices. When it pays for schooling, see how long kids at the extremes of the intelligence curve are supported due to having greater requirements than "normal" kids and the necessity for "equality".
When you ask a government to financially support your lifestyle, you give de facto control of your lifestyle over to your government,
Kikstarter lets people who already have a name get funding for their pet project.
How does that contradict the premise of the original question? Yeah, you need to have a name to get top-dollar funding. Unknowns will get some, but not as much as people who have a proven track record. This is a good thing, as maintaining that record is the only incentive that keeps people from doing a run with the money, or producing crap. (Personally, I think Kickstarter funds over a certain amount should be held in escrow, and released as specified milestones are achieved).
That doesn't mean that Kickstarter isn't going to give games that otherwise would never have been made a chance. It doesn't mean that these games will be consumer-oriented rather than publisher-oriented. It doesn't mean that cutting out the middle-man isn't going to cut development times significantly. It doesn't mean that it won't provide a way for niche genres to get funding.
If Kickstarter accomplishes even some of those things, then I think it would qualify as a renaissance in gaming.
Actually, Google just needs to sell one Android phone to make a profit. They only need to sell 288 times as many Android phones to make as much profit per phone as Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
So if it's good for them, why are they not flocking to those fields? Why is it you who gets to decide what's best for women (the tradeoff of higher salary, for working in a field you don't enjoy) instead of them making that decision for themselves? Or are you saying there's some sort of problem women have where they can't make rational choices, and need to be enticed towards them instead?
Yes, because there's absolutely no way around this problem. Uh-uh, no way. Just give up and buy some bonds. You should love the money more than whatever it is you were backing anyway.
Pretty much what you said - there's no way to guarantee people will use the funds for the purpose you've donated them for.
I was talking about a Kickstarter-type model ages ago on my blog, and I pretty much got it all right with Kickstarter except for one thing: I said that a crowdfunding system would have to essentially operate a trust, that released funds as certain project milestones were released, or on receipt of invoices, etc.
Obviously, Kickstarter managed to operate without such a mechanism, but I think it's definitely needed if the crowdfunding concept is going to grow. Maybe not for all projects, but ones that reach a certain amount of capitalisation, certainly.
That was sort of what I was talking about. They'll take any activity, and find some way to work an explosion into it, regardless of the scientific necessity.
No, just create a "People That Suck" group, set your default privacy policy to exclude that group, and add your employer to that group. To your employer, it'll just look like you never use Facebook.
The left wants to piss it away on people who are "disadvantaged" and the right wants to siphon it off to military contractors.
FTFY
Yes. They will test out which paper plane travels the furthest by considering a number of different launch techniques, one of which will inevitable be being propelled by the force of an explosion.
Except the parent was saying arguing semantics is stupid and counter-productive when it comes to actually communicating.
Declaring his point as "moot" when you don't understand his point is also stupid and counter-productive, BTW.
I moved to KDE Mint 12 when I upgraded away from the last pre-Unity Ubuntu LTS. It's been running fine for me, but my needs are modest.
Yeah, been there. Luckily enough, the guys that tried it with us were incompetent, and we could filter their attack because of it, but always on the lookout in case the next ones that try it are a bit smarter.
What was the name of the service you used?
As to your "ten years", iirc I started on my Paxil Diaries book almost ten years ago.
Who cares when you started it - when did you publish it? The current copyright countdown (such as it is) doesn't begin until the first publication.
It was published by Gnome Press, a tiny publisher without the clout to properly market it
So why should we be extending a government-enforced monopoly to support lousy publishers that can't market their books properly? As the parent poster said, if they can't make money off of it in 10 years, they should go out of business. And authors should be aware of the risks of giving their material to tiny publishers with no clout. Copyright shouldn't be used to protect authors from bad decisions.
BTW It's on TPB, I put it there myself.
Well, obviously you're not planning on making millions off it, if you're giving it away for free. No amount of copyright protection would be likely to increase that works' chances of profitability.
I have no idea what kind of justification can be given to this, other than "we are Christian country!!!".
I don't know about in the US, but here in Australia, churches are in the exact same tax exempt category as stuff like your local football club or knitting circle. That is, a group of tax-payers pooling their funds for a non-commercial common interest don't get taxed twice (once on earning it, once on contributing to the pool).
Churches that engage in commercial activity (the Anglican church owns a lot of land, and has a lot of rental income) pay taxes on that commercial activity - but not on donations from its members.
I don't know about to emphasize Jesus' divinity, but every time you see LORD in small-caps in your Bible, it's replacing the tetragrammaton, which is used as a placeholder for the name of God, due to the Jews attempting to remove any possibility of violating the third commandment.
I think it's more a case of how important the actors are. Stars get gross deals, people still trying to make it big get peanuts, but take it anyway in hopes of that big break.
This article has a good summary.
And nothing to give to the actors who were promised a share of the net.
Stupid
You have the freedom to download it from anywhere.
If you want the official version, you download it from official sources. Additionally, they usually publish hashes to verify integrity, which you can compare against if you like. Demanding the developers verify that any third party offering the software is offering it unmodified is a violation of their freedoms.
Yes, because downloading it for free from an official repository is somehow limiting your freedom...
Because he's trolling. The OP asked if it was including apps sold in the Google marketplace, which is a fair enough point. The parent responds by disparaging the idea that you can use "sold" to describe apps in the Android Marketplace.
Yes, there's a lot of freeware (or adware) there, but there's plenty of for-dollars apps too - even if they don't dominate the place as much as they do on Apple's App Store.
Yes it is. Yes they do.
As for potential choices, you left out the entire quadrant of the graph where we have a social safety net but no nanny.
Because it doesn't exist anywhere but on a graph. As the government pays for your lifestyle, it becomes more and more controlling over what your lifestyle is. When it pays for health care, see how long it takes people to start complaining about how overweight people, smokers, or drinkers of alcohol taking "more than their share" - and how the government will reward "correct" lifestyle choices. When it pays for schooling, see how long kids at the extremes of the intelligence curve are supported due to having greater requirements than "normal" kids and the necessity for "equality".
When you ask a government to financially support your lifestyle, you give de facto control of your lifestyle over to your government,
It is Google's phone. Google do sell it. They just don't manufacture it.
Kikstarter lets people who already have a name get funding for their pet project.
How does that contradict the premise of the original question? Yeah, you need to have a name to get top-dollar funding. Unknowns will get some, but not as much as people who have a proven track record. This is a good thing, as maintaining that record is the only incentive that keeps people from doing a run with the money, or producing crap. (Personally, I think Kickstarter funds over a certain amount should be held in escrow, and released as specified milestones are achieved).
That doesn't mean that Kickstarter isn't going to give games that otherwise would never have been made a chance. It doesn't mean that these games will be consumer-oriented rather than publisher-oriented. It doesn't mean that cutting out the middle-man isn't going to cut development times significantly. It doesn't mean that it won't provide a way for niche genres to get funding.
If Kickstarter accomplishes even some of those things, then I think it would qualify as a renaissance in gaming.
Actually, Google just needs to sell one Android phone to make a profit.
They only need to sell 288 times as many Android phones to make as much profit per phone as Apple.