Ummm... they have hd+color now, and get 15 hours. Mostly by running the drive and loading a bunch of music into RAM, then shutting the drive down while they play from RAM. No reason the same trick couldn't be played with video.
IIRC, the key to most antipoisoning systems lies in eliminating the source of the bad data. If your IP address starts feeding me bad data, then I start ignoring it, thus no bad data is transferred.
The comparison isn't analogous. A closer one would be you singing your own version of, say, the latest B. Spears song at a family gathering. However, you'd be in trouble the second you recorded your version and attempted to distribute it, as in all likelyhood the musical arrangements and lyrics are also under copyright.
The fact remains that that song is hers, not yours, and you do not have the rights, or her permission, to distribute her work. The fact you don't profit from that distribution doesn't matter.
Did you like Serenity? Yes, it was Joss Whedon's work of art... and it also cost $40 million dollars to make.
How about the $300 million New Line invested in LOTR?
Do you think the people who invested that money would have done so if they knew they couldn't get it back? That there was no way to profit from the investment?
Are we better served having the most brilliant artists of our time actually producing art, or spending their days running around searching for patrons and begging for scraps, as was done in the dark ages?
That's stupid. By that "logic", you should also port scan and try every known buffer overflow exploit. How about sending them a few worms and trojans?
If you don't trust a vendor enough to give him a credit card number, then send a money order or quit trying to save twenty-nine cents and buy from Amazon.
Just from a devil's advocate viewpoint... but you seem to be making a rather large assumption of guilt. Personally, I have no proof one way or another that they are, or are not, already doing what you suggest. Do you?
There you go. Then there's nothing that needs to be changed. Just visualize the.com domain as a big paid yellow-page entry. You don't have to buy a listing...
"Yes, but you can build a more or less accurate encyclopedia built on the premise that most people's contributions are valuable."
Only if you accept the premise that most people's contributions are valuable. Wiki is an interesting place to see the current populist thinking on a subject, but any opinions offered should be taken with a large grain of salt, and any "facts" presented need to be double-and-or-triple checked.
"Bottomline - nice try, HBO, but you are just wasting everyone's time and bandwidth, including yours."
Non sequiter. If systems have anti-poisoning mechanisms that prevent this, then no one's time or bandwidth is being wasted, as no one is downloading "bad" data.
A ton of technology was developed to get into space, and none of it would have happened had we not made that investment. I also burn when I hear that we "spent money on space". Sorry, but we spent money here, on earth, on the people who made it happen.
I (authors, artists, etc.) do not exist solely to benefit some non-tangible concept of "society". I'm also here to provide for myself and my family, to make their lives better, and to do the same, but to an increasing lesser degree, for my friends, my neighbors, my community, and so on. And I'm most certainly not here just to "serve" you.
As such, I'm not sure how you can tell me that getting paid by writing a successful book is "wasteful". Surely not all books have equal value? So why is there some implied "ceiling", beyond which I'm not entitled to my success? Should we, in addition to a minimum wage, set a maximum wage? Should we say that you, born to be a ditchdigger (grin), should never make more than $12/hour?
Personally, your arguments strike me as equal parts envy and jealousy: "How dare society consider those people as being better than I am. How dare the world reward them for their efforts and ideas and abilities, and ignore mine."
And the bottom line still seems to be that you think society (you) should get something for nothing (or next to nothing). Bread and circuses all around.
If you don't think you, or anyone else, should pay for value received, then we have little to discuss.
OTOH, according to them, they're getting none of those benefits now.
In a sense, many of the potential benefits of open source are just that, "potential" benefits.
People say that the code is more secure if more people look at it, and better if improved and patched... but that assumes that other people do look at it, do make improvements, do fix bugs, and do return those improvements.
But the fact remains there are a lot of open source projects and a finite number of people with the time and the ability to perform those actions...
I'm SURE that if you SHOUT just a little MORE I'll be CONVINCED.
Just a clarification. The disc you bought is your property, true. The music or movie that resides on it, however, is not. So, yes, you should be able to back it up or excerpt it (fair use). You can not, however, redistribute the content on that disc. (piracy)
And yes, in an ideal world, we would not need, nor want, DRM. Unfortunately, we don't seem to live in that world, and as such I'm afraid we still need locks on our homes, cars, music, and movies.
Yes, but the minor issue here is that without the content I produced, you, with nothing to say, would have nothing to sell. That being the case, I fail to see why you, who has done nothing at all, should be allowed to profit from my labor, and I should not.
"Authors should get nothing..."
Sounds nice and utopian, except that it ignores reality. The facts remains that creative works take time, knowledge, skill, effort, and dollars to produce. During the process I have to buy food, pay rent and make car and insurance payments, and so on. I have to repay education loans that allowed me to get to the point where I could write the book. None of these things are free. They have to be paid for.
So, should I make the investment, the current system gives me the potential to benefit from it. Notice the words "invest" and "potential" in the prior sentence. Creation of a book, music, movie, or program entails risk. I'm making an investment in it, because I think it's going to be worth it. The market may agreee... or disagree. In which case I get nothing. If the market likes it, I may make a little money. If they love it...
Such incentive drives us. And we, as a whole, as a society, benefit from those efforts.
And I'm sorry, but I have a lot more respect for the author, singer, songwriter, developer, director, or actor who takes those risks and who creates something from nothing, than I have for the parasite who assumes they're automatically entitled to the results.
Actually, why shouldn't each country take charge of it's own DNS and network? If France wants to manage wine.com.fr or language.org.fr, then let them. Just tell the rest of the world where to go when someone wants something from ".fr", and build your internal infrastructure around your own TLD.
Since.com was supposed to be a commerce TLD anyway, let ICANN manage it, and continue to charge anyone who wants to "advertise" in that space.
Twisted words. If I write a book on PHP, then the law basically says that I'm entitled to any potential gain in exchange for the effort (time, dollars, knowledge) made to produce it. I don't have a monopoly on books, nor do I have a monopoly on books on PHP. I (or my assigns), however, AM the only source for books written on PHP by me, just as you, for example, might be the only source for custom motorcycles built by you. I can't just start building "kangarooski's".
Yes, copyright is "artificial", but it's an attempt by an enlightened society to recognize that we're better off providing incentives for people to create. If everything is stolen the second it's produced, simply because distribution costs are zero, then there's actually a negative incentive to create those items, especially since creation costs are definitely not zero.
And said law may be artificial, but then again, so are those recognizing "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". My pursuit of happiness, however, is held in check when it comes in contact with yours. I'd happily punch you out, but the law says that doing so would probably make you unhappy, so I can't. A balance ensuses.
Same with copyright. A balance needs to be maintained between creators and consumers, and the rights and needs of both sides need to be respected.
Constraints and validation are one thing, but IMHO it's NOT "very desirable to have everything [sic] in a stored procedure".
Placing extensive amounts of business logic in SPs can lead to fractured code bases and schizophrenic systems, vendor lock-in, reduced scalability, extremely difficult debugging, and porting/cross-platform problems.
If performance is so critical that SPs can make or break a system, then you should probably consider changing the architecture by adding application tiers.
How many people travel, and would like a video player, but don't want yet another device/charger in addition to their notebook, mp3 player, and cell phone? (ME!)
How many people work jobs where nothing is happening at two in the morning and you're stuck there? How many people commute and ride subways, trains, buses, or ferries to work each day? How many people wait in lobbies for appointments? How many parents wait for kids to get done with soccer practice? How many would those same parents buy so their kids won't drive them crazy on trips?
Probably depends on whether or not your computer is close to your TV, or if you want to buy yet another computer just for that purpose. And if you're on DSL, is that line near the TV, or is it in your bedroom/den/office?
One can "imagine" any number of silly fantasies, I suppose. Modern plants, however, have containment facilities designed to contain and prevent scenarios such as you describe.
For a "smart guy", you seem incredibly clueless regarding pricing. In the first place, "costs" have little or nothing to do with it. It simply provides a floor under which you'd make no money. And when was the last time you got a steak dinner at a restaurant at cost?
Second, for any given artist, you have no idea what the production "costs" might be, what royalties might be, what prepaid advances/fees/bonuses need to be recouped, and so on. And CD prices have actually declined since introduction, unlike gas, food, cars, and housing over the same period.
Third, online music (via iTunes let's say) is already cheaper than the physical album. But why, if you were producing your own music, would you dramatically undercut your own prices? How happy do you think it would make your other distributors?
Fourth, it's easy for someone to drastically reduce prices when they don't have to pay for the material. I'd probably make a lot of money selling stuff for half the market value... when you consider I stole all of it from your home. Why aren't you ranting at allofmp3? That ten cent price is equally "arbitrary", and probably 90% pure profit to boot...
Probably should check your facts. mySQL 4.1, the current production version, has had subqueries for some time now. Version 5, which is now at release candidate stage, has SPs and views.
That's a 40% increase over the prior period, which isn't bad... but one also has to consider where those numbers are coming from.
IIRC, it's entirely possible the vast majority of that increase is coming from Linux installed on cheap Chineese desktops, as more and more people in that country get computers and get online. As such, even with the increase it could still be a smaller percentage of a larger pie.
"The Western military mindset is to take and hold territory."
Yeah, because that worked SO well in Vietanm. "Gentlemen, we need to take and hold this hill so we can setup an outpost." 'Course, the enemy pretty much had free reign all AROUND the hill, and "holding" the hill pretty much just concentrated the enemies targets all in one place.
In the modern Army the focus seems to be more on targeting C&C centers coupled with enemy force reduction.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm... they have hd+color now, and get 15 hours. Mostly by running the drive and loading a bunch of music into RAM, then shutting the drive down while they play from RAM. No reason the same trick couldn't be played with video.
Keeping in mind, of course, that they already have a rather significant patent on PageRank...
IIRC, the key to most antipoisoning systems lies in eliminating the source of the bad data. If your IP address starts feeding me bad data, then I start ignoring it, thus no bad data is transferred.
The fact remains that that song is hers, not yours, and you do not have the rights, or her permission, to distribute her work. The fact you don't profit from that distribution doesn't matter.
How about the $300 million New Line invested in LOTR?
Do you think the people who invested that money would have done so if they knew they couldn't get it back? That there was no way to profit from the investment?
Are we better served having the most brilliant artists of our time actually producing art, or spending their days running around searching for patrons and begging for scraps, as was done in the dark ages?
If you don't trust a vendor enough to give him a credit card number, then send a money order or quit trying to save twenty-nine cents and buy from Amazon.
Just from a devil's advocate viewpoint... but you seem to be making a rather large assumption of guilt. Personally, I have no proof one way or another that they are, or are not, already doing what you suggest. Do you?
There you go. Then there's nothing that needs to be changed. Just visualize the .com domain as a big paid yellow-page entry. You don't have to buy a listing...
Only if you accept the premise that most people's contributions are valuable. Wiki is an interesting place to see the current populist thinking on a subject, but any opinions offered should be taken with a large grain of salt, and any "facts" presented need to be double-and-or-triple checked.
Non sequiter. If systems have anti-poisoning mechanisms that prevent this, then no one's time or bandwidth is being wasted, as no one is downloading "bad" data.
A ton of technology was developed to get into space, and none of it would have happened had we not made that investment. I also burn when I hear that we "spent money on space". Sorry, but we spent money here, on earth, on the people who made it happen.
As such, I'm not sure how you can tell me that getting paid by writing a successful book is "wasteful". Surely not all books have equal value? So why is there some implied "ceiling", beyond which I'm not entitled to my success? Should we, in addition to a minimum wage, set a maximum wage? Should we say that you, born to be a ditchdigger (grin), should never make more than $12/hour?
Personally, your arguments strike me as equal parts envy and jealousy: "How dare society consider those people as being better than I am. How dare the world reward them for their efforts and ideas and abilities, and ignore mine."
And the bottom line still seems to be that you think society (you) should get something for nothing (or next to nothing). Bread and circuses all around.
If you don't think you, or anyone else, should pay for value received, then we have little to discuss.
In a sense, many of the potential benefits of open source are just that, "potential" benefits. People say that the code is more secure if more people look at it, and better if improved and patched... but that assumes that other people do look at it, do make improvements, do fix bugs, and do return those improvements.
But the fact remains there are a lot of open source projects and a finite number of people with the time and the ability to perform those actions...
Just a clarification. The disc you bought is your property, true. The music or movie that resides on it, however, is not. So, yes, you should be able to back it up or excerpt it (fair use). You can not, however, redistribute the content on that disc. (piracy)
And yes, in an ideal world, we would not need, nor want, DRM. Unfortunately, we don't seem to live in that world, and as such I'm afraid we still need locks on our homes, cars, music, and movies.
I'll look into the DMCRA.
Yes, but the minor issue here is that without the content I produced, you, with nothing to say, would have nothing to sell. That being the case, I fail to see why you, who has done nothing at all, should be allowed to profit from my labor, and I should not.
"Authors should get nothing..."
Sounds nice and utopian, except that it ignores reality. The facts remains that creative works take time, knowledge, skill, effort, and dollars to produce. During the process I have to buy food, pay rent and make car and insurance payments, and so on. I have to repay education loans that allowed me to get to the point where I could write the book. None of these things are free. They have to be paid for.
So, should I make the investment, the current system gives me the potential to benefit from it. Notice the words "invest" and "potential" in the prior sentence. Creation of a book, music, movie, or program entails risk. I'm making an investment in it, because I think it's going to be worth it. The market may agreee... or disagree. In which case I get nothing. If the market likes it, I may make a little money. If they love it...
Such incentive drives us. And we, as a whole, as a society, benefit from those efforts.
And I'm sorry, but I have a lot more respect for the author, singer, songwriter, developer, director, or actor who takes those risks and who creates something from nothing, than I have for the parasite who assumes they're automatically entitled to the results.
Since .com was supposed to be a commerce TLD anyway, let ICANN manage it, and continue to charge anyone who wants to "advertise" in that space.
Yes, copyright is "artificial", but it's an attempt by an enlightened society to recognize that we're better off providing incentives for people to create. If everything is stolen the second it's produced, simply because distribution costs are zero, then there's actually a negative incentive to create those items, especially since creation costs are definitely not zero.
And said law may be artificial, but then again, so are those recognizing "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". My pursuit of happiness, however, is held in check when it comes in contact with yours. I'd happily punch you out, but the law says that doing so would probably make you unhappy, so I can't. A balance ensuses.
Same with copyright. A balance needs to be maintained between creators and consumers, and the rights and needs of both sides need to be respected.
Placing extensive amounts of business logic in SPs can lead to fractured code bases and schizophrenic systems, vendor lock-in, reduced scalability, extremely difficult debugging, and porting/cross-platform problems.
If performance is so critical that SPs can make or break a system, then you should probably consider changing the architecture by adding application tiers.
How many people work jobs where nothing is happening at two in the morning and you're stuck there? How many people commute and ride subways, trains, buses, or ferries to work each day? How many people wait in lobbies for appointments? How many parents wait for kids to get done with soccer practice? How many would those same parents buy so their kids won't drive them crazy on trips?
There's a HUGE market out there...
Probably depends on whether or not your computer is close to your TV, or if you want to buy yet another computer just for that purpose. And if you're on DSL, is that line near the TV, or is it in your bedroom/den/office?
One can "imagine" any number of silly fantasies, I suppose. Modern plants, however, have containment facilities designed to contain and prevent scenarios such as you describe.
Second, for any given artist, you have no idea what the production "costs" might be, what royalties might be, what prepaid advances/fees/bonuses need to be recouped, and so on. And CD prices have actually declined since introduction, unlike gas, food, cars, and housing over the same period.
Third, online music (via iTunes let's say) is already cheaper than the physical album. But why, if you were producing your own music, would you dramatically undercut your own prices? How happy do you think it would make your other distributors?
Fourth, it's easy for someone to drastically reduce prices when they don't have to pay for the material. I'd probably make a lot of money selling stuff for half the market value... when you consider I stole all of it from your home. Why aren't you ranting at allofmp3? That ten cent price is equally "arbitrary", and probably 90% pure profit to boot...
Probably should check your facts. mySQL 4.1, the current production version, has had subqueries for some time now. Version 5, which is now at release candidate stage, has SPs and views.
IIRC, it's entirely possible the vast majority of that increase is coming from Linux installed on cheap Chineese desktops, as more and more people in that country get computers and get online. As such, even with the increase it could still be a smaller percentage of a larger pie.
Yeah, because that worked SO well in Vietanm. "Gentlemen, we need to take and hold this hill so we can setup an outpost." 'Course, the enemy pretty much had free reign all AROUND the hill, and "holding" the hill pretty much just concentrated the enemies targets all in one place.
In the modern Army the focus seems to be more on targeting C&C centers coupled with enemy force reduction.