Sure, everyone then was working (because they had to in order to survive) but we were an entirely inefficient group then compared to now.
Very true... of course, there's more to quality of life than simple efficiency: focusing on that extreme often causes as much suffering as unemployment.
But you're right. People also forget that all sciences and technologies advance in relation to each other. Those pre-industrial types may have been "employed", but they didn't have access to such post-industrial wonders as advanced medical care. I'd much rather live in our modern society than in some more primitive environment. Those who decry automation lose sight of the fact that everyone benefits from our machine culture, even if they don't work directly in the manufacturing chain, or don't work at all.
Put it this way: the normal condition of a pre-industrial human being was often one of abject misery... at least by our standards. The bulk of humanity on this planet is still there. That fact is that mass-production and automation have raised more of us out of that state than any other single factor throughout history, and are continuing to do so.
True, and if you look in more depth at what Google is trying to do with Chrome (let's face it, they're working towards a distributed applications platform) they're on target to be the next Microsoft. Not saying they'll ever be as overbearing and generally obnoxious as the firm of Gates, Ballmer & Satan have been, but they may ultimately acquire a similar level of power over how we use our computers.
For me, Microsoft is so last century. They are not the problem
What? I mean... what? This woman seems to confuse having a legitimately-acquired monopoly with abuse of monopoly power. There's a big difference there. If Google has a monopoly of online advertising it's because they provide a worthwhile service, and make a lot of people money, not because they're suppressing competition. Ha... in Microsoft and Yahoo's case, they pretty much suppress themselves, from a competitive standpoint.
Typical appointment for a Democratic President, I suppose.
Whatever happened to the days when musicians made money by PERFORMING LIVE.
Well, the venues were bought out by huge corporations so things like the food and drinks costs went higher (and lets face it, they weren't exactly reasonable to begin with) and the tickets for those venues are all sold by a monopolistic ticket sales company with plenty of service charges, convenience charges, and whatever else they sneak in there now.
Musicians most likely get a cut of the ticket sales and not the $40 worth of extra charges that get tacked on.
Oh noes! The corporations are doing corporationing things. On the upside that makes it perfectly fine for the rest of us to steal shit from the artists.
Before you make such flip remarks, you should investigate a corporation known as Clear Channel. Clear Channel exerts tremendous control over the venues available to independent musicians: if an artist is not RIAA-aligned odds he'll find some roadblocks put up between him and his fans.
Musicians perform live? Heh...most of them just lip sync. Without a studio they couldn't reproduce their own "voice."
Actually, you mean "without a personal computer." For many musicians, a high-end studio is no longer the necessity that it once was. Yes, it does take training to do a proper mixdown... but that's available. And it can certainly be learned, if you're motivated enough. And given the size of the market and the distribution opportunities afforded by the Internet, I'd say that motivation will not be in short supply.
In any event, what you're saying is only true in the context of the big record labels. Their criteria for promoting a specific artist or group has little to do with talent or skill, I agree. However, that's because they choose their artists for the greatest marketing appeal, and in that area musical ability is often less important than whether they look good on camera.
There's plenty of real talent out there, believe me, people that can actually sing on-key and don't need pitch correction. That's one reason for getting rid of the RIAA and its member companies right there. They suppress the best, and give us the ones that are the most photogenic. To Hell with that... I want good music.
The GP is trying to do what the RIAA/MPAA have been attempting for decades, that is, redefine our lexicon. Until they succeed in rewriting those definitions into our legal system, he's simply wrong. Doesn't mean he'll admit it though.
That's how "theft" is different. It's a concept which makes sense in the context of having your ability to profit off of your works taken away from you by someone else.
Nope. Stop trying to play IP lawyer. The reality is this: what you (or I, or anyone else) thinks is a "reasonable" definition of theft is utterly irrelevant. What does matter is what the law as written says. And in the United States at least, it bears no relationship whatsoever to your definition, I'm afraid.
Except if it is Digg stylesheets or other bits geeks care about, like GPL violation (the whole notion of GPL rests on copyright law btw.)
Nope. Free software people don't give a rats ass about copyright law. The GPL is actually a hack to circumvent copyright law. Think about it.
Who the Hell modded this insightful? The free software people care very much about copyright. They just don't care about money, and I suspect that's what really bothers you. The GPL is also not the only open source / free software license out there, by the way, so your comment exhibits an easily-rectifiable degree of ignorance on the subject.
Stallman-style free software proponents do care about control, however... as the GP pointed out, the GPL is only viable in countries which support compatible copyright laws. The difference is that there's no interest in using that law to direct money in their direction. They only wish to encourage a certain type of development community to flourish. On the other hand, other licenses are far less restrictive, and of course, there's the ever-popular public domain.
What you're attempting to do is tar thousands of open source developers and users with the "pirate" brush. That's unfortunate, and won't buy you a lot of respect around here.
I think there is a limit to the amount of DRM the average person is willing to accept in their OS. Up until now, people have been willing to put up with shitty DRM. At some point Microsoft will implement a DRM that not even the average person will put up with, at which point most average people will truly become AWARE of DRM for the first time. At that point... while its anyone's guess as to what happens, I think the fallout will be worse than most of us would tend to expect.
It's incrementalism at work... the Boiled Frog syndrome. We're slowly being trained to give Microsoft our money in exchange for their telling us what we can and cannot do with our machines (and our media.)
Kinda like Washington, when you get right down to it.
Wow, that's racist. I didn't say "illegal" immigration, the vast majority of immigrants are legal workers with visas.
You sir are a moron! It is completely disingenuous to call someone racist because they bring up illegal immigration!
Very true. Calling anyone who is against uncontrolled illegal immigration "racist" is an excellent way to shut down any real dialog on the subject. You've immediately slandered the other person, and forced him to defend himself on a charge of racism. Doesn't matter if he really is a racist: you can't have a discussion about anything if you open the conversation with such an insult.
They repealed the luxury tax on telephones a few years ago. It was enacted to pay for the Spanish-American war. So they do repeal them, but sometimes it takes 107 years. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/06/5056.ars
Yes, but that's only because they've found some new opportunity to tax us in some other area.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, everyone then was working (because they had to in order to survive) but we were an entirely inefficient group then compared to now.
Very true ... of course, there's more to quality of life than simple efficiency: focusing on that extreme often causes as much suffering as unemployment.
... at least by our standards. The bulk of humanity on this planet is still there. That fact is that mass-production and automation have raised more of us out of that state than any other single factor throughout history, and are continuing to do so.
But you're right. People also forget that all sciences and technologies advance in relation to each other. Those pre-industrial types may have been "employed", but they didn't have access to such post-industrial wonders as advanced medical care. I'd much rather live in our modern society than in some more primitive environment. Those who decry automation lose sight of the fact that everyone benefits from our machine culture, even if they don't work directly in the manufacturing chain, or don't work at all.
Put it this way: the normal condition of a pre-industrial human being was often one of abject misery
so we could have the first humans to experience entanglement within months
I'm guessing the avalanche of crazy whacked out girlfriend stories is about to start...
Yes, and the first story will start out like this, "My girlfriend and I ..." and we'll all stop reading right there.
They think a rouge router is in vouge, but they're out of their leauge.
Everyone thinks that routers are all digital, but in fact many still contain the analouge hole.
That's the problem. You shouldn't use rouge on your routers.
I think that a rouged router would possibly be overly promiscuous.
No wonder problems like this can spread like the clap in a port town!
That's a good one. How it got modded +5 Insightful is beyond me though.
I've heard that frogs have the ability to detect single photons. This is from a cryptographer who jokingly proposed a frog-based system for quantum key distribution.
So I'm guessing that the unit of measurement for frog-based quantum encryption is the "ribbet".
I'm thinkin', me, and Halle Berry ... or maybe Famke Janssen.
Yeah, okay, so I just watched X-Men on cable.
True, and if you look in more depth at what Google is trying to do with Chrome (let's face it, they're working towards a distributed applications platform) they're on target to be the next Microsoft. Not saying they'll ever be as overbearing and generally obnoxious as the firm of Gates, Ballmer & Satan have been, but they may ultimately acquire a similar level of power over how we use our computers.
For me, Microsoft is so last century. They are not the problem
What? I mean ... what? This woman seems to confuse having a legitimately-acquired monopoly with abuse of monopoly power. There's a big difference there. If Google has a monopoly of online advertising it's because they provide a worthwhile service, and make a lot of people money, not because they're suppressing competition. Ha ... in Microsoft and Yahoo's case, they pretty much suppress themselves, from a competitive standpoint.
Typical appointment for a Democratic President, I suppose.
Every time I read "grant", "advanced research", and "tax incentive", I see "gift", "white elephant", and "sleaze".
You forgot "gift to China" in that.
It can be yours for £1,000,000. Tax free, of course.
I'll send you a cheque.
ARGH!! Brain.. rebooting..
T-800: "Was there a problem?"
... no problem."
John Connor: "No
And for the record, I have no musical talent what so ever and never once pretended I did. I'd probably make it big.
Yes, you probably would, but you'd have to sign on with the likes of Sony or BMG. How much is your soul worth to you?
Whatever happened to the days when musicians made money by PERFORMING LIVE.
Well, the venues were bought out by huge corporations so things like the food and drinks costs went higher (and lets face it, they weren't exactly reasonable to begin with) and the tickets for those venues are all sold by a monopolistic ticket sales company with plenty of service charges, convenience charges, and whatever else they sneak in there now.
Musicians most likely get a cut of the ticket sales and not the $40 worth of extra charges that get tacked on.
Oh noes! The corporations are doing corporationing things. On the upside that makes it perfectly fine for the rest of us to steal shit from the artists.
Before you make such flip remarks, you should investigate a corporation known as Clear Channel. Clear Channel exerts tremendous control over the venues available to independent musicians: if an artist is not RIAA-aligned odds he'll find some roadblocks put up between him and his fans.
Musicians perform live? Heh...most of them just lip sync. Without a studio they couldn't reproduce their own "voice."
Actually, you mean "without a personal computer." For many musicians, a high-end studio is no longer the necessity that it once was. Yes, it does take training to do a proper mixdown ... but that's available. And it can certainly be learned, if you're motivated enough. And given the size of the market and the distribution opportunities afforded by the Internet, I'd say that motivation will not be in short supply.
... I want good music.
In any event, what you're saying is only true in the context of the big record labels. Their criteria for promoting a specific artist or group has little to do with talent or skill, I agree. However, that's because they choose their artists for the greatest marketing appeal, and in that area musical ability is often less important than whether they look good on camera.
There's plenty of real talent out there, believe me, people that can actually sing on-key and don't need pitch correction. That's one reason for getting rid of the RIAA and its member companies right there. They suppress the best, and give us the ones that are the most photogenic. To Hell with that
The GP is trying to do what the RIAA/MPAA have been attempting for decades, that is, redefine our lexicon. Until they succeed in rewriting those definitions into our legal system, he's simply wrong. Doesn't mean he'll admit it though.
That's how "theft" is different. It's a concept which makes sense in the context of having your ability to profit off of your works taken away from you by someone else.
Nope. Stop trying to play IP lawyer. The reality is this: what you (or I, or anyone else) thinks is a "reasonable" definition of theft is utterly irrelevant. What does matter is what the law as written says. And in the United States at least, it bears no relationship whatsoever to your definition, I'm afraid.
What's "stolen" is B's sole right to produce copies.
Even it that were true, that's different than saying the copies themselves were stolen.
Except if it is Digg stylesheets or other bits geeks care about, like GPL violation (the whole notion of GPL rests on copyright law btw.)
Nope. Free software people don't give a rats ass about copyright law. The GPL is actually a hack to circumvent copyright law. Think about it.
Who the Hell modded this insightful? The free software people care very much about copyright. They just don't care about money, and I suspect that's what really bothers you. The GPL is also not the only open source / free software license out there, by the way, so your comment exhibits an easily-rectifiable degree of ignorance on the subject.
... as the GP pointed out, the GPL is only viable in countries which support compatible copyright laws. The difference is that there's no interest in using that law to direct money in their direction. They only wish to encourage a certain type of development community to flourish. On the other hand, other licenses are far less restrictive, and of course, there's the ever-popular public domain.
Stallman-style free software proponents do care about control, however
What you're attempting to do is tar thousands of open source developers and users with the "pirate" brush. That's unfortunate, and won't buy you a lot of respect around here.
I'm beginning to think ... and hope ... that the "True Name" for Windows 7 is really going to be "Windows Chapter 7." Wouldn't that be nice?
Nah ... we have four more to go before we reach Chapter 11.
I think there is a limit to the amount of DRM the average person is willing to accept in their OS. Up until now, people have been willing to put up with shitty DRM. At some point Microsoft will implement a DRM that not even the average person will put up with, at which point most average people will truly become AWARE of DRM for the first time. At that point... while its anyone's guess as to what happens, I think the fallout will be worse than most of us would tend to expect.
It's incrementalism at work ... the Boiled Frog syndrome. We're slowly being trained to give Microsoft our money in exchange for their telling us what we can and cannot do with our machines (and our media.)
Kinda like Washington, when you get right down to it.
A rouge machine in the Czech Republic
That's the problem. You shouldn't use rouge on your routers.
Wow, that's racist. I didn't say "illegal" immigration, the vast majority of immigrants are legal workers with visas.
You sir are a moron! It is completely disingenuous to call someone racist because they bring up illegal immigration!
Very true. Calling anyone who is against uncontrolled illegal immigration "racist" is an excellent way to shut down any real dialog on the subject. You've immediately slandered the other person, and forced him to defend himself on a charge of racism. Doesn't matter if he really is a racist: you can't have a discussion about anything if you open the conversation with such an insult.
I would happily forward 4% of the bits that comes into my router to the NY city hall if that can help them balance their budget.
"Sir, if any of my circuits or gears will help, I'll gladly donate them!"
They repealed the luxury tax on telephones a few years ago. It was enacted to pay for the Spanish-American war. So they do repeal them, but sometimes it takes 107 years. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/06/5056.ars
Yes, but that's only because they've found some new opportunity to tax us in some other area.
"Pedantic" doesn't mean what you think it means. The agreement isn't pedantic but this post is pedantic.
As in "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Seriously though, I suspect they meant "pedestrian."