prey's on the inability of many people to not only add the micro transactions together. but also disrupts how people gauge the 'value' of the product by infusing emotional attachments into the mix.
Screwing with our brain wiring is sort of how video games (or board games, for that matter) get us to buy them in the first place. There's nothing rational about buying a video game for $50 and then wasting tons of time playing it - it's a purely emotional experience. If running around smashing ogres is what gets your endorphins going, great. If buying Farmville charms does it, who is to say that emotional response is any worse?
Now's when people will start in with this-or-that study that shows that video games sharpen this-or-that skill, as if that's why they bought the game!
You are right - I probably chose a poor example since the donuts aren't magnets. Still, like the cable ferrites, the magnets in the connectors condition the signal off-board to free up space.
Rather depends on the standards, doesn't it? For instance, most EU countries have hate-speech restrictions on free speech, but I still think the standards should be written not to exclude them.
I guess it depends on my definition of "pretty good". We certainly haven't had any world wars - though I guess you could argue that is due to nuclear weapons as a deterrent. The idea that any organization can stop war is absurd, so I was going with a loose definition of "pretty good". Most conflict in the world is directly related to internal problems/civil war, not territorial disputes and land grabs assassination of princes and secret alliances other early 20th century stuff. Iraq was a notable exception, and the UN did nothing to prevent it from annexing Kuwait, nor was the UN effective in holding Iraq to it's ceasefire agreements - which of course eventually led to another conflict.
That's a reasonable position, but you need to convince 50% of the population. My view is a bit more nuanced - I feel it should be the charity of last resort. The government safety net should be pretty far down the list of resources, and the scope and duration of the government should be as limited as possible. Private entities are more efficient and encourage volunteerism, which I feel is more beneficial to society than "I paid my taxes, I've done my part".
Yeah, the UN is really meant to keep member states from attacking one another. I guess it's been pretty good at that.
I really think we need a UN for representative democracies, though, with many of the same powers. To be a voting member, you'd need to adhere to certain thresholds for openness, corruption, and press freedom.
I am sorry, I don't understand the 'getting paid by government' part how does this work out?
The only reason that copyright exists is through government. That we pay them directly is just an implementation detail.
I guess, to be more clear is that I believe people should get paid for tangible products they create within the scope of original CP law but the intangible elements should be shared.
I see it all as equally tangible/not tangible. Especially now with everything going digital, most music never sees any kind of physical distribution. There is also nothing less tangible about notes printed on a sheet of paper than there is bits etched on a shiny disk.
At the end of the day, it is all just information. In ye olden days, you had two choices with any kind of information: share or don't share. You could probably get paid for a good idea for a little while, but sooner or later other people would catch on. This is good because it is how humanity progresses - but it also leads to things like "trade secrets" and lost knowledge and arts. The trick with copyright law is to try to use just enough incentive to get people to share their work, without slowing the progress of humanity. Giving dead artists incentive falls firmly into the later category, as far as I am concerned.
Shold MJ's kids profit form "anyone" singing MJ's songs? I don't think so. Should they profit from copies of their Father singing the song? I don't see a problem in that.
They can and do profit from it, even without royalties. If my father was a wall street tycoon (I wish), I would benefit from it even without getting a magic royalty benefit check every month. Presumably, he would have saved some money for me (maybe in a rich boy trust?), he would have fed me well, and he would have given me a good education. The fact is that those kids did no work whatsoever - not one shred, and they are getting paid for it by society (by the government, really). That makes it pure charity, which I am fine with, but I think limiting the charity to something reasonable like 10 years is more than sufficient and it might encourage artists to create, knowing that their kids will get a nice little 10-year annuity.
While I don't condone the theft, your comment is striking in how it highlights the way copyright has gone astray. Some of Micheal's music has been in copyright for close to 40 years already. And yet for a lucid, rational person for yourself, it seems reasonable to put forward that his kids need another shot of royalties so that they will have a "legacy". Now, I have nothing against providing your children (especially young children) with a bundle of cash to get them through early life and their educations - hell, maybe even a nice starter-mansion and first Rolls-Royce... but all of that could have been done through saving his money, investments, and life insurance... they sure don't need society to grant them welfare payments just because their dad(?) was a good singer.
Copyright is supposed to be about convincing artists to produce their creative works. It's supposed to be about making it a reasonable career choice to become a singer, painter, artist, etc. Why? So that we, as a society, get more creative output. It is not about making sons-of-good-singers rich. When the artist you are providing an incentive to dies, the incentive should die as well. At the very least, it should die within the number of years that a typical corporation plans for. If I'm being generous, Sony might have a 10-year plan.
As for the pizza parlor and the UPS man, this is beginning to sound an awful lot like the broken window fallacy to me. I have a sneaking suspicion that UPS could ship works based upon Michael Jackson's songs that fell into public domain just as well as they ship his 20-30 year-old stuff.
Re:Linux security or trust
on
GitHub Hacked
·
· Score: 1
Who can really go over every line of code in the source to make sure someone hasn't already snuck in something malicious years ago?
Check her measurements out. She just wasn't that big, and was actually skinnier than most of the women of her day. Her BUST was my waist size!
Am I claiming that she was as skinny as these tall skeletons that you see? Heck, no. She was very... healthy looking, and at times even a bit chubby. But to claim that she "couldn't get past the reception desk" at her 19-year weight is silly.
Besides, she didn't get past the reception desk back then either - she had to go back home and bleach her hair first!
Being bright or "best" is not about having a "degree".
While we are getting away from my original point, I do agree with you here. That said, statistically you are getting smarter, wealthier people when you screen by degree or qualifications.
Linus Pauling or Albert Einstein
Now we're completely off-point:) I don't know about Linus, but I don't think you should call Albert Einstein a "drop out". He indeed left his high school, but he did so with the full intention of continuing his higher education at another institution. He basically snuck away from a high school that emphasized rote learning and ended up applying to colleges when he got home. Other high-profile "drop-outs" often left school because what they considered a great business opportunity popped up (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc), not because the couldn't hack it. So yeah, if the owner of a fortune 500 company (or even just a credible startup) wants to move his operations to CA, I think we should let him - degree or no degree. He should be able to bring his undegreed staff as well, along with his whole extended family:)
than if the USA had a reasonable process of conscientiously selecting the best, conducting proper background investigations and only admitting those who pass muster.
Now we're back to my original point - I agree 100%. The US currently does not try to attract the best and brightest, and that is a rotten shame.
And, in terms of looks, consider that Marilyn Munroe would never get past the reception desk of most talent agencies today
Her chunkiness has been exaggerated. First, remember that when she died she was 36 - she had already moved from modeling to movies by age 20, so those pictures of Marilyn that you see in the JFK era are when she was well past the age that she walked past the reception desk!
I'm hardly a Marilyn fanatic, but I've seen enough of her movies to know that she's all over the place weight-wise, and in the early 50s you find pictures like this rack-o-ribs that show her looking rather emaciated.
First, I didn't mention H1B - but since you went there...
"Entry level" is meaningless unless you look at context. An entry-level position that requires a college degree is a far cry from an entry-level position sweeping floors. A person in an "entry-level" programming job is likely to be well educated and fairly affluent - in other words, you'd be nuts not to want them to come live in your country unless you had some kind of vested interest... say, competing directly with them for a job.
Do I blame someone for not wanted to compete for a job? Heck no - that's self interest and is completely understandable. Do I think the nation is better when it retains the people it educates? Heck yes. Your stance on H1Bs is not much different than someone who works in manufacturing arguing for protective tariffs - understandable given their interests, but not in the best interest of everyone else.
That is such a shame. We should be doing everything we can to make it simple for the rest of the world's best and brightest to live here. If you have a certain resume and pass some simple financial tests, your work visa should be nearly automatic.
The other thing that happened since 2000 was 9/11 and all our immigration hysteria. I'd wager that fewer foreign tech students stick around after graduation. I know at my company work visas and green cards are harder to come by than they were in the 90s.
I didn't mean to imply that Toyota had pulled a Maytag - they are still good cars and I have two. But their reputation has fallen, and at least some of it is deserved.
I don't have the "clunk" on my 2009 Camry. It's been good so far, but I must say the 4-cylinder engine is a rough little thing - especially if you have the AC on. I drove at least 3 different Camrys on the test drive, and they all did it. The 6-cylinder in the Sienna is the best engine I've ever had. Smooth, strong, and fuel efficient - couldn't justify a Camry with it though, they cast way more.
And if you actually research it further, you'll find that the only charges he is actually facing is "Resisting arrest". He wasn't cited for failure to disperse.
My goodness, did you read the link I posted? His words, from the link:
I was charged with obstruction of justice and resisting arrest without violence, even though the cops wrote that I was “taken into custody without incident” on the arrest report. They also said that I was ordered to leave the area for my "safety."
Then I learned that the cops screwed up and did not include the statute number for the obstruction charge, so I am now only facing the resisting arrest charge, which seems to be the story of my life.
So he most certainly was charged with something besides resisting arrest, but the cops screwed up the summons so he got off on a technicality.
I'm not taking the side of the police here - I just want us to talk about what actually happened.
Yeah, I think because of the shear number of plants and all of the violent harvesting, you'll get a small second year out of the field. But I'm pretty sure that if you let a corn field go fallow, there won't be any corn after a generation or two.
The gist is that I was arrested for refusing to leave a public area, even though hordes of corporate journalists were allowed to remain, including one who recorded my arrest.
Sorry to step in, but I think you guys fundamentally agree - daveschroeder is just saying that he doesn't know the circumstances and is happy to let the court figure it out.
Slashdot Mirror
prey's on the inability of many people to not only add the micro transactions together. but also disrupts how people gauge the 'value' of the product by infusing emotional attachments into the mix.
Screwing with our brain wiring is sort of how video games (or board games, for that matter) get us to buy them in the first place. There's nothing rational about buying a video game for $50 and then wasting tons of time playing it - it's a purely emotional experience. If running around smashing ogres is what gets your endorphins going, great. If buying Farmville charms does it, who is to say that emotional response is any worse?
Now's when people will start in with this-or-that study that shows that video games sharpen this-or-that skill, as if that's why they bought the game!
You are right - I probably chose a poor example since the donuts aren't magnets. Still, like the cable ferrites, the magnets in the connectors condition the signal off-board to free up space.
Conditions the signal, like the little donuts on monitor cables.
By who's standard? Yours? I don't think we are talking about the same thing.
Rather depends on the standards, doesn't it? For instance, most EU countries have hate-speech restrictions on free speech, but I still think the standards should be written not to exclude them.
I guess it depends on my definition of "pretty good". We certainly haven't had any world wars - though I guess you could argue that is due to nuclear weapons as a deterrent. The idea that any organization can stop war is absurd, so I was going with a loose definition of "pretty good". Most conflict in the world is directly related to internal problems/civil war, not territorial disputes and land grabs assassination of princes and secret alliances other early 20th century stuff. Iraq was a notable exception, and the UN did nothing to prevent it from annexing Kuwait, nor was the UN effective in holding Iraq to it's ceasefire agreements - which of course eventually led to another conflict.
That's a reasonable position, but you need to convince 50% of the population. My view is a bit more nuanced - I feel it should be the charity of last resort. The government safety net should be pretty far down the list of resources, and the scope and duration of the government should be as limited as possible. Private entities are more efficient and encourage volunteerism, which I feel is more beneficial to society than "I paid my taxes, I've done my part".
Yeah, the UN is really meant to keep member states from attacking one another. I guess it's been pretty good at that.
I really think we need a UN for representative democracies, though, with many of the same powers. To be a voting member, you'd need to adhere to certain thresholds for openness, corruption, and press freedom.
I am sorry, I don't understand the 'getting paid by government' part how does this work out?
The only reason that copyright exists is through government. That we pay them directly is just an implementation detail.
I guess, to be more clear is that I believe people should get paid for tangible products they create within the scope of original CP law but the intangible elements should be shared.
I see it all as equally tangible/not tangible. Especially now with everything going digital, most music never sees any kind of physical distribution. There is also nothing less tangible about notes printed on a sheet of paper than there is bits etched on a shiny disk.
At the end of the day, it is all just information. In ye olden days, you had two choices with any kind of information: share or don't share. You could probably get paid for a good idea for a little while, but sooner or later other people would catch on. This is good because it is how humanity progresses - but it also leads to things like "trade secrets" and lost knowledge and arts. The trick with copyright law is to try to use just enough incentive to get people to share their work, without slowing the progress of humanity. Giving dead artists incentive falls firmly into the later category, as far as I am concerned.
Shold MJ's kids profit form "anyone" singing MJ's songs? I don't think so. Should they profit from copies of their Father singing the song? I don't see a problem in that.
They can and do profit from it, even without royalties. If my father was a wall street tycoon (I wish), I would benefit from it even without getting a magic royalty benefit check every month. Presumably, he would have saved some money for me (maybe in a rich boy trust?), he would have fed me well, and he would have given me a good education. The fact is that those kids did no work whatsoever - not one shred, and they are getting paid for it by society (by the government, really). That makes it pure charity, which I am fine with, but I think limiting the charity to something reasonable like 10 years is more than sufficient and it might encourage artists to create, knowing that their kids will get a nice little 10-year annuity.
While I don't condone the theft, your comment is striking in how it highlights the way copyright has gone astray. Some of Micheal's music has been in copyright for close to 40 years already. And yet for a lucid, rational person for yourself, it seems reasonable to put forward that his kids need another shot of royalties so that they will have a "legacy". Now, I have nothing against providing your children (especially young children) with a bundle of cash to get them through early life and their educations - hell, maybe even a nice starter-mansion and first Rolls-Royce... but all of that could have been done through saving his money, investments, and life insurance... they sure don't need society to grant them welfare payments just because their dad(?) was a good singer.
Copyright is supposed to be about convincing artists to produce their creative works. It's supposed to be about making it a reasonable career choice to become a singer, painter, artist, etc. Why? So that we, as a society, get more creative output. It is not about making sons-of-good-singers rich. When the artist you are providing an incentive to dies, the incentive should die as well. At the very least, it should die within the number of years that a typical corporation plans for. If I'm being generous, Sony might have a 10-year plan.
As for the pizza parlor and the UPS man, this is beginning to sound an awful lot like the broken window fallacy to me. I have a sneaking suspicion that UPS could ship works based upon Michael Jackson's songs that fell into public domain just as well as they ship his 20-30 year-old stuff.
Who can really go over every line of code in the source to make sure someone hasn't already snuck in something malicious years ago?
Your local repository of git?
I didn't say that the hormone didn't exist, I said that you can't actually measure it in the milk.
Check her measurements out. She just wasn't that big, and was actually skinnier than most of the women of her day. Her BUST was my waist size!
Am I claiming that she was as skinny as these tall skeletons that you see? Heck, no. She was very... healthy looking, and at times even a bit chubby. But to claim that she "couldn't get past the reception desk" at her 19-year weight is silly.
Besides, she didn't get past the reception desk back then either - she had to go back home and bleach her hair first!
Being bright or "best" is not about having a "degree".
While we are getting away from my original point, I do agree with you here. That said, statistically you are getting smarter, wealthier people when you screen by degree or qualifications.
Linus Pauling or Albert Einstein
Now we're completely off-point :) I don't know about Linus, but I don't think you should call Albert Einstein a "drop out". He indeed left his high school, but he did so with the full intention of continuing his higher education at another institution. He basically snuck away from a high school that emphasized rote learning and ended up applying to colleges when he got home. Other high-profile "drop-outs" often left school because what they considered a great business opportunity popped up (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc), not because the couldn't hack it. So yeah, if the owner of a fortune 500 company (or even just a credible startup) wants to move his operations to CA, I think we should let him - degree or no degree. He should be able to bring his undegreed staff as well, along with his whole extended family :)
than if the USA had a reasonable process of conscientiously selecting the best, conducting proper background investigations and only admitting those who pass muster.
Now we're back to my original point - I agree 100%. The US currently does not try to attract the best and brightest, and that is a rotten shame.
And, in terms of looks, consider that Marilyn Munroe would never get past the reception desk of most talent agencies today
Her chunkiness has been exaggerated. First, remember that when she died she was 36 - she had already moved from modeling to movies by age 20, so those pictures of Marilyn that you see in the JFK era are when she was well past the age that she walked past the reception desk!
I'm hardly a Marilyn fanatic, but I've seen enough of her movies to know that she's all over the place weight-wise, and in the early 50s you find pictures like this rack-o-ribs that show her looking rather emaciated.
First, I didn't mention H1B - but since you went there...
"Entry level" is meaningless unless you look at context. An entry-level position that requires a college degree is a far cry from an entry-level position sweeping floors. A person in an "entry-level" programming job is likely to be well educated and fairly affluent - in other words, you'd be nuts not to want them to come live in your country unless you had some kind of vested interest... say, competing directly with them for a job.
Do I blame someone for not wanted to compete for a job? Heck no - that's self interest and is completely understandable. Do I think the nation is better when it retains the people it educates? Heck yes. Your stance on H1Bs is not much different than someone who works in manufacturing arguing for protective tariffs - understandable given their interests, but not in the best interest of everyone else.
That is such a shame. We should be doing everything we can to make it simple for the rest of the world's best and brightest to live here. If you have a certain resume and pass some simple financial tests, your work visa should be nearly automatic.
The other thing that happened since 2000 was 9/11 and all our immigration hysteria. I'd wager that fewer foreign tech students stick around after graduation. I know at my company work visas and green cards are harder to come by than they were in the 90s.
I didn't mean to imply that Toyota had pulled a Maytag - they are still good cars and I have two. But their reputation has fallen, and at least some of it is deserved.
I don't have the "clunk" on my 2009 Camry. It's been good so far, but I must say the 4-cylinder engine is a rough little thing - especially if you have the AC on. I drove at least 3 different Camrys on the test drive, and they all did it. The 6-cylinder in the Sienna is the best engine I've ever had. Smooth, strong, and fuel efficient - couldn't justify a Camry with it though, they cast way more.
And if you actually research it further, you'll find that the only charges he is actually facing is "Resisting arrest". He wasn't cited for failure to disperse.
My goodness, did you read the link I posted? His words, from the link:
So he most certainly was charged with something besides resisting arrest, but the cops screwed up the summons so he got off on a technicality.
I'm not taking the side of the police here - I just want us to talk about what actually happened.
Yeah, I think because of the shear number of plants and all of the violent harvesting, you'll get a small second year out of the field. But I'm pretty sure that if you let a corn field go fallow, there won't be any corn after a generation or two.
No, RTFA.
You have to glance at the news source... ars. It's a great tech rag, but they aren't very good journalists. If you look at the linked blog of the journalist in question (Carlos Miller - love his mug shot), you will see that he says:
Sorry to step in, but I think you guys fundamentally agree - daveschroeder is just saying that he doesn't know the circumstances and is happy to let the court figure it out.
Never Apple because they are a high end system in a niche market.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure joining that race to the bottom is the way to go.