"This whole argument about the works license is, of course, mostly moot since obviously as the Drupal licensing FAQ http://drupal.org/licensing/faq puts it..."
The Drupal project saying so doesn't make it true. The modules and themes would only be derivative works if distributed with Drupal. There is no reason a Drupal compatible API couldn't be made and these independent chunks of code run on that.
Of course it matters. If you haven't modified the binary you can 'provide the source' by providing an offer that links back to the original project (technically you'd still be required to provide a physical media if requested under v2). If you yourself got your copy with such an offer you can provide unmodified copies with copies of the offer you received.
Also supplying an offer to supply the source does NOT mandate providing the source to ANYONE who request it. Only to those who have received a copy of the binary.
Nonsense! The NASA guys are purists and researchers these days with no interest in accomplishing anything save sacred and pure data collection. Surely they wouldn't want to stop their noble efforts over something like a paycheck!
I don't recall saying anything about development? I said that if you work for a for-profit entity your job is to make that entity money. You are a member of a team and your decisions should be colored by that teams objectives and goals.
If you are a researcher you should be researching things that you believe ultimately have the potential to make your company money.
"All I'm saying is that you do, to a certain extent, plan your life to accommodate your TV viewing."
And we already disagree. Do I spend money on TV, yes. Perhaps we simply disagree on the semantics. There are no shows I "HAVE to watch" or "need to see." I don't "make time" to watch anything. The entire point of a DVR is that it records the show and it sits there gathering digital dust until I feel like flipping on the TV be that today or next week or next month.
That said, I don't pay for a sat feed to get any particular program I pay for an internet connection for that. I pay for the sat feed so that when I sit down, if I'm not in the mood for any of that stuff on my DVR, there is a higher probability that at that given moment there will be something interesting on.
When I had antenna I found that the probability of there being something interesting to watch when I sat down was approaching zero. Being uncompressed HD doesn't make the programming on those 15 channels (or 20 here) interesting and I never watched it when that I had that either.
At $70/month my sat connection is the lowest monthly bill I have even though I do consider it overpriced.
"so that there is something to find when we want to sit down and watch rather than you having to schedule around some show."
you take:
"So you're actually scheduling your life around TV"
Wasn't the entire point of my statement that I DO NOT schedule my life around TV? I expect the TV to be there, ready for me whenever I choose to watch.
"you may end up being more discriminating"
Discriminating how? Like selecting some program you perceive to be superior and waiting for its time slot. In other words, scheduling my life around the TV? It's TV it isn't like there is some sort of enlightened content waiting for discerning viewers, it's all mental junk food.
"Turn it off for a week - it's not like you're going to miss anything."
As it happens no I wouldn't. Because if there is a show with some sort continuity or progression I download or DVR it. But I actually "turned off" TV for years and no I don't mean I was one of those pretend no watchers who still hooked up the antenna. I did watch movies but that was the sole purpose of my TV. First I turned up the digital antenna for the wife. Then when I realized that those channels were no better than no TV at all I went ahead and hooked up a full sat package.
I also do not share the view that the programming can't be subsidized by advertising. The advertising should just occur between shows rather than during with the ad-spots closest to the beginning and the end of the program being premium as they are often grabbed by DVR's in addition to live viewers.
I'd say so, a 30 day month has 1440 half hour chunks, with a 30 minute chunk costing $50k you could fill every minute of every day with original commercial free content for $72m which is much less than the $300m you specified above!
Of course in reality you would only need a small fraction of that. If you aired 4hrs of new content daily you'd blow away existing stations for $6m a month.
So with that revision you could have 50 commercial free channels all of which have more fresh content than any existing cable channel for $30/month.
You've hit the nail on the head. People have always copied content and it never concerned the media companies and it has nothing to do with the quality of the copy. Despite brainwashing to the contrary digital content is NOT higher quality than analog content you can't run higher quality out HDMI v.any than you can out an old skool coax line.
The reason the media companies are afraid of copying all the sudden is because of the internet and potential to remove their CONTROL of content. What we no longer need is the distribution companies and the distribution chains.
The revolution has to come in the form of new innovative programming. Someone has to put real cable channel investment capital into content that you can stream direct for $5/month. Just cut the middleman right out of the equation.
Low quality amateur content isn't going to ever be viable and paying staff $50k+ per episode isn't going to remain viable either.
The purpose of the package is not volume of content, its to have quality content rolling at all times so that there is something to find when we want to sit down and watch rather than you having to schedule around some show. That and antenna usually gives you low quality content like PBS, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, etc. Between them there might be three shows worth considering watching and they will all be on at conflicting prime slots.
I don't even care that the "History" and "Discovery" channels show this stuff or dedicate hours to crackpot alien illuminati crap. What annoys me that they only have 4 or 5 shows and replay them marathon style over and over again. Seriously, the only time it is okay to play 4 episodes of the same thing back to back is if its the previous season and you are recapping before the new season.
TV is different from streaming in that content is pushed to you rather than pulled by you. Although I like the empowerment of pulling all my content pulling means that I mostly pull the content that is in my comfort zone and that I am already somewhat familiar with. Movies with actors I've enjoyed in the past or even that i've already seen and really enjoyed. The amount of exposure to new actors and new content is limited. For instance I will pull the latest season of dexter because I enjoy the show but I wouldn't be likely to pull the big bang theory because I've never seen it.
However with broadcast TV I might stumble onto the big bang theory and leave it on a few minutes and find I enjoy it. Then I can go download the rest and watch it marathon style without commercials if I so choose.
I said unions help restore the employer/employee balance in negotiating leverage. I didn't say anything about the unions using that leverage to negotiate for what you want.
"Most amazing myth I ever heard about the US is that of the "working poor". People who have a regular job or even two AND still can't keep themselves fed and housed."
People are in that situation with both partners working.
Yes and individuals who aren't already in exempt positions (all high level IT positions are exempt already) don't really have much leverage for negotiation on an individual basis. Low level positions are on the wrong side of the many-to-one ratio with there many employees/applicants and only one employer. One-to-one, all else being equal, you have equivalent leverage. The minute there are two positions the employers leverage doubles while the employees/applicants leverage stays the same.
Unions help to restore the balance by consolidating the employees in order to bring it back to one-to-one.
It's called collusion. Being exempt and earning salary isn't considered to be universally negative there is precedent established that many classes of workers will accept it. After all the boss is exempt. The law itself functions as a way for employers to collude and universally agree that NONE of them will pay overtime.
Slashdot Mirror
"This whole argument about the works license is, of course, mostly moot since obviously as the Drupal licensing FAQ http://drupal.org/licensing/faq puts it..."
The Drupal project saying so doesn't make it true. The modules and themes would only be derivative works if distributed with Drupal. There is no reason a Drupal compatible API couldn't be made and these independent chunks of code run on that.
Of course it matters. If you haven't modified the binary you can 'provide the source' by providing an offer that links back to the original project (technically you'd still be required to provide a physical media if requested under v2). If you yourself got your copy with such an offer you can provide unmodified copies with copies of the offer you received.
Also supplying an offer to supply the source does NOT mandate providing the source to ANYONE who request it. Only to those who have received a copy of the binary.
Nonsense! The NASA guys are purists and researchers these days with no interest in accomplishing anything save sacred and pure data collection. Surely they wouldn't want to stop their noble efforts over something like a paycheck!
I don't recall saying anything about development? I said that if you work for a for-profit entity your job is to make that entity money. You are a member of a team and your decisions should be colored by that teams objectives and goals.
If you are a researcher you should be researching things that you believe ultimately have the potential to make your company money.
If you work in a for-profit entity your job is to make them money, no matter what your title is.
Most of those "costs" are general overhead that you'd have to pay with or without the developer.
Eastern Europe somewhere? It certainly isn't here in the US.
They should give links to the torrents in question when listing the files downloaded. Then the site would be useful.
They don't need evidence they just have send a letter to your ISP saying you are a pirate.
"All I'm saying is that you do, to a certain extent, plan your life to accommodate your TV viewing."
And we already disagree. Do I spend money on TV, yes. Perhaps we simply disagree on the semantics. There are no shows I "HAVE to watch" or "need to see." I don't "make time" to watch anything. The entire point of a DVR is that it records the show and it sits there gathering digital dust until I feel like flipping on the TV be that today or next week or next month.
That said, I don't pay for a sat feed to get any particular program I pay for an internet connection for that. I pay for the sat feed so that when I sit down, if I'm not in the mood for any of that stuff on my DVR, there is a higher probability that at that given moment there will be something interesting on.
When I had antenna I found that the probability of there being something interesting to watch when I sat down was approaching zero. Being uncompressed HD doesn't make the programming on those 15 channels (or 20 here) interesting and I never watched it when that I had that either.
At $70/month my sat connection is the lowest monthly bill I have even though I do consider it overpriced.
Seriously, now you've gone into troll mode. You seem to be inventing some sort of addiction or compulsion to support a point that just isn't there.
I didn't once say anything about "must see" shows or making any adjustments to see them.
I saw some of that Biblical archaeology nonsense. It was all a bunk of Ron Wyatt nonesense and all of it was debunked well before hitting Discovery.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ron+wyatt+debunked
From:
"so that there is something to find when we want to sit down and watch rather than you having to schedule around some show."
you take:
"So you're actually scheduling your life around TV"
Wasn't the entire point of my statement that I DO NOT schedule my life around TV? I expect the TV to be there, ready for me whenever I choose to watch.
"you may end up being more discriminating"
Discriminating how? Like selecting some program you perceive to be superior and waiting for its time slot. In other words, scheduling my life around the TV? It's TV it isn't like there is some sort of enlightened content waiting for discerning viewers, it's all mental junk food.
"Turn it off for a week - it's not like you're going to miss anything."
As it happens no I wouldn't. Because if there is a show with some sort continuity or progression I download or DVR it. But I actually "turned off" TV for years and no I don't mean I was one of those pretend no watchers who still hooked up the antenna. I did watch movies but that was the sole purpose of my TV. First I turned up the digital antenna for the wife. Then when I realized that those channels were no better than no TV at all I went ahead and hooked up a full sat package.
I also do not share the view that the programming can't be subsidized by advertising. The advertising should just occur between shows rather than during with the ad-spots closest to the beginning and the end of the program being premium as they are often grabbed by DVR's in addition to live viewers.
I'd say so, a 30 day month has 1440 half hour chunks, with a 30 minute chunk costing $50k you could fill every minute of every day with original commercial free content for $72m which is much less than the $300m you specified above!
Of course in reality you would only need a small fraction of that. If you aired 4hrs of new content daily you'd blow away existing stations for $6m a month.
So with that revision you could have 50 commercial free channels all of which have more fresh content than any existing cable channel for $30/month.
You've hit the nail on the head. People have always copied content and it never concerned the media companies and it has nothing to do with the quality of the copy. Despite brainwashing to the contrary digital content is NOT higher quality than analog content you can't run higher quality out HDMI v.any than you can out an old skool coax line.
The reason the media companies are afraid of copying all the sudden is because of the internet and potential to remove their CONTROL of content. What we no longer need is the distribution companies and the distribution chains.
The revolution has to come in the form of new innovative programming. Someone has to put real cable channel investment capital into content that you can stream direct for $5/month. Just cut the middleman right out of the equation.
Low quality amateur content isn't going to ever be viable and paying staff $50k+ per episode isn't going to remain viable either.
The purpose of the package is not volume of content, its to have quality content rolling at all times so that there is something to find when we want to sit down and watch rather than you having to schedule around some show. That and antenna usually gives you low quality content like PBS, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, etc. Between them there might be three shows worth considering watching and they will all be on at conflicting prime slots.
I don't even care that the "History" and "Discovery" channels show this stuff or dedicate hours to crackpot alien illuminati crap. What annoys me that they only have 4 or 5 shows and replay them marathon style over and over again. Seriously, the only time it is okay to play 4 episodes of the same thing back to back is if its the previous season and you are recapping before the new season.
TV is different from streaming in that content is pushed to you rather than pulled by you. Although I like the empowerment of pulling all my content pulling means that I mostly pull the content that is in my comfort zone and that I am already somewhat familiar with. Movies with actors I've enjoyed in the past or even that i've already seen and really enjoyed. The amount of exposure to new actors and new content is limited. For instance I will pull the latest season of dexter because I enjoy the show but I wouldn't be likely to pull the big bang theory because I've never seen it.
However with broadcast TV I might stumble onto the big bang theory and leave it on a few minutes and find I enjoy it. Then I can go download the rest and watch it marathon style without commercials if I so choose.
I said unions help restore the employer/employee balance in negotiating leverage. I didn't say anything about the unions using that leverage to negotiate for what you want.
"Most amazing myth I ever heard about the US is that of the "working poor". People who have a regular job or even two AND still can't keep themselves fed and housed."
People are in that situation with both partners working.
Yes and individuals who aren't already in exempt positions (all high level IT positions are exempt already) don't really have much leverage for negotiation on an individual basis. Low level positions are on the wrong side of the many-to-one ratio with there many employees/applicants and only one employer. One-to-one, all else being equal, you have equivalent leverage. The minute there are two positions the employers leverage doubles while the employees/applicants leverage stays the same.
Unions help to restore the balance by consolidating the employees in order to bring it back to one-to-one.
It's called collusion. Being exempt and earning salary isn't considered to be universally negative there is precedent established that many classes of workers will accept it. After all the boss is exempt. The law itself functions as a way for employers to collude and universally agree that NONE of them will pay overtime.