I think the question then is how would the person enforce the terms they negotiated when they sold themselves into slavery? If they are able to terminate the agreement if the other party doesn't uphold their side of the agreement, I don't think most people would consider that slavery, but rather a long term contract.
Would you prefer they require books that they don't think are good, or maybe a book that the professor has never read through to see if it's any good? I have a hard time believing that a professor needs a textbook badly enough to force their classes to use it so they can get a free copy. It seems like professors actually evaluating textbooks, and then picking one that they think is good, is a good thing.
I think you nailed it. The problem with his analysis of the analogy is that he doesn't seem to take into consideration the most important aspect of a legal decision, laws. ISP's aren't liable for the content of traffic from subscribers. I have no idea what laws would apply for car rental agencies, but I'm guessing it's not the DMCA.
You cite Wikipedia, and you think you've refuted something? Until you're a judge presiding over a trial, your refutation of anything is worthless. Scholarly papers are a lot more likely to be cited and considered in a court decision than Wikipedia.
If you get rid of the 140 character limit, wouldn't twitter just be livejournal? On livejournal, you had the ability to friend people, and all of their posts would show up on one page. Friending didn't have to be reciprocal on livejournal, which is the only apparent difference between facebook and twitter. Or really, how is twitter different than an email list that anyone can subscribe to?
When twitter was first launching, it seemed to basically be a text message equivalent of an email list. Once people started getting smartphones, I assumed that there would be no reason to use twitter. I'm assuming that twitter is just costing on momentum caused by someone deciding it was cool, and that it's dying.
Alternatively, I'm shaking my fist yelling at the kids to get off my lawn, I'm not sure.
If it's funny because it's a Spaceballs reference, was it funny when it was just in Spaceballs?
I would say yes, it was actually funnier when it was just in Spaceballs. Not having seen Spaceballs, you probably found it almost as funny as a first time watcher of Spaceballs. Unfortunately, when you see Spaceballs, its humor will be diminished. It's a net humor loss for you, gumpish, and I am sorry.
Except that, based on the pro-FSF posts in this story, they want google to give up a significant portion of their copyright so that others can modify and distribute it. In exchange, they will give google nothing. They are trying to pressure google to give up their freedom to release the software they wrote in the way they choose.
So it would be ok if the person who copied the game made it available for free in the marketplace? If anything, I would think that making it available for free would cause the original developer to lose more sales than charging for it, and thus cause more damage to the original developer.
No one's forcing you to get a degree, even if an employer requires it. You can choose for yourself. If you just want to take certain courses, most colleges will let you take them as a non-degree student. They'll even give you a transcript showing that you took whatever courses you wanted as a non-degree student. A degree shows that you met the requirements of the school to receive the degree. If there were no requirements, a degree wouldn't show anything.
The humor, in my opinion, is in arguing subtleties of of language to support a position when the language in question has been through several layers of translation. More so when the quote wasn't written down for years. Even more so when the person who may (or may not) have written it wasn't present (John 4:8, his disciples were gone).
Funny, I do not remember arcades being required to feature obsolete games or game systems. There is no technical reason why an arcade could not host FPS tournaments, with modern and brand new games. The draw of arcades has always been spending time with friends, outside of your home.
There are a number of places (internet cafes, gaming shops) that host, essentially, lan parties on a regular basis. Maybe it isn't the arcade that's dying, but just single game consoles. You don't need specialized hardware to run most games, so why have a giant box that only plays one game?
"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." - Dr. Carl Sagan
He likes to make his PCBs, for things he is making for his own enjoyment. He's making a binary clock, it's already inferior to a cheap digital clock he could buy for less than his blank PCB.
They raised $16 million by receiving $16 million in donations, in part by adding a banner asking for donations at the top of their pages. It also works for public radio in the US. But the burden of supporting Wikipedia was still shouldered disproportionally by a small percentage of users.
Wikipedia has the benefit of all their content being provided for free by volunteers, which greatly reduces the amount of money they need to operate. Not all content is produced that way, and I really don't think it ever will be.
You are arguing for a donation-based business model. It works for some things, but I don't believe it's scalable or practical for many types of content.
Why?
It's essentially the tragedy of the commons. If it takes $1000 to make an album, and 1000 people download it, if everyone donates one dollar it breaks even. But if only half of the people donate, they each have to donate two dollars for it to break even.
In a donation based model, there's an incentive not to donate: if you don't donate, you get the thing and keep your money. For every person that doesn't donate, the burden on those that do donate is increased if the system is to break even. Everyone who doesn't donate is freeloading on those that do. Even if 10,000 people were to donate and 1000 were to donate one dollar, they still paid more than they would have needed to without the freeloaders.
Society figured out a way to prevent freeloading, and it was by making people pay for things.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the question then is how would the person enforce the terms they negotiated when they sold themselves into slavery? If they are able to terminate the agreement if the other party doesn't uphold their side of the agreement, I don't think most people would consider that slavery, but rather a long term contract.
Why is that easier?
Would you prefer they require books that they don't think are good, or maybe a book that the professor has never read through to see if it's any good? I have a hard time believing that a professor needs a textbook badly enough to force their classes to use it so they can get a free copy. It seems like professors actually evaluating textbooks, and then picking one that they think is good, is a good thing.
I think you nailed it. The problem with his analysis of the analogy is that he doesn't seem to take into consideration the most important aspect of a legal decision, laws. ISP's aren't liable for the content of traffic from subscribers. I have no idea what laws would apply for car rental agencies, but I'm guessing it's not the DMCA.
Yeah, but it's the fox news office with the white house in the background.
Excellent strawman, sir.
You cite Wikipedia, and you think you've refuted something? Until you're a judge presiding over a trial, your refutation of anything is worthless. Scholarly papers are a lot more likely to be cited and considered in a court decision than Wikipedia.
If you get rid of the 140 character limit, wouldn't twitter just be livejournal? On livejournal, you had the ability to friend people, and all of their posts would show up on one page. Friending didn't have to be reciprocal on livejournal, which is the only apparent difference between facebook and twitter. Or really, how is twitter different than an email list that anyone can subscribe to?
When twitter was first launching, it seemed to basically be a text message equivalent of an email list. Once people started getting smartphones, I assumed that there would be no reason to use twitter. I'm assuming that twitter is just costing on momentum caused by someone deciding it was cool, and that it's dying.
Alternatively, I'm shaking my fist yelling at the kids to get off my lawn, I'm not sure.
If it's funny because it's a Spaceballs reference, was it funny when it was just in Spaceballs?
I would say yes, it was actually funnier when it was just in Spaceballs. Not having seen Spaceballs, you probably found it almost as funny as a first time watcher of Spaceballs. Unfortunately, when you see Spaceballs, its humor will be diminished. It's a net humor loss for you, gumpish, and I am sorry.
Except that, based on the pro-FSF posts in this story, they want google to give up a significant portion of their copyright so that others can modify and distribute it. In exchange, they will give google nothing. They are trying to pressure google to give up their freedom to release the software they wrote in the way they choose.
Normal kids don't have the money to go hiking? I question your understanding of normal.
So it would be ok if the person who copied the game made it available for free in the marketplace? If anything, I would think that making it available for free would cause the original developer to lose more sales than charging for it, and thus cause more damage to the original developer.
No one's forcing you to get a degree, even if an employer requires it. You can choose for yourself. If you just want to take certain courses, most colleges will let you take them as a non-degree student. They'll even give you a transcript showing that you took whatever courses you wanted as a non-degree student. A degree shows that you met the requirements of the school to receive the degree. If there were no requirements, a degree wouldn't show anything.
The humor, in my opinion, is in arguing subtleties of of language to support a position when the language in question has been through several layers of translation. More so when the quote wasn't written down for years. Even more so when the person who may (or may not) have written it wasn't present (John 4:8, his disciples were gone).
I'm guessing his actual words wouldn't have been in english.
If you don't want your car or house searched, don't buy one.
Funny, I do not remember arcades being required to feature obsolete games or game systems. There is no technical reason why an arcade could not host FPS tournaments, with modern and brand new games. The draw of arcades has always been spending time with friends, outside of your home.
There are a number of places (internet cafes, gaming shops) that host, essentially, lan parties on a regular basis. Maybe it isn't the arcade that's dying, but just single game consoles. You don't need specialized hardware to run most games, so why have a giant box that only plays one game?
How do you know his PCBs are pale?
"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." - Dr. Carl Sagan
He likes to make his PCBs, for things he is making for his own enjoyment. He's making a binary clock, it's already inferior to a cheap digital clock he could buy for less than his blank PCB.
Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.
I'm seeing an ordered list in firefox 3.6.13 without any css editing.
They raised $16 million by receiving $16 million in donations, in part by adding a banner asking for donations at the top of their pages. It also works for public radio in the US. But the burden of supporting Wikipedia was still shouldered disproportionally by a small percentage of users.
Wikipedia has the benefit of all their content being provided for free by volunteers, which greatly reduces the amount of money they need to operate. Not all content is produced that way, and I really don't think it ever will be.
You are arguing for a donation-based business model. It works for some things, but I don't believe it's scalable or practical for many types of content.
Why?
It's essentially the tragedy of the commons. If it takes $1000 to make an album, and 1000 people download it, if everyone donates one dollar it breaks even. But if only half of the people donate, they each have to donate two dollars for it to break even.
In a donation based model, there's an incentive not to donate: if you don't donate, you get the thing and keep your money. For every person that doesn't donate, the burden on those that do donate is increased if the system is to break even. Everyone who doesn't donate is freeloading on those that do. Even if 10,000 people were to donate and 1000 were to donate one dollar, they still paid more than they would have needed to without the freeloaders.
Society figured out a way to prevent freeloading, and it was by making people pay for things.
I'm not sure where you live, but I see a lot more Fords than either of those.
I would assume that if they were interested in checking you for DUI, you would be in your car.