I don't disagree with your sentiments at all, but I think it's fair to mention that Mac users probably don't make up a large percentage of FastTrack users. How this sort of thing will do in the larger world of PC users is probably difficult to determine without more data than the number of songs Apple has managed to sell. I suspect that it won't dent the entrenched P2P networks, as I suspect free and of potentially dubious quality is still 'cheaper' for most of the infringers than $.99. I really have little more than intuition with which to make these statements, but it seems to me that for the vast majority of infringers, the recording industry is going to have to engage in fairly drastic measures to make it more 'expensive' for them to start compensating people for their labor.
I suppose you support SPAMmers too. After all we should always pay the bill for companies who want to advertises to us, right? That IS what a demo is for, you know. Advertising.
See, now you're just going off into the realm of stupid.
A video game demo is a quantity of data. An increasingly large quantity of data, at that. And people download them for entertainment to see if they enjoy the product sufficiently to buy it. If you don't want to meet the terms of its distribution, then don't download your "advertisement," you whiny idiot.
And yes, people are going to charge for their services. The still have to do the math and figure out that as more and more services want a piece of the pie, well, the pie is only so big.
And the number of services reflect this.
Speaking up can change things.
No whining on Slashdot, replying to each and every person that tells you to find a use for your life other than attempting to rationalize your moral beliefs on what others should do with their products and how it is absolutely incomprehensible for someone to engage in a practice you don't like, because you're a self-centered prick will accomplish exactly nothing.
Trolling (which is what you are doing) will not.
Ahh yes, I'm the troll. Either you're an incredibly stupid person, one with a serious mental illness, or someone with no grasp of reality. You can just figure out for yourself which that is. In the meantime, enjoy all of them there pay services, lad. Feel morally outraged! Feel it!
And the publisher quite obviously has no interest in footing the bill for all of the downloads. No one is pulling your leg to play a video game. No one cares that you don't want to pay $6, and that you expect everyone to continually give you everything freely. Don't like paying? Don't like waiting? Don't play the game, ok? I'm sure Epic is all broken up inside.
You can be concerned that in the future people are going to charge you for their services, and that people are actually going to pay them, but increasing your postcount on Slashdot by insisting that "no they shouldn't do that!" sure isn't going to change anything.
I think something we should keep in mind when we're discussing the possible avenues of attack by organizatios attempting to protect their intellectual property, is that the methods they employ to find violators don't have to be naive. FastTrack, Gnutella2, BitTorrent, eDonkey, and other such P2P networks allow you to locate sources of files based upon cryptographic hashes. They could employ a multi-tiered approach of acquiring hashes, and then eliminate the much of the deniability of "I happen to name by text files Britney Spears - Ooops, You Warezed Me Again.mp3"
When people that frequently engage in copyright infringement create sites like ShareReactor, Peerweb, and ShareLive that make it easy for you to acquire verified content in violation of the law, they also make it easier for organizations to find people distributing their property. That's even just one avenue. While it might be amusing to assume that they will always rely solely on naive file name filtering rules, you certainly can't rely upon it.
Firstly, both of your questions are really tangential to the subject.
Explain the US's intent to disobey the UN this time.
There has been a persistent group of people in the political realm that have wanted to depose Iraq's Government from even before the Gulf War. After the Gulf War, when it was apparent that the people of Iraq were not going to remove their Government, it became imperative to various conservatives to take meaningful action against Iraq, as UN inspections were clearly failing.
If you don't understand how the events of 9/11 made the American public more receptive to long-term security planning, and in this case to the agenda to those that have always wanted to remove the Iraqi Government, then I'm afraid there's little I can say. Americans are by-and-large less concerned with the political consequences of ignoring the UN than in the '90s. It only helps the case of the conservative hawks that the UN has been entirely useless in changing the situation in Iraq for the better.
Also, when it came to weapons inspectory looking the the US, why did the US say "no", but for Saddam say "Look harder!!"?
This question is even more irrelevant to my comment than the previous one, but...
Saddam wasn't interested in complying with inspections until there was a massive build-up of U.S. troops on the borders of Iraq. The Government of Iraq quite likely (this is speculation) expected it could play on the "international community," and rely on pressure from European countries that had money-interests in maintaining the then current Iraq Government, long enough to play out the money-clock on maintaining a massive military force near Iraq, and perhaps for the U.S. public to lose its overwhelming support for disarming and liberating Iraq from its then current Government. The U.S.'s position was likely partly economical but mostly political. They probably didn't want to miss the the window of opportunity for deposing the Iraqi Government, belieiving the benefits to be far greater than whether or not Europeans were satisfied with Iraq's inability to even account for the weapons inspectors knew of in the later '90s.
This is all largely disinteresting and not particularly relevant, though.
Where we differ is that I do blame the US for killing Iraqi citizens. Tens of thousands dead during the Gulf War, yet Saddam remained in power. Those responsible had to know he wasn't going to turn tame just because he'd been given a spanking.
We were there. We were in a position to act.
The U.S. was acting as part of a UN force that had no mandate for deposing the Government of Iraq. Had the U.S. acted against Iraq in such a manner as to replace its Government, it would have received the same foot-dragging from the UN. It would have also lacked the overwhelming public support the recent war in Iraq enjoyed.
You can blame whomever you want for whatever you want, but at the end of the day the U.S. did more to give the people of Iraq a chance at overthrowing their own Government than anyone else. No one else pushed to finish the job. I mean, really, countries who will remain nameless but have an amusingly high opinion of what "human rights" are, had no qualms selling weapons to the Iraqi Government. If you want to place the U.S. on the list of complicit enablers of the Iraqi Government (that itself allowed for widespread poverty and death), then I hope to see other nations higher on the list.
So, it appears that you suggest that the intended audience for particular article is those that fully understand the content of it?
You just wander off into oblivion from here. I'll simply assume that you're a troll shill and summarize with an indication that one that is wholly ignorant of topology is not in any position to make accusations about the validity of the contents of someone else's writing on or reference to it.
If you want to know more about topology, might I suggest that you actually take steps toward fulfilling desire, rather than contributing to the mindless, ignorant bullshit that this article has spawned.
If you know nothing about a subject, close your mouth, and open a book; your input is worthless.
You are also wrongheaded in your opinions and you are setting yourself up for a hard lesson or two.
I think you received the hard lesson. Technical things are technical. If you're too ignorant to understand a proof in topology, then you're not the intended audience for it.
You'll either get smarter or earn an early darwin award.
Right. Smarter. Darwin Award. You haven't even the smallest quantity of knowledge required to comment on this subject, and you're talking about its validity. Here's an idea: stop being ignorant, or no one will lend your rambling any credence.
Welcome to Slashdot, where being educated on a subject isn't considered important for posting. Child.
The n-dimensional sphere is the set of all points in n+1 space at a given radius from a center point.
What you're asking for is for someone to explain to you a subject you're ignorant of, when the best course of action for you is to just ignore it, because it's not intended for you.
By the way, even if I had a job I'd be getting financial aid
There's an amusing combination of events here.
1. You state that there are absolutely no jobs for unskilled laborers in your market.
2. You're receiving aid in order to obtain a college education, because you cannot afford to pay by yourself, and because you cannot find work.
3. You're majoring in Philosophy.
3.1. This will not likely provide you with marketable skills.
3.1.1. So you're essentially wasting your financial aid, by not acquiring skills that will improve your marketability.
4. You're almost certainly incurring debt as a result of your financial aid. I cannot be certain of this, as I am not familiar with the extent your education is subsidized debt-free.
4.1. If this is the case, and we assume that your majoring in Philosophy will not improve your marketability, then you are simply worsening your financial situation by furthering your education.
I sort of found this potential set of events rather amusing, so I thought I would share it with you.
While we're on the subject of entertaining hypothetical scenarios...
Al Gore had more votes than George Bush, people know Al Gore supports higher taxes at least in theory and they voted for him because they as in the working class has something to gain by higher taxes. The working class have families which without taxes would not be able to get an education The wealth redistribution applies to schools, law enforcement and many other useful agencies. Music and Movies could be something the majority of young people want
Let us assume that
1. The majority of citizenry "want more taxation."
2. That this is sufficient reason to impose further regulation of personal freedom.
3. That there are more working-class people in need than are sufficient tax revenues to provide the social programs they deem necessary, including entertainment.
4. That they wish to maximize the returns of taxation in order to meet these needs.
Since it is your civic duty to maximize your taxable income, to meet the needs of the working-class families, a regulatory body is charged with overseeing all private and public loans, grants, and scholarships for the purpose of maximizing the marketability, and therefore the wages and as such the taxation of all students. As a result, due to your civic responsibility, a requirement for the funding of your continued education is that the Government chooses for you what subject you will study, and what occupation you should seek.
Wow you act like you've never been jobless before.
Only because you act as if you are entitled to something that you are not, and refuse to contemplate the genuine effects of your lazy self-centeredness.
you are a republican doesnt mean the majority of people are
I am fact neither a Republican nor a conservative.
According to the last election, Al Gore had more votes than George Bush
Which is irrelevant when most of the people didn't vote at all.
people know Al Gore supports higher taxes at least in theory and they voted for him because they as in the working class has something to gain by higher taxes.
Why people vote for someone is a complex subject.
The working class have families which without taxes would not be able to get an education, they working class pays taxes but the upper class is supposed to pay more as it distributes the wealth.
Actually the purpose of a progressive tax system is to distribute burden, not to distribute wealth.
Music and Movies could be something the majority of young people want
Which is neither substantiated nor particularly important.
young people happen to be the same people who cannot afford these things even with a job.
I seem to manage. Perhaps I am "old."
Old people instead of having to pay for these things with their credit card will pay for it via taxes
So again, you want the people with jobs to subsidize your entertainment, because you don't have one. You wish to remove their freedom to exercise choice over resources they earn for a non-essential.
and no I dont think record companies and people like britney spears should the the money, there should be a democracy not a monopoly.
There would be a monopoly. A state monopoly. A state monopoly where the Rudolph Giulianis decide whether or not someone's vision of art is compatible with their own, and thus fitting of funding.
Based on what people listen to most the government should give the money out.
That is how the system works now, because people choose what entertainment to support, and businesses cater to their desires. Newsflash, a lot of people like Britney Spears.
Musicians would make more money this way
Demonstrate this to be the case.
Movies in the short term might have smaller budgets which mean slightly less special effects but newer actors will have a chance to get into the industry so its a tradeoff of talent for budget cuts.
Why shouldn't the old people pay taxes to support the young?
Why should anyone pay taxes to provide entertainment for any other group of people?
What does age have to do with taxation? You're jobless, remember? You want people that work to pay for your music, too? They're already footing the bill for your community college. Why not everything else? Afterall, you're such a valuable investment.
They do it for education.
What's your point, exactly? That there's public education? That isn't entertainment, is it?
Show me a survey proving that the majority of middle aged people prefer to avoid paying taxes on entertainment.
Where did I claim the majority of middle aged people prefer to avoid paying taxes on entertainment?
You should never write a response without first doing your research. This is what you told me.
You should start by reading the posts you comment on.
and I suppose Newton got a substatial investment to develop calculus.
Do you mean Leibniz? If you don't get it, I won't be surprised, although it's an especially amusing story given the subject of intellectual property. Actually it's interesting that you mention, though not particularly relevant, Newton. Calculus, afterall, wouldn't be patentable anyway, but Newton indeed received substantial financial investment for his affairs by his position at Cambridge.
Companies aren't the only ones cap[bleof producing results.
Companies simply produce better results.
Sure there's a question of research, but that isn't limited to companies carrying out the work.
And private and public research is not limited by the presence of protections that foster a better society for commercial research.
Look at genetics. Celera took how many $millions to develop their database. They didn't invent the techniques.
Which techniques are you speaking of? Are you referring to their method of fragment sequencing? Provide sources for other applications of their strategy to properly ordering fragments in chromosomes.
Patents are outdated. They were made to encourage companies to take the cost of distribution and manufacturing. Long ago it was more costly to deliver a product than to invent and test it.
Patents were meant to secure, for a limited time, the rights to an invention to keep the relatively cheap mass-production of goods from removing the incentive for people to create and widely distribute their goods on a market.
It is more expensive to produce an idea than to mass-produce it. The mass-production of intellectual property adds no incentive to create it, and without protections will slow innovation or result in poles for the marketing of such goods.
You still haven't demonstrated that removing rights of others will provide a more favorable outcome. I should also point out that you have not met your burden of proof of your previous claims, nor have you done the right thing and confessed you pulled it out of your ass.
I should also point out how amusing it is for you to mention Celera, when they succeeded at thoroughly besting the HGP in producing results.
If I build a computer, it'll cost me X, and I charge X+Y to get my profit at the end of the day,
I'm glad you compare building computers to the R&D of the companies that actually own and produce the intellectual property required to produce them in the first place. Yes, your physical labor charges should just about cover squat.
Pray tell, what glorious intellectual contributions have you provided?
Engineering and research into new areas is like russian roulette, you can easily never discover anything and run out of money and you can easily
hit on a gold mine having spent very little.
Research is an investment, with calculated risk. The ease with which one goes broke lies on your capacity to reclaim expenses, and the soundness of your research.
Subsidizing the deficit in knowledge with cash is just plain gambling, and then you expect the rest of the world which needs (not wants) your product to maintain your habit when sharing the knowledge would clear everyone's deficit. Knowledge takes up no volume and costs infinitesimal amounts in cash compared to the gambling cost.
They expect to be compensated for their investments. If the world "needs" so badly solutions to problems, then it can get them itself, yet it lays claim to those things others have produced with their mind and hand, without compensation, with its own peril.
"Sharing knowledge" clears no one's defecit.
Provide a proof that "information requires no volume." As a twist, do so, using no volume.
But don't come to me with your Economics 101 pedantics when things that are necessary are concerned.
Yes, yes, of course. Necessary. So necessary. What
How about a dose of "If you sensationalize your whining in a manner that belittles the real suffering of others, you look like an ass."
If that doesn't suit you, how about a dose of "No one wants to hear your self-aggrandized rubbish anymore than that of a rabid nationalist's."
Or you can just go on flaming others for flaming you for flaming them, while threatening to emigrate. That's really productive. Like anyone cares, really.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree with your sentiments at all, but I think it's fair to mention that Mac users probably don't make up a large percentage of FastTrack users. How this sort of thing will do in the larger world of PC users is probably difficult to determine without more data than the number of songs Apple has managed to sell. I suspect that it won't dent the entrenched P2P networks, as I suspect free and of potentially dubious quality is still 'cheaper' for most of the infringers than $.99. I really have little more than intuition with which to make these statements, but it seems to me that for the vast majority of infringers, the recording industry is going to have to engage in fairly drastic measures to make it more 'expensive' for them to start compensating people for their labor.
Do you have stores that sell "used" CDs? If so, what do they usually charge for their products?
I suppose you support SPAMmers too. After all we should always pay the bill for companies who want to advertises to us, right? That IS what a demo is for, you know. Advertising.
See, now you're just going off into the realm of stupid.
A video game demo is a quantity of data. An increasingly large quantity of data, at that. And people download them for entertainment to see if they enjoy the product sufficiently to buy it. If you don't want to meet the terms of its distribution, then don't download your "advertisement," you whiny idiot.
And yes, people are going to charge for their services. The still have to do the math and figure out that as more and more services want a piece of the pie, well, the pie is only so big.
And the number of services reflect this.
Speaking up can change things.
No whining on Slashdot, replying to each and every person that tells you to find a use for your life other than attempting to rationalize your moral beliefs on what others should do with their products and how it is absolutely incomprehensible for someone to engage in a practice you don't like, because you're a self-centered prick will accomplish exactly nothing.
Trolling (which is what you are doing) will not.
Ahh yes, I'm the troll. Either you're an incredibly stupid person, one with a serious mental illness, or someone with no grasp of reality. You can just figure out for yourself which that is. In the meantime, enjoy all of them there pay services, lad. Feel morally outraged! Feel it!
Since Unreal 2 was developed by Legend, I'm sure they'll survive.
And the publisher quite obviously has no interest in footing the bill for all of the downloads. No one is pulling your leg to play a video game. No one cares that you don't want to pay $6, and that you expect everyone to continually give you everything freely. Don't like paying? Don't like waiting? Don't play the game, ok? I'm sure Epic is all broken up inside.
You can be concerned that in the future people are going to charge you for their services, and that people are actually going to pay them, but increasing your postcount on Slashdot by insisting that "no they shouldn't do that!" sure isn't going to change anything.
Your $5 crack clearly isn't on par with $100 crack.
If that's the result of him on $5 crack, I'd rather hate to imagine the results from $100 crack.
Try some of these and see what you think.
You mean the movie collection you acquired by imprinting it into your memory after paying $10 for a ticket at the cinema?
I think something we should keep in mind when we're discussing the possible avenues of attack by organizatios attempting to protect their intellectual property, is that the methods they employ to find violators don't have to be naive. FastTrack, Gnutella2, BitTorrent, eDonkey, and other such P2P networks allow you to locate sources of files based upon cryptographic hashes. They could employ a multi-tiered approach of acquiring hashes, and then eliminate the much of the deniability of "I happen to name by text files Britney Spears - Ooops, You Warezed Me Again.mp3"
When people that frequently engage in copyright infringement create sites like ShareReactor, Peerweb, and ShareLive that make it easy for you to acquire verified content in violation of the law, they also make it easier for organizations to find people distributing their property. That's even just one avenue. While it might be amusing to assume that they will always rely solely on naive file name filtering rules, you certainly can't rely upon it.
Firstly, both of your questions are really tangential to the subject.
Explain the US's intent to disobey the UN this time.
There has been a persistent group of people in the political realm that have wanted to depose Iraq's Government from even before the Gulf War. After the Gulf War, when it was apparent that the people of Iraq were not going to remove their Government, it became imperative to various conservatives to take meaningful action against Iraq, as UN inspections were clearly failing.
If you don't understand how the events of 9/11 made the American public more receptive to long-term security planning, and in this case to the agenda to those that have always wanted to remove the Iraqi Government, then I'm afraid there's little I can say. Americans are by-and-large less concerned with the political consequences of ignoring the UN than in the '90s. It only helps the case of the conservative hawks that the UN has been entirely useless in changing the situation in Iraq for the better.
Also, when it came to weapons inspectory looking the the US, why did the US say "no", but for Saddam say "Look harder!!"?
This question is even more irrelevant to my comment than the previous one, but...
Saddam wasn't interested in complying with inspections until there was a massive build-up of U.S. troops on the borders of Iraq. The Government of Iraq quite likely (this is speculation) expected it could play on the "international community," and rely on pressure from European countries that had money-interests in maintaining the then current Iraq Government, long enough to play out the money-clock on maintaining a massive military force near Iraq, and perhaps for the U.S. public to lose its overwhelming support for disarming and liberating Iraq from its then current Government. The U.S.'s position was likely partly economical but mostly political. They probably didn't want to miss the the window of opportunity for deposing the Iraqi Government, belieiving the benefits to be far greater than whether or not Europeans were satisfied with Iraq's inability to even account for the weapons inspectors knew of in the later '90s.
This is all largely disinteresting and not particularly relevant, though.
Where we differ is that I do blame the US for killing Iraqi citizens. Tens of thousands dead during the Gulf War, yet Saddam remained in power. Those responsible had to know he wasn't going to turn tame just because he'd been given a spanking.
We were there. We were in a position to act.
The U.S. was acting as part of a UN force that had no mandate for deposing the Government of Iraq. Had the U.S. acted against Iraq in such a manner as to replace its Government, it would have received the same foot-dragging from the UN. It would have also lacked the overwhelming public support the recent war in Iraq enjoyed.
You can blame whomever you want for whatever you want, but at the end of the day the U.S. did more to give the people of Iraq a chance at overthrowing their own Government than anyone else. No one else pushed to finish the job. I mean, really, countries who will remain nameless but have an amusingly high opinion of what "human rights" are, had no qualms selling weapons to the Iraqi Government. If you want to place the U.S. on the list of complicit enablers of the Iraqi Government (that itself allowed for widespread poverty and death), then I hope to see other nations higher on the list.
Didnt you say that Africans hate open source?
Do you have to work hard to be this retarded?
oh yeah, I guess that's why yanks are pretty well universally recognized as loudmouthed arrogant a##holes
Would you be a 'yank' by any chance?
where ever they gone in the world....
Nice writing, Tex.
So, it appears that you suggest that the intended audience for particular article is those that fully understand the content of it?
You just wander off into oblivion from here. I'll simply assume that you're a troll shill and summarize with an indication that one that is wholly ignorant of topology is not in any position to make accusations about the validity of the contents of someone else's writing on or reference to it.
If you want to know more about topology, might I suggest that you actually take steps toward fulfilling desire, rather than contributing to the mindless, ignorant bullshit that this article has spawned.
If you know nothing about a subject, close your mouth, and open a book; your input is worthless.
You are also wrongheaded in your opinions and you are setting yourself up for a hard lesson or two.
I think you received the hard lesson. Technical things are technical. If you're too ignorant to understand a proof in topology, then you're not the intended audience for it.
You'll either get smarter or earn an early darwin award.
Right. Smarter. Darwin Award. You haven't even the smallest quantity of knowledge required to comment on this subject, and you're talking about its validity. Here's an idea: stop being ignorant, or no one will lend your rambling any credence.
Welcome to Slashdot, where being educated on a subject isn't considered important for posting. Child.
The n-dimensional sphere is the set of all points in n+1 space at a given radius from a center point.
What you're asking for is for someone to explain to you a subject you're ignorant of, when the best course of action for you is to just ignore it, because it's not intended for you.
Ahh, some other thoughts...
By the way, even if I had a job I'd be getting financial aid
There's an amusing combination of events here.
1. You state that there are absolutely no jobs for unskilled laborers in your market.
2. You're receiving aid in order to obtain a college education, because you cannot afford to pay by yourself, and because you cannot find work.
3. You're majoring in Philosophy.
3.1. This will not likely provide you with marketable skills.
3.1.1. So you're essentially wasting your financial aid, by not acquiring skills that will improve your marketability.
4. You're almost certainly incurring debt as a result of your financial aid. I cannot be certain of this, as I am not familiar with the extent your education is subsidized debt-free.
4.1. If this is the case, and we assume that your majoring in Philosophy will not improve your marketability, then you are simply worsening your financial situation by furthering your education.
I sort of found this potential set of events rather amusing, so I thought I would share it with you.
While we're on the subject of entertaining hypothetical scenarios...
Al Gore had more votes than George Bush, people know Al Gore supports higher taxes at least in theory and they voted for him because they as in the working class has something to gain by higher taxes.
The working class have families which without taxes would not be able to get an education
The wealth redistribution applies to schools, law enforcement and many other useful agencies.
Music and Movies could be something the majority of young people want
Let us assume that
1. The majority of citizenry "want more taxation."
2. That this is sufficient reason to impose further regulation of personal freedom.
3. That there are more working-class people in need than are sufficient tax revenues to provide the social programs they deem necessary, including entertainment.
4. That they wish to maximize the returns of taxation in order to meet these needs.
Since it is your civic duty to maximize your taxable income, to meet the needs of the working-class families, a regulatory body is charged with overseeing all private and public loans, grants, and scholarships for the purpose of maximizing the marketability, and therefore the wages and as such the taxation of all students. As a result, due to your civic responsibility, a requirement for the funding of your continued education is that the Government chooses for you what subject you will study, and what occupation you should seek.
Sounds like fun, eh?
Wow you act like you've never been jobless before.
Only because you act as if you are entitled to something that you are not, and refuse to contemplate the genuine effects of your lazy self-centeredness.
you are a republican doesnt mean the majority of people are
I am fact neither a Republican nor a conservative.
According to the last election, Al Gore had more votes than George Bush
Which is irrelevant when most of the people didn't vote at all.
people know Al Gore supports higher taxes at least in theory and they voted for him because they as in the working class has something to gain by higher taxes.
Why people vote for someone is a complex subject.
The working class have families which without taxes would not be able to get an education, they working class pays taxes but the upper class is supposed to pay more as it distributes the wealth.
Actually the purpose of a progressive tax system is to distribute burden, not to distribute wealth.
Music and Movies could be something the majority of young people want
Which is neither substantiated nor particularly important.
young people happen to be the same people who cannot afford these things even with a job.
I seem to manage. Perhaps I am "old."
Old people instead of having to pay for these things with their credit card will pay for it via taxes
So again, you want the people with jobs to subsidize your entertainment, because you don't have one. You wish to remove their freedom to exercise choice over resources they earn for a non-essential.
and no I dont think record companies and people like britney spears should the the money, there should be a democracy not a monopoly.
There would be a monopoly. A state monopoly. A state monopoly where the Rudolph Giulianis decide whether or not someone's vision of art is compatible with their own, and thus fitting of funding.
Based on what people listen to most the government should give the money out.
That is how the system works now, because people choose what entertainment to support, and businesses cater to their desires. Newsflash, a lot of people like Britney Spears.
Musicians would make more money this way
Demonstrate this to be the case.
Movies in the short term might have smaller budgets which mean slightly less special effects but newer actors will have a chance to get into the industry so its a tradeoff of talent for budget cuts.
Demonstrate this to be the case.
You must have missed that chapter.
Why shouldn't the old people pay taxes to support the young?
Why should anyone pay taxes to provide entertainment for any other group of people?
What does age have to do with taxation? You're jobless, remember? You want people that work to pay for your music, too? They're already footing the bill for your community college. Why not everything else? Afterall, you're such a valuable investment.
They do it for education.
What's your point, exactly? That there's public education? That isn't entertainment, is it?
Show me a survey proving that the majority of middle aged people prefer to avoid paying taxes on entertainment.
Where did I claim the majority of middle aged people prefer to avoid paying taxes on entertainment?
You should never write a response without first doing your research. This is what you told me.
You should start by reading the posts you comment on.
Surely you can make sense. Preferably on multiple occassions.
You can start by developing your train of reason with regard to your interpetation of my statements.
Of course since you lack intellectual honesty, as you've demonstrated before, I'm sure you won't.
and I suppose Newton got a substatial investment to develop calculus.
Do you mean Leibniz? If you don't get it, I won't be surprised, although it's an especially amusing story given the subject of intellectual property. Actually it's interesting that you mention, though not particularly relevant, Newton. Calculus, afterall, wouldn't be patentable anyway, but Newton indeed received substantial financial investment for his affairs by his position at Cambridge.
Companies aren't the only ones cap[bleof producing results.
Companies simply produce better results.
Sure there's a question of research, but that isn't limited to companies carrying out the work.
And private and public research is not limited by the presence of protections that foster a better society for commercial research.
Look at genetics. Celera took how many $millions to develop their database. They didn't invent the techniques.
Which techniques are you speaking of? Are you referring to their method of fragment sequencing? Provide sources for other applications of their strategy to properly ordering fragments in chromosomes.
Patents are outdated. They were made to encourage companies to take the cost of distribution and manufacturing. Long ago it was more costly to deliver a product than to invent and test it.
Patents were meant to secure, for a limited time, the rights to an invention to keep the relatively cheap mass-production of goods from removing the incentive for people to create and widely distribute their goods on a market.
It is more expensive to produce an idea than to mass-produce it. The mass-production of intellectual property adds no incentive to create it, and without protections will slow innovation or result in poles for the marketing of such goods.
You still haven't demonstrated that removing rights of others will provide a more favorable outcome. I should also point out that you have not met your burden of proof of your previous claims, nor have you done the right thing and confessed you pulled it out of your ass.
I should also point out how amusing it is for you to mention Celera, when they succeeded at thoroughly besting the HGP in producing results.
If I build a computer, it'll cost me X, and I charge X+Y to get my profit at the end of the day,
I'm glad you compare building computers to the R&D of the companies that actually own and produce the intellectual property required to produce them in the first place. Yes, your physical labor charges should just about cover squat.
Pray tell, what glorious intellectual contributions have you provided?
Engineering and research into new areas is like russian roulette, you can easily never discover anything and run out of money and you can easily hit on a gold mine having spent very little.
Research is an investment, with calculated risk. The ease with which one goes broke lies on your capacity to reclaim expenses, and the soundness of your research.
Subsidizing the deficit in knowledge with cash is just plain gambling, and then you expect the rest of the world which needs (not wants) your product to maintain your habit when sharing the knowledge would clear everyone's deficit. Knowledge takes up no volume and costs infinitesimal amounts in cash compared to the gambling cost.
They expect to be compensated for their investments. If the world "needs" so badly solutions to problems, then it can get them itself, yet it lays claim to those things others have produced with their mind and hand, without compensation, with its own peril.
"Sharing knowledge" clears no one's defecit.
Provide a proof that "information requires no volume." As a twist, do so, using no volume.
But don't come to me with your Economics 101 pedantics when things that are necessary are concerned.
Yes, yes, of course. Necessary. So necessary. What
I am afraid that I really must question your literacy.
How about a dose of "If you sensationalize your whining in a manner that belittles the real suffering of others, you look like an ass."
If that doesn't suit you, how about a dose of "No one wants to hear your self-aggrandized rubbish anymore than that of a rabid nationalist's."
Or you can just go on flaming others for flaming you for flaming them, while threatening to emigrate. That's really productive. Like anyone cares, really.
No, no it doesn't.
This should read "No, no it isn't."