I write. Not screen plays, but stories. There is a butt-load more writing to do in a story that is to be delivered in print form than in a screen-play, which is really no more than a guideline for the director. The dialogue, scenes and action can and will change before it's committed. Even event sequences change. Given all that, the screen play writer is no more important than anyone else for a movie.
If you doubt me, pull one up online. There are plenty out there. Read it and then compare to the movie.
And as for your concept that the others simply support the idea of the writer, you are wrong. Most movies come from writers, but many come from a producer or director who hires a writer to flesh out an idea.
No. Nice spin on stats, though. In general, more people shoot a friend or family member than shoot a home intruder. This does not take into account intruders driven off without being shot. It also says not a friggin' thing about 'you', only statistics. People who don't understand the difference between statistics and individuals make this gross error all the time.
Chew on these stats: In reality, you are far more likely to never shoot anyone if you own a gun.
Than your comfort level must be extremely low as my guess is you know scant few in law enforcement, much less those who create wanted posters and alerts.
"The justification for copyrights and patents is that, on balance, they make information flow more freely, allow for more interoperability, etc."
No it isn't. It's to allow the originator to be reimbursed for their efforts. That then makes for more content from the originator. Interoperability is simply something you layered on, has nothing to do with CR and patents.
"I don't see that happening."
Yeah. We have more content than at all other times in history combined and languages, machinery and systems are more interoperable than at any other time. But you don't see it.
"If the artists were getting fairly compensated then maybe I would have come around."
That sir, is a baldfaced lie. The tenor of your screed belies your verbiage. See the following:
"As far as I'm concerned: the artists can starve."
I just want my cookies and I want them free!
"I have a sneaking suspicion that people would continue making music anyway, because it's what they love."
They love eating and sleeping under roofs too, but you don't give a crap about that, only getting freebies. That love argument is only put forth by the uncreative in order to shaft the creative.
"Today a band can form, play some live gigs, press their own CD's, and still turn a profit."
As long as they do every damned thing on their own and don't decide to hire out any portion of the process thereby freeing themselves of drudgery and making more time available to create. Oh, and adding that cost to their product, thereby making it less free for you.
"A guy can dream eh?"
Of cookies, music and videos he doesn't have to pay for. I know you're lying because if you actually thought as you write, you would simply not access the talents of say Pink Floyd and rely exclusively on artists who press their own CDs. Instead, you sneak around and rip them off because you really do want their stuff, you just want it free.
"People can still sell their intellectual labor even without "intellectual property" laws - and the labor is where the value comes from."
Well Sparky, since you're so friggin' bright, perhaps you can tell us how an author would make the money to reimburse him or her for the time and effort spent in writing that novel.
As far as clones, perhaps you don't understand the concept. It's taking something and duplicating it, not creating a product which simply performs the same functions.
"You might respond that Apple has to charge more because they have to pay for the research that went into designing the iPod, and I wouldn't disagree. But it's not my fault, or any other potential iPod owner's fault, that Apple chose to structure their business that way: paying the researchers out of money that might materialize down the road someday."
And here you demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the world. How the hell would Apple pay their researchers? From the generous donations of people such as yourself, who altruistically want the world to progress?
At least be honest so you don't have to conjure up lame rationale. You just want the cheapest version of something and are willing to support rip-off scumbags to get it.
"It's a flawed business model, trading actual money today for imaginary potential money next year (when you may not be in a position to compete with others who are selling the same thing)..."
Not if they don't rip it off. What part of creating your own product do you have such a hard time with? Oh yeah, I already answered that. Paying for the result.
Depending on how unrelated the species are, the offspring may or may not be viable.
Maybe you need to find other examples then. In ligers, only the female is viable because the X is comparable enough. We have no idea as to whether this viability extends past a generation yet or causes long term problems. Mules are sterile with rare exceptions.
Reproductive isolation is simply the first step, otherwise a simple catastrophe which isolates a group creates a new species and this is not the case.
Interesting you get into that "live like a monk" rejection of people rejecting advances after rejecting all of YouTube without knowing that it also contains stuff like galaxy simulations, the millennium simulation, internal cell working simulations.....
Those who simply reject TV out of hand are no better than those who reject cars or buying bread.
"...in the sense that currently less than 1% of musicians and audience members understand these issues in this or similar ways..."
Translation: Don't think as I do. You're being pompous when you make that statement, grammatically placing yourself in the 1% of the enlightened. Tell you what, bro'. I just bought 3 CDs of Evanescence and it's art, regardless of your effette attitude.
There's been nothing said about it being falsifiable. "Using the proper equipment" also applies to having a time machine, you know. The article only said the Large Hadron Collider should give insights. So, the gp(p?) is correct. At this time, it's scifi.
For a hypothesis to be scientific, the experiment needs to be able to be done, not just imagined.
Uh no, solipsism central. The photo development tech cannot be certain that someone did not sneak into the person's house, take their camera, take child porn shots and surreptitiously return it.
As for your bogus e-mail example, if the recipient didn't call the cops on the sender you might have a point. It would be the height of stupidity to assume they wouldn't turn your ass in for e-mailing the shots to them, however. I think that example also covers the depth of your thought on this issue.
What if, what if, what if? Solipsism belongs in sophomore philosophy and nowhere else.
Uh, no, thimblebrain, because that's not illegal. Well wait. I wrote that before realizing you used "boot". Maybe in England it is. In the U.S. it ain't.
"...it would have been impossible to miss if that was anywhere near them."
They didn't miss.
Your argument seems to presume they didn't start lying to cover their asses. You also need to look at
picturessss
of a police helicopters. Note the clear windows in the floor.
Bullshit, buddy boy. I used to point my red laser at barn signs at night while I drove home from contract. Middle of country, midnight, no lights. I kept the sign lit for seconds at a time. And at a quarter mile, that dot was about a foot across. Five hundred feet, six inches.
Evidence, in the realm of science, is that which you can demonstrate to someone else. Demonstrate. If they claim something, it is incumbent on them and no one else to demonstrate it. No demonstrating, no convincing. Simple.
Sure there are individuals to observe. I am one and none of your presumptuous sentences make that otherwise. No one listens to your inner voice other than you because... it's inner. I have no need for fuzzy observation to not fear my demise. Just the realization that I will, as has everyone before me.
Seems to me that negating reality with some warm and cuddly supernatural concepts isn't really reaching the crux of the matter, that we don't friggin' matter. There is no need for a grand unification theory of souls to grasp that.
Slashdot Mirror
I write. Not screen plays, but stories. There is a butt-load more writing to do in a story that is to be delivered in print form than in a screen-play, which is really no more than a guideline for the director. The dialogue, scenes and action can and will change before it's committed. Even event sequences change. Given all that, the screen play writer is no more important than anyone else for a movie.
If you doubt me, pull one up online. There are plenty out there. Read it and then compare to the movie.
And as for your concept that the others simply support the idea of the writer, you are wrong. Most movies come from writers, but many come from a producer or director who hires a writer to flesh out an idea.
"Saving paper sounds good but not at the expense of the secret ballot."
"The ballot could contain encoded information identifying Ms. Jones."
Do you not see the contradiction?
Not off-topic at all as he was responding to an off-topic comment. A false one as well.
No. Nice spin on stats, though. In general, more people shoot a friend or family member than shoot a home intruder. This does not take into account intruders driven off without being shot. It also says not a friggin' thing about 'you', only statistics. People who don't understand the difference between statistics and individuals make this gross error all the time.
Chew on these stats: In reality, you are far more likely to never shoot anyone if you own a gun.
Forgot that one, didn't you?
"... people (especially in USA) would over act."
What a crock load of fear mongering.
Than your comfort level must be extremely low as my guess is you know scant few in law enforcement, much less those who create wanted posters and alerts.
"The justification for copyrights and patents is that, on balance, they make information flow more freely, allow for more interoperability, etc."
No it isn't. It's to allow the originator to be reimbursed for their efforts. That then makes for more content from the originator. Interoperability is simply something you layered on, has nothing to do with CR and patents.
"I don't see that happening."
Yeah. We have more content than at all other times in history combined and languages, machinery and systems are more interoperable than at any other time. But you don't see it.
"If the artists were getting fairly compensated then maybe I would have come around."
That sir, is a baldfaced lie. The tenor of your screed belies your verbiage. See the following:
"As far as I'm concerned: the artists can starve."
I just want my cookies and I want them free!
"I have a sneaking suspicion that people would continue making music anyway, because it's what they love."
They love eating and sleeping under roofs too, but you don't give a crap about that, only getting freebies. That love argument is only put forth by the uncreative in order to shaft the creative.
"Today a band can form, play some live gigs, press their own CD's, and still turn a profit."
As long as they do every damned thing on their own and don't decide to hire out any portion of the process thereby freeing themselves of drudgery and making more time available to create. Oh, and adding that cost to their product, thereby making it less free for you.
"A guy can dream eh?"
Of cookies, music and videos he doesn't have to pay for. I know you're lying because if you actually thought as you write, you would simply not access the talents of say Pink Floyd and rely exclusively on artists who press their own CDs. Instead, you sneak around and rip them off because you really do want their stuff, you just want it free.
"People can still sell their intellectual labor even without "intellectual property" laws - and the labor is where the value comes from."
Well Sparky, since you're so friggin' bright, perhaps you can tell us how an author would make the money to reimburse him or her for the time and effort spent in writing that novel.
As far as clones, perhaps you don't understand the concept. It's taking something and duplicating it, not creating a product which simply performs the same functions.
"You might respond that Apple has to charge more because they have to pay for the research that went into designing the iPod, and I wouldn't disagree. But it's not my fault, or any other potential iPod owner's fault, that Apple chose to structure their business that way: paying the researchers out of money that might materialize down the road someday."
And here you demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the world. How the hell would Apple pay their researchers? From the generous donations of people such as yourself, who altruistically want the world to progress?
At least be honest so you don't have to conjure up lame rationale. You just want the cheapest version of something and are willing to support rip-off scumbags to get it.
"It's a flawed business model, trading actual money today for imaginary potential money next year (when you may not be in a position to compete with others who are selling the same thing)..."
Not if they don't rip it off. What part of creating your own product do you have such a hard time with? Oh yeah, I already answered that. Paying for the result.
The people of New York and California are two variants of a different species from the rest of the U.S.
Depending on how unrelated the species are, the offspring may or may not be viable.
Maybe you need to find other examples then. In ligers, only the female is viable because the X is comparable enough. We have no idea as to whether this viability extends past a generation yet or causes long term problems. Mules are sterile with rare exceptions.
Reproductive isolation is simply the first step, otherwise a simple catastrophe which isolates a group creates a new species and this is not the case.
Maybe you should invest in 1st party tools and avoid the 3rd party thing.
Interesting you get into that "live like a monk" rejection of people rejecting advances after rejecting all of YouTube without knowing that it also contains stuff like galaxy simulations, the millennium simulation, internal cell working simulations.....
Those who simply reject TV out of hand are no better than those who reject cars or buying bread.
*I* like multimedia, and so do others, period.
Except for TV.
"...in the sense that currently less than 1% of musicians and audience members understand these issues in this or similar ways..."
Translation: Don't think as I do. You're being pompous when you make that statement, grammatically placing yourself in the 1% of the enlightened. Tell you what, bro'. I just bought 3 CDs of Evanescence and it's art, regardless of your effette attitude.
There's been nothing said about it being falsifiable. "Using the proper equipment" also applies to having a time machine, you know. The article only said the Large Hadron Collider should give insights. So, the gp(p?) is correct. At this time, it's scifi.
For a hypothesis to be scientific, the experiment needs to be able to be done, not just imagined.
Uh no, solipsism central. The photo development tech cannot be certain that someone did not sneak into the person's house, take their camera, take child porn shots and surreptitiously return it.
As for your bogus e-mail example, if the recipient didn't call the cops on the sender you might have a point. It would be the height of stupidity to assume they wouldn't turn your ass in for e-mailing the shots to them, however. I think that example also covers the depth of your thought on this issue.
What if, what if, what if? Solipsism belongs in sophomore philosophy and nowhere else.
Bzzt! Wrong. That would only apply if they didn't give him the copies.
"... and is going to report *that* too."
Uh, no, thimblebrain, because that's not illegal. Well wait. I wrote that before realizing you used "boot". Maybe in England it is. In the U.S. it ain't.
"...it would have been impossible to miss if that was anywhere near them."
They didn't miss.
Your argument seems to presume they didn't start lying to cover their asses. You also need to look at picture s s s s of a police helicopters. Note the clear windows in the floor.
Which has been pointed out is glass in an observation helicopter and the crew are looking down. You lose.
Bullshit, buddy boy. I used to point my red laser at barn signs at night while I drove home from contract. Middle of country, midnight, no lights. I kept the sign lit for seconds at a time. And at a quarter mile, that dot was about a foot across. Five hundred feet, six inches.
Beyond yours, perhaps. You want to witness the expansion of a dust cloud why?
Evidence, in the realm of science, is that which you can demonstrate to someone else. Demonstrate. If they claim something, it is incumbent on them and no one else to demonstrate it. No demonstrating, no convincing. Simple.
Put the solipsism down and back away slowly.
Sure there are individuals to observe. I am one and none of your presumptuous sentences make that otherwise. No one listens to your inner voice other than you because... it's inner. I have no need for fuzzy observation to not fear my demise. Just the realization that I will, as has everyone before me.
Seems to me that negating reality with some warm and cuddly supernatural concepts isn't really reaching the crux of the matter, that we don't friggin' matter. There is no need for a grand unification theory of souls to grasp that.