I would agree with you, but the advertising for a CS degree is about becoming a programmer, not a researcher.
While its obviously important to develop people who are well versed in the mathematical and architectural aspects of programming, its rather useless to send them out in the world without at least a fair amount of experience in languages they're likely to end up using. Esoteric cs education burns a lot of kids who got into it in the first place thinking it was a path to being a code monkey.
It seems like a pretty big deal to me if a CS prof doesn't code - how can he or she possibly gauge the real world value or applicability of the knowledge s/he's teaching? I did a lot of music study earlier in my life, and while I don't expect music profs to know how to play any instrument, none would be a red flag. A lot of those profs never touched on anything regarding how to play a particular instrument - it'd be mostly theory and coaching. But if a music prof can't actually be bothered to be interested enough to actually play an instrument, they're unemployed. I understand the value of the science aspect of computer science, but it does bother me that people work in the field yet do not write software themselves.
Similarly, I can use my right to drive on the highway (conferred upon me by my driver's license) to run down a pedestrian
Hey, I can stab my toothbrush into anybodies eye.. but why do I buy a toothbrush or a car? Why dont you give me some good examples of people who earned their driving privileges to kill someone?
oops, struck a nerve, apparently.. doesnt really answer my question tho. If people are so pissed off about banning silly string, nerf guns, etc because some moron abuses the power of guns, why not just regulate guns?
> So? "Less" ideas is not the same as "no" ideas. And no one argues that the current patent system is not broken (and is, therefore, often sidestepped).
Theres a point at which it does such a lousy job that one makes a valid point that it costs more than it benefits society. I'm a firm believer in the patent system, AND the copyright system, yet both seem to me to be so broken as to create more negative effects on invention and creativity than they do contribute to them.
Thats why I asked to be pointed to a software patent that actually contains the tenet of patents: reproducibility. If it doesn't actually explain how to reproduce the claimed invention, of what use is it when it expired and is free to the public?
Only in America do you infringe upon the rights of silly string owners, not the gun owners.
I mean seriously.. that is a textbook example of why constitutionally granting the right for people to own firearms is a retarded idea. Responsible gun owners have every right to be pissed when somebody abuses the right to own a gun, but it bothers me how they compare it to other rights idiots might have that don't result in insta-kills.
People ask why america is being pussified - its simple. The right for any emotionally unstable dude to own guns is so sacrosanct that if its an institution that can't be attacked, the only politically viable action is to ban the silly string or the nerf gun. Ban the gun or the knife or the sword.. omgwtfbbq ensues.
Isn't this what side by side assemblies are about? Multiple versions of the same dll can be found, and your app dictates which ones are preferable? I have 5 years of programming on freeBSD and I always appreciated how easy it was to resolve shared object issues on *nix platforms. I don't know windows, so maybe I'm misconstruing what side by side is for.
But you pretty much nail it on the head - its not a technical issue because once the language of such low level interactions are able to negotiate the contract on functionality to such a low level, nobody will want to waste cycles on it. Weak/strong linking is a function of user base, or perhaps even more so, maintainability and lifetime.
On a personal note, I was pretty much blown the fuck away the other day while implementing debug functionality on our dynamic Wii libs that Windows simply won't resolve elf global symbols (nevermind other dll symbols) on your lib at runtime. I couldn't believe it. Developers developers developers my ass.. I can't imagine saying, "Hey, lets ship on windows" and "Hey, lets dynamically load parts of our app when we need it" being feasible if you have more than a few thousand lines of code on a platform that can already relocate dynamically loaded code.
I have to say now, I love working on console games because once that shit is on the CD, its done.
Well of course, but "Unless by major".. major means viewership. Viewership is a rather relevant issue within the context of a discussion about whether a particular fact, message, or intent is disseminated.
Without patents, the result will be predictable: most people will keep their algorithms a closely guarded secret.
I would be very interested in reading a software patent that discloses algorithms.. of course I realize that source code is copyrighted. Most patents I've read describe a solution to a problem, but don't include the detail that turns, 'Okay, if I wanted to do that' into 'ah, thats how I do that'. In other words, they describe the first hour of thinking about the problem: "Okay, if I need to provide feature X, then I can do that if you make this part really fast, and subdivide this task across multiple computers, and optimize the processing of this subsystem of the architecture." But they never seem to say, "Using this software, or using this published algorithm (or algorithm I'm publishing)"
It's wierd. I went to the Game Developer Conference today and sat in 5 lectures a day for 3 days, and each lecture seemed to disclose methods and algorithms more than any software patent I'd ever read.
I generally default to assuming I just havn't seen enough, so pray tell can you point me to a patent which is very specific - one that I could take and roll my own if I was interested in paying royalties?
wholesale bootlegging occurs because nobody in those markets was going to buy it anyway
thats pretty much the whole point hes making
I work on console games as a software developer, and stupidity seems to be a valued resource in publisher land.. I've never met folks so desperate to spend money on stuff that won't produce a return on investment
Insider trading is insider trading. How does "making the public aware of that" relate to insider trading?
Insider trading relates to giving you an edge in a stock market on other investors. If you think press releases filled with euphemisms that the average small time investor can't decode, never mind probably doesn't read, constitutes making the public aware, I'm at a loss.
No one would be surprised if these banks helped their clients to avoid paying specific corporate tax, for example.
Does that make it right? I would have assumed that creative tax reporting was also a domain that people are generally interested in reducing since it seems to benefit those who can throw cash at a perceived problem just to make more cash.
Screw it being unethical; it is things like this which break the axioms that systems like markets are designed for.
Ultimately, whats important is that if some people can circumvent the risk-reward aspect of an economic, political, judicial, or social system, they're basically saying they're above the protections that western civilization grants them.
I think ethics is a poor way to frame cases like this - the very people who say, "Well, its legal, so there you go" arn't interested in ethics, they're interested in gaming a system. That system would not exist if everyone was able to take advantage of the method of abusing it. Ultimately, they're acting in a way that would destroy the system were everyone able to do what they did. I think the idea of protecting the health of institutions is an easier sell to people than saying, "Hey, that's unethical." Lots of people do unethical things, every day - whats more important is pointing out where unethical behavior is rewarded by an institution rather than punished. These institutions are set up from the very start to attempt to mitigate unethical behavior.. so when it happens, it seems pretty obvious to me that you need to change the rules. If somebody is motivated and talented enough to earn wealth, they are the last people on earth who need an FAQ. Markets are intended to reward performance and promote capitalization, not provide and easier way for individuals to make money.
If it was the simplest concept ever, why did it take so long to be copyrighted?:) Copyright laws were in force for a few centuries before Cage thought that it'd be cute and well deserved to copyright silence.
A tribute in concert is one thing. A tribute on an album is always going to result in copyright fees being paid if it uses copyrighted material. If I publicly say, "this was co-written by Cage", what can you expect? A joke with respect to writing credits on a recorded piece of work is the copyright version of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Sure, it's funny, and sure, the intent is there not to disrespect the original creator, but its just begging for people not to get the joke.. he dares them. How smart am I if I assume the guy I'm making the joke to is dead and his copyrights are now held by his private estate? It's like so many things in life - if you want to dance on the edge, make sure you have the safety net. We're both agreeing that it *should* be legal, but the law makes it obvious that it's not, so why not work out something with the copyright holder in advance, and don't make it if they threaten anything? It's not right, but at the same time, it doesn't seem like a particularly bright idea to derive, reference, and co-credit a song that I've put on a recorded piece of work that I sell without contacting the representatives to the copyright holders.
A rest is only meaningful if it exists between two notes.
Is it? What about one long rest, until a part has a note on the last note of the song? What about the notion that rests actually define when the note is played, and when it ends?
It does exist as a performance piece, and copyright should only apply to it as such.
I understand what you're getting at, but certainly an artist who is granted limited copyright on a work that is specifically centered on the theme of total silence for now matter how length of time, having not been written before, is novel and deserves some level of protection. (Don't get me started on copyright terms, I'm certainly not saying that Cage should have copyright on such a work for 90 years or whatever it is now - I always thought 30 years was enough time for an artist to ensure they could continue making a living by creating another piece and could stop worrying about people 'jacking' their work straight up.)
I mean, Batt did himself in by listing Cage as a co-composer. Also, it was settled out of court, so we really have no way of knowing if it would have stood up in the courts.
The kicker is this:
Batt: "We are, however, making this gesture of a payment to the John Cage Trust in recognition of my own personal respect for John Cage and in recognition of his brave and sometimes outrageous approach to artistic experimentation in music."
The settlement money was placed in a trust. So it seems awfully disingenuous to call this situation out on the basis of what can be copyrighted. If you want to make the case that Cage's estate was out trolling for dollars, sure, but how can anyone claim that the incident stands as an example of copyright law run amok?
What strikes me is that anybody who created whatever length of time in silence and copyrighted it first at least deserves the protections afforded by copyright law (and as I've said, I disagree with the term of the protection.) People may see him as some guy who did the least amount of work possible to create a song, but its not like he also copywrited 2 minutes of silence, or 3 seconds. Copyright law protects an artistic idea; I can't go around with a photograph of a painting you painted and reproduce it and sell it. It is up to the courts to decide what constitutes taking my idea, no matter how shitty anybody perceives it to be.
As an aside, I'm pretty confident none of this would have come to pass if Batt hadn't actually noted, "Oh, by the way, this song was also co-written by Cage." Poor judgment, even if its clear he was being cheeky.:)
A certain mob is attacking a woman who drove into a person while he was stealing her purse (she was behind the wheel). He fell, broke his neck, and died. Right now she's basically being hunted down. Obviously the kid had done nothing wrong, according to said mob.
I'll take most strained allegories for 1000$, alex.
If you mean Europe, I'd think again, come over and take a closer look.
I don't. There are other countries outside North America and Europe. I'm just pointing out that calling somebody a coward just because he's expressing his disatisfaction with the standards he holds his government's intelligence agencies to while not being in the process of being blown up or tortured is pretty laughable.
Tell me, do you think the people of the US would live in relative safety without spionage, the army and the fbi?
Do you think you'd live well without modern medicine? Does that have a single thing to do with criticizing the medical community when it engages in unethical behaviour?
I suppose you're doing lots about all the problems you listed. How is it cowardice to communicate dissatisfaction with people you're more likely to influence than list off a multitude of global crimes against humanity that we can't effect? Whats immoral about criticism, exactly? Are you a coward for not being in Egypt right now? The only thing I know is that its pretty pathetic to want to defend the most powerful government in the world. I'm sure we agree that America is responsible for great things. We just disagree in two key areas:
1) taking issue with behaviour withing our own government than we deem as being incongruent with the basis of western democracy is not a bad thing 2) the fact that I'm not out there fighting these terrible conditions doesn't mean I should be able to attack you for being in the same safe position
If human rights issues bother you so much, go out and do something about them. Picking on somebody who chooses to criticize their own government when they feel it is right to do so is myopic. I swear, people who are convinced that they live in some impenetrable palace of awesomeness are so fucking stupid. If you really think the US is the sole provider of the peace and rational thinking, I've got hundreds of millions of people living in other first world nations who are wondering why you're so recalcitrant to criticize your own government. Its a very important function of democracy, as practiced by way more places than the US.
So stop playing "He started it." If you take issue with the mistreatment of human beings, do something about it, but don't act like just because its pretty minimized in your country that its not worth discussing.
With all due respect, Batt brought that on himself. He said he shared writing credits with another musician. I'm pretty certain I can record silence and attempt to sell it and perform it without gaining the ire of Cage so long as my performance is not like his (sit at a piano silently for a length of time) and doesn't reference him.
The thing is, to me.. rests in music are as important as the notes. Cage made an interesting point; what if the rest is the whole song? It doesn't bother me nearly as much that he can copyright such a 'composition' than somebody owns the rights to Happy Birthday. Ultimately, Cage had a neat idea which is obvious in retrospect, and it's not like he goes around seeking infringement from any piece of media with dead air. He copyrighted silence as a musical performance, and its unclear to me why people are more concerned about that copyright expiring than cultural works that are ingrained in the public vernacular. Doesn't it seem clear that Batt was just hoping to ride on the coattails of Cage? No Cage, no one minute of silence from Batt.
It's really quite simple. Somebody who engages in self destructive behaviour needs help. Now, I'm not expecting the "world to cater" to those people, but at least carrying an ounce of empathy for those kinds of people is at least in order.
Some people may not be addicted to drugs, but at the base of it all, its how these drugs affect you chemically. If some people are born with neurophysiology that essentially provides those negative problems to begin with, how is that any different than a drug user? Some people may want to shoot the messenger (the games that 'kill' these mmorpg users); I sure don't, but that doesn't mean I can't at least recognize that its completely heartless to think some person born with some form of psychopathy deserves every situation he ends up with, including death.
You're saying, "Hey man, no normal person would die from exhaustion playing an mmorpg." Fine enough. But who says they're normal? And who says without this "willful" engagement in their mmorpg they would have ended up any better off? These are just people who have mental problems, so it sounds very much to me like you have absolutely no misgivings about mentally unstable people succumbing to their own instabilities, regardless of what vehicle leads them to it.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree with you, but the advertising for a CS degree is about becoming a programmer, not a researcher.
While its obviously important to develop people who are well versed in the mathematical and architectural aspects of programming, its rather useless to send them out in the world without at least a fair amount of experience in languages they're likely to end up using. Esoteric cs education burns a lot of kids who got into it in the first place thinking it was a path to being a code monkey.
It seems like a pretty big deal to me if a CS prof doesn't code - how can he or she possibly gauge the real world value or applicability of the knowledge s/he's teaching? I did a lot of music study earlier in my life, and while I don't expect music profs to know how to play any instrument, none would be a red flag. A lot of those profs never touched on anything regarding how to play a particular instrument - it'd be mostly theory and coaching. But if a music prof can't actually be bothered to be interested enough to actually play an instrument, they're unemployed. I understand the value of the science aspect of computer science, but it does bother me that people work in the field yet do not write software themselves.
Similarly, I can use my right to drive on the highway (conferred upon me by my driver's license) to run down a pedestrian
.. but why do I buy a toothbrush or a car? Why dont you give me some good examples of people who earned their driving privileges to kill someone?
Hey, I can stab my toothbrush into anybodies eye
Fucking moron.
I can use my right to drive on the highway
Your right to drive on the highway? Is that The 76th amendment?
oops, struck a nerve, apparently .. doesnt really answer my question tho. If people are so pissed off about banning silly string, nerf guns, etc because some moron abuses the power of guns, why not just regulate guns?
> So? "Less" ideas is not the same as "no" ideas. And no one argues that the current patent system is not broken (and is, therefore, often sidestepped).
Theres a point at which it does such a lousy job that one makes a valid point that it costs more than it benefits society. I'm a firm believer in the patent system, AND the copyright system, yet both seem to me to be so broken as to create more negative effects on invention and creativity than they do contribute to them.
Thats why I asked to be pointed to a software patent that actually contains the tenet of patents: reproducibility. If it doesn't actually explain how to reproduce the claimed invention, of what use is it when it expired and is free to the public?
given int foobar = 2 in the exe, and extern foobar in the dll, I can't load a dll and have foobar resolved when I load the dll
I can do this on unix platforms, I can't on windows
what gives
Only in America do you infringe upon the rights of silly string owners, not the gun owners.
.. that is a textbook example of why constitutionally granting the right for people to own firearms is a retarded idea. Responsible gun owners have every right to be pissed when somebody abuses the right to own a gun, but it bothers me how they compare it to other rights idiots might have that don't result in insta-kills.
.. omgwtfbbq ensues.
I mean seriously
People ask why america is being pussified - its simple. The right for any emotionally unstable dude to own guns is so sacrosanct that if its an institution that can't be attacked, the only politically viable action is to ban the silly string or the nerf gun. Ban the gun or the knife or the sword
Isn't this what side by side assemblies are about? Multiple versions of the same dll can be found, and your app dictates which ones are preferable? I have 5 years of programming on freeBSD and I always appreciated how easy it was to resolve shared object issues on *nix platforms. I don't know windows, so maybe I'm misconstruing what side by side is for.
.. I can't imagine saying, "Hey, lets ship on windows" and "Hey, lets dynamically load parts of our app when we need it" being feasible if you have more than a few thousand lines of code on a platform that can already relocate dynamically loaded code.
But you pretty much nail it on the head - its not a technical issue because once the language of such low level interactions are able to negotiate the contract on functionality to such a low level, nobody will want to waste cycles on it. Weak/strong linking is a function of user base, or perhaps even more so, maintainability and lifetime.
On a personal note, I was pretty much blown the fuck away the other day while implementing debug functionality on our dynamic Wii libs that Windows simply won't resolve elf global symbols (nevermind other dll symbols) on your lib at runtime. I couldn't believe it. Developers developers developers my ass
I have to say now, I love working on console games because once that shit is on the CD, its done.
Well of course, but "Unless by major" .. major means viewership. Viewership is a rather relevant issue within the context of a discussion about whether a particular fact, message, or intent is disseminated.
Game Developer Conference today
:P Dunno where that came from. I went back in Feb.
Oops. Remove today.
Without patents, the result will be predictable: most people will keep their algorithms a closely guarded secret.
.. of course I realize that source code is copyrighted. Most patents I've read describe a solution to a problem, but don't include the detail that turns, 'Okay, if I wanted to do that' into 'ah, thats how I do that'. In other words, they describe the first hour of thinking about the problem: "Okay, if I need to provide feature X, then I can do that if you make this part really fast, and subdivide this task across multiple computers, and optimize the processing of this subsystem of the architecture." But they never seem to say, "Using this software, or using this published algorithm (or algorithm I'm publishing)"
I would be very interested in reading a software patent that discloses algorithms
It's wierd. I went to the Game Developer Conference today and sat in 5 lectures a day for 3 days, and each lecture seemed to disclose methods and algorithms more than any software patent I'd ever read.
I generally default to assuming I just havn't seen enough, so pray tell can you point me to a patent which is very specific - one that I could take and roll my own if I was interested in paying royalties?
wholesale bootlegging occurs because nobody in those markets was going to buy it anyway
.. I've never met folks so desperate to spend money on stuff that won't produce a return on investment
thats pretty much the whole point hes making
I work on console games as a software developer, and stupidity seems to be a valued resource in publisher land
Insider trading is insider trading. How does "making the public aware of that" relate to insider trading?
Insider trading relates to giving you an edge in a stock market on other investors. If you think press releases filled with euphemisms that the average small time investor can't decode, never mind probably doesn't read, constitutes making the public aware, I'm at a loss.
No one would be surprised if these banks helped their clients to avoid paying specific corporate tax, for example.
Does that make it right? I would have assumed that creative tax reporting was also a domain that people are generally interested in reducing since it seems to benefit those who can throw cash at a perceived problem just to make more cash.
Screw it being unethical; it is things like this which break the axioms that systems like markets are designed for.
.. so when it happens, it seems pretty obvious to me that you need to change the rules. If somebody is motivated and talented enough to earn wealth, they are the last people on earth who need an FAQ. Markets are intended to reward performance and promote capitalization, not provide and easier way for individuals to make money.
Ultimately, whats important is that if some people can circumvent the risk-reward aspect of an economic, political, judicial, or social system, they're basically saying they're above the protections that western civilization grants them.
I think ethics is a poor way to frame cases like this - the very people who say, "Well, its legal, so there you go" arn't interested in ethics, they're interested in gaming a system. That system would not exist if everyone was able to take advantage of the method of abusing it. Ultimately, they're acting in a way that would destroy the system were everyone able to do what they did. I think the idea of protecting the health of institutions is an easier sell to people than saying, "Hey, that's unethical." Lots of people do unethical things, every day - whats more important is pointing out where unethical behavior is rewarded by an institution rather than punished. These institutions are set up from the very start to attempt to mitigate unethical behavior
If it was the simplest concept ever, why did it take so long to be copyrighted? :) Copyright laws were in force for a few centuries before Cage thought that it'd be cute and well deserved to copyright silence.
We should totally have our 5 year olds cut their throats! Thats the only way to solve this.
that doesn't understand the concept of a tribute
.. he dares them. How smart am I if I assume the guy I'm making the joke to is dead and his copyrights are now held by his private estate? It's like so many things in life - if you want to dance on the edge, make sure you have the safety net. We're both agreeing that it *should* be legal, but the law makes it obvious that it's not, so why not work out something with the copyright holder in advance, and don't make it if they threaten anything? It's not right, but at the same time, it doesn't seem like a particularly bright idea to derive, reference, and co-credit a song that I've put on a recorded piece of work that I sell without contacting the representatives to the copyright holders.
A tribute in concert is one thing. A tribute on an album is always going to result in copyright fees being paid if it uses copyrighted material. If I publicly say, "this was co-written by Cage", what can you expect? A joke with respect to writing credits on a recorded piece of work is the copyright version of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Sure, it's funny, and sure, the intent is there not to disrespect the original creator, but its just begging for people not to get the joke
A rest is only meaningful if it exists between two notes.
:)
Is it? What about one long rest, until a part has a note on the last note of the song? What about the notion that rests actually define when the note is played, and when it ends?
It does exist as a performance piece, and copyright should only apply to it as such.
I understand what you're getting at, but certainly an artist who is granted limited copyright on a work that is specifically centered on the theme of total silence for now matter how length of time, having not been written before, is novel and deserves some level of protection. (Don't get me started on copyright terms, I'm certainly not saying that Cage should have copyright on such a work for 90 years or whatever it is now - I always thought 30 years was enough time for an artist to ensure they could continue making a living by creating another piece and could stop worrying about people 'jacking' their work straight up.)
I mean, Batt did himself in by listing Cage as a co-composer. Also, it was settled out of court, so we really have no way of knowing if it would have stood up in the courts.
The kicker is this:
Batt: "We are, however, making this gesture of a payment to the John Cage Trust in recognition of my own personal respect for John Cage and in recognition of his brave and sometimes outrageous approach to artistic experimentation in music."
The settlement money was placed in a trust. So it seems awfully disingenuous to call this situation out on the basis of what can be copyrighted. If you want to make the case that Cage's estate was out trolling for dollars, sure, but how can anyone claim that the incident stands as an example of copyright law run amok?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/23/uk.silence/
What strikes me is that anybody who created whatever length of time in silence and copyrighted it first at least deserves the protections afforded by copyright law (and as I've said, I disagree with the term of the protection.) People may see him as some guy who did the least amount of work possible to create a song, but its not like he also copywrited 2 minutes of silence, or 3 seconds. Copyright law protects an artistic idea; I can't go around with a photograph of a painting you painted and reproduce it and sell it. It is up to the courts to decide what constitutes taking my idea, no matter how shitty anybody perceives it to be.
As an aside, I'm pretty confident none of this would have come to pass if Batt hadn't actually noted, "Oh, by the way, this song was also co-written by Cage." Poor judgment, even if its clear he was being cheeky.
A certain mob is attacking a woman who drove into a person while he was stealing her purse (she was behind the wheel). He fell, broke his neck, and died. Right now she's basically being hunted down. Obviously the kid had done nothing wrong, according to said mob.
I'll take most strained allegories for 1000$, alex.
If you mean Europe, I'd think again, come over and take a closer look.
I don't. There are other countries outside North America and Europe. I'm just pointing out that calling somebody a coward just because he's expressing his disatisfaction with the standards he holds his government's intelligence agencies to while not being in the process of being blown up or tortured is pretty laughable.
Tell me, do you think the people of the US would live in relative safety without spionage, the army and the fbi?
Do you think you'd live well without modern medicine? Does that have a single thing to do with criticizing the medical community when it engages in unethical behaviour?
I suppose you're doing lots about all the problems you listed. How is it cowardice to communicate dissatisfaction with people you're more likely to influence than list off a multitude of global crimes against humanity that we can't effect? Whats immoral about criticism, exactly? Are you a coward for not being in Egypt right now? The only thing I know is that its pretty pathetic to want to defend the most powerful government in the world. I'm sure we agree that America is responsible for great things. We just disagree in two key areas:
1) taking issue with behaviour withing our own government than we deem as being incongruent with the basis of western democracy is not a bad thing
2) the fact that I'm not out there fighting these terrible conditions doesn't mean I should be able to attack you for being in the same safe position
If human rights issues bother you so much, go out and do something about them. Picking on somebody who chooses to criticize their own government when they feel it is right to do so is myopic. I swear, people who are convinced that they live in some impenetrable palace of awesomeness are so fucking stupid. If you really think the US is the sole provider of the peace and rational thinking, I've got hundreds of millions of people living in other first world nations who are wondering why you're so recalcitrant to criticize your own government. Its a very important function of democracy, as practiced by way more places than the US.
So stop playing "He started it." If you take issue with the mistreatment of human beings, do something about it, but don't act like just because its pretty minimized in your country that its not worth discussing.
With all due respect, Batt brought that on himself. He said he shared writing credits with another musician. I'm pretty certain I can record silence and attempt to sell it and perform it without gaining the ire of Cage so long as my performance is not like his (sit at a piano silently for a length of time) and doesn't reference him.
.. rests in music are as important as the notes. Cage made an interesting point; what if the rest is the whole song? It doesn't bother me nearly as much that he can copyright such a 'composition' than somebody owns the rights to Happy Birthday. Ultimately, Cage had a neat idea which is obvious in retrospect, and it's not like he goes around seeking infringement from any piece of media with dead air. He copyrighted silence as a musical performance, and its unclear to me why people are more concerned about that copyright expiring than cultural works that are ingrained in the public vernacular. Doesn't it seem clear that Batt was just hoping to ride on the coattails of Cage? No Cage, no one minute of silence from Batt.
The thing is, to me
That's pretty much it, isn't it? "You can generate electricity? Well, we patented electricity."
Reports suggest that some side effects due to haphazard "electrical signals" result in the user asking mindbogglingly stupid questions.
You make me sick.
It's really quite simple. Somebody who engages in self destructive behaviour needs help. Now, I'm not expecting the "world to cater" to those people, but at least carrying an ounce of empathy for those kinds of people is at least in order.
Some people may not be addicted to drugs, but at the base of it all, its how these drugs affect you chemically. If some people are born with neurophysiology that essentially provides those negative problems to begin with, how is that any different than a drug user? Some people may want to shoot the messenger (the games that 'kill' these mmorpg users); I sure don't, but that doesn't mean I can't at least recognize that its completely heartless to think some person born with some form of psychopathy deserves every situation he ends up with, including death.
You're saying, "Hey man, no normal person would die from exhaustion playing an mmorpg." Fine enough. But who says they're normal? And who says without this "willful" engagement in their mmorpg they would have ended up any better off? These are just people who have mental problems, so it sounds very much to me like you have absolutely no misgivings about mentally unstable people succumbing to their own instabilities, regardless of what vehicle leads them to it.
Just making sure your references are noted ;)