Therefore, if problems are solved using free software instead of proprietary software, society will have a lot of money left over to spend on fixing disease, starvation, etc.
If companies liked the free option over the proprietary one and thought it would be in their financial interest, that's what they'd buy.
Richard Stallman only cares about end-user freedom.
I wouldn't even go that far. I once read an interview where he suggested that if something couldn't be done with free software, that business just shouldn't do it.
In other words, rather than a business making a little money out of using proprietary software, they should forsake such an opportunity completely.
Not a very good comparison. MS Office over OOo is more like the comparison of staying at a Hilton over staying in a motel.
Both are hotels. Both will have a clean bed and a bath and allow you to sleep comfortably. The Hilton will be a little more comfortable, have a mini-bar and room service which means you don't have to go out, and a trouser press.
While some people need all those features, most leisure travellers won't pay for the Hilton (which is why they're so heavily discounted at weekends). They'll stay in the motel and keep the money.
I use both MS Office and OOo. I prefer Office. It does a few things better from my point of view, and has a few things that OOo doesn't. But when I'm doing my home business accounts, OOo is good enough, so I'll settle for that.
"TFA does not say there was a "non-compete" agreement which would be crazy to agree to, since in fact this is easy to duplicate."
I remember working on some contracts with a lawyer, and we had to get all sorts of clauses down. I remember a few times saying "but I don't think they'll do that" and the lawyer saying "that's not good enough, we need a way to define it that makes it binding in law".
I'm confused. You've blamed Thatcher, then said how Comprehensives got rid of technical schools, yet you've cited an article that says:-
"Third, in the 1980s Mrs Thatcher's Conservative government introduced various reforms that
sought to unpick some aspects of Labour's comprehensive system."
It also talks about post-war, and "twenty years later" which would be mid-60s, at which time Mrs Thatcher wasn't either a Minister for Education, nor Prime Minister.
As for your second link, I know that in the late 80s (around the time Mrs Thatcher departed) there were still plenty of technical colleges teaching City and Guilds in trade skills. I don't have data to say that there was a decline, but certainly not all disappeared.
Backing a Blair Witch Project/Brothers McMullan/Napoleon Dynamite/Full Monty might make you a huge ROI, or it might fail and make you nothing.
The latest Tom Cruise might make you a very good return, or just a moderate return. Putting "Tom Cruise" on the poster is going to get at least some punters in, if only for the opening weekend.
Where I think they differ is in distribution. A small film that is doing great guns in the art house circuit, will get picked up and go into the mainstream cinemas. That doesn't happen with games. The interesting independent stuff that appears on sites on the net (I'm thinking Flash games on Kongregate) stays there. It doesn't cross over in the same way.
That's not why I wouldn't want a child of mine studying "game programming". It's because it's too specific.
I once worked with someone who had a degree in something vaguely computer multimedia-y. There was a big problem, though. The course was centred around building for CD media using something like Macromedia Director.
During the course... bang! The internet goes big and the whole shift of the industry moves towards doing all that stuff through the web, and a whole lot of what she learnt is worthless because it was too specific to current implementations.
One of the worst things is to create degrees specific to current needs. Degrees should teach things which are deep and fundamental as it encourages the free thinking that allows people to connect knowledge in one area with knowledge in another to create new and exciting technologies.
If somebody really complains that there is a huge problem with IE to the point of unusability, then I let them know the alternatives out there and if really necessary, I might even show a message whenever they come to my website that their browser might not work well and they'll need to download Firefox.
The thing is - a lot of people won't complain. Most people will just accept its broken and move on.
I'd love the world not to use the broken piece of crap that is IE6 (IE7 isn't much of a problem), but something like 30-40% of them do. That's too much of the market not to treat with respect.
Can someone explain the attraction of this? Sure, it might look cool, but if you want to find an album/photo, surely showing the pictures as a grid is quicker?
I think Pixar get it about right with voices. It seems to me that they don't just use a voice because it reaches the right demographic, or because of familiarity, but because it's right for the character.
Billy Crystal and John Goodman were absolutely spot on for Monster's Inc, as were Steve Buscemi and James Coburn. But then, so was Albert Brooks in Finding Nemo, and he's hardly A-list.
"There is absolutely zero 'veg out at your desk' as an actor. "
I'm not an actor, but I know that's bullshit. I've seen people talking about how long lighting can take to set up between shots on a movie - actors are often sitting around waiting for things to be done.
"The question of 'when GTAIV makes a bazillion dollars, who should get what?' is a tough one and it -should- take a lot of haggling to figure that out."
It's not a tough one at all. You get what you agreed to take in your contract. That may be a salary, a fixed price, a share of the profits or a combination of all 3. Don't like it? Ask for more, but don't be surprised if they go elsewhere.
If the amount isn't enough, if actors are starving as a result, then the simple law of supply and demand should kick in.
"
However you solve it, keep in mind that actors typically make a crapload of money on a daily basis because they work so little of time. Last I checked, at any given time, under 5% of my union is employed."
I suppose that using a pro may give it a bit more of the whole "suspension of disbelief".
The thing is that using staff is often good enough. Pixar get staff with about the right voice to do "scratch" voices, but sometimes they decide that the scratch was good enough.
However, where Pixar generally differ from the rest is not making a big deal out of the voice cast. The trailer for The Incredibles didn't tell you that it was starring Holly Hunter and Samuel L Jackson.
It seems to me that they pick distinctive voices because you want lots of contrast in animation (I think Peter O'Toole was spot on for Anton Ego).
The least-good Pixar movie was Cars, and it was the one movie where they made a big deal out of who the cast was.
I think that there's a talent to it, but the article nails it. The reason Tom Cruise gets paid millions of bucks is partly for his acting talent (and I think he is quite talented) but also for his look and his name.
People go and see Tom Cruise movies. They don't buy video games for the voice actors.
Someone once explained that the point of the ewoks was about the smallest creatures with the least technology defeating a mighty empire.
Ewoks aside, there's a lot to love in ROTJ. The stuff with Jabba is great, the attack "it's a trap!", and all the stuff going on on the death star with the Emperor.
One of my favourite moments in the trilogy is the lightsabre battle between Luke and Vader which is just beautiful.
Slashdot Mirror
People get the government their behavior deserves. People deserve better than that.
Sounds a bit like "I know better than the people what's right for them".
Therefore, if problems are solved using free software instead of proprietary software, society will have a lot of money left over to spend on fixing disease, starvation, etc.
If companies liked the free option over the proprietary one and thought it would be in their financial interest, that's what they'd buy.
You see, the foundation actively opposes generic drugs.
citation?
Richard Stallman only cares about end-user freedom.
I wouldn't even go that far. I once read an interview where he suggested that if something couldn't be done with free software, that business just shouldn't do it.
In other words, rather than a business making a little money out of using proprietary software, they should forsake such an opportunity completely.
Tax dodge--giving money to a charity reduces his personal income taxes.
Please explain how a charitable tax donation makes you richer
Really? How?
like over the air TV is "almost as good" as cable
Not a very good comparison. MS Office over OOo is more like the comparison of staying at a Hilton over staying in a motel.
Both are hotels. Both will have a clean bed and a bath and allow you to sleep comfortably. The Hilton will be a little more comfortable, have a mini-bar and room service which means you don't have to go out, and a trouser press.
While some people need all those features, most leisure travellers won't pay for the Hilton (which is why they're so heavily discounted at weekends). They'll stay in the motel and keep the money.
I use both MS Office and OOo. I prefer Office. It does a few things better from my point of view, and has a few things that OOo doesn't. But when I'm doing my home business accounts, OOo is good enough, so I'll settle for that.
I remember working on some contracts with a lawyer, and we had to get all sorts of clauses down. I remember a few times saying "but I don't think they'll do that" and the lawyer saying "that's not good enough, we need a way to define it that makes it binding in law".
"Third, in the 1980s Mrs Thatcher's Conservative government introduced various reforms that sought to unpick some aspects of Labour's comprehensive system."
It also talks about post-war, and "twenty years later" which would be mid-60s, at which time Mrs Thatcher wasn't either a Minister for Education, nor Prime Minister.
As for your second link, I know that in the late 80s (around the time Mrs Thatcher departed) there were still plenty of technical colleges teaching City and Guilds in trade skills. I don't have data to say that there was a decline, but certainly not all disappeared.
Backing a Blair Witch Project/Brothers McMullan/Napoleon Dynamite/Full Monty might make you a huge ROI, or it might fail and make you nothing.
The latest Tom Cruise might make you a very good return, or just a moderate return. Putting "Tom Cruise" on the poster is going to get at least some punters in, if only for the opening weekend.
Where I think they differ is in distribution. A small film that is doing great guns in the art house circuit, will get picked up and go into the mainstream cinemas. That doesn't happen with games. The interesting independent stuff that appears on sites on the net (I'm thinking Flash games on Kongregate) stays there. It doesn't cross over in the same way.
I once worked with someone who had a degree in something vaguely computer multimedia-y. There was a big problem, though. The course was centred around building for CD media using something like Macromedia Director.
During the course... bang! The internet goes big and the whole shift of the industry moves towards doing all that stuff through the web, and a whole lot of what she learnt is worthless because it was too specific to current implementations.
One of the worst things is to create degrees specific to current needs. Degrees should teach things which are deep and fundamental as it encourages the free thinking that allows people to connect knowledge in one area with knowledge in another to create new and exciting technologies.
Do you have a hyperlink to back that claim up?
The thing is - a lot of people won't complain. Most people will just accept its broken and move on.
I'd love the world not to use the broken piece of crap that is IE6 (IE7 isn't much of a problem), but something like 30-40% of them do. That's too much of the market not to treat with respect.
Can someone explain the attraction of this? Sure, it might look cool, but if you want to find an album/photo, surely showing the pictures as a grid is quicker?
I saw 1 person at Legoland using his crackberry. Did think he was a bit sad for it, but didn't bother me.
Billy Crystal and John Goodman were absolutely spot on for Monster's Inc, as were Steve Buscemi and James Coburn. But then, so was Albert Brooks in Finding Nemo, and he's hardly A-list.
He signed a contract for what he got. If he didn't like the lack of residuals he should have told them that he didn't want to do it.
I'm amazed at some movies that get made. Take Terry Gilliam. I love some of his movies, but he rarely has hits - far more of his movies are flops.
I'm not an actor, but I know that's bullshit. I've seen people talking about how long lighting can take to set up between shots on a movie - actors are often sitting around waiting for things to be done.
"The question of 'when GTAIV makes a bazillion dollars, who should get what?' is a tough one and it -should- take a lot of haggling to figure that out."
It's not a tough one at all. You get what you agreed to take in your contract. That may be a salary, a fixed price, a share of the profits or a combination of all 3. Don't like it? Ask for more, but don't be surprised if they go elsewhere.
If the amount isn't enough, if actors are starving as a result, then the simple law of supply and demand should kick in.
" However you solve it, keep in mind that actors typically make a crapload of money on a daily basis because they work so little of time. Last I checked, at any given time, under 5% of my union is employed."
If it's such a bad deal, quit.
The thing is that using staff is often good enough. Pixar get staff with about the right voice to do "scratch" voices, but sometimes they decide that the scratch was good enough.
Everything: John Ratzenberger
However, where Pixar generally differ from the rest is not making a big deal out of the voice cast. The trailer for The Incredibles didn't tell you that it was starring Holly Hunter and Samuel L Jackson.
It seems to me that they pick distinctive voices because you want lots of contrast in animation (I think Peter O'Toole was spot on for Anton Ego).
The least-good Pixar movie was Cars, and it was the one movie where they made a big deal out of who the cast was.
People go and see Tom Cruise movies. They don't buy video games for the voice actors.
Yeah, you'd think after having a couple of Indiana Jones movies with them in that he'd pick some different bad guys for Schindler's List.
I don't mind it, and think the second film is far worse. There's at least 3 "WTF?" moments in it and Hayden whatisname is bloody awful.
Ewoks aside, there's a lot to love in ROTJ. The stuff with Jabba is great, the attack "it's a trap!", and all the stuff going on on the death star with the Emperor.
One of my favourite moments in the trilogy is the lightsabre battle between Luke and Vader which is just beautiful.