It's offered because a lot of people (including me) wouldn't use gmail at all if they didn't. I do used the webmail interface occasionally when I don't have my computer handy, so at least they get that.
Simply stating something doesn't make it the case. The free market is poor at directing research for several reasons - there is more money to made in tweaking 'symptom relief' drugs than cures for difficult diseases, and the customers of products lack the necessary knowledge to buy the most effective treatments (just look at how well herbal, and worse, homeopathic remedies sell for evidence of that). Leave it to the free market, and all we'll have is flu capsules with slightlytweakedmolecule(tm) and snake-oil.
Research could be directed by the department of health informed by academics and doctors. Believe it or not, that's how an awful lot of research is done anyway.
Well, they'd have to employ someone to write the software and reconfigure the hardware to do it. Chances are it costs them next to nothing to keep the old stuff running. And anyway, maybe they like it for sentimental reasons (pretty much the same reasons we're still listening to the Voyagers I should think).
Uh, did you read what I wrote? I said other products taste better. It's not about Coca-Cola tasting good per se, it's about being able to drink a lot of it regularly without it becoming too boring/sickening. I think it has to do with the cola flavour, hence Pepsi Cola being the other big player.
Sure, a lot of Coke's dominance has to do with marketing, but the product (Cokes cola flavoured beverage) is a good one.
I don't think that true. There are a lot of drinks I prefer the taste of, but I can't drink a lot of them day in and day out like I can with coke. I think Coca-Cola's great strength as a product is that people don't get sick of it quickly.
Yeah, printing is high on my wishlist too. It's currently a disaster, it's really one of those things that needs to Just Work. I spent a couple of hours trying to get a Brother printer to work with Feisty, and in the end gave up - if I don't sort it out, my girlfriend's heading back to Windows-land.
Could it possibly be that someone unleashed an exponentially growing pack of machinery that does nothing but turns the matter it find into more copies of itself...? Machinery? That's what life does!
That's very interesting, I might have guessed radio stations were doing something like that.
Makes the whole thing seem even more pointless. Once you've sold someone the CD, it's sold: you're out of the competition. Doesn't seem to be much point being loud then.
With X11 open, on an older G4 system it's true, but Illustrator and Photoshop take around a minute to boot. I don't think this is a serious problem with Inkscape per se, but it seems to be fairly common among X11 apps, which goes to my point about X11 sucking. Also, the keyboard shortcuts being Linux/Windows style (ie. ctl+ rather than command+ is a serious annoyance on a Mac).
By "floating palette", I mean the OS X-style utility windows, which don't have to be activated. Inkscape has windows for such things, but they require a click to activate (this is a common complaint about the GIMP too). I understand this has something to do with cross-platform compatibility, but they are pretty important. The windows are also seriously out-sized and ugly.
Look, there are a lot of great things about Inkscape. It's a powerful application that is nearly ready for the prime-time in terms of features. But my point is that until someone's made an aqua interface, it's not going to cut it on the Mac; and Mac are where it's at in the creative world. I've used Inkscape in Linux, and it's clearly much better suited to the Linux environment (it's snappier too). If I could get the same level of integration in OS X, I'd b a happy chappy.
I've thought about doing it myself, but I'm afraid I would make a dogs breakfast out of it, not really being a programmer and all. And the reaction of programmers to people like me, who might screw up a bit/misunderstand basic concepts, is, uh, strangely hostile.
Sigh, this is such a problem with many open source projects - they get 95% there, and then say who needs that fancy nice shit on top, it basically works. If you want it, write it yourself! Well, newsflash: artists aren't programmers! I think that is why the open source creative apps have seen little success in comparison to system/server applications.
The big deal about X11 is that it's as slow as hell (Inkscape takes 3-5 minutes to boot on my system, what's that about?), the fonts look like shite (might not matter to programmer types, but it drives visual creatives nuts), the widgets are over-sized, the keyboard shortcuts are not mac standard, and the real biggy: the menus are not even in the OSX menu bar! Inkscape has SOME floating palettes, yes. But it needs floating palettes for colour, gradients and layers. It would also be nice if they didn't take up half the screen.
All this adds up to something that is pretty much unusable for most creative professionals or serious hobbyists working on Macs. Given the power under it hood (yes, I do use it sometimes), that's a crying shame.
If none that stuff bothers you, I can guarantee you've never worked on images/design professionally, nor even as a serious hobby. This stuff needs to be fixed, or Inkscape is heading to GIMPsville.
I think SVG will make it, eventually, but it lost out to flash in a big way.
The reason, I think, was editors. If you make something in Flash (the editor) it will play in the flash plugin (version permitting of course). But on the SVG side, you had a bunch of things which could export to SVG, but would let you do a bunch of stuff that couldn't be exported. Drawing something for SVG has always been a hit and miss affair -- because it's been so easy to add things that aren't supported by SVG. Having to think to yourself while drawing "will this work in SVG?" is not an option. If I could have flipped Illustrator into "SVG mode", which turned off the things that would make it incompatible with SVG specs, that might have done it.
Inkscape's really nice, and certainly a big step in the right direction, but it needs a lot of work. The interface is okay, but pros will want floating palettes for everything (including colour, gradients, the whole bit), and the lack of a native OS X version is quite crippling in the design world.
Yeah, as soon as an ad does something irritating, down comes the right click. I think you shouldn't block ads as a matter of course, because they do pay for stuff I like to read, but obnoxious ads just have to go.
The obvious reply is that I'm not a utilitarian, and don't believe utilitarianism is a valid moral strategy. I'm more of a do unto others sort. And if I am to do as I would be done by, I don't go violating the artist's wishes, because I wouldn't want that done with my work. Now, I'm pretty liberal-minded about this, modified work should be given more leeway than it is under most copyright schemes, and merely sharing (non-commercial uses) should be treated pretty leniently. But the point remains the same; I don't want it done to me, so I try not to do it to others.
On a more functional level, I know how hard it is to make money as an artist, and don't mind a bit of coercion to donate.
I'm not a tinfoil hat type myself, so I wouldn't be concerned that they'd try to pull that. Even if they did try, there are plenty of open source players out there, I don't see how such a thing could be enforced.
I'm not buying that. The artist has given permission for their work to be distributed though certain channels, and not others. They are not coerced, they are sometimes bribed with (potential) fame.
If you really think record companies are evil incarnate, the way to stop them is not to share music, but to stop listening to it altogether. Don't buy, don't share, zip. Buy from indies and local bands at their gigs. Support someone else instead of no one.
Another point is that people don't share just RIAA stuff, they share everything (I bet you do too).
By watermarking with hashes representing a transaction record. If you don't share the file, people won't know what the hash is, and wont be able to embed it in anything else to frame you. If the hash is out there, you shared it somehow. Whether that was intentional or not is the crux of the matter I would think, and a difficult one to prove.
The RIAA might also stop suing when people stop sharing. The goal isn't, in my opinion, to make sharing consequence-free. I happen to think it's unethical to share copyrighted work without the artist's permission (regardless of whether it's legal or not). It's not high on my list of moral crimes -- probably somewhat below speeding and stealing stationary from work -- but it's still something I try not to do, and would like to encourage others not to as well.
Slashdot Mirror
So that's why science journalism sucks so much. Sheesh.
I wish I could mod that up to +5 insightful. I've always thought exactly the same thing.
It's offered because a lot of people (including me) wouldn't use gmail at all if they didn't. I do used the webmail interface occasionally when I don't have my computer handy, so at least they get that.
Simply stating something doesn't make it the case. The free market is poor at directing research for several reasons - there is more money to made in tweaking 'symptom relief' drugs than cures for difficult diseases, and the customers of products lack the necessary knowledge to buy the most effective treatments (just look at how well herbal, and worse, homeopathic remedies sell for evidence of that). Leave it to the free market, and all we'll have is flu capsules with slightlytweakedmolecule(tm) and snake-oil.
Research could be directed by the department of health informed by academics and doctors. Believe it or not, that's how an awful lot of research is done anyway.
This make for interesting listening on the subject: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=59
Brilliant! And let's bomb all the major cities in the world because they have criminal elements operating out of them.
Well, they'd have to employ someone to write the software and reconfigure the hardware to do it. Chances are it costs them next to nothing to keep the old stuff running. And anyway, maybe they like it for sentimental reasons (pretty much the same reasons we're still listening to the Voyagers I should think).
And the equilibrium established would be nothing gets made that can't be made for next to nothing in people's spare time.
Uh, did you read what I wrote? I said other products taste better. It's not about Coca-Cola tasting good per se, it's about being able to drink a lot of it regularly without it becoming too boring/sickening. I think it has to do with the cola flavour, hence Pepsi Cola being the other big player.
Sure, a lot of Coke's dominance has to do with marketing, but the product (Cokes cola flavoured beverage) is a good one.
I don't think that true. There are a lot of drinks I prefer the taste of, but I can't drink a lot of them day in and day out like I can with coke. I think Coca-Cola's great strength as a product is that people don't get sick of it quickly.
Yeah, printing is high on my wishlist too. It's currently a disaster, it's really one of those things that needs to Just Work. I spent a couple of hours trying to get a Brother printer to work with Feisty, and in the end gave up - if I don't sort it out, my girlfriend's heading back to Windows-land.
That's very interesting, I might have guessed radio stations were doing something like that.
Makes the whole thing seem even more pointless. Once you've sold someone the CD, it's sold: you're out of the competition. Doesn't seem to be much point being loud then.
Maybe they should release loud versions for radio, but the CD should preserve the dynamics.
With X11 open, on an older G4 system it's true, but Illustrator and Photoshop take around a minute to boot. I don't think this is a serious problem with Inkscape per se, but it seems to be fairly common among X11 apps, which goes to my point about X11 sucking. Also, the keyboard shortcuts being Linux/Windows style (ie. ctl+ rather than command+ is a serious annoyance on a Mac).
By "floating palette", I mean the OS X-style utility windows, which don't have to be activated. Inkscape has windows for such things, but they require a click to activate (this is a common complaint about the GIMP too). I understand this has something to do with cross-platform compatibility, but they are pretty important. The windows are also seriously out-sized and ugly.
Look, there are a lot of great things about Inkscape. It's a powerful application that is nearly ready for the prime-time in terms of features. But my point is that until someone's made an aqua interface, it's not going to cut it on the Mac; and Mac are where it's at in the creative world. I've used Inkscape in Linux, and it's clearly much better suited to the Linux environment (it's snappier too). If I could get the same level of integration in OS X, I'd b a happy chappy.
I've thought about doing it myself, but I'm afraid I would make a dogs breakfast out of it, not really being a programmer and all. And the reaction of programmers to people like me, who might screw up a bit/misunderstand basic concepts, is, uh, strangely hostile.
Sigh, this is such a problem with many open source projects - they get 95% there, and then say who needs that fancy nice shit on top, it basically works. If you want it, write it yourself! Well, newsflash: artists aren't programmers! I think that is why the open source creative apps have seen little success in comparison to system/server applications.
The big deal about X11 is that it's as slow as hell (Inkscape takes 3-5 minutes to boot on my system, what's that about?), the fonts look like shite (might not matter to programmer types, but it drives visual creatives nuts), the widgets are over-sized, the keyboard shortcuts are not mac standard, and the real biggy: the menus are not even in the OSX menu bar! Inkscape has SOME floating palettes, yes. But it needs floating palettes for colour, gradients and layers. It would also be nice if they didn't take up half the screen.
All this adds up to something that is pretty much unusable for most creative professionals or serious hobbyists working on Macs. Given the power under it hood (yes, I do use it sometimes), that's a crying shame.
If none that stuff bothers you, I can guarantee you've never worked on images/design professionally, nor even as a serious hobby. This stuff needs to be fixed, or Inkscape is heading to GIMPsville.
I think SVG will make it, eventually, but it lost out to flash in a big way.
The reason, I think, was editors. If you make something in Flash (the editor) it will play in the flash plugin (version permitting of course). But on the SVG side, you had a bunch of things which could export to SVG, but would let you do a bunch of stuff that couldn't be exported. Drawing something for SVG has always been a hit and miss affair -- because it's been so easy to add things that aren't supported by SVG. Having to think to yourself while drawing "will this work in SVG?" is not an option. If I could have flipped Illustrator into "SVG mode", which turned off the things that would make it incompatible with SVG specs, that might have done it.
Inkscape's really nice, and certainly a big step in the right direction, but it needs a lot of work. The interface is okay, but pros will want floating palettes for everything (including colour, gradients, the whole bit), and the lack of a native OS X version is quite crippling in the design world.
Yeah, as soon as an ad does something irritating, down comes the right click. I think you shouldn't block ads as a matter of course, because they do pay for stuff I like to read, but obnoxious ads just have to go.
The obvious reply is that I'm not a utilitarian, and don't believe utilitarianism is a valid moral strategy. I'm more of a do unto others sort. And if I am to do as I would be done by, I don't go violating the artist's wishes, because I wouldn't want that done with my work. Now, I'm pretty liberal-minded about this, modified work should be given more leeway than it is under most copyright schemes, and merely sharing (non-commercial uses) should be treated pretty leniently. But the point remains the same; I don't want it done to me, so I try not to do it to others.
On a more functional level, I know how hard it is to make money as an artist, and don't mind a bit of coercion to donate.
I'm not a tinfoil hat type myself, so I wouldn't be concerned that they'd try to pull that. Even if they did try, there are plenty of open source players out there, I don't see how such a thing could be enforced.
If I were Einstein I'd be worried... about being dead!
Well, say you took you computer to be repaired, and the files were swiped. Your entire collection could end up out there. They'd need other evidence.
I'm not buying that. The artist has given permission for their work to be distributed though certain channels, and not others. They are not coerced, they are sometimes bribed with (potential) fame.
If you really think record companies are evil incarnate, the way to stop them is not to share music, but to stop listening to it altogether. Don't buy, don't share, zip. Buy from indies and local bands at their gigs. Support someone else instead of no one.
Another point is that people don't share just RIAA stuff, they share everything (I bet you do too).
By watermarking with hashes representing a transaction record. If you don't share the file, people won't know what the hash is, and wont be able to embed it in anything else to frame you. If the hash is out there, you shared it somehow. Whether that was intentional or not is the crux of the matter I would think, and a difficult one to prove.
The RIAA might also stop suing when people stop sharing. The goal isn't, in my opinion, to make sharing consequence-free. I happen to think it's unethical to share copyrighted work without the artist's permission (regardless of whether it's legal or not). It's not high on my list of moral crimes -- probably somewhat below speeding and stealing stationary from work -- but it's still something I try not to do, and would like to encourage others not to as well.
... and the impact on those that buy the stuff? Pretty minimal I'd say, if they aren't planning to share it. Watermarking is so much better than DRM.