I keep getting flashes of that Sapphire & Steel episode where the house from the future has returned to study the 20th century and weirdness starts happening with angry animals.
Nothing stops him from doing that. I don't think it's important to stop him from doing that. The museum knows it has the original; the thief has money he's defrauded out of someone who was conspiring to be a criminal in the first case.
No-one with any reasonable claim to sympathy has been injured.
I swear, when I give up caffeine for long periods (6 months or so, so I know I'm not still in withdrawal) I am in much poorer health than when I have it in moderation, regularly. Mostly, caffeine staves off migraines for me.
Caffeine is an excellent and useful drug for me. Other people's mileage may vary.
First of all, I wasn't the person you originally replied to, so I didn't say the inventor got 'no benefit'.
The point is, the inventor can only lower his prices so much. He probably has investors to repay. The freeloader can lower them more because he has no costs to recoup. He underprices the inventor. The inventor loses sales and goes out of business. Who has then benefitted?
So, at least on the surface, you appear to be complaining about the fact that freeloaders don't have to pay as much as you did. It affects your ability to benefit beyond your development, that is, to benefit at the expense of others. And it allows others to benefit without compensating you. But in the final analysis, it's all about selfishness.
The company that developed the new wing spent a lot of money to do so. They can expect to gain some financial advantage from the new wing, which will pay for their research costs.
The freeloader didn't have any research costs, so he derives the same financial advantage without having to use some of it to pay off the invested costs.
The result is that the freeloader derives more benefit from the invention than the inventor. Next time, the inventor is going to go, "screw that, let someone else do the work". Unfortunately, so will everyone else - so we never get the next new wing.
That's the entire point of patents. Selfishness or the lack thereof is beside the point.
Being offered a percentage of the profit is a status thing. It almost never yields any money, and it never yields any significant money.
The people that get money are the ones that agreed on a percentage of the gross.
I don't know if it was a rookie mistake in the case of the Spiderman movies. It might have been for the prestige, in the full knowledge that (almost) no money would change hands.
I read through the first few answers, thinking "this makes a lot of sense". Then I got to the bit about how pollution is not a thing that should concern the government, and should be taken care of via free enterprise, and thought, "that's a bit odd - the only purpose of government is to provide public goods: defense, police, etc - why isn't lack of pollution a public good?". Then I read about how "literacy rates" have declined since the 1800s, and public education must be abolished, and thought, "why can't they ever have a moderate position?"
So, why is it? Why must you have pure capitalism in order to avoid pure communism? Why is there only the complete liberal vs the absolute fascist? Is moderation supposed to come only from the 3 branches' checks & balances? Why isn't there a middle-of-the-road candidate that just cleans up? I don't understand it.
Imagine a town and a village. The village has 50 residents; the town has 500.
Imagine two political candidates to represent the village and the town. The first candidate offers to build an extra school in the town. He gets 500 votes. The second candidate offers to build an extra school in the village. He gets 50 votes. The first candidate wins the election.
The next election, both candidates promise the extra school to the town. The village never gets a new school.
This demonstrates both the tyranny of the majority and the lack of representation for the smaller community.
An employer cannot legally terminate you because you have TB.
Sure, but they'd be within their rights to fire you if you had TB and then you insisted on not having it treated and spreading it around. Otherwise they'd be guilty of not creating a safe environment for their other employees, or some damned thing.
I don't know where there are good stats (hence I spoke of 'rumoured' increases), but here is a quote I found after a small amount of googling:
The RIAA adduces as evidence statistics such as "Surveys in all major markets prove [file-sharing] is a major factor in the fall in world music sales, down 7% in 2003, and down 14% in three years." (Cary Sherman, RIAA president). The RIAA's claim conflicts with figures provided by Soundscan, the Nielsen company responsible for compiling the Billboard music charts, which suggest that US sales rose by 10% from 147 million in the 1st quarter of 2003 to 160 million in the 1st quarter of 2004. The difference is that the RIAA uses statistics on shipments to record shops; Soundscan measures sales to end users.
(From NationMaster; I've no idea whether they tend to be biased.)
As far as I know, no-one with any real resources and an unbiased point of view has actually undertaken a serious study of the figures worldwide. Claims that the figures definitely show an increase of sales (or that they definitely show a decrease) are therefore premature. However, since the RIAA's figures seem to be a little disingenuous, I'm more inclined to believe in the increased sales version - if there were hard figures to back the other view, I'm sure the RIAA would have trotted them out.
(Opinions provided without warranty, whether express or implied. Have fun with your arguments.)
It's worse than that. You want to be pointing directly upwards as much as possible. Any sideways direction adds to the amount of atmosphere that you're trying to see through. Even at the poles, you probably want to keep it above 45 degrees above the horizon, or there's too much atmospheric interference to compensate for.
That's your experience. Other people report that they're buying more CDs due to finding out about more artists. Who's to tell which experience is more prevalent? All we can do is look at the numbers of CD sales, which are rumoured to be increasing.
I agree with you that the clothing model you describe is unreasonable. However, if a store opened up with those policies, that wouldn't give you the right to break in after hours and try stuff on, and then come back in the morning and buy it. The right you would have would be to shop elsewhere.
Unfortunately the RIAA doesn't give you a lot of opportunity to shop elsewhere, so your proceding is the fairest way. That doesn't make it right, though - the RIAA is entitled to set the terms, even if they're unfair terms. (They're also entitled to cling to a failing business model and eventually bankrupt themselves.)
Certainly, they're entitled to be morons. Isn't that a basic human right?
would far outperform the Hubble Space Telescope, and could be built at a tiny fraction of its cost, says a scientist from the Anglo-Australian Observatory in Sydney, Australia
That is not what he said. He said "a telescope there would perform as well as a much larger one anywhere else on Earth. It's nearly as good as being in space."
This time it isn't the/. editors at fault, though, but the spaceflight now editors.
What gets me is the number of people who are saying the rovers are overengineered and clearly too much money was spent. I guess NASA just isn't allowed any latitude in either direction...
Slashdot Mirror
I really hope he built a limiter into the device on the other end. When the /. crowd gets a hold of the link to the feeder, look out...
I keep getting flashes of that Sapphire & Steel episode where the house from the future has returned to study the 20th century and weirdness starts happening with angry animals.
No-one with any reasonable claim to sympathy has been injured.
Why, therefore, would I (or anyone else) care?
Why bother?
Then the thief has defrauded someone who was willing to buy a stolen painting. I'm not seeing the problem here.
I disagree. The first coke after a few month's absense is heavenly. Almost worth the break.
The parent didn't say he/she ate chocolate, just that he/she craved it.
But, as I understand it, they denied dependence as well, so your point stands.
If you have a coffee machine and can adjust the grind, try pouring the espresso faster - you'll get less caffeine in the resulting drink.
I swear, when I give up caffeine for long periods (6 months or so, so I know I'm not still in withdrawal) I am in much poorer health than when I have it in moderation, regularly. Mostly, caffeine staves off migraines for me.
Caffeine is an excellent and useful drug for me. Other people's mileage may vary.
The point is, the inventor can only lower his prices so much. He probably has investors to repay. The freeloader can lower them more because he has no costs to recoup. He underprices the inventor. The inventor loses sales and goes out of business. Who has then benefitted?
The freeloader didn't have any research costs, so he derives the same financial advantage without having to use some of it to pay off the invested costs.
The result is that the freeloader derives more benefit from the invention than the inventor. Next time, the inventor is going to go, "screw that, let someone else do the work". Unfortunately, so will everyone else - so we never get the next new wing.
That's the entire point of patents. Selfishness or the lack thereof is beside the point.
The English equivalent would be a 'stroke of luck'. I'm not sure whether it's delivered via a stick or a whip. YMMV.
The people that get money are the ones that agreed on a percentage of the gross.
I don't know if it was a rookie mistake in the case of the Spiderman movies. It might have been for the prestige, in the full knowledge that (almost) no money would change hands.
ObNitPick: Laws don't define what is right and what is wrong; they define what is legal and what is illegal. There's an important difference.
So, why is it? Why must you have pure capitalism in order to avoid pure communism? Why is there only the complete liberal vs the absolute fascist? Is moderation supposed to come only from the 3 branches' checks & balances? Why isn't there a middle-of-the-road candidate that just cleans up? I don't understand it.
Imagine a town and a village. The village has 50 residents; the town has 500. Imagine two political candidates to represent the village and the town. The first candidate offers to build an extra school in the town. He gets 500 votes. The second candidate offers to build an extra school in the village. He gets 50 votes. The first candidate wins the election. The next election, both candidates promise the extra school to the town. The village never gets a new school. This demonstrates both the tyranny of the majority and the lack of representation for the smaller community.
You're only a copy of the person you were seven years ago. Does that bother the person you used to be?
The RIAA adduces as evidence statistics such as "Surveys in all major markets prove [file-sharing] is a major factor in the fall in world music sales, down 7% in 2003, and down 14% in three years." (Cary Sherman, RIAA president). The RIAA's claim conflicts with figures provided by Soundscan, the Nielsen company responsible for compiling the Billboard music charts, which suggest that US sales rose by 10% from 147 million in the 1st quarter of 2003 to 160 million in the 1st quarter of 2004. The difference is that the RIAA uses statistics on shipments to record shops; Soundscan measures sales to end users. (From NationMaster; I've no idea whether they tend to be biased.)
As far as I know, no-one with any real resources and an unbiased point of view has actually undertaken a serious study of the figures worldwide. Claims that the figures definitely show an increase of sales (or that they definitely show a decrease) are therefore premature. However, since the RIAA's figures seem to be a little disingenuous, I'm more inclined to believe in the increased sales version - if there were hard figures to back the other view, I'm sure the RIAA would have trotted them out.
(Opinions provided without warranty, whether express or implied. Have fun with your arguments.)
That's your experience. Other people report that they're buying more CDs due to finding out about more artists. Who's to tell which experience is more prevalent? All we can do is look at the numbers of CD sales, which are rumoured to be increasing.
Unfortunately the RIAA doesn't give you a lot of opportunity to shop elsewhere, so your proceding is the fairest way. That doesn't make it right, though - the RIAA is entitled to set the terms, even if they're unfair terms. (They're also entitled to cling to a failing business model and eventually bankrupt themselves.)
Certainly, they're entitled to be morons. Isn't that a basic human right?
This time it isn't the /. editors at fault, though, but the spaceflight now editors.
What gets me is the number of people who are saying the rovers are overengineered and clearly too much money was spent. I guess NASA just isn't allowed any latitude in either direction...