If you steal a car, you're depriving someone of a car. You're not taking $(labor + materials).
LOL, where did I say "steal the car?" The cost of duplicating an existing car includes cost of raw materials, machinery and labor. And I just want to pay for that only, not the other design and other IP costs, or marketing/advertising.
Raw material cost: paid Machinery rent cost: paid Labor cost: paid IP cost: not paid Marketing/Advertising/Branding: not paid
Because stealing IP is not stealing and is okay, according to many on slashdot, not paying for car IP should not be considered stealing.
If the value of a car to its makers were merely equivalent to labor + materials, the maker wouldn't have bothered making the car in the first place.
Right, and you think song makers should bother creating new music if you're just going pay them $10 and distribute it to millions for free?
If you want to have a consistent theory of property rights then intellectual monopoly has no place in it.
I'm sorry, did you or your ancestors create the song? No? Then what gives you the right to take it without permission, to enjoy the fruits of another person's labor? None, you have to right. The issue here is ownership, not monopoly. The person who created the song owns it. The person who did not create the song (eg: you) does not own it and has no rights to it unless he/she pays for it.
If it costs you millions of dollars to make something that I can do for $10 and customers determine they would rather have my product then you should lose business because you are wasting resources.
What exactly can you do with $10? Write a complete song? You're full of it.
A car and a lunch both require labor and resources that cannot be used on another car or lunch.
Fine. But suppose I were to pay for the resources and labor required to manufacture the car, can I have at just for that price (labor + materials)? The same goes for lunch at a restaurant.
If I were to pay labor + materials for both the lunch and the car, the price would be 1/5th to 1/10th the usual retail price. Please find me a place where I can buy lunch at 1/5th usual price or a new car at 1/5th retail price. Bet you can't find such a place. And yet you want to apply the same model to pure digital goods.
but it's abhorrent for the artist to ask people to pay a nominal fee for a copy of the music he/she has worked on?
Yeah, um, that's utterly absurd.
No, it's not absurd. It's the only way these former napster, current torrent users, which slashdot is full of, get to listen to your music for free. It's all about stealing control of music from its creators so the freeloaders don't have to pay that 99 cents to listen to their favorite song. Music will be freed from the tyranny of its creators. LOL.
So how exactly is your argument rational? Do you think paying $10 for piece of plastic for material that cost millions of dollars to create gives you complete rights over that material, including redistribution? In what world can you rationally obtain a millions of dollars worth asset for $10? Perhaps only in the world of pirates, nowhere else.
Whether you derive a benefit from something has no logical bearing on whether or not you should compensate someone for it.
Not even if the benefit is being sold? By your logic, why should I pay for that new car, I should be able to obtain it for free. I should also be able to watch a movie in a theater for free, take a train ride for free, have free lunch at a restaurant. How dare these goods/service providers demand payment for their wares? It's nonsense.
Not at all. I pay money hand-over-fist to see bands live.
Other than seeing band members in person, and I imagine that's fun once or twice, and lively social ambiance, what's the point of concerts? The music is so loud, you have to wear earplugs or you go deaf after a few concerts. The song rendition is not as good as on the recorded CD, and the singer is usually hoarse or singing off-key. On top of that, the tickets are quite expensive, Seems like concerts are very good at many things, except the music.
just that copying someone's music for personal use is clearly not hurting that, but helping, as without hearing the music first I wouldn't go see a band live. An album is the perfect advertisement for the live gig.
5000 people came to a concert show but 10 million people listened to the song on their smartphone or hi-fi system for free. Do you think it's fair that 9.99 million people pay $0 for this music?
One of the main reason for organizing concerts is increasing visibility of the band. That is, concerts are about advertising and marketing... the band's CD/single and also the band's image/brand. So if they don't have much future profit coming from sales of their music, there's not going to be any concert to go to. Without music sales, concerts die too, in most cases.
Paying only for concerts is like downloading MS-Windows 10/XP for free, but occasionally buying t-shirts and coffee mugs with some logo to financially support Microsoft. IOW, it's stupid because the income from t-shirts and mugs is going to be 1/millionth less than selling the OS itself.
Why should content creators be ensured a profit? Nobody else is.
If you work for a living, your
salary - expenses - taxes = profit
Everybody works for a profit (except the hand-to-mouth poor people).
Make music of sufficient quality and originality and you will profit from it, copyright or no.
No copyright, no profit. Nobody pays for free stuff. Google, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, pays nothing to use the free operating, Linux. Do you think a common man with limited salary is going to pay for a song if he doesn't have to? You're either naive or delusional.
It's not my job to make sure that you can earn money.
Who said it is? No one put a gun to your head to force you to listen to that song. You listened to it because you enjoyed it, and should therefore pay for it.
If you require laws to be able to do that then you are suddenly restricting my freedom to do the same.
LOL, what false freedom are you complaining about? The freedom to use someone else's commercial work for your benefit/enjoyment without benefiting the owner of the work?
Why should I provide a rational argument against unnatural laws when you won't provide rational arguments for them?
Because you have no rational argument that allows you free access to someone's life's work without payment.
If I went out and painted a line on the road and tried to charge a fee from everyone who passed over it then people would think that I am a loon.
LOL, isn't that called paying for parking or a toll fee?
That's a simplistic view. Can you duplicate the car without getting sued by the car manufacturer? No, you can't. The raw materials required to manufacture the car only cost (roughly) 1/10th the price you paid to buy it new. That is, the physical objects you so dearly say hold no contradictions, cost only a small fraction of the car (just as the 50 cent plastic CD for a $10 music album). The remaining 90% goes towards paying for car exterior design, interior design, safety testing/design, performance testing/design, worker salaries, factories, manufacturer profits, dealer profits etc. So most of your car payment goes towards paying for IP, the thing you hate so much being charged for.
Do I own my hard drive? No because there are billions of patterns I am not allowed to arrange it in.
A hard disk is a container, just like a bag or a purse. Just because you buy a bag does not mean you own any item as soon as you place it in the bag. You also have to pay for the item before you place it in your bag. Similarly, placing a song (item) in your hard disk (bag) without payment is illegal.
No because there are billions of patterns I am not allowed to arrange it in.
You're free to arrange the billions of patterns as you see fit, and as long as you created those patterns yourself. But if those patterns cost tens of millions of $$$ and resources to create, you're going to have to pay a fraction of creation price to cover the cost of production.
Stop locking content behind paywalls. If your content is good, people will gladly pay you for it.
You mean the donation or panhandler model... good luck with that. Many people want stuff for free, so the producer gets nothing. Besides, the seller should set the price, not the buyer.
IP is a prison, not a marketplace.
IP ensures profit-protection for content creators... it ensures there are dire consequences for people to use the content without payment. The only people who call IP a prison are freeloaders and pirates.
I shouldn't be REQUIRED to part with money to listen to music. We have the technology available that allows anyone to download any song they want for free
What if it's cheap to copy? Didn't it cost time, effort and money to create the song the first place? It takes almost a decade of training, and the person must be talented. You are paying for the benefit of listening to music, the cost to deliver the goods to you is only marginally important. If a song benefits 1 million listeners, the listeners need to pay, it's that simple.
By your argument almost all goods and services should be free. For example, once 100,000 people have bought train tickets they have paid off the cost of the train. Should the train ride be free or 1/10th cost for train riders after that? No. That's how most business models work: huge upfront investment and they break even after a few year of sales. After that it's pure profit. The same model applies for music, as well.
Or rich people who can afford the luxury and enjoy a comfortable, quiet and extremely fast car? Unless they plan to sell their sports car every three years, the cost is only 5 or 7 times the cost of a cheap compact... so not very expensive to them.
Swiss watches are luxury items and there is so much variety. How exactly is the iWatch going to replace all the wonderful watch designs with their plain rounded-corner rectangle design? The Swatch guy is full of it.
All works should be free as in beer, and revenue should come from live performances and donations. Let the public decide what they want to hear and how.
Why should they be free as in beer? Will spending 99cents or $10/month bankrupt any consumer? Why should you get to use someone's work without payment? Let's hear some rational arguments.
Maybe they can "steal," or more accurately, derive their song from others, in which case, they owe royalties of 10%-30% of sales to the original song owner. I've noticed a lot of uncreative rap musicians directly copying tunes from music from other countries and just adding boring rap lyrics and bass on top of that. Maybe they should get sued next.
Java solved it correctly -- just copy the pointer, instead of overloading the '=' operator. When you you see a simple statement like shown below in C++, a = b;
you may be unaware that an assignment operator overloaded function may be lurking in there and the side effects that are caused by it. It would be worse if b were part of a function/method's arguments. It's just poor design -- add hacks to solve a problem and end up creating more problems.
That is the most complex solution presented here and that too for a simple problem. Let's face it, Python list comprehensions are not perfect and are useful only for the most common cases. So unless they update the syntax to accommodate this use-case (i.e., no double compute() or extra temp list), it's simply easier to write and maintain the code using the for loop.
Article I says, in part, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law".
Since the article says that no govt owns it, which is bullshit, I think (since the world is a democracy and not a plutocracy). And since the common man has no resources to go to the moon, let alone mine it and transport the minerals back to earth. Can we safely assume, the treaty favors businessmen of first-world countries who will use public resources to mine the minerals but keep the profits to themselves? In other words, the law is extremely unfair and biased.
What would be fair is all the govts divvy up the resources by country size, GDP and other means. Furthermore, while the miners should get the lion's share of the minerals, the citizens of all involved countries should also get rights to a fraction of the minerals mined.
Better yet introduce trial periods and reviews so that everyone understands that membership is not guaranteed and something to be respected/valued and help reduce feelings of self entitlement.
What is this, some kind of corp? These open source developers have been paid exactly squat. How dare you simply take their work for free and then kick them out once they no longer serve your purpose. What a complete ripoff!
I would be okay with the *firing* if the developers got paid in the first place. Otherwise, you have no right to abuse them.
Your solution is not practical either. If "orns" were a huge array, "mid" would consume a lot of time and memory. Instead, OP's solution with the large for loop is the best answer, although it looks ugly.
Although the language itself isn't truly, truly bad,
Any language that allows the programmer to override the '=' operator is truly, verily, bad. That makes the language over-programmable and a write-only language when trying to maintain other developer's code. Java may have fewer features, but that doesn't stop the developers from getting stuff done.
Due to the small structures and dense packing of RAM cells these days, this also discharges neighboring cells a little bit, but those aren't rewritten by the RAM controller... This attack however clears the cache between reads, so the same physical RAM cells are read over and over, and that depletes neighboring cells far enough to corrupt the data before it is rewritten by the refresh cycle.
Are you sure that's the case? If what you say is true, the adjacent rows would drain charge and the 'one' bits in the 'victim' row would become 'zero' bits. But what's happening is, 'zero' bits are changing to 'one.' How can that happen if reads deplete capacitors of neighboring rows? It could instead be related magnetic field interference between the rows... just my guess.
I would be happy with giving a single bonus if some EE engineers or physicists can explain how this exploit works. Right now we only know what it does -- flip bits in some memory locations by writing to other memory locations.
This is just Goodyear seeing that a bunch of people are gullible* enough to buy electric cars and hybrids. This gets them a piece of the action.
Goodyear does not specify typical power output of these tires. But let's say your tesla model S gives 300 miles/charge and adding these tires gives you a 330 to 360 mile range. Also, and more importantly, since you're running the car directly off a power source (tires), for 10%-20% of the distance, you're increasing battery life by not constantly charging/recharging it.
This removes the need for a shader language parser in the graphics driver. It still needs a compiler, unless you think the GPU is going to natively execute the bytecode. If you remove the compiler from a modern GPU driver, then there's very little left...
In compiler lingo, the source code to parse tree/bytecode converter is called the front end. The piece of code that takes the parse tree/bytecode and generates native machine code is called the back end.
So the new spec removes the compiler front end from the graphics driver, greatly improving performance. Only the compiler back end is present in the graphics driver.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, where did I say "steal the car?" The cost of duplicating an existing car includes cost of raw materials, machinery and labor. And I just want to pay for that only, not the other design and other IP costs, or marketing/advertising.
Raw material cost: paid
Machinery rent cost: paid
Labor cost: paid
IP cost: not paid
Marketing/Advertising/Branding: not paid
Because stealing IP is not stealing and is okay, according to many on slashdot, not paying for car IP should not be considered stealing.
Right, and you think song makers should bother creating new music if you're just going pay them $10 and distribute it to millions for free?
I'm sorry, did you or your ancestors create the song? No? Then what gives you the right to take it without permission, to enjoy the fruits of another person's labor? None, you have to right. The issue here is ownership, not monopoly. The person who created the song owns it. The person who did not create the song (eg: you) does not own it and has no rights to it unless he/she pays for it.
What exactly can you do with $10? Write a complete song? You're full of it.
Fine. But suppose I were to pay for the resources and labor required to manufacture the car, can I have at just for that price (labor + materials)? The same goes for lunch at a restaurant.
If I were to pay labor + materials for both the lunch and the car, the price would be 1/5th to 1/10th the usual retail price. Please find me a place where I can buy lunch at 1/5th usual price or a new car at 1/5th retail price. Bet you can't find such a place. And yet you want to apply the same model to pure digital goods.
No, it's not absurd. It's the only way these former napster, current torrent users, which slashdot is full of, get to listen to your music for free. It's all about stealing control of music from its creators so the freeloaders don't have to pay that 99 cents to listen to their favorite song. Music will be freed from the tyranny of its creators. LOL.
So how exactly is your argument rational? Do you think paying $10 for piece of plastic for material that cost millions of dollars to create gives you complete rights over that material, including redistribution? In what world can you rationally obtain a millions of dollars worth asset for $10? Perhaps only in the world of pirates, nowhere else.
Not even if the benefit is being sold? By your logic, why should I pay for that new car, I should be able to obtain it for free. I should also be able to watch a movie in a theater for free, take a train ride for free, have free lunch at a restaurant. How dare these goods/service providers demand payment for their wares? It's nonsense.
Other than seeing band members in person, and I imagine that's fun once or twice, and lively social ambiance, what's the point of concerts? The music is so loud, you have to wear earplugs or you go deaf after a few concerts. The song rendition is not as good as on the recorded CD, and the singer is usually hoarse or singing off-key. On top of that, the tickets are quite expensive, Seems like concerts are very good at many things, except the music.
5000 people came to a concert show but 10 million people listened to the song on their smartphone or hi-fi system for free. Do you think it's fair that 9.99 million people pay $0 for this music?
One of the main reason for organizing concerts is increasing visibility of the band. That is, concerts are about advertising and marketing... the band's CD/single and also the band's image/brand. So if they don't have much future profit coming from sales of their music, there's not going to be any concert to go to. Without music sales, concerts die too, in most cases.
Paying only for concerts is like downloading MS-Windows 10/XP for free, but occasionally buying t-shirts and coffee mugs with some logo to financially support Microsoft. IOW, it's stupid because the income from t-shirts and mugs is going to be 1/millionth less than selling the OS itself.
If you work for a living, your
salary - expenses - taxes = profit
Everybody works for a profit (except the hand-to-mouth poor people).
No copyright, no profit. Nobody pays for free stuff. Google, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, pays nothing to use the free operating, Linux. Do you think a common man with limited salary is going to pay for a song if he doesn't have to? You're either naive or delusional.
Who said it is? No one put a gun to your head to force you to listen to that song. You listened to it because you enjoyed it, and should therefore pay for it.
LOL, what false freedom are you complaining about? The freedom to use someone else's commercial work for your benefit/enjoyment without benefiting the owner of the work?
Because you have no rational argument that allows you free access to someone's life's work without payment.
LOL, isn't that called paying for parking or a toll fee?
That's a simplistic view. Can you duplicate the car without getting sued by the car manufacturer? No, you can't. The raw materials required to manufacture the car only cost (roughly) 1/10th the price you paid to buy it new. That is, the physical objects you so dearly say hold no contradictions, cost only a small fraction of the car (just as the 50 cent plastic CD for a $10 music album). The remaining 90% goes towards paying for car exterior design, interior design, safety testing/design, performance testing/design, worker salaries, factories, manufacturer profits, dealer profits etc. So most of your car payment goes towards paying for IP, the thing you hate so much being charged for.
A hard disk is a container, just like a bag or a purse. Just because you buy a bag does not mean you own any item as soon as you place it in the bag. You also have to pay for the item before you place it in your bag. Similarly, placing a song (item) in your hard disk (bag) without payment is illegal.
You're free to arrange the billions of patterns as you see fit, and as long as you created those patterns yourself. But if those patterns cost tens of millions of $$$ and resources to create, you're going to have to pay a fraction of creation price to cover the cost of production.
You mean the donation or panhandler model... good luck with that. Many people want stuff for free, so the producer gets nothing. Besides, the seller should set the price, not the buyer.
IP ensures profit-protection for content creators... it ensures there are dire consequences for people to use the content without payment. The only people who call IP a prison are freeloaders and pirates.
What if it's cheap to copy? Didn't it cost time, effort and money to create the song the first place? It takes almost a decade of training, and the person must be talented. You are paying for the benefit of listening to music, the cost to deliver the goods to you is only marginally important. If a song benefits 1 million listeners, the listeners need to pay, it's that simple.
By your argument almost all goods and services should be free. For example, once 100,000 people have bought train tickets they have paid off the cost of the train. Should the train ride be free or 1/10th cost for train riders after that? No. That's how most business models work: huge upfront investment and they break even after a few year of sales. After that it's pure profit. The same model applies for music, as well.
Or rich people who can afford the luxury and enjoy a comfortable, quiet and extremely fast car? Unless they plan to sell their sports car every three years, the cost is only 5 or 7 times the cost of a cheap compact... so not very expensive to them.
Swiss watches are luxury items and there is so much variety. How exactly is the iWatch going to replace all the wonderful watch designs with their plain rounded-corner rectangle design? The Swatch guy is full of it.
Why should they be free as in beer? Will spending 99cents or $10/month bankrupt any consumer? Why should you get to use someone's work without payment? Let's hear some rational arguments.
Maybe they can "steal," or more accurately, derive their song from others, in which case, they owe royalties of 10%-30% of sales to the original song owner. I've noticed a lot of uncreative rap musicians directly copying tunes from music from other countries and just adding boring rap lyrics and bass on top of that. Maybe they should get sued next.
Java solved it correctly -- just copy the pointer, instead of overloading the '=' operator. When you you see a simple statement like shown below in C++,
a = b;
you may be unaware that an assignment operator overloaded function may be lurking in there and the side effects that are caused by it. It would be worse if b were part of a function/method's arguments. It's just poor design -- add hacks to solve a problem and end up creating more problems.
That is the most complex solution presented here and that too for a simple problem. Let's face it, Python list comprehensions are not perfect and are useful only for the most common cases. So unless they update the syntax to accommodate this use-case (i.e., no double compute() or extra temp list), it's simply easier to write and maintain the code using the for loop.
Since the article says that no govt owns it, which is bullshit, I think (since the world is a democracy and not a plutocracy). And since the common man has no resources to go to the moon, let alone mine it and transport the minerals back to earth. Can we safely assume, the treaty favors businessmen of first-world countries who will use public resources to mine the minerals but keep the profits to themselves? In other words, the law is extremely unfair and biased.
What would be fair is all the govts divvy up the resources by country size, GDP and other means. Furthermore, while the miners should get the lion's share of the minerals, the citizens of all involved countries should also get rights to a fraction of the minerals mined.
What is this, some kind of corp? These open source developers have been paid exactly squat. How dare you simply take their work for free and then kick them out once they no longer serve your purpose. What a complete ripoff!
I would be okay with the *firing* if the developers got paid in the first place. Otherwise, you have no right to abuse them.
Your solution is not practical either. If "orns" were a huge array, "mid" would consume a lot of time and memory. Instead, OP's solution with the large for loop is the best answer, although it looks ugly.
Any language that allows the programmer to override the '=' operator is truly, verily, bad. That makes the language over-programmable and a write-only language when trying to maintain other developer's code. Java may have fewer features, but that doesn't stop the developers from getting stuff done.
Are you sure that's the case? If what you say is true, the adjacent rows would drain charge and the 'one' bits in the 'victim' row would become 'zero' bits. But what's happening is, 'zero' bits are changing to 'one.' How can that happen if reads deplete capacitors of neighboring rows? It could instead be related magnetic field interference between the rows... just my guess.
I would be happy with giving a single bonus if some EE engineers or physicists can explain how this exploit works. Right now we only know what it does -- flip bits in some memory locations by writing to other memory locations.
Goodyear does not specify typical power output of these tires. But let's say your tesla model S gives 300 miles/charge and adding these tires gives you a 330 to 360 mile range. Also, and more importantly, since you're running the car directly off a power source (tires), for 10%-20% of the distance, you're increasing battery life by not constantly charging/recharging it.
In compiler lingo, the source code to parse tree/bytecode converter is called the front end. The piece of code that takes the parse tree/bytecode and generates native machine code is called the back end.
So the new spec removes the compiler front end from the graphics driver, greatly improving performance. Only the compiler back end is present in the graphics driver.