They can use the same method that hundreds of thousands of renters use when their landlords illegally keep $50 or $100 of their cleaning deposit. They either take a legal route that costs more to prosecute than it is worth, or they write it off as the inevitable screwing that you get when you are dealing with values too low to warrant a lawyer.
The unfortunate reality is that in the real world, there are billions of illegal things that are a financial loss every year that the victims have no recourse on because the cost of the legal system is more than the value of what they lost. I see no reason that the RIAA should have any extra privileges above what the population has.
And this is only if you even think that copyright as it now stands is valid (morally), which is certainly a debatable subject.
If you can find a way to bring forth this solution, your Nobel Prize is waiting for you.
The solution has already been developed. While I would like to take credit for devising the solution, it is really the genius of Bob Newhart. You can contact him for his Nobel prize here.
That is an interesting link, and beyond the value of the content, it also shows the evils of our dysfunctional copyright. The arguments that this photo should not be lost because it chronicles one of our (as in the human race) despicable moments are valid. I would also say that it is just as bad to let our chronicles of good and happiness be destroyed as it is to let chronicles of evil and shame.
So, this photo SHOULD be in the public domain, but so should works that are not chronicles of shame. For example, it is a travisty that the 'Happy Birthday' song is still under copyright.
Isn't this how all data sent across the internet works? We would just have to store the data in memory the way that we send data across the internet. In packets with self identifying markers.
That makes me think that someone should sue a crappy web browser's make and lose spectacularly so that a precedent can be made that using software that displays a page differently than intended is not copyright infringement.
I have large quantities of art right here in my home that proves you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. My 4 year old produces art on a daily basis. He has absolutely no expectation of getting paid for any of it. Heck, billions of pieces of content are produced every year by 'immature kids' who do not even know what money is, much less base their decision to produce content on whether they get paid or not.
Whether you agree with copyright or not, the argument that no content will be created if there is no copyright is so obviously flawed that it always becomes an argument against copyright, as it always appears dishonest.
I would say that the best boot strap for electric cars would be to either mandate or grant some kind of subsidies for any car that uses electricity for functional parts, but allow other fuels to be use to run a generator to supply that electricity. This would have several benefits. Distance would no longer be an issue, since you could stop at any gas station and refuel. The vehicles would not be tied to a single fuel source, as swapping out a generator shouldn't be any harder than changing your oil. Batteries could still be used for in town traffic. The vehicles would be dramatically simpler to build an maintain than the hybrid monstrosities we have now. And people wouldn't have to worry that their car was going to become a giant paper weight because the charging system gets abandoned.
Once all the cars are basically all electric anyway, THEN we can worry about how to get the generation to a centralized location instead of generating it locally.
Well excuse my bad math, I went to public school. The proposed budget for K-12 '08-'09 is $48,344,575 (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/agencies.html) Yes that is a big number, and unfortunately I can not find a reasonably accurate number for public schools in CA... SO I have not done the math.
So, you are aware that you have no clue as to how much schools get, yet you are parroting the same old line that they don't get enough.
I understand that the state collects more taxes, it has a very high income tax. It also has an extremely high upkeep for its infrastructure.
Yes, and these things scale linearly for the most part. So, more population means more infrastructure cost and more taxes to pay for that infrastructure. This isn't a difficult concept.
What I would like to know is where are you getting that there is a Myth about under paid teachers and under funded schools.
The average number of school days per year is 180.3. The average school day is 6.7 hours. That means 180.3 days X 6.7 hours = 1208 hours a year. Now divide the average yearly salary of $57,876. So, $57,876 / 1208 hours = $47.91 an hour. Now, I'm not saying that $47.91 an hour is going to make Bill Gates change careers, but it is certainly reasonable pay for a part time employee.
I have a relative who teaches history in Greenfield CA, he makes less than $40k a year, that includes the summer classes he teaches.
This is how the myth of the underpaid teacher gets perpetuated. Lets do the simple grade school math on this. $40k a year including summer school classes. Assuming that the 25% of of the year that he is teaching summer school accounts for 25% of his 40k salary, that means that his regular salary (which is what the above numbers are calculated from) would be $30k. So, doing our simple math, we get $30,000 / 1208 hours, so that puts him at $24.83 an hour. The average hourly wage in California is $22.11 That puts your relative $2.72 an hour into the TOP half of California wages. Now, even though your reletive is in the top half of wages, he is still $23.12 an hour below the avarage FOR TEACHERS. Now, at this point, you have to ask, 'Why is your relative making close to HALF what other TEACHERS are making?'.
Is your relative lying to you?
Is your relative 'deceiving' you by using creative accounting to make his wages look so low?
Is your relative in an unusually poor area? (Which would mean that cost of living is less)
Is your relative incompetent?
Is your relative a statistical anomaly, and gets trotted out as a way to deceive the public into thinking that his far below avarage wages are normal?
His school has also had to cut programs due to lack of funding.
Good! If schools stopped dumping money into play, they would be one step closer to offering a quality EDUCATION with the largest budget in California government.
Don't misunderstand. I get what the problems of total non-regulation are. I'm just saying that in data transmission, the government has mandated that it be monopolized. After all, you can't run new lines down public streets either.
I'm not arguing for 'Free Market', but it is government regulation that prevents other phone/cable/internet companies from putting up poles and running new cable. It is the regulation that prevents competition in the data transmission space.
That is just bad math. Yes the state has a large population, and yes, that means more schools, but that also means that the state has a large population, and thus collect WAY more taxes to pay for those schools.
It is bad math like you have done that causes the myth of under funded schools and under paid teachers.
As I said, the largest percentage of the California budget goes to education.
Just because people want to have public education doesn't mean that they want to flush money down the drain for a crappy run service. Also, it is clear that having public education does not prevent places from turning into trailer parks. No doubt there is empirical evidence right in your own community to prove that.
Your statment makes absolutly no sense. I did not say that the CA education budget is $X. I did not say that it was bigger than other states. I said that it was the single largest line item in the state budget. That means that for every dollar of taxes collected. More of that dollar goes to education than any other item. The size of the state is irrlevent when we are talking about % of budget. Unless you are claiming that because CA is a large state that it is underfunded on ALL state services.
The exact same could be said for closed source software. There is a ton of it that is pure and simple crap. Sure, the star players look good, but once you start getting into industry specific applications, the quality goes way down.
That wouldn't avoid the drama at all. The problem isn't that cell phones and driving are dangerous. The problem is that the neo-Luddites are in too large of numbers. Shitty drivers existed before cell phones, and they will exist whether we ban cell phones or not. Heck, just read the comments right here on slashdot anytime that cell phones come up. You don't just get the crazy "talking on a cell phones are more dangerous than drunk driving" kooks, but you get the complaints about cell phones on buses, or even in grociery stores. I've seen people get angry and offended just by seeing someone in public wearing a bluetooth ear piece. Go into any doctors office, and they have increadibly rude signs telling you not to use your cell phones. I've seen cube farms filled with a 100 phones where the company bans having a cell phone turned on because the phone ringing is "distracting".
So, no, the drama won't be avoided, because the drama isn't about driving safety. It is about trying to find a way to banish the evil technology. It is just a variant on the "think of the children" argument.
Actually, the "increased distraction" likely comes from the neo-Luddite hatred of new technology combined with the common practice of funding "studies" that seem to always give the results that the funder wants.
On the plus side, our public school system is already set up as a large scale orphanage. All we have to add is sleeping facilities and the kids are taken care of.
That wouldn't work if I got to choose who is and is not irresponsible. Those without kids + the 3% of parents that are responsible simply cannot afford to support the jail system that would be required to house the 97% of parents that are irresponsible.
2) School food programs are about control. The kids come to school hungry because that is where breakfast is served. Do you usually eat BEFORE going to a restarant? In the full budget, computers are just not that expensive.
3) Our public schools sucked 30 years ago too. They just suck more now.
I don't know about funding in your state, but her in California, the single largest line item in our state budget is education. The results we get are crap. The system is broken from the parent to the president and every level between. This teacher selling ad space on test is simply despicable, and is one more example of a system that is horribly broken. Funding is not the problem. Greed and apathy on every level is the problem.
You have the same vision that you do with C in VMWare. You either use pre-supplied code to do what you want or you dig into that code to see what it does. The JVM is totally irrelevent to the Java language verses the C language. The JVM is a computer. The X86 is a computer. There is no reason that the Java Language could not be compiled directly to X86, and there is no reason that C could not be compiled to run on the JVM.
You can't go any lower level in the machine itself, because your code is not really running on that machine... Essentially, Java is far more magic than C++ because you have this black box called a "JVM" which is unexplained in its entirety.
You have been blinded by marketing. The reason that it is called "Virtual Machine" is because that is exactly what it is. Java is an emulator. It's just that Sun thought "Virtual Machine" sounded more enterprisee. Saying that Java is magic because you can't go lower than the virtual machine is the same as saying that C++ is magic if you run it on VMWare.
Slashdot Mirror
They can use the same method that hundreds of thousands of renters use when their landlords illegally keep $50 or $100 of their cleaning deposit. They either take a legal route that costs more to prosecute than it is worth, or they write it off as the inevitable screwing that you get when you are dealing with values too low to warrant a lawyer.
The unfortunate reality is that in the real world, there are billions of illegal things that are a financial loss every year that the victims have no recourse on because the cost of the legal system is more than the value of what they lost. I see no reason that the RIAA should have any extra privileges above what the population has.
And this is only if you even think that copyright as it now stands is valid (morally), which is certainly a debatable subject.
If you can find a way to bring forth this solution, your Nobel Prize is waiting for you.
The solution has already been developed. While I would like to take credit for devising the solution, it is really the genius of Bob Newhart. You can contact him for his Nobel prize here.
That is an interesting link, and beyond the value of the content, it also shows the evils of our dysfunctional copyright. The arguments that this photo should not be lost because it chronicles one of our (as in the human race) despicable moments are valid. I would also say that it is just as bad to let our chronicles of good and happiness be destroyed as it is to let chronicles of evil and shame.
So, this photo SHOULD be in the public domain, but so should works that are not chronicles of shame. For example, it is a travisty that the 'Happy Birthday' song is still under copyright.
Isn't this how all data sent across the internet works? We would just have to store the data in memory the way that we send data across the internet. In packets with self identifying markers.
That makes me think that someone should sue a crappy web browser's make and lose spectacularly so that a precedent can be made that using software that displays a page differently than intended is not copyright infringement.
I have large quantities of art right here in my home that proves you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. My 4 year old produces art on a daily basis. He has absolutely no expectation of getting paid for any of it. Heck, billions of pieces of content are produced every year by 'immature kids' who do not even know what money is, much less base their decision to produce content on whether they get paid or not.
Whether you agree with copyright or not, the argument that no content will be created if there is no copyright is so obviously flawed that it always becomes an argument against copyright, as it always appears dishonest.
I would say that the best boot strap for electric cars would be to either mandate or grant some kind of subsidies for any car that uses electricity for functional parts, but allow other fuels to be use to run a generator to supply that electricity. This would have several benefits. Distance would no longer be an issue, since you could stop at any gas station and refuel. The vehicles would not be tied to a single fuel source, as swapping out a generator shouldn't be any harder than changing your oil. Batteries could still be used for in town traffic. The vehicles would be dramatically simpler to build an maintain than the hybrid monstrosities we have now. And people wouldn't have to worry that their car was going to become a giant paper weight because the charging system gets abandoned. Once all the cars are basically all electric anyway, THEN we can worry about how to get the generation to a centralized location instead of generating it locally.
Well excuse my bad math, I went to public school. The proposed budget for K-12 '08-'09 is $48,344,575 (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/agencies.html) Yes that is a big number, and unfortunately I can not find a reasonably accurate number for public schools in CA... SO I have not done the math.
So, you are aware that you have no clue as to how much schools get, yet you are parroting the same old line that they don't get enough.
I understand that the state collects more taxes, it has a very high income tax. It also has an extremely high upkeep for its infrastructure.
Yes, and these things scale linearly for the most part. So, more population means more infrastructure cost and more taxes to pay for that infrastructure. This isn't a difficult concept.
What I would like to know is where are you getting that there is a Myth about under paid teachers and under funded schools.
How about:
National Education Association
National Center for Education Statistics
The average number of school days per year is 180.3. The average school day is 6.7 hours. That means 180.3 days X 6.7 hours = 1208 hours a year. Now divide the average yearly salary of $57,876. So, $57,876 / 1208 hours = $47.91 an hour. Now, I'm not saying that $47.91 an hour is going to make Bill Gates change careers, but it is certainly reasonable pay for a part time employee.
I have a relative who teaches history in Greenfield CA, he makes less than $40k a year, that includes the summer classes he teaches.
This is how the myth of the underpaid teacher gets perpetuated. Lets do the simple grade school math on this. $40k a year including summer school classes. Assuming that the 25% of of the year that he is teaching summer school accounts for 25% of his 40k salary, that means that his regular salary (which is what the above numbers are calculated from) would be $30k. So, doing our simple math, we get $30,000 / 1208 hours, so that puts him at $24.83 an hour. The average hourly wage in California is $22.11 That puts your relative $2.72 an hour into the TOP half of California wages. Now, even though your reletive is in the top half of wages, he is still $23.12 an hour below the avarage FOR TEACHERS. Now, at this point, you have to ask, 'Why is your relative making close to HALF what other TEACHERS are making?'.
Is your relative lying to you?
Is your relative 'deceiving' you by using creative accounting to make his wages look so low?
Is your relative in an unusually poor area? (Which would mean that cost of living is less)
Is your relative incompetent?
Is your relative a statistical anomaly, and gets trotted out as a way to deceive the public into thinking that his far below avarage wages are normal?
His school has also had to cut programs due to lack of funding.
Good! If schools stopped dumping money into play, they would be one step closer to offering a quality EDUCATION with the largest budget in California government.
Don't misunderstand. I get what the problems of total non-regulation are. I'm just saying that in data transmission, the government has mandated that it be monopolized. After all, you can't run new lines down public streets either.
I'm not arguing for 'Free Market', but it is government regulation that prevents other phone/cable/internet companies from putting up poles and running new cable. It is the regulation that prevents competition in the data transmission space.
Yes, Microsoft is a growth company. I'm not convinced that they will be able to figure out how to make the transition to a mature industry.
That is just bad math. Yes the state has a large population, and yes, that means more schools, but that also means that the state has a large population, and thus collect WAY more taxes to pay for those schools.
It is bad math like you have done that causes the myth of under funded schools and under paid teachers. As I said, the largest percentage of the California budget goes to education.
Just because people want to have public education doesn't mean that they want to flush money down the drain for a crappy run service. Also, it is clear that having public education does not prevent places from turning into trailer parks. No doubt there is empirical evidence right in your own community to prove that.
Your statment makes absolutly no sense. I did not say that the CA education budget is $X. I did not say that it was bigger than other states. I said that it was the single largest line item in the state budget. That means that for every dollar of taxes collected. More of that dollar goes to education than any other item. The size of the state is irrlevent when we are talking about % of budget. Unless you are claiming that because CA is a large state that it is underfunded on ALL state services.
The exact same could be said for closed source software. There is a ton of it that is pure and simple crap. Sure, the star players look good, but once you start getting into industry specific applications, the quality goes way down.
That wouldn't avoid the drama at all. The problem isn't that cell phones and driving are dangerous. The problem is that the neo-Luddites are in too large of numbers. Shitty drivers existed before cell phones, and they will exist whether we ban cell phones or not. Heck, just read the comments right here on slashdot anytime that cell phones come up. You don't just get the crazy "talking on a cell phones are more dangerous than drunk driving" kooks, but you get the complaints about cell phones on buses, or even in grociery stores. I've seen people get angry and offended just by seeing someone in public wearing a bluetooth ear piece. Go into any doctors office, and they have increadibly rude signs telling you not to use your cell phones. I've seen cube farms filled with a 100 phones where the company bans having a cell phone turned on because the phone ringing is "distracting".
So, no, the drama won't be avoided, because the drama isn't about driving safety. It is about trying to find a way to banish the evil technology. It is just a variant on the "think of the children" argument.
Actually, the "increased distraction" likely comes from the neo-Luddite hatred of new technology combined with the common practice of funding "studies" that seem to always give the results that the funder wants.
On the plus side, our public school system is already set up as a large scale orphanage. All we have to add is sleeping facilities and the kids are taken care of.
That wouldn't work if I got to choose who is and is not irresponsible. Those without kids + the 3% of parents that are responsible simply cannot afford to support the jail system that would be required to house the 97% of parents that are irresponsible.
I don't know about your state, but here in California, education is the single largest line item on our state budget.
It doesn't have to be an either/or.
1) Teacher make a decent hourly wage.
2) School food programs are about control. The kids come to school hungry because that is where breakfast is served. Do you usually eat BEFORE going to a restarant? In the full budget, computers are just not that expensive.
3) Our public schools sucked 30 years ago too. They just suck more now.
I don't know about funding in your state, but her in California, the single largest line item in our state budget is education. The results we get are crap. The system is broken from the parent to the president and every level between. This teacher selling ad space on test is simply despicable, and is one more example of a system that is horribly broken. Funding is not the problem. Greed and apathy on every level is the problem.
You have the same vision that you do with C in VMWare. You either use pre-supplied code to do what you want or you dig into that code to see what it does. The JVM is totally irrelevent to the Java language verses the C language. The JVM is a computer. The X86 is a computer. There is no reason that the Java Language could not be compiled directly to X86, and there is no reason that C could not be compiled to run on the JVM.
You can't go any lower level in the machine itself, because your code is not really running on that machine... Essentially, Java is far more magic than C++ because you have this black box called a "JVM" which is unexplained in its entirety.
You have been blinded by marketing. The reason that it is called "Virtual Machine" is because that is exactly what it is. Java is an emulator. It's just that Sun thought "Virtual Machine" sounded more enterprisee. Saying that Java is magic because you can't go lower than the virtual machine is the same as saying that C++ is magic if you run it on VMWare.