What makes a work "cultural", and why does that mean that you do not need the author's permission to copy it?
Why do they need the author's permission to copy it in the first place? If someone tells me a fart joke, why should I get their permission to tell that joke to someone else? And if you think the difference between fart jokes and blockbuster movies is the cost of creation - you are exactly right. But it doesn't matter because a principle that doesn't scale isn't a principle at all.
It is from the perspective of the people who create such works in order to get paid. But hey, who cares about them.
No it's not. What you mean is the perspective of the people who distribute such works in order to get paid. It is a key difference that will lead creators to ways of making money that don't rely on charging a fee for distribution.
That certainly appears to be what you resorted to doing. Good job.
Really? Are you claiming you weren't trying to disprove that advertising makes people buy stuff they don't like? What were you trying to disprove then?
Right... Because if an argument appears to be absurd then that's the interpretation you should run with, no critical thinking required. And you thought I was insulting you.
Can't buy it if you don't know it exists, and that cuts two ways with the domination of advertising big acts crowding out awareness of other acts too.
Since you couldn't take that meaning away from what I wrote I suggest you stop focusing on sentence fragments and pay attention to the entire post. Your illiteracy is not my problem.
Nevertheless, that was exactly what you were saying
No, it was not even close to what I was saying - in fact you didn't even say that in the post I responded to. But then all you've got is an axe to grind so you can't see farther than your own projected prejudices. Enjoy your strawman, its all you've got.
You seem unclear on the concept - those billions are proof that the advertising works, if it wasn't necessary no one would spend the money on promotion in the first place. Your basis is contrary to your belief.
You're not the first to get all snotty about that. What's funny is you think I don't like big acts. Did I say that? Nope. But your faux populist attitude made you believe it.
All I said is that lots of other artists will have an opportunity that they are denied now because the big acts will no longer have the advertising support to dominate the market. So what if people choose "whatever overproduced musical group happens to come along" - at least there will be a lot more of them coming along to chose from.
Then that's exactly how you defeat the system. If everyone suggested someone for the list, then in no time the list would include everyone, thereby making it useless.
With as many people are on the list now, its already useless. Unless the real intention is something else, like kingdom building.
See what the NSA is doing to handle this list and others like it:
It seems like whenever I read about a Hollywood actress with children, they're often adopted, which I can't help but associate with a certain narcissism.
Don't.
If they were really being narcissistic they would use surrogate mothers to carry their own genetic offspring - they are certainly able to afford them. In fact, if you go to India, almost any middle-class american can afford a surrogate mother at well under $20K for the whole shebang, it is a thriving industry.
I disagree, I think people will still like the same type of music, and that is more than a little arrogant and elitist to assume that people that don't like the same music as you onlyn do it because they are brainwashed to.
I have the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on music marketing to back up my opinion. What basis do you have for your beliefs?
a million times as many people are willing to do exactly the same for Brittney Spears and likes.
The only reason a million times as many people prefer Spears and the like is because of advertising and promotion. Even for the big acts who like to spend it up on coke and hookers it costs less than $100K to cut an album, but it costs millions to promote that album. If you take the big money out of music, the massive over-spending on promotion will be the first thing to go.
Now you've got hundreds of millions of people who have to figure out on their own what music they like. It will cause a renaissance as the big acts will no longer be there to hoover up the lion's share of audiences.
naturally NPR is in favor of *more* Uncle Sam programs, because "he" is their sugar daddy.;-)
Gee, of course they would think that, any arguments they make in support of their position are clearly just twaddle. Their actual experience with the process, that's not a useful resource to draw on when evaluating the pros and cons now is it? Obviously the only right answer is no way jose, and any evidence to the contrary is just a skewed viewpoint.
Improvements in technology are no more a result of the laws of physics than Moore's law is a law of physics. Yet the meaning is obvious enough to anyone whose pick is not stuck in a nit.
Touche, but do you honestly think Wikileaks will fall without PRQ? You think the people who maintain the site can't find other good hosting?
I don't know. But what I do think is that if they had an alternative better than PRQ - one with say, less baggage - they probably would have taken it. The fact that they went with PRQ in the first place suggests that the service PRQ provides them is unique enough that it would be a blow to lose it. Maybe its only a matter of money, which is what I referred to in my first post, but spending more money on the equivalent level of service just means less money for the core mission.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes a work "cultural", and why does that mean that you do not need the author's permission to copy it?
Why do they need the author's permission to copy it in the first place?
If someone tells me a fart joke, why should I get their permission to tell that joke to someone else?
And if you think the difference between fart jokes and blockbuster movies is the cost of creation - you are exactly right. But it doesn't matter because a principle that doesn't scale isn't a principle at all.
It is from the perspective of the people who create such works in order to get paid. But hey, who cares about them.
No it's not. What you mean is the perspective of the people who distribute such works in order to get paid. It is a key difference that will lead creators to ways of making money that don't rely on charging a fee for distribution.
That certainly appears to be what you resorted to doing. Good job.
Really? Are you claiming you weren't trying to disprove that advertising makes people buy stuff they don't like?
What were you trying to disprove then?
The processor on the board, a OMAP3530, also has a ~500mhz C64x+ DSP and a POWERVR SGX video accellerator. There is plenty of power on it.
Yeah, its right there in the name!
Right... Because if an argument appears to be absurd then that's the interpretation you should run with, no critical thinking required.
And you thought I was insulting you.
Can't buy it if you don't know it exists, and that cuts two ways with the domination of advertising big acts crowding out awareness of other acts too.
Since you couldn't take that meaning away from what I wrote I suggest you stop focusing on sentence fragments and pay attention to the entire post. Your illiteracy is not my problem.
You never had a point, just an excuse.
Ah, the arrogance of the ignorant.
Nevertheless, that was exactly what you were saying
No, it was not even close to what I was saying - in fact you didn't even say that in the post I responded to.
But then all you've got is an axe to grind so you can't see farther than your own projected prejudices.
Enjoy your strawman, its all you've got.
You seem to not understand that just because something is heavily advertised doesn't mean that people can't really like it.
Oh get real. Do you really think my point is that advertising makes people buy stuff they dislike?
Address the point, don't make up bullshit strawmen.
Don't be an idiot. Everybody with a bank account is an "owner of capital."
And laws against vagrancy are completely egalitarian - the millionaire is no more permitted to sleep on the street than is the poorest pauper.
Is that where they break, and then fix themselves?
No, it is a series of electricity saving dance steps from the streets.
Regenerative Breaking 2 - Electric Boogaloo.
The billions of dollars that they make back.
You seem unclear on the concept - those billions are proof that the advertising works, if it wasn't necessary no one would spend the money on promotion in the first place. Your basis is contrary to your belief.
You're not the first to get all snotty about that.
What's funny is you think I don't like big acts.
Did I say that? Nope.
But your faux populist attitude made you believe it.
All I said is that lots of other artists will have an opportunity that they are denied now because the big acts will no longer have the advertising support to dominate the market. So what if people choose "whatever overproduced musical group happens to come along" - at least there will be a lot more of them coming along to chose from.
Then that's exactly how you defeat the system. If everyone suggested someone for the list, then in no time the list would include everyone, thereby making it useless.
With as many people are on the list now, its already useless.
Unless the real intention is something else, like kingdom building.
See what the NSA is doing to handle this list and others like it:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12744661
It seems like whenever I read about a Hollywood actress with children, they're often adopted, which I can't help but associate with a certain narcissism.
Don't.
If they were really being narcissistic they would use surrogate mothers to carry their own genetic offspring - they are certainly able to afford them. In fact, if you go to India, almost any middle-class american can afford a surrogate mother at well under $20K for the whole shebang, it is a thriving industry.
I disagree, I think people will still like the same type of music, and that is more than a little arrogant and elitist to assume that people that don't like the same music as you onlyn do it because they are brainwashed to.
I have the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on music marketing to back up my opinion.
What basis do you have for your beliefs?
a million times as many people are willing to do exactly the same for Brittney Spears and likes.
The only reason a million times as many people prefer Spears and the like is because of advertising and promotion.
Even for the big acts who like to spend it up on coke and hookers it costs less than $100K to cut an album, but it costs millions to promote that album.
If you take the big money out of music, the massive over-spending on promotion will be the first thing to go.
Now you've got hundreds of millions of people who have to figure out on their own what music they like. It will cause a renaissance as the big acts will no longer be there to hoover up the lion's share of audiences.
Zombie Strippers
Have you ever seen a Godzilla movie?! They don't get much more "turn your brain off".
Godzilla is a metaphor for nukes and a national fear of getting nuked again.
"Newsweek's Daniel Lyons (that's Fake Steve to you)
Or more likely to be recognized here as Forbes Magazine's massive and unrepentant SCO shill.
(Unrepentant in that his excuse for his ridiculously one-sided reporting was the flaming he got on the topic in the first place).
Ah, so THIS is where you draw the line.
Funny.
naturally NPR is in favor of *more* Uncle Sam programs, because "he" is their sugar daddy. ;-)
Gee, of course they would think that, any arguments they make in support of their position are clearly just twaddle. Their actual experience with the process, that's not a useful resource to draw on when evaluating the pros and cons now is it? Obviously the only right answer is no way jose, and any evidence to the contrary is just a skewed viewpoint.
Yeah, pretty much, for all practical purposes, but not quite, because sooner or later the fucking sun will in fact burn out.
Or get bought out by Oracle after giving away all its energy for Free.
oooh mr semantic pants
Improvements in technology are no more a result of the laws of physics than Moore's law is a law of physics.
Yet the meaning is obvious enough to anyone whose pick is not stuck in a nit.
Touche, but do you honestly think Wikileaks will fall without PRQ? You think the people who maintain the site can't find other good hosting?
I don't know. But what I do think is that if they had an alternative better than PRQ - one with say, less baggage - they probably would have taken it. The fact that they went with PRQ in the first place suggests that the service PRQ provides them is unique enough that it would be a blow to lose it. Maybe its only a matter of money, which is what I referred to in my first post, but spending more money on the equivalent level of service just means less money for the core mission.
Also, I already did research this, much more than simply reading the Wikipedia article.
Yah did, did you? Other than nyud-net, how many of those mirrors are PRQ?
Yes, I already know the answer. You, apparently don't.