hehe, although you are rated funny, I think you are being serious. All I can say is anything that breaks the oligopoly in cell phone service will be a great thing. I'm tired of hearing how they are raking in billions selling ring tones for a buck or two each. Let's break that down:
I-tunes song: 0.95 cents for the whole damn song Ring tone from your carrier: 1-2 bucks for a snippet, but the prviledge of playing it on your phone as the ring tone.
And don't get me started about.15 cents for text messaging. Exactly 1 second of voice is about the same as some 1000 odd text messages--They SAVE money when we use those things. Fucking insane. This is the sign of an oligopoly or monopoly--crazy prices.
Who says we're not? I haven't bought a cd in years...not through any conscious decision, really, but just this feeling of revulsion that I'd be funding these vile people.
Uh, so, what do you think it means? What do you call a proprietary product that allows users to see and build the source code? Say like Torque game engine?
Nope. Open source just means it's not closed, as in you can see it.
I realize we're arguing semantics. But there are, as I said, a lot of open source yet proprietary products out there. A lot of them do let you change the source, too, just not distribute it.
I'm just making the distinction between open source and "free", which I think is an important one. I would infinitely rather have an open source proprietary product (Torque game engine comes to mind) if I have to use a proprietary product. Vastly. It's better than a kick in the crotch.
You make a lot of declarations and assumptions which do not work in the actual world. I think you should examine your assumptions about ownership and property if you want to find a way to actually make the system work.
I can keep a physical object that I own in a locked safe. Artists distribute their "property" to the world, but yet expect you to follow certain rules? What nonsense. The only way to enforce it is to control all electronic devices from a central source. That's different from a safe, and I won't submit to it.
And ultimately, as a side argument, the idea that music or other art can ever ben owned by anyone is preposterous. Did he invent music? I don't think so. My feeling is that a talented artist finds music, he doesn't create it.
Ownership in itself is an abstract concept, after all. There are no laws of physics which recognize ownership. Ownership of an abstract concept, like a song or other intellectual property, is an abstraction upon an abstraction. Yet they treat it as a concrete concern. It's not. It could all go away in a heartbeat (and in fact is slowly slipping through their fingers).
At this point, the business model of the future for them is easy for even a retard to understand. They are competing with free/crappy. All they need to do is provide cheap/good quality, and they're back in the money, and in spades.
<i>But the truth is people do deserve to be paid for their work</i><br><p> No, they don't. You don't have a right to anything but your freedom. You have to work to get paid for your work. You want to somehow get paid for singing songs? That's your problem how you can accomplish that--not my duty to jump through hoops to make that business plan work for you.<br><p> Other than that, i agree with everything you said. But I think this common fallacy has got to be destroyed. If I show up and mow your yard one morning before you wake up do I deserve to be paid for my work? No. Work != deserving of payment. There has to be a mutual agreement reached, first. Once you've agreed to pay me, THEN I deserve it.
Man, it's not even a nice try. Until MS board of directors admit that the man running the show doesn't know what he's doing, this kind of stupidity will continue. I imagine they'll wait until it's too late, since they believe the man is the messiah.
I mean Christ, it's not complicated. Give the people what they want. It's called supply and demand. Satisfy the demand. Don't make up stupid shit and pray it sticks. You can get lucky with that once in a while (ahem Windows) but it's not a long term business plan.
You know, terminology is important in our industry, so let's get it right. Open source means you can see the source code. That's it. The license has no relevance.
There's lots of open source products out there that aren't Free/open source. That's different. It's still handy to be able to peek at the code.
Like MAX ui is a work of art? It's a bodged together monstrousity. The only forgiveness I have is the fact that it's that way because it's been around so long, and they've added so much stuff to it over the years.
Other apps that came along later already knew what the MAX folks had to learn, and could design a better 3d interface becasue they were starting from scratch with more information.
Learning a UI isn't that hard people, just try it with an open mind and you'll see it's good.
It's true it's juvenile, but on the other hand, if it makes even one person curious enough to research and find out if that is actually what it is or not, can it be all bad?
I always tell kids certain books are forbidden to them, for example, which almost gaurantees they'll go and read it at the first opportunity.
Just because it's publicly owned, doesn't mean it HAS to be subject to the whims of any random politician.
Look at the interstate highway system. Yes, politics influences its construction here and there, but in the end it's like water service--it's just there, and paid for by the public. That's how muni wifi could be, if it's done right.
I do applaud your healthy scepticism of gov't, however.
No dude, your view of reality in both the U.S. and Europe is silly distorted. Infrastructure in the US is almost exactly equal to western Europe--very good indeed. Something bad happened recently, and so most people let that fill their consiousness--it's not an accurate impression. If you've driven in the Interstates in the U.S., you would know that they are fine. Europe has it's soccer stadium catastrophes, we have our bridge collapses--both are just isolated cases of the intersection of bad luck and bad engineering.
You're assuming the sactions are meant to cause problems for the state. We keep slapping sanctions on dictators and they keep staying in power. Maybe the sanctions are working great, just as you described--and just as expected by our gov't.
What? You say the good old US of A would never support a dictator? Really?
Being from Texas, whenever I'm in the UK, people are constantly stopping me on the street to ask for directions. This is strange. Finally I figured out I'm the only one in the area who looks like he's in a good mood and approachable. And after talking it over with my Brit friends, it seems it must be true. They find it quite shocking that I'm almost always in a good mood. Sure is great.
I think it's the bloody weather. Y'all should be walking around with flourescent lights strapped to your heads to develop more vitamin K or whatever the fuck it was on Northern Exposure.
Still, HR is lame everywhere, and that was a totally stupid reason not to hire you. Maybe the real reason was the failed drug test. Though that would be lame, too.
It's socialism. Seriously. It's so damn hard to fire someone in western Europe, that companies aren't willing to invest a lot in salary, out of the fear that the worker will turn out badly and they'll be stuck with a huge bill every year.
As fucked up as the situation in the U.S. of A. is, year after year, I keep having to admit to myself that it's better than the other options currently available to us.
Slashdot Mirror
hehe, although you are rated funny, I think you are being serious. All I can say is anything that breaks the oligopoly in cell phone service will be a great thing. I'm tired of hearing how they are raking in billions selling ring tones for a buck or two each. Let's break that down:
.15 cents for text messaging. Exactly 1 second of voice is about the same as some 1000 odd text messages--They SAVE money when we use those things. Fucking insane. This is the sign of an oligopoly or monopoly--crazy prices.
I-tunes song: 0.95 cents for the whole damn song
Ring tone from your carrier: 1-2 bucks for a snippet, but the prviledge of playing it on your phone as the ring tone.
And don't get me started about
erm, you know it will still be rasterized...unless you've got a nice vector monitor? :-)
Who says we're not? I haven't bought a cd in years...not through any conscious decision, really, but just this feeling of revulsion that I'd be funding these vile people.
Uh, so, what do you think it means? What do you call a proprietary product that allows users to see and build the source code? Say like Torque game engine?
Nice job demonstrating your ignorance.
Nope. Open source just means it's not closed, as in you can see it.
I realize we're arguing semantics. But there are, as I said, a lot of open source yet proprietary products out there. A lot of them do let you change the source, too, just not distribute it.
I'm just making the distinction between open source and "free", which I think is an important one. I would infinitely rather have an open source proprietary product (Torque game engine comes to mind) if I have to use a proprietary product. Vastly. It's better than a kick in the crotch.
You make a lot of declarations and assumptions which do not work in the actual world. I think you should examine your assumptions about ownership and property if you want to find a way to actually make the system work.
I can keep a physical object that I own in a locked safe. Artists distribute their "property" to the world, but yet expect you to follow certain rules? What nonsense. The only way to enforce it is to control all electronic devices from a central source. That's different from a safe, and I won't submit to it.
And ultimately, as a side argument, the idea that music or other art can ever ben owned by anyone is preposterous. Did he invent music? I don't think so. My feeling is that a talented artist finds music, he doesn't create it.
Ownership in itself is an abstract concept, after all. There are no laws of physics which recognize ownership. Ownership of an abstract concept, like a song or other intellectual property, is an abstraction upon an abstraction. Yet they treat it as a concrete concern. It's not. It could all go away in a heartbeat (and in fact is slowly slipping through their fingers).
At this point, the business model of the future for them is easy for even a retard to understand. They are competing with free/crappy. All they need to do is provide cheap/good quality, and they're back in the money, and in spades.
<i>But the truth is people do deserve to be paid for their work</i><br><p>
No, they don't. You don't have a right to anything but your freedom. You have to work to get paid for your work. You want to somehow get paid for singing songs? That's your problem how you can accomplish that--not my duty to jump through hoops to make that business plan work for you.<br><p>
Other than that, i agree with everything you said. But I think this common fallacy has got to be destroyed. If I show up and mow your yard one morning before you wake up do I deserve to be paid for my work? No. Work != deserving of payment. There has to be a mutual agreement reached, first. Once you've agreed to pay me, THEN I deserve it.
Nonsense. It's one company, and it's run dysfunctionally. Feeding one half of it feeds the other, too.
Man, it's not even a nice try. Until MS board of directors admit that the man running the show doesn't know what he's doing, this kind of stupidity will continue. I imagine they'll wait until it's too late, since they believe the man is the messiah.
I mean Christ, it's not complicated. Give the people what they want. It's called supply and demand. Satisfy the demand. Don't make up stupid shit and pray it sticks. You can get lucky with that once in a while (ahem Windows) but it's not a long term business plan.
You know, terminology is important in our industry, so let's get it right. Open source means you can see the source code. That's it. The license has no relevance.
There's lots of open source products out there that aren't Free/open source. That's different. It's still handy to be able to peek at the code.
for god's sake don't be one of their customers if you can avoid it.
IF you can avoid it.
You'd be right if our corrupt state and local gov'ts hadn't paid Verizon quite a lot of money to maintain that wire.
The should both all be sued.
Like MAX ui is a work of art? It's a bodged together monstrousity. The only forgiveness I have is the fact that it's that way because it's been around so long, and they've added so much stuff to it over the years.
Other apps that came along later already knew what the MAX folks had to learn, and could design a better 3d interface becasue they were starting from scratch with more information.
Learning a UI isn't that hard people, just try it with an open mind and you'll see it's good.
Still, Cinema 4d is better.
All you have to see...is if they do it again next time.
It's true it's juvenile, but on the other hand, if it makes even one person curious enough to research and find out if that is actually what it is or not, can it be all bad?
I always tell kids certain books are forbidden to them, for example, which almost gaurantees they'll go and read it at the first opportunity.
Standards own you!
Just because it's publicly owned, doesn't mean it HAS to be subject to the whims of any random politician.
Look at the interstate highway system. Yes, politics influences its construction here and there, but in the end it's like water service--it's just there, and paid for by the public. That's how muni wifi could be, if it's done right.
I do applaud your healthy scepticism of gov't, however.
No dude, your view of reality in both the U.S. and Europe is silly distorted. Infrastructure in the US is almost exactly equal to western Europe--very good indeed. Something bad happened recently, and so most people let that fill their consiousness--it's not an accurate impression. If you've driven in the Interstates in the U.S., you would know that they are fine. Europe has it's soccer stadium catastrophes, we have our bridge collapses--both are just isolated cases of the intersection of bad luck and bad engineering.
You're assuming the sactions are meant to cause problems for the state. We keep slapping sanctions on dictators and they keep staying in power. Maybe the sanctions are working great, just as you described--and just as expected by our gov't.
What? You say the good old US of A would never support a dictator? Really?
Right, the USA only executes (blows up, sorry--not the same as execution at all) innocent people in OTHER countries. That makes it okay.
you realize, your logic is the same as "I can't bear to buy American because the American government invaded Iraq".
dude, these are the guys who can't build an OS for $6 billion.
I could build a fucking moon rocket with six billion, and sell rides on it to boot.
What could John Carmack do with that? We'd be terraforming Mars by now.
Being from Texas, whenever I'm in the UK, people are constantly stopping me on the street to ask for directions. This is strange. Finally I figured out I'm the only one in the area who looks like he's in a good mood and approachable. And after talking it over with my Brit friends, it seems it must be true. They find it quite shocking that I'm almost always in a good mood. Sure is great.
I think it's the bloody weather. Y'all should be walking around with flourescent lights strapped to your heads to develop more vitamin K or whatever the fuck it was on Northern Exposure.
Still, HR is lame everywhere, and that was a totally stupid reason not to hire you. Maybe the real reason was the failed drug test. Though that would be lame, too.
It's socialism. Seriously. It's so damn hard to fire someone in western Europe, that companies aren't willing to invest a lot in salary, out of the fear that the worker will turn out badly and they'll be stuck with a huge bill every year.
As fucked up as the situation in the U.S. of A. is, year after year, I keep having to admit to myself that it's better than the other options currently available to us.