I'm not sure what point you are trying to make regarding the real cost of 'space taken for parking'.
Let's say I own a butcher shop and I own the private property where the shop is located. I will freely decide to dedicate 1/2 acre to parking because it will increase the number of shoppers who buy meat from me. I won't charge anything for my customers to park there while shopping in my store.
Are you suggesting that some sort of authority is needed to reglulate my decision to build a parking lot at my private business?
Solar energy production and adoption is great, as long as it is voluntary. Let's not legislate involuntary force to make it happen. It will succeed or fail on it's own merits in a free an open market. Oh, by the way, let's stop all government subsidy on the competing forms of energy production as well.
I work in developing web applications. When choosing server technologies I have learned to conduct my own bake off using the application that will be deployed. Each application is unique. Comparing your custom app to a published bake off is usually an apples to oranges comparison.
For the original Willy Wonka movie, there were lots of midgets imported into the Hollywood area to play the Oompa Loompa characters. Once filming was complete, there was nothing for all of those midgets to do. As one would expect, they turned to a life of petty crime. The Hollywood police department is worried about the same thing happening again.
Taligent spent $300M and never shipped a product. It was the boon doggle of boon doggles. There was some cool technologu developed but there was never a good product vision. The final nail in the coffin was that Taligent was dead asleep when the whole 'www' thingy got big in 1995.
Does anyone know if Lenovo is owned in part or full by the Chinese government? If so, then I would have a real problem with this sale given the nightmarish human rights record of the Chinese government.
Gee, perhaps you are right. Maybe a better way to organize ourselves is to compell society to live by the rules: From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs.
Oh wait, that was tried and tens of millions of innocent people were slaughtered in the name of making it work.
Just remember that one man's trash is another man's treasure. I get scared when elitist busy bodies like you try to get in the middle of that because, gasp, some people might be buying junk!
Programming is not free. I agree that the incremental cost that results from the act of copying software is so small that it can be considered free. However, most of the cost of programming is cost that is already sunk into the development of the programming. The author of the programming has a right to choose to not recover that expense or to set terms of use and copy that will cover that expense.
I don't happen to agree with the price of milk. I don't find it unethical to walk into a store, take the milk from the refirgerator, and walk out without paying. I'm not just some mindless consumer that does what the CEO of the super market chain tells me to do. Only people with no spine pay for milk.
You sound like Bill Clinton quibbling about semantics to avoid admitting any wrong doing.
The distribution of a copy of a copyrighted work that you do not have permission from the copyright holder to distribute is a violation of the basic ethical standard that the copyright laws are attempting to spell out. Regardless of looking for loopholes in the words, you know the ethical standard behind the laws and you ought to be bound to them by your own desire to be ethical.
If there really is massive fraud going on then why don't the writers sue for breach of contract? Breach of contract suits happen every day in the US justice system. Surely the fraud must be easy to prove since you assert the allegation with with such vigor.
Ah, just what we need. An law that is unenforceable because the term 'bad' is so vague. That will really help things.
Perhaps we should establish a federal agency charged with distinguishing good art from bad. Perhaps you could head the agency and the tax payers would provide you with a nice little military styled uniform to wear as you capriciously pass judgement on artistic merit.
Are you suggesting that it is OK to consume garbage art without paying because it is garbage? If you don't want to pay for garbage art then that is entirely within your control today by you freely choosing not to comsume it.
Are you suggesting that it is OK to copyright good art but not bad art? I'd like to see you take a crack at writing a law that clearly distinguishes good art from bad. Please respond with the text of this law.
Copyright laws result in more and better art. Feature film production is one of the riskiest financial ventures that one can undertake because more than 80% of produced feature films lose money. Film producers make up for that with the few that do turn a profit. Copyright laws help protect these rare profits so the film producers can survive and produce more of their art. Art is good for the soul of man, but if you take away the reward then you'll see the risk takers fade away.
This one won't fly with the tin foil hat crowd who are convinced that the only reason we don't have a hydrogen economy today is because of the evil conspiracy of greedy oil companies.
Now that there is a viable means of producing hydrogen, they'll have to retreat to the real fringe of the 'Free Energy' devices. I can hear it now: The CIA wants oil or nukes. The CIA will fight and kill to prevent any sort of clean alternative.
I know that data security is a top concern in today's animated film business. This is why render farms for animated films are in secure office buildings rather than data centers. Additionally, the render farms are not networked to the internet.
This makes me skeptical that a 'lease farm' model can work for anything more secure than things like TV Commercials.
Please respond with the text of the law you would write that would be cited by the WTO to strip Ballmer of this right to comment on Linux and US Patent Law.
This subject making is presented in a way that implies that some sort of legal authority be brought to bear to make Ballmer shut up. I say that the best way to counter mis-information is with good information. I'd rather live in a society where people fight back against this sort of thing rather than whine, cry foul, and expect mommy to make him stop.
I agree. This would represent extremely regressive taxation. I would expect that the liberals would be up in arms about it if it did meet their more precious goal of controlling personal freedom by getting people out of their cars. This taxation is force. Liberals want to use force to get people out of their cars. But, as meheler points out, it will only get poor people out of their cars.
What else are they offering besides Shawn's name? That won't be enough when stacked up against ITunes and other competitors. There has to be a real consumer value. The percentage of their desired customer base that has heard of Shawn is less than 1%. An even smaller percentage care if Shawn is involved or not.
The Republican Party today is an uneasy coalition of the personal freedom economic laissez faire folks and the biblical literalists. They need each other to win but both pretend the other is not there.
Perhaps Secretary Powell was tired of pretending that the biblical literalist elephant was not under the table. His memoirs will be a great read.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make regarding the real cost of 'space taken for parking'.
Let's say I own a butcher shop and I own the private property where the shop is located. I will freely decide to dedicate 1/2 acre to parking because it will increase the number of shoppers who buy meat from me. I won't charge anything for my customers to park there while shopping in my store.
Are you suggesting that some sort of authority is needed to reglulate my decision to build a parking lot at my private business?
Solar energy production and adoption is great, as long as it is voluntary. Let's not legislate involuntary force to make it happen. It will succeed or fail on it's own merits in a free an open market. Oh, by the way, let's stop all government subsidy on the competing forms of energy production as well.
I work in developing web applications. When choosing server technologies I have learned to conduct my own bake off using the application that will be deployed. Each application is unique. Comparing your custom app to a published bake off is usually an apples to oranges comparison.
For the original Willy Wonka movie, there were lots of midgets imported into the Hollywood area to play the Oompa Loompa characters. Once filming was complete, there was nothing for all of those midgets to do. As one would expect, they turned to a life of petty crime. The Hollywood police department is worried about the same thing happening again.
Taligent spent $300M and never shipped a product. It was the boon doggle of boon doggles. There was some cool technologu developed but there was never a good product vision. The final nail in the coffin was that Taligent was dead asleep when the whole 'www' thingy got big in 1995.
Does anyone know if Lenovo is owned in part or full by the Chinese government? If so, then I would have a real problem with this sale given the nightmarish human rights record of the Chinese government.
I wish I could mod up.
Bravo!
Gee, perhaps you are right. Maybe a better way to organize ourselves is to compell society to live by the rules: From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs.
Oh wait, that was tried and tens of millions of innocent people were slaughtered in the name of making it work.
Just remember that one man's trash is another man's treasure. I get scared when elitist busy bodies like you try to get in the middle of that because, gasp, some people might be buying junk!
Programming is not free. I agree that the incremental cost that results from the act of copying software is so small that it can be considered free. However, most of the cost of programming is cost that is already sunk into the development of the programming. The author of the programming has a right to choose to not recover that expense or to set terms of use and copy that will cover that expense.
I agree. I assume, since you made this point, that you do not consider the motivation behind copyright laws to be ethical.
You are making that assertion, now back it up with an argument.
I don't happen to agree with the price of milk. I don't find it unethical to walk into a store, take the milk from the refirgerator, and walk out without paying. I'm not just some mindless consumer that does what the CEO of the super market chain tells me to do. Only people with no spine pay for milk.
You sound like Bill Clinton quibbling about semantics to avoid admitting any wrong doing.
The distribution of a copy of a copyrighted work that you do not have permission from the copyright holder to distribute is a violation of the basic ethical standard that the copyright laws are attempting to spell out. Regardless of looking for loopholes in the words, you know the ethical standard behind the laws and you ought to be bound to them by your own desire to be ethical.
If there really is massive fraud going on then why don't the writers sue for breach of contract? Breach of contract suits happen every day in the US justice system. Surely the fraud must be easy to prove since you assert the allegation with with such vigor.
Ah, just what we need. An law that is unenforceable because the term 'bad' is so vague. That will really help things.
Perhaps we should establish a federal agency charged with distinguishing good art from bad. Perhaps you could head the agency and the tax payers would provide you with a nice little military styled uniform to wear as you capriciously pass judgement on artistic merit.
Sounds like a scary utopia to me.
If writers are so FUCKED all the time, then why do they continue to freely choose to enter into these agreements?
Are you suggesting that it is OK to consume garbage art without paying because it is garbage? If you don't want to pay for garbage art then that is entirely within your control today by you freely choosing not to comsume it.
Are you suggesting that it is OK to copyright good art but not bad art? I'd like to see you take a crack at writing a law that clearly distinguishes good art from bad. Please respond with the text of this law.
Copyright laws result in more and better art. Feature film production is one of the riskiest financial ventures that one can undertake because more than 80% of produced feature films lose money. Film producers make up for that with the few that do turn a profit. Copyright laws help protect these rare profits so the film producers can survive and produce more of their art. Art is good for the soul of man, but if you take away the reward then you'll see the risk takers fade away.
This one won't fly with the tin foil hat crowd who are convinced that the only reason we don't have a hydrogen economy today is because of the evil conspiracy of greedy oil companies.
Now that there is a viable means of producing hydrogen, they'll have to retreat to the real fringe of the 'Free Energy' devices. I can hear it now: The CIA wants oil or nukes. The CIA will fight and kill to prevent any sort of clean alternative.
I know that data security is a top concern in today's animated film business. This is why render farms for animated films are in secure office buildings rather than data centers. Additionally, the render farms are not networked to the internet.
This makes me skeptical that a 'lease farm' model can work for anything more secure than things like TV Commercials.
The WTO?? Really?
Please respond with the text of the law you would write that would be cited by the WTO to strip Ballmer of this right to comment on Linux and US Patent Law.
This subject making is presented in a way that implies that some sort of legal authority be brought to bear to make Ballmer shut up. I say that the best way to counter mis-information is with good information. I'd rather live in a society where people fight back against this sort of thing rather than whine, cry foul, and expect mommy to make him stop.
I agree. This would represent extremely regressive taxation. I would expect that the liberals would be up in arms about it if it did meet their more precious goal of controlling personal freedom by getting people out of their cars. This taxation is force. Liberals want to use force to get people out of their cars. But, as meheler points out, it will only get poor people out of their cars.
What else are they offering besides Shawn's name? That won't be enough when stacked up against ITunes and other competitors. There has to be a real consumer value. The percentage of their desired customer base that has heard of Shawn is less than 1%. An even smaller percentage care if Shawn is involved or not.
The Republican Party today is an uneasy coalition of the personal freedom economic laissez faire folks and the biblical literalists. They need each other to win but both pretend the other is not there.
Perhaps Secretary Powell was tired of pretending that the biblical literalist elephant was not under the table. His memoirs will be a great read.
What do they offer over and above plain vanilla internet access?