I didn't equate infringement with stealing though. I'm trying to point out that simply allowing everyone to download, freely, someone else's work (music, composition, whatever) will in fact change the way that First Sale happens. Musicians (or, shall I say, publishers) aren't stupid. They're not going to sell CDs for $20 still when they only get to sell it ONCE.
I'm not saying the current state is great or even good. I'm saying that most of the alternatives described are only good for consumers that want it for free, not for producers (I use the term in comparison to consumer, not with relation to publishers/audio recorders).
I haven't yet heard someone give a good model that would allow professional creative people (and potentially "publishers") to benefit financially while allowing easier or cheaper access to what they create/publish. Primarily, on slashdot, the rallying cry is this: I want my free music! Publishers get too much money! Musicians don't get enough! But I don't want to give it to them! Information should be free! (except GPL code; if you use it but don't include the license and follow it to the letter, you are worse than an infidel)
(Yes, sarcasm:) )
The best model, so far, that I've seen/experienced in practice is magnatune. But music isn't FREE there. It just seems to be a... more practical and more consumer-friendly (and musician-friendly, at the same time) way to go.
Allow me, for a minute, to be a Professional Musician. I shall now think to myself.
Me to Self: Self? ("yes?") You know, I wrote[/performed] some great music here. I think I'd like to sell it to people.
Self to me: That's a great idea. But you know, once you sell it the first time, anyone can download it for free.
Me to Self: Well, I really do want to make some money on this... but I'll only get paid for the first sale, huh?
Yup.
Ok. Well here's what I'll do; I'll just wait until someone is willing to buy my 3 minute recording for about $10,000. They can distribute it as much as they want after that.
...
Seriously. Plumber analogy is bad. Why? Toilets keep breaking. The SAME toilet. Music doesn't "break." And if it's free to download again, and if the only time the originator gets paid is the FIRST time, then that FIRST time is going to be pretty stinking expensive, and we'll be back to the rich people (or a church) being the "patron of the arts"... that system. Which worked back in the 18th century. But really not a whole lot since, if I remember correctly, Beethoven.
I thought the idea was protecting against public obscenity. It's not saying you can't be obscene with someone, or something, or yourself, or whatever, in your home. I thought obscenity laws were to protect someone like me, walking down the street, from seeing obscenity.
For those that are complaining about "we don't live a free society because I can't do obscene things in public," what if I were to complain that "I don't live in a free society because I can't even walk down the street without having to wear a mask to keep myself from seeing obscenity."
Hm. And, while we're on it, there's nothing wrong with me setting up in public and warning people about how awful homosexuals are, is there? After all, it's free speech. It's not even obscene. Oh, wait, you call that "hate" speech and have decided that "hate" is wrong, whereas "immorality" or "obscenity" is not, thus you want free obscenity and bridled hate.
IMO, there's a double standard for "moral legislation." On one side, people don't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that; on the other hand, they have no problem offending people that don't want to see, for example, obscenity.
I suppose this particular article is not about public obscenity but "private," e.g., video games.... but most reactions against it are going to be regarding public, not private (video games are private), stuff...
By default, you're right... it doesn't. Notice the "is able," which implies that it has the ability to but doesn't necessarily. It's a Windows setting. link explaining how.
Sure: link explaining how. As someone pointed out, it is more similar to just running multiple programs. But my point was simply that even Windows has realized that to improve stability, sometimes it is nice to separate things out as a different process... whether that process is a new window or a new tab is irrelevant to me. I like tabs, but the fundamental idea is the same.
Not to mention that we've decided it's worth experimenting, essentially, on human babies. Not even on human embryos or human fetuses or whatever, now we are talking about human kids. Outside the womb. This really does seem like a downhill slope. I'm against abortion in the first place, but to "grow" a human to see how it turns out?
There are organizations with vehement supporters for "ethical treating of animals" and "no animal testing" and yet we are willing to start testing, uh, human farming... or something.
Maybe I should start a "Humane Treatment for Humans" organization. And actually define what a "human" is, since nobody wants to define that. Until it comes down to when someone ELSE wants to define it in a way that personally affects you.
4. You may end up with a "human" that is somehow not "human" due to strange things going on with the sperm that wasn't "naturally" produced and the egg from wherever. So now you have, in your mind, "produced" or "manufactured" an "inferior" human. Is "it" worth keeping?
If no, and killing "it" is allowed, then we've just legalized killing human beings because someone else deemed them not worth keeping around.
That is a pretty dangerous path to go down without some serious thought.
People get majorly upset with science allowing us to blow up the entire world and want us not to pursue weapons that would allow that, or at least keep them at bay. Is this so very different, from that non-religious "survival of society" standpoint?
"Working" is one of those hard-to-define words when it comes to software development. Does "working" mean "thinking about" or "coding" or "I put it on my whiteboard and I'll get to it sometime next year"?:)
Even explorer.exe is able to open directories using different processes, if you want. Frankly, I found it frightfully annoying to have X+ tabs open and have ONE of those tabs cause the entire program to crash, usually due to a plugin issue. Made no sense to me. Multi-process/multi-threaded/multi-whatever programming has been around for quite a while now, and multi-core cpus have been pretty common, too.
It's one of the huge advantages that I saw with Chrome (over Firefox). That and program open/new tab open speed. FF 3.5 seems to have addressed this somewhat, but it's still slower, I think.
Hooray for competition, and hooray for finally taking advantage of the hardware out there. Really, for one of the most used applications someone will use, it seems silly to only allow it to use a single-process model.
I'm fairly certain that Pickens is in this for the money... whether the money comes from oil or renewable energy, I don't think he particularly cares.
Why is it oil people are made out to be haters of renewable energy? They just want money, they don't have a love for black oily gunk. If Pickens can make money from renewable energy, then he'll do it. Seems pretty easy to understand to me. I doubt he just loves oil.
I also don't quite understand the "We need more clean energy" sentiment combined with the "We don't want to pay for our clean energy" and "We don't want an oil guy creating our clean energy" sentiments. It seems that we want clean energy, for free, and have it have nothing to do with a company that previously dealt with Awful Wicked Oil (tm).
I'm all for renewable energy... but it does need to be economical, and the supply needs to come from demand. And I don't want these sorts of projects flopping after MY money was used in it... e.g., I'm supportive of oil "barons" like Pickens doing these projects, not the government. Why? Because that's the whole point of private enterprise. Taking risks. Making it work. And if it works and someone gets rich from it, good for them. I won't complain. Unless I start getting forced to use it and THAT'S why someone gets rich. Which, unfortunately, appears to be the way a lot of people want it to go...
Oh well. I'm probably just cynical because I like large "cars" and don't want to spend $20k more to have it be electric or hybrid... or not spend that much more money and drive on the freeways [with crazy drunk people] in a plastic coffin:)
I don't know why you insist on calling his moral considerations "misplaced." He stood on them. He said he would. Good for him. I'm glad he was honest enough with himself to actually say when he thought a human was, in fact, a human life.
You appear to be suggesting that the U.S. is the only place that really good research can happen. As far as I know, many countries have allowed embryonic stem cell research and not a whole lot has come out of the research in terms of medicinal uses. Either all other countries stink at research, or there is some truth in the idea that embryonic stem cell research isn't all that it is hyped to be.
Yes, hype. That is what I call promises of very great gain with no real evidence of said great gain. It's marketing, advertising, and hype. Do embryonic stem cells have medical potential? I don't know. I don't think many people know, if any. I do know there havebeencases of stem cells (offhand, not sure if they are all adult or not) being rejected by the host. If that's a major issue, then embryonic stem cells wouldn't have much use outside of trying to heal the embryo they were taking from.
Short summary: it seems like adult stem cells are ahead in the race and have a significant advantage, medically: you can get them from the patient, you don't have to worry about someone else's stem cells being rejected by the host.
It's not a self-serving definition. If you'd rather, I won't use the word "Christian." I'll use "disciple of Christ," since that's what Jesus referred to His followers as (disciples).
The point is this: why are you imposing on my the history of my "religion" when I am trying to say that I'm not part of the "religion" whose history you are referring to, except that we share a word?
In other words, you complain that I am trying to distance myself from my "coreligionists;" so be it. I, in turn, will complain that you are trying to lump me in with people that have nothing to do with what I am about, simply in order to disqualify me from having a place to stand.
Who is being self-serving, then, with definitions? The one trying to clarify beliefs with actions, or the one trying to generalize?
Let's put it this way. I tell you I'm an atheistic evolutionist. I give lots of money to the Institute for Creation Research. I attend an extremely conservative "Bible-thumping" literal 6 day creation believing church. I pass out Creation vs. Evolution pamphlets and tracts. I have a website trying to debunk evolution.
Next, along comes Joe, who hears you are an atheistic evolutionist, too. He knows about me. He tells you that you're just a hypocrite and that you are probably actually attending this church, believe in creation, fund ICR, etc. When you tell him that he's unfairly judging you because someone else has misused your title/description, Joe tells you that you're just using self-serving definitions that on one else is bound to.
Long method to show the point, but hopefully it works.
Besides, I wasn't even saying they weren't "true Christians." I said they weren't disciples/followers of Christ. In my lingo, they weren't true Christians. But I DO have a different definition of "Christian" than you do, most likely. However, we hopefully have very similar definitions of "disciple" or "follower."
disciple: A person who learns from another, especially one who then teaches others; An active follower or adherent of someone, or some philosophy etc
follower: # a person who accepts the leadership of another
# someone who travels behind or pursues another
Yes, "Christianity" or "Christendom" did. But not by actual disciples of Christ. I reject the idea that you can truly be a "follower" of someone when you look absolutely nothing like him. I can't say "Dude, I'm a follower of Michael Jordan" and hate basketball. Well, yeah I can say that, but I doubt YOU would call me a follower of Jordan.
If someone tells me he or she is a Christian and knows nothing about Jesus, cares nothing about Jesus, and acts in no way similar to Jesus, then why should I believe he or she is a "Christian" (i.e., a "little Christ")? And why should I refer to him or her that way? And, more to the point, why should I think all Christians are the same, or why should I think he or she discounts the claims of those that actually DO know about, care for, and act like Christ?
I don't think I was mocking, and I know it is deadly serious to millions of real people. In fact, that's one of my reasons that I don't think it was written by God... the fact that millions of real people are so willing to kill me because I don't believe it was written by God. It is certainly not what Jesus, who is recognized even by the Koran, seemed to think was right behavior that was glorifying to God. Jesus seemed to think being patient, kind, and loving was behavior that was fitting to a follower of God.
Contrast this book with the Holy Koran, which has not changed one iota since it was written
The question is, who wrote it. I could write you a poem about the afterlife that had not been changed one iota. It means pretty much nothing though, because I'm nobody special.
Unchanged does not necessarily mean special, important, or true.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't equate infringement with stealing though. I'm trying to point out that simply allowing everyone to download, freely, someone else's work (music, composition, whatever) will in fact change the way that First Sale happens. Musicians (or, shall I say, publishers) aren't stupid. They're not going to sell CDs for $20 still when they only get to sell it ONCE.
I'm not saying the current state is great or even good. I'm saying that most of the alternatives described are only good for consumers that want it for free, not for producers (I use the term in comparison to consumer, not with relation to publishers/audio recorders).
I haven't yet heard someone give a good model that would allow professional creative people (and potentially "publishers") to benefit financially while allowing easier or cheaper access to what they create/publish. Primarily, on slashdot, the rallying cry is this: I want my free music! Publishers get too much money! Musicians don't get enough! But I don't want to give it to them! Information should be free! (except GPL code; if you use it but don't include the license and follow it to the letter, you are worse than an infidel)
(Yes, sarcasm :) )
The best model, so far, that I've seen/experienced in practice is magnatune. But music isn't FREE there. It just seems to be a ... more practical and more consumer-friendly (and musician-friendly, at the same time) way to go.
Allow me, for a minute, to be a Professional Musician. I shall now think to myself.
Me to Self: Self? ("yes?") You know, I wrote[/performed] some great music here. I think I'd like to sell it to people.
Self to me: That's a great idea. But you know, once you sell it the first time, anyone can download it for free.
Me to Self: Well, I really do want to make some money on this... but I'll only get paid for the first sale, huh?
Yup.
Ok. Well here's what I'll do; I'll just wait until someone is willing to buy my 3 minute recording for about $10,000. They can distribute it as much as they want after that.
...
Seriously. Plumber analogy is bad. Why? Toilets keep breaking. The SAME toilet. Music doesn't "break." And if it's free to download again, and if the only time the originator gets paid is the FIRST time, then that FIRST time is going to be pretty stinking expensive, and we'll be back to the rich people (or a church) being the "patron of the arts" ... that system. Which worked back in the 18th century. But really not a whole lot since, if I remember correctly, Beethoven.
Termination of the researcher? That sounds kinda violent.
Comcast is opt in. It just happens that they have a lot of current customers. But nobody forced you to call Comcast and pay them for their service.
... including games like Oblivion, etc.
$75k is a little low.
Let's go for $750k. Multiply by 10. Divide number of people by 10, 25. You could hire 25 developers at $750k each for 6 months.
Ridiculous...
I thought the idea was protecting against public obscenity. It's not saying you can't be obscene with someone, or something, or yourself, or whatever, in your home. I thought obscenity laws were to protect someone like me, walking down the street, from seeing obscenity.
For those that are complaining about "we don't live a free society because I can't do obscene things in public," what if I were to complain that "I don't live in a free society because I can't even walk down the street without having to wear a mask to keep myself from seeing obscenity."
Hm. And, while we're on it, there's nothing wrong with me setting up in public and warning people about how awful homosexuals are, is there? After all, it's free speech. It's not even obscene. Oh, wait, you call that "hate" speech and have decided that "hate" is wrong, whereas "immorality" or "obscenity" is not, thus you want free obscenity and bridled hate.
IMO, there's a double standard for "moral legislation." On one side, people don't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that; on the other hand, they have no problem offending people that don't want to see, for example, obscenity.
I suppose this particular article is not about public obscenity but "private," e.g., video games.... but most reactions against it are going to be regarding public, not private (video games are private), stuff...
By default, you're right... it doesn't. Notice the "is able," which implies that it has the ability to but doesn't necessarily. It's a Windows setting. link explaining how.
Sure: link explaining how. As someone pointed out, it is more similar to just running multiple programs. But my point was simply that even Windows has realized that to improve stability, sometimes it is nice to separate things out as a different process... whether that process is a new window or a new tab is irrelevant to me. I like tabs, but the fundamental idea is the same.
Dude, Dells aren't all that bad. You don't have to call them horses, dogs, and socks. ;)
... does it run Linux? :)
Not to mention that we've decided it's worth experimenting, essentially, on human babies. Not even on human embryos or human fetuses or whatever, now we are talking about human kids. Outside the womb. This really does seem like a downhill slope. I'm against abortion in the first place, but to "grow" a human to see how it turns out?
There are organizations with vehement supporters for "ethical treating of animals" and "no animal testing" and yet we are willing to start testing, uh, human farming... or something.
Maybe I should start a "Humane Treatment for Humans" organization. And actually define what a "human" is, since nobody wants to define that. Until it comes down to when someone ELSE wants to define it in a way that personally affects you.
4. You may end up with a "human" that is somehow not "human" due to strange things going on with the sperm that wasn't "naturally" produced and the egg from wherever. So now you have, in your mind, "produced" or "manufactured" an "inferior" human. Is "it" worth keeping?
If no, and killing "it" is allowed, then we've just legalized killing human beings because someone else deemed them not worth keeping around.
That is a pretty dangerous path to go down without some serious thought.
People get majorly upset with science allowing us to blow up the entire world and want us not to pursue weapons that would allow that, or at least keep them at bay. Is this so very different, from that non-religious "survival of society" standpoint?
"Working" is one of those hard-to-define words when it comes to software development. Does "working" mean "thinking about" or "coding" or "I put it on my whiteboard and I'll get to it sometime next year"? :)
I'll bite. It's about time.
Even explorer.exe is able to open directories using different processes, if you want. Frankly, I found it frightfully annoying to have X+ tabs open and have ONE of those tabs cause the entire program to crash, usually due to a plugin issue. Made no sense to me. Multi-process/multi-threaded/multi-whatever programming has been around for quite a while now, and multi-core cpus have been pretty common, too.
It's one of the huge advantages that I saw with Chrome (over Firefox). That and program open/new tab open speed. FF 3.5 seems to have addressed this somewhat, but it's still slower, I think.
Hooray for competition, and hooray for finally taking advantage of the hardware out there. Really, for one of the most used applications someone will use, it seems silly to only allow it to use a single-process model.
I'm fairly certain that Pickens is in this for the money... whether the money comes from oil or renewable energy, I don't think he particularly cares.
Why is it oil people are made out to be haters of renewable energy? They just want money, they don't have a love for black oily gunk. If Pickens can make money from renewable energy, then he'll do it. Seems pretty easy to understand to me. I doubt he just loves oil.
I also don't quite understand the "We need more clean energy" sentiment combined with the "We don't want to pay for our clean energy" and "We don't want an oil guy creating our clean energy" sentiments. It seems that we want clean energy, for free, and have it have nothing to do with a company that previously dealt with Awful Wicked Oil (tm).
I'm all for renewable energy... but it does need to be economical, and the supply needs to come from demand. And I don't want these sorts of projects flopping after MY money was used in it... e.g., I'm supportive of oil "barons" like Pickens doing these projects, not the government. Why? Because that's the whole point of private enterprise. Taking risks. Making it work. And if it works and someone gets rich from it, good for them. I won't complain. Unless I start getting forced to use it and THAT'S why someone gets rich. Which, unfortunately, appears to be the way a lot of people want it to go...
Oh well. I'm probably just cynical because I like large "cars" and don't want to spend $20k more to have it be electric or hybrid... or not spend that much more money and drive on the freeways [with crazy drunk people] in a plastic coffin :)
Yes, hype. That is what I call promises of very great gain with no real evidence of said great gain. It's marketing, advertising, and hype. Do embryonic stem cells have medical potential? I don't know. I don't think many people know, if any. I do know there have been cases of stem cells (offhand, not sure if they are all adult or not) being rejected by the host. If that's a major issue, then embryonic stem cells wouldn't have much use outside of trying to heal the embryo they were taking from.
Short summary: it seems like adult stem cells are ahead in the race and have a significant advantage, medically: you can get them from the patient, you don't have to worry about someone else's stem cells being rejected by the host.
Ignore my comment. I only read the bottom of the summary. Oops. :P ;)
it's also displaying exactly the same thing to anyone else who happens to be looking at the same area.
That's why it pops up a screen alerting you that it sees another pair of eyes behind you as you are reading.
This prevents other people from looking at your monitor while you are away, not while you are there reading it.
And I only read the summary. :)
It's not a self-serving definition. If you'd rather, I won't use the word "Christian." I'll use "disciple of Christ," since that's what Jesus referred to His followers as (disciples).
The point is this: why are you imposing on my the history of my "religion" when I am trying to say that I'm not part of the "religion" whose history you are referring to, except that we share a word?
In other words, you complain that I am trying to distance myself from my "coreligionists;" so be it. I, in turn, will complain that you are trying to lump me in with people that have nothing to do with what I am about, simply in order to disqualify me from having a place to stand.
Who is being self-serving, then, with definitions? The one trying to clarify beliefs with actions, or the one trying to generalize?
Let's put it this way. I tell you I'm an atheistic evolutionist. I give lots of money to the Institute for Creation Research. I attend an extremely conservative "Bible-thumping" literal 6 day creation believing church. I pass out Creation vs. Evolution pamphlets and tracts. I have a website trying to debunk evolution.
Next, along comes Joe, who hears you are an atheistic evolutionist, too. He knows about me. He tells you that you're just a hypocrite and that you are probably actually attending this church, believe in creation, fund ICR, etc. When you tell him that he's unfairly judging you because someone else has misused your title/description, Joe tells you that you're just using self-serving definitions that on one else is bound to.
Long method to show the point, but hopefully it works.
Besides, I wasn't even saying they weren't "true Christians." I said they weren't disciples/followers of Christ. In my lingo, they weren't true Christians. But I DO have a different definition of "Christian" than you do, most likely. However, we hopefully have very similar definitions of "disciple" or "follower."
disciple: A person who learns from another, especially one who then teaches others; An active follower or adherent of someone, or some philosophy etc
follower: # a person who accepts the leadership of another # someone who travels behind or pursues another
Oh sure...
Like ANY opinion Anonymous Cowards have about the so-called "Fox News" would be worth listening to.
;)
Yes, "Christianity" or "Christendom" did. But not by actual disciples of Christ. I reject the idea that you can truly be a "follower" of someone when you look absolutely nothing like him. I can't say "Dude, I'm a follower of Michael Jordan" and hate basketball. Well, yeah I can say that, but I doubt YOU would call me a follower of Jordan.
If someone tells me he or she is a Christian and knows nothing about Jesus, cares nothing about Jesus, and acts in no way similar to Jesus, then why should I believe he or she is a "Christian" (i.e., a "little Christ")? And why should I refer to him or her that way? And, more to the point, why should I think all Christians are the same, or why should I think he or she discounts the claims of those that actually DO know about, care for, and act like Christ?
The violent reaction against violent people is somewhat ironic.
I don't think I was mocking, and I know it is deadly serious to millions of real people. In fact, that's one of my reasons that I don't think it was written by God... the fact that millions of real people are so willing to kill me because I don't believe it was written by God. It is certainly not what Jesus, who is recognized even by the Koran, seemed to think was right behavior that was glorifying to God. Jesus seemed to think being patient, kind, and loving was behavior that was fitting to a follower of God.
Contrast this book with the Holy Koran, which has not changed one iota since it was written
The question is, who wrote it. I could write you a poem about the afterlife that had not been changed one iota. It means pretty much nothing though, because I'm nobody special.
Unchanged does not necessarily mean special, important, or true.