You're confusing programming languages with their implementations.
Your statement:
Every language is an emulator... For the virtual environment that it presents to the application developer.
just isn't true.
A programming language is an abstraction that hides hardware details, while "emulator" is a well defined word meaning "a piece of software or hardware that executes programs meant for another piece of hardware".
Some language implementations use emulation, but it's not a requirement - it's an implementation detail. It's not even a requirement for the two languages you mentioned. There are Java compilers that compile straight to native code, and there are ways of getting native code from Perl.
You're confused. I'm not arguing for or against Java in the LSB. I don't even care.
I was just pointing out that the statement "Every language is an emulator" is false. Every language is an abstraction layer over hardware, but the phrases "abstraction layer" and "emulator" are not the same thing.
If it's involved at all, emulation would be an (unnecessary) implementation detail.
For the virtual environment that it presents to the application developer.
What? That's simply not true. An emulator is a program that imitates a piece of hardware in order to execute programs originally intended to run on the hardware. Which is exactly what the Java VIRTUAL MACHINE (JVM) does.
Programming languages hide hardware details using abstraction, but they don't emulate anything.
Selfishness, by definition, is pursuing your own happiness to ends which are a detriment of others.
Bullshit. That's honestly the stupidest fucking thing I've heard in months. Show me the definition of "selfish" that requires you to do harm to other people.
I think you're missing the point. A lot of inventions in chemistry were by people who *wouldn't* have been tinkering in labs. Inventions like that can't happen any more because of ridiculous over-regulation.
Regulating the chemical industry is just plain old scare mongering.
Think about it. There are gas stations on practically every corner in most cities. Selling explosive liquid, for cash, with no ID required. Yet how often do you hear about crazy people blowing shit up with gasoline? It doesn't even take knowledge, just a lighter, but it almost never happens. Yett chemicals that require a ton of skill and knowledge to turn into hazardous materials are considered off limits. How does that make sense?
It's the same with cleaning supplies like bleach, amonia and draino. You can create all kinds of havoc just mixing those together, yet they're completely legal.
I don't see the advantage of having everything be inside a web browser. Is it just a personal preference? Or is there some benefit I've been overlooking?
If nothing else, when 99% of "web applications" break fundamental web browsing features like "Back", "Forward", or "Bookmark Page", I have to think they're doing it wrong.
I really do hope he does live up to his campaign rhetoric and promises about being a different sort of politician that truly believes in a more open, compassionate government and doesn't pander to corporate lobbyists.
LOL! Obama has been pandering to corporate lobbyists for his entire career. He didn't live up to the rhetoric and promises during his campaign, why would he start now?
So? If he signed the contract in New York, where the lawsuit was filed and where IBM's headquarters is located, then it has nothing to do with California.
So, you don't sign so many. A limited edition's point is to be limited.
Like I said before, your idea is to make it really difficult for "artists" to make money. You really expect them to recoup the costs of producing a movie by selling a limited number of "signed" DVDs? In some cases that's tens of millions of dollars. If they released 2500 "limited edition" DVDs, they'd have to sell them at over $4000 apiece. I can't imagine many people paying that much. And they'd need to do that for every single movie released. Who has that much money to spend $4000 per DVD, when you can legally buy an "unsigned" copy for 50 cents? People don't care about the "signatures", they care about the movie.
Besides that, limited editions only work if you're already famous.
Well, the difference is one has to do with lying to and defrauding the buyer and the other is an artificial government granted monopoly.
I'm not seeing the difference. In one case I defraud the buyer by selling them an unauthorized copy of something, and in the other I defraud them by selling a fake signature?
With what we have now, you can get something like 4 or 5 years in jail for the possession of a non-legit CD or DVD.
In the approximately 20 minutes of election coverage I watched on CNN, one of the gems I caught was a CNN anchor woman wearing an Obama pin *on the air* during election day. The actual conversation between two of the anchors: "Well <insert name>, I see you're wearing your Obama pin! lol!", "Sorry, <insert name>, I couldn't help it! lol!" I noticed they were really biased, and I was only watching for 20 minutes.
Say what you want about Fox News, but at least they admit they're biased. Sean Hannity wants "conservatives" to win, and he doesn't make a secret of it.
The comparison I made had to do with the value of a signature on an item and how it increases the value of an item. Funny thing is, I am proposing that we could use fraud laws to give protection to signatures similar to the protection copyright laws give to works now.
But the signatures are only valuable because they're so rare. When there are millions upon millions of "limited edition" CDs signed by Trent Reznor, or millions upon millions of baseballs signed by some famous guy, they're no longer any more valuable than the unsigned item.
I guess I'm still missing your point. If we're going to give "signatures" protections similar to copyrights, what practical difference is there? You're basically proposing a new copyright system with a different name.
Besides, how many tiny, unheard of indie bands make a money selling copyrighted CDs?
I would guess most of them. Why else would they do it? If it were purely a promotional thing, they'd give them away or sell them at cost, but they don't.
"Copyright exists so that artists and other creative people can be compensated for their work."
No, it does not.
Really? Then what is it for?
"And you're saying we should get rid of copyright."
No, I am not!
Then I'm really not sure what your point is.
I have seen legal types argue over this and some claim it is very difficult to do, some claim it is not possible in their countries. How do you propose someone can do this now?
Maybe by putting it up on a website with a note saying "This stuff is in the public domain." In any case, it doesn't even matter if it's not technically public domain, simply telling people you won't sue them for copying it is good enough.
Unless there's some country where somebody other than the copyright holder is responsible for finding copyright violators, which I don't think there are any.
Oh? And how does that explain the expensive baseballs?
Gee, somebody was just telling me we couldn't compare physical items with easily copied things like DVDs...
And limited editions signed by the artist would not rely on copyright laws. Even in the absence of copyright laws, trying to pass off a copy as one signed by the artist and a past of an artist issued limited edition when it was not would still be fraud.
Are you really trying to tell me a tiny, unheard of indie band can make a money selling signed, limited edition CDs? Did it occur to you that maybe it only worked for NIN because he was a huge, incredibly famous rock star when he did it? Having something signed by Trent Reznor means something to people. But who's going to pay extra for a CD signed by some indie band nobody's ever heard of?
"You will never convince me that people shouldn't have the right to seek compensation for their work."
I make no such claim and would never try and convince you os something like that.
But you are. Copyright exists so that artists and other creative people can be compensated for their work. And you're saying we should get rid of copyright. And you're not really proposing any alternative.
And you have yet to convince me that no one would make art unless there are copyright laws.
I'm not even seeing the connection between "making art" and copyright laws. There's nothing stopping people from releasing their art to the public domain right now. So why do we need to get rid of the copyright laws?
Like I said somewhere else in this thread, our copyright laws could use an overhaul, but getting rid of them entirely would be a huge mistake.
http://ghosts.nin.com/images/popup_product_ultradeluxe.jpg Pay $300.00 for music you are allowed to download for nothing? Sorry, limited edition of 2,500 and already sold out. Sold out in under two days. That's $750,000.00 sales from freely downloadable music.
Oh yeah, forgot to mention: that only works because the limited edition is copyrighted up the ass. Why pay $300 when you can buy an identical set for less than $10?
Can you give your examples from things able to be easily and cheaply digitally copied in millions of current homes?
I don't think it matters. You asked for examples of products with high demand that don't exist because they can't be sold profitably. I listed a number of them. If any of them existed, the designs would be patented so that nobody else could copy the design and "steal" the result of designer's effort.
If you really feel that's cheating, then show me where I can legally buy 50 cent BluRay movies. I'd be interested in buying them, and I think other people would too. BluRay movies costing 50 cents don't exist because you can't profitably create a movie and sell it on BluRay for 50 cents. The people doing it would lose money, so they don't.
Getting rid of copyrights might kill business as usual, but I don't think it will kill business as you seem to think and I especially don't think it will kill the creation of art that is in demand in the market. And it almost certainly will not touch the rate of creation for art for which there is no current market.
Demand does not create supply. It doesn't for physical goods, it doesn't for "intellectual property", or for anything else. Right now there is a huge demand for DVDs. And that demand is currently being met. You have yet to convince me that the demand would continue being met if there were no copyright laws. We already know that what I'm arguing for works. We also know that there's nothing stopping people from using your alternative approach. So why should we do away with copyright law? All that would do is limit choice and make it a lot more difficult for people to make money from the work they do.
On one hand you're insisting there's huge demand for creative work, but on the other hand you're saying creative work isn't valuable and it should be difficult for the people creating it to make money. It almost seems to me that your entire argument boils down to "I just don't want to pay for stuff".
I don't see the point in arguing about this any more. You will never convince me that people shouldn't have the right to seek compensation for their work. I'm not saying they should be required too, just that the option should be there if they want it. You're saying they shouldn't even have that option, and I just flat out disagree.
Please, you cannot take products where the value is based on the physicality and compare to copyrighted works.
Sure you can. One is covered by patents and the other copyright, but the underlying principle is the same. You don't get to rip off other people's creative effort.
What does the buyer care who sells them to him so long as someone does?
That's exactly my point. The buyer is going to go buy the cheapest DVD possible. The people actually creating the movie can't profitably sell it for the cheapest price because they have massive addition expense on top of the physical DVD.
As somebody else pointed out, there's nothing stopping the movie studios from releasing their movies straight to the public domain right now. They have the option, and they choose not to. If you take away their other options, they're not going to sell the movies cheaper, they're just going to stop producing the movies at all.
For example, there's this new film out called "Quantum of Solace". What do you think is going to be more important in deciding how profitable that film is -- the fact that the lead actor is called Daniel Craig, or the fact that he's playing the role of James Bond? (Hint: the answer is "b".)
Sorry, you fail. When you fork over $10 for the movie ticket, you're saying "I think watching Daniel Craig play James Bond is worth $10", whether you're explicitly thinking it or not, whether that's why you went to the movie or not.
They "should" make that much money according to free market supply/demand principles, but getting rid of (or paring down) copyright law would alter the supply/demand dynamic. If fewer government-enforced restrictions on the copying of content reduced revenues for the film/TV industries and actors had to accept much smaller salaries for similar work, you'd have a new, legitimate estimation of the value of their services.
Copyright is one of the very few justified government regulations, IMO. If you work to create something, it's your right to own the end result. If you work hard to design some new widget, or create a new movie, or come up with some inovative new process, you should be able to reap the benefits of the work you've done. To say otherwise is to say that people's time and creative input isn't valuable. Maybe that's your opinion it, but I disagree.
Now I could go on all day about the problems with our current implementation of copyright, but IMO the underlying idea is sound.
Don't bet on it, last I checked, you could buy books for which the copyright has expired.
The book industry makes money off of out of copyright books by competing on "extra" stuff that *is* copyrighted. The introduction by a modern writer, the editting, the layout, the cover art, etc are all copyrighted by the publisher. All of the extra stuff is there to attract people to their copy of the book, instead of a competitor's. But if a competitor, or anybody else, can just start selling the exact same thing without having to put in any creative work in, they'd stop selling them.
"There are tons of products that have huge market demand yet aren't produced because there's no way to sell them profitably. Without copyright law, DVDs would be one of those things."
Care to give other examples? As I say, in light of what I see with books, I doubt this is so for DVDs.
It's really easy to think of examples. I haven't seen any new big screen TVs costing $50, but I have a feeling they would sell well. Same with cars. I'd love to buy a new car for $100, but nobody seems to sell any. I'd buy a new house for $500, but it's impossible for the builders to make a profit if they sell them for that cheap. For that matter, I haven't seen any brand new DVD movies costing the same as a writable DVD.
And to think that art will not be produced in the absence of copyright also seems odd.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize the film studios started making art. But I didn't say they would stop producing movies. I said they'd stop selling them on DVDs.
And to think that the market cannot find a way to meet market demand in the absence of a government granted monopoly also seems odd. At least in the Free Market America.
Your understanding of supply and demand sucks. If it were legal to copy a DVD and sell the copies, then the price of DVD movies would drop to the price of a writable DVD. There would be no way for the people actually making the movies to make a profit. Therefore, they wouldn't sell DVDs.
It's unlikely they would create DVDs even for purely artistic reasons, because it would be completely legal for somebody else to copy it and claim they made it.
There are tons of products that have huge market demand yet aren't produced because there's no way to sell them profitably. Without copyright law, DVDs would be one of those things.
this would all be a lot easier/simpler if we had online electronic voting. you log-in, you place your vote(s), you get your confirmation #, and your virtual ballot is immediately tabulated and the election results updated in real-time. and you can also immediately check to see if your e-ballot was correctly tabulated using your confirmation number. no bureaucratic or logistical delays.
And it still doesn't solve the problem of actually knowing the vote was counted. You know it was saved correctly, but there's nothing stopping the software from disregarding the saved ballot and computing the results some other way.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing programming languages with their implementations.
Your statement:
just isn't true.
A programming language is an abstraction that hides hardware details, while "emulator" is a well defined word meaning "a piece of software or hardware that executes programs meant for another piece of hardware".
Some language implementations use emulation, but it's not a requirement - it's an implementation detail. It's not even a requirement for the two languages you mentioned. There are Java compilers that compile straight to native code, and there are ways of getting native code from Perl.
You're confused. I'm not arguing for or against Java in the LSB. I don't even care.
I was just pointing out that the statement "Every language is an emulator" is false. Every language is an abstraction layer over hardware, but the phrases "abstraction layer" and "emulator" are not the same thing.
If it's involved at all, emulation would be an (unnecessary) implementation detail.
What? That's simply not true. An emulator is a program that imitates a piece of hardware in order to execute programs originally intended to run on the hardware. Which is exactly what the Java VIRTUAL MACHINE (JVM) does.
Programming languages hide hardware details using abstraction, but they don't emulate anything.
I guess he's not the only one.
Bullshit. That's honestly the stupidest fucking thing I've heard in months. Show me the definition of "selfish" that requires you to do harm to other people.
It's not in the definition Merriam Webster uses. And it's not in Wiktionary's definition. And it's not in the definition at reference.com.
Seriously, how do you people come up with this bullshit? Fucking idiots.
If you're doing something to make yourself happy, you're being selfish. Whether it's altruistic or not.
I think you're missing the point. A lot of inventions in chemistry were by people who *wouldn't* have been tinkering in labs. Inventions like that can't happen any more because of ridiculous over-regulation.
Regulating the chemical industry is just plain old scare mongering.
Think about it. There are gas stations on practically every corner in most cities. Selling explosive liquid, for cash, with no ID required. Yet how often do you hear about crazy people blowing shit up with gasoline? It doesn't even take knowledge, just a lighter, but it almost never happens. Yett chemicals that require a ton of skill and knowledge to turn into hazardous materials are considered off limits. How does that make sense?
It's the same with cleaning supplies like bleach, amonia and draino. You can create all kinds of havoc just mixing those together, yet they're completely legal.
I don't see the advantage of having everything be inside a web browser. Is it just a personal preference? Or is there some benefit I've been overlooking?
If nothing else, when 99% of "web applications" break fundamental web browsing features like "Back", "Forward", or "Bookmark Page", I have to think they're doing it wrong.
Gee, I dunno, maybe because he's the self proclaimed "candidate of change", who's repeatedly claimed to be against lobbying? Just a thought.
How about this? He was only in the Senate for 3 of those years, yet he still managed to rank second!
Or maybe this?
Or this?
I could go on all day, but what's the point? You're just going to make up some ridiculous excuse.
LOL! Obama has been pandering to corporate lobbyists for his entire career. He didn't live up to the rhetoric and promises during his campaign, why would he start now?
So? If he signed the contract in New York, where the lawsuit was filed and where IBM's headquarters is located, then it has nothing to do with California.
Okay, I RTFA. Where does it say anything about California?
Like I said before, your idea is to make it really difficult for "artists" to make money. You really expect them to recoup the costs of producing a movie by selling a limited number of "signed" DVDs? In some cases that's tens of millions of dollars. If they released 2500 "limited edition" DVDs, they'd have to sell them at over $4000 apiece. I can't imagine many people paying that much. And they'd need to do that for every single movie released. Who has that much money to spend $4000 per DVD, when you can legally buy an "unsigned" copy for 50 cents? People don't care about the "signatures", they care about the movie.
Besides that, limited editions only work if you're already famous.
I'm not seeing the difference. In one case I defraud the buyer by selling them an unauthorized copy of something, and in the other I defraud them by selling a fake signature?
[citation needed]
In the approximately 20 minutes of election coverage I watched on CNN, one of the gems I caught was a CNN anchor woman wearing an Obama pin *on the air* during election day. The actual conversation between two of the anchors: "Well <insert name>, I see you're wearing your Obama pin! lol!", "Sorry, <insert name>, I couldn't help it! lol!" I noticed they were really biased, and I was only watching for 20 minutes.
Say what you want about Fox News, but at least they admit they're biased. Sean Hannity wants "conservatives" to win, and he doesn't make a secret of it.
But the signatures are only valuable because they're so rare. When there are millions upon millions of "limited edition" CDs signed by Trent Reznor, or millions upon millions of baseballs signed by some famous guy, they're no longer any more valuable than the unsigned item.
I guess I'm still missing your point. If we're going to give "signatures" protections similar to copyrights, what practical difference is there? You're basically proposing a new copyright system with a different name.
I would guess most of them. Why else would they do it? If it were purely a promotional thing, they'd give them away or sell them at cost, but they don't.
Really? Then what is it for?
Then I'm really not sure what your point is.
Maybe by putting it up on a website with a note saying "This stuff is in the public domain." In any case, it doesn't even matter if it's not technically public domain, simply telling people you won't sue them for copying it is good enough.
Unless there's some country where somebody other than the copyright holder is responsible for finding copyright violators, which I don't think there are any.
Gee, somebody was just telling me we couldn't compare physical items with easily copied things like DVDs...
Are you really trying to tell me a tiny, unheard of indie band can make a money selling signed, limited edition CDs? Did it occur to you that maybe it only worked for NIN because he was a huge, incredibly famous rock star when he did it? Having something signed by Trent Reznor means something to people. But who's going to pay extra for a CD signed by some indie band nobody's ever heard of?
But you are. Copyright exists so that artists and other creative people can be compensated for their work. And you're saying we should get rid of copyright. And you're not really proposing any alternative.
I'm not even seeing the connection between "making art" and copyright laws. There's nothing stopping people from releasing their art to the public domain right now. So why do we need to get rid of the copyright laws?
Like I said somewhere else in this thread, our copyright laws could use an overhaul, but getting rid of them entirely would be a huge mistake.
Oh yeah, forgot to mention: that only works because the limited edition is copyrighted up the ass. Why pay $300 when you can buy an identical set for less than $10?
I don't think it matters. You asked for examples of products with high demand that don't exist because they can't be sold profitably. I listed a number of them. If any of them existed, the designs would be patented so that nobody else could copy the design and "steal" the result of designer's effort.
If you really feel that's cheating, then show me where I can legally buy 50 cent BluRay movies. I'd be interested in buying them, and I think other people would too. BluRay movies costing 50 cents don't exist because you can't profitably create a movie and sell it on BluRay for 50 cents. The people doing it would lose money, so they don't.
Demand does not create supply. It doesn't for physical goods, it doesn't for "intellectual property", or for anything else. Right now there is a huge demand for DVDs. And that demand is currently being met. You have yet to convince me that the demand would continue being met if there were no copyright laws. We already know that what I'm arguing for works. We also know that there's nothing stopping people from using your alternative approach. So why should we do away with copyright law? All that would do is limit choice and make it a lot more difficult for people to make money from the work they do.
On one hand you're insisting there's huge demand for creative work, but on the other hand you're saying creative work isn't valuable and it should be difficult for the people creating it to make money. It almost seems to me that your entire argument boils down to "I just don't want to pay for stuff".
I don't see the point in arguing about this any more. You will never convince me that people shouldn't have the right to seek compensation for their work. I'm not saying they should be required too, just that the option should be there if they want it. You're saying they shouldn't even have that option, and I just flat out disagree.
Sure you can. One is covered by patents and the other copyright, but the underlying principle is the same. You don't get to rip off other people's creative effort.
That's exactly my point. The buyer is going to go buy the cheapest DVD possible. The people actually creating the movie can't profitably sell it for the cheapest price because they have massive addition expense on top of the physical DVD.
As somebody else pointed out, there's nothing stopping the movie studios from releasing their movies straight to the public domain right now. They have the option, and they choose not to. If you take away their other options, they're not going to sell the movies cheaper, they're just going to stop producing the movies at all.
Sorry, you fail. When you fork over $10 for the movie ticket, you're saying "I think watching Daniel Craig play James Bond is worth $10", whether you're explicitly thinking it or not, whether that's why you went to the movie or not.
Copyright is one of the very few justified government regulations, IMO. If you work to create something, it's your right to own the end result. If you work hard to design some new widget, or create a new movie, or come up with some inovative new process, you should be able to reap the benefits of the work you've done. To say otherwise is to say that people's time and creative input isn't valuable. Maybe that's your opinion it, but I disagree.
Now I could go on all day about the problems with our current implementation of copyright, but IMO the underlying idea is sound.
The book industry makes money off of out of copyright books by competing on "extra" stuff that *is* copyrighted. The introduction by a modern writer, the editting, the layout, the cover art, etc are all copyrighted by the publisher. All of the extra stuff is there to attract people to their copy of the book, instead of a competitor's. But if a competitor, or anybody else, can just start selling the exact same thing without having to put in any creative work in, they'd stop selling them.
It's really easy to think of examples. I haven't seen any new big screen TVs costing $50, but I have a feeling they would sell well. Same with cars. I'd love to buy a new car for $100, but nobody seems to sell any. I'd buy a new house for $500, but it's impossible for the builders to make a profit if they sell them for that cheap. For that matter, I haven't seen any brand new DVD movies costing the same as a writable DVD.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize the film studios started making art. But I didn't say they would stop producing movies. I said they'd stop selling them on DVDs.
Your understanding of supply and demand sucks. If it were legal to copy a DVD and sell the copies, then the price of DVD movies would drop to the price of a writable DVD. There would be no way for the people actually making the movies to make a profit. Therefore, they wouldn't sell DVDs.
It's unlikely they would create DVDs even for purely artistic reasons, because it would be completely legal for somebody else to copy it and claim they made it.
There are tons of products that have huge market demand yet aren't produced because there's no way to sell them profitably. Without copyright law, DVDs would be one of those things.
That won't work. If I can find out how I voted, then somebody else can also. It's important that can't happen.
And it still doesn't solve the problem of actually knowing the vote was counted. You know it was saved correctly, but there's nothing stopping the software from disregarding the saved ballot and computing the results some other way.