Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
You seem to wanna be moving where the money goes to, by moving where in the chain the money is taken from. Surely it'd be more efficient to keep distribution cost low, and as currently put the profit onto the final product. If you wanna spread the money more evenly, you then just put a tax on the high income artists, and put it into programs to help others get into it. Surely that's simpler than moving the profit out of selling and into media/duplication (before the content is added), then trying to trace where the media's going so you can send that profit (thru tax) to the creators of it. Why make things so complicated?
And again, the problem with just giving money to the new creators, is that anyone who just wants a bit of cash can call themself one, throw out a few half arsed tracks, and expect money for it.
Your idea's idealistic at the most, and totally lacks any forethought.
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
"but tax the revenue of the record companies, bands and orchestras performing live, CD duplicators, etc, and divide the revenue among the original creators"
What, equally? If 100 people listen/have copies of your music, but 10,000 people listen/have copies of someone elses, shouldn't they get a larger chunk? Or anyone who wants a share of the pie, all they have to do is make a track? In which case, how do you keep track of how many people have what, so you know how to divide it up? What about selling overseas? Your idea makes absolutely no sense at all.
Well then you've got two options - upgrading the RAM would mean you have some of your address space slower than the rest. So, you'd wanna use the faster RAM for most frequently used stuff, ie, it becomes a level3 (or for some CPU's) cache, you'd need management and storage to keep track of what's most often used, and swap pages out to the slower ram.
So all you're talking about is having a larger cache, which is happening.
Your statement that people will often reject things that contradict what we expect is completely untrue, the idea that people will argue with you for the hell of it is completely unfounded. It's obvious even to me that sunspots are making you say this, after all, I studied pythagoras. You could try and explain to me why you believe what you do, but I wouldn't be able to understand, which means it's wrong. Go back to IT class and leave the real science to the brave/.ers where it bleongs.
"People searching for pics of little kids creates a demand for pics of little kids"
Pedo's mess with kids whether there is 'demand' for them to share the pics over the internet or not. I think it should be illegal to do stuff that's wrong, mear looking at stuff that's wrong is a very difficult subject... where do you draw the line? I came across a clip of things going wrong and someone getting a kickin (I didn't know what i was gonna see, and I dunno why the clip was uploaded to this particular clip site, but leaving that aside)... as far as I know, having that clip on your hdd isn't considered illegal. It's hardly normal to want to collect those kinda clips, so should it be illegal? Does it create demand for people being beat up? What about video's of people speeding causing crashes?
"So does this mean you aren't really making conscious decisions?"
No it wouldn't mean that, as they are still your decisions, and they're still made based on the things you're conscious of (and things you have been conscious of etc). Predictability doesn't remove free will. An exaggerated example to demonstrate: if I gave someone a sledgehammer (let's assume a level of sanity of the person:-p) and gave them a choice - smash themself in the head with it, or don't - we can know beforehand that they're not going to, but that doesn't stop it from being their decision not to.
I don't know whether randomness existing or not would really affect this... would your decisions be any more or less your own, more or less based on your present and past experiences, if things in your head can change randomly? I guess how you define "you" could play a part in deriving an answer here.
My belief is only against randomness, and I did state that it is a belief (earlier in the thread tho). My previous post just goes through an analogy, a possibility, of a way in which events which appear random could be effected by something we can't see, something that may not even be in "our universe" for long. It's not my opinion/belief, because there's no reason to believe it, just as there's no reason to believe that it's impossible that there's nothing that can be effecting things that we don't/can't know about.
I will spend more time researching Bell's inequality properly, as people seem to think it proves there's nothing effecting results that we don't/can't know about (hidden variables), I'm interested in how that conclusion can be drawn, and whether it will give me a reason to believe maybe randomness does exist.
I'm definitely not ignorant/biggotted, if that's the impression you got.
It's absolutely relevant in what I put, which is that things may only seem random in the part of the picture we can see, but in the bigger picture (ie, when you include a particles position along dimensions we cannot [currently] observe, it is totally cause and effect.
What you wanna call 'universes', I just call universe; they might be like copies of ours, but they're connected. For example, that time is three dimensional (as space is), even though our path through it is one dimensional. We are not [yet] aware of how things interact across the other two axis, but an awareness of how things do would show that all this randomness isn't truely random; it's predictable, if only you had all the starting conditions (leaving aside uncertainty's saying that you can't).
Yes my idea's here are quite far out, it's more simpliest analogy I can think of right now to explain what I mean and why.
'fraid not, but what I do know is that you have a constitutionally protected right to bare arms so that you can remove a government that's failing you in the way this one is...
(mod +1 incite-ful (nicked from someone's sig)):-p
I think you've misinterpreted the results of the experiments (on top of the fact that the results are in debate; experiments have shown both ways wrt the bell inequality) and what they can mean. Even those who believe it rules out a local hidden variable, they're unable to tell what's going on across other dimensions.
For example, a partical entering the atmosphere seems to disapear and reappear, blinking in and out of existence. What's more likely that's happening? It's traveling along a sine wave (relative to us) across a non-local dimension (ie, not one of the 3 we can observe changes in), we can only observe it at a particular value (/point along the wave) that matches our own.
There's no way you can prove randomness, and no real reason to believe in it, while there's evidence pointing towards other dimensions which things can interact and move over, that we are not [yet?] able to observe.
Quantum theory is a patchy one at best. Other theories that tie in effects at a quantum level, with those on a relativistic level, such a the various string theories, all support the idea of more dimensions.
Until we can control interactions and observations over these (or show they don't exist), anything that says "randomness is real" is plain uninformed.
Re:IE and Firefox only for now
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 1
Oh please!!! Didn't you spot the '(heh)' after "could care less", which also appeared after my use of "anyways", the bad word in question? Subtle, I know, but still, come on!
I think it should be "a previously missing link", as it can no longer be a missing link if it's found......yes a little redundant, but i find labouring the point changes subconscious connotations derived from the term.
Apologies, I'm not getting emotional about this debate, any emotion's left over from my last post about guantanamo bay.
However I strongly disagree that evolution is not proven, we know that it happens, but shall refrain from repeating my other posts in this section of the thread:-)
"Its difficult for people to create random stuff intentionally"
Yes, I remember seeing a documentary about genetic research using flies... oh they did everything to try and cause those 'random' gene mutations, they microwaved them, they heated them, they cooled them, they used chemicals, oh they did everything. I have to say, they're only flies, but even I felt a bit uncomfortable with that.
"Does randomness exist?"
I believe, ultimately, no. I believe random means more along the lines of 'pattern indecypherable', or sometimes 'pattern irrelevant' (eg, in the case of a computer generated 'random' number, the number is usually still generated by a predictable/reproducible algorithm, but as the algorithm is irrelevant to what you're using the numbers for, it may as well be random; it serves the purpose). I believe in absolute causality, as random as something appears, that's only because we're missing some/most of the picture.
This is a belief, and while strongly backed, can't be proven (as even with real random, predictions still have a chance of being correct, which could fool experiments). But then, even those 'god' folks seem to be on my side, as god does everything for a reason, despite the reason's not being clear to us (heh, which makes god rationable, thus can be expressed (even if not by us) through mathmatics;-)
I will accept your challenge about the 6 legged lamb, maybe that would not be passed on, making it irrelevant in this discussion. What about:
"The treatment of infections due to Staphylococcus aureus was revolutionised in the 1940s by the introduction of the antibiotic penicillin.
Unfortunately, most strains of Staphylococcus aureus are now resistant to penicillin. This is because Staphylococcus aureus has 'learnt' to make a substance called ß-lactamase (pronounced beta-lactamase), that degrades penicillin, destroying its antibacterial activity"
I stick with my original statement, the path evolution has/may have taken is theory, it's in the past, we can only conjecture, but species do evolve, that is fact, otherwise we'd all be more like our parents, we could kill off the HIV virus, antibacteria resistant "superbugs" wouldn't be cropping up, and more.
As for being full of shit, untrue, sorry. Sure you may not deserve to be bombed, but I didn't say that you do. I referenced America as a whole... Shrub isn't in power for no reason, America put him and his "administration" there, pay money that gives him power, etc etc, and as an entity, will (and to a small extent, are already) pay the price for that.
I'm sorry for everyone who gets caught up in it. I am totally against taking out the issues of a government/army against it's civilians, which is why I said "I am more and more feeling" rather than "I feel" [that it's deserved]. I disagree with these "terrorists" because so many of their targets are civilian, not government/military.
Unfortunately for you, the people who "represent" you are really really fucking up things for you, and as a person who is "represented" by them, you, to an extent, will share some of the worldwide anger they are creating. No it's not right, no it's not fair, nothing they are doing is. And this just makes us angier.
Are you implying that a truth seeking scientist might have a problem accepting something with no reason to other than "cuz it's like, written in this book, which I believe cuz someone else told me they believed it"???
What the hell are you talking about? Evolution is a known fact, we can even see species evolving ourselves. Like that lamb that was born with six legs... there isn't a species of lamb with six legs, it parents didn't have six legs, which means that a change must have occured. This animal wasn't able to walk by itself, which means that without human help, it would die... this is the natural selection bit. An animal born with better eyes/ears that could see/hear it's hunter/prey better would have the oposite effect.
The "theory" bit ISN'T that animals evolve, the "theory" bit is the path which evolution has taken to get everything to where it is now; which species have come from which etc.
Let me say one more time: evolution happens, we know it happens, we see it happening, it is not theory.
How have I not answered your question? Your questions:
"but when did people start taking prisoner's accounts as gospel."
"How are they suddenly credible?"
"why people are in such a rush to believe things that could well be fabrications"
My answer was that it is not that we are automatically believing the accused are innocent, the problem we have is that they are not being given chance to defend themselves and claim their innocence, they are being held without being charged, and those who have been released, have been released without explanation as to why they were held, or any kind of most basic apology.
That said, if someone's not given chance by someone to say "it wasn't me", "I didn't do it", it makes you wonder why!
"How does that elevate the discussion?"
I already said what I intended to to help understanding and "elevate the discussion", and everyone who understands why I say what I did above that statement fully understands why I made the statement itself. America IS proving itself to be a complete disgrace (spelt right this time tho). You can't kidnap people outside the law (changing the law to allow you to kidnap people doesn't count), outside all human rights, and not expect the world get become furious with you. The only reason America's not in half as much trouble as it is at this moment is that the people doing the fighting (against) are religious nuts, which alienates themselves from the rest of the world who would actually agree with them more than they agree with what America is doing. But that won't last forever.
I think it's more the case that we aren't given chance to find out if these people are guilty or anything first. Most people who deny their guilt in prison HAVE had the chance to convince people, and they failed to, usually (one would hope) for good reason. That's the bit that Guantanamo Bay lacks, and that's what sparks people being so pissed off with America about; not that they're holding people who say they're innocent, that they're holding people who haven't even been given chance to say they're innocent.
America's an absolute discrace, I find myself thinking more and more they deserve everything they get (I'll say hi to him in Guantanamo!)
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to wanna be moving where the money goes to, by moving where in the chain the money is taken from. Surely it'd be more efficient to keep distribution cost low, and as currently put the profit onto the final product. If you wanna spread the money more evenly, you then just put a tax on the high income artists, and put it into programs to help others get into it. Surely that's simpler than moving the profit out of selling and into media/duplication (before the content is added), then trying to trace where the media's going so you can send that profit (thru tax) to the creators of it. Why make things so complicated?
And again, the problem with just giving money to the new creators, is that anyone who just wants a bit of cash can call themself one, throw out a few half arsed tracks, and expect money for it.
Your idea's idealistic at the most, and totally lacks any forethought.
"but tax the revenue of the record companies, bands and orchestras performing live, CD duplicators, etc, and divide the revenue among the original creators"
What, equally? If 100 people listen/have copies of your music, but 10,000 people listen/have copies of someone elses, shouldn't they get a larger chunk? Or anyone who wants a share of the pie, all they have to do is make a track? In which case, how do you keep track of how many people have what, so you know how to divide it up? What about selling overseas? Your idea makes absolutely no sense at all.
Well then you've got two options - upgrading the RAM would mean you have some of your address space slower than the rest. So, you'd wanna use the faster RAM for most frequently used stuff, ie, it becomes a level3 (or for some CPU's) cache, you'd need management and storage to keep track of what's most often used, and swap pages out to the slower ram.
So all you're talking about is having a larger cache, which is happening.
Your statement that people will often reject things that contradict what we expect is completely untrue, the idea that people will argue with you for the hell of it is completely unfounded. It's obvious even to me that sunspots are making you say this, after all, I studied pythagoras. You could try and explain to me why you believe what you do, but I wouldn't be able to understand, which means it's wrong. Go back to IT class and leave the real science to the brave /.ers where it bleongs.
*cough*
"or some twit fixes the code"
haha I read that as "some twix fixes the code", quite an amusing image...
It's funny that even after reading his post you come to the conclusion that he read the article ;-)
"People searching for pics of little kids creates a demand for pics of little kids"
Pedo's mess with kids whether there is 'demand' for them to share the pics over the internet or not. I think it should be illegal to do stuff that's wrong, mear looking at stuff that's wrong is a very difficult subject... where do you draw the line? I came across a clip of things going wrong and someone getting a kickin (I didn't know what i was gonna see, and I dunno why the clip was uploaded to this particular clip site, but leaving that aside)... as far as I know, having that clip on your hdd isn't considered illegal. It's hardly normal to want to collect those kinda clips, so should it be illegal? Does it create demand for people being beat up? What about video's of people speeding causing crashes?
Where's the line, and why?
"So does this mean you aren't really making conscious decisions?"
:-p) and gave them a choice - smash themself in the head with it, or don't - we can know beforehand that they're not going to, but that doesn't stop it from being their decision not to.
No it wouldn't mean that, as they are still your decisions, and they're still made based on the things you're conscious of (and things you have been conscious of etc). Predictability doesn't remove free will. An exaggerated example to demonstrate: if I gave someone a sledgehammer (let's assume a level of sanity of the person
I don't know whether randomness existing or not would really affect this... would your decisions be any more or less your own, more or less based on your present and past experiences, if things in your head can change randomly? I guess how you define "you" could play a part in deriving an answer here.
My belief is only against randomness, and I did state that it is a belief (earlier in the thread tho). My previous post just goes through an analogy, a possibility, of a way in which events which appear random could be effected by something we can't see, something that may not even be in "our universe" for long. It's not my opinion/belief, because there's no reason to believe it, just as there's no reason to believe that it's impossible that there's nothing that can be effecting things that we don't/can't know about.
I will spend more time researching Bell's inequality properly, as people seem to think it proves there's nothing effecting results that we don't/can't know about (hidden variables), I'm interested in how that conclusion can be drawn, and whether it will give me a reason to believe maybe randomness does exist.
I'm definitely not ignorant/biggotted, if that's the impression you got.
"which has no relevance at all"
It's absolutely relevant in what I put, which is that things may only seem random in the part of the picture we can see, but in the bigger picture (ie, when you include a particles position along dimensions we cannot [currently] observe, it is totally cause and effect.
What you wanna call 'universes', I just call universe; they might be like copies of ours, but they're connected. For example, that time is three dimensional (as space is), even though our path through it is one dimensional. We are not [yet] aware of how things interact across the other two axis, but an awareness of how things do would show that all this randomness isn't truely random; it's predictable, if only you had all the starting conditions (leaving aside uncertainty's saying that you can't).
Yes my idea's here are quite far out, it's more simpliest analogy I can think of right now to explain what I mean and why.
'fraid not, but what I do know is that you have a constitutionally protected right to bare arms so that you can remove a government that's failing you in the way this one is...
:-p
(mod +1 incite-ful (nicked from someone's sig))
I think you've misinterpreted the results of the experiments (on top of the fact that the results are in debate; experiments have shown both ways wrt the bell inequality) and what they can mean. Even those who believe it rules out a local hidden variable, they're unable to tell what's going on across other dimensions.
For example, a partical entering the atmosphere seems to disapear and reappear, blinking in and out of existence. What's more likely that's happening? It's traveling along a sine wave (relative to us) across a non-local dimension (ie, not one of the 3 we can observe changes in), we can only observe it at a particular value (/point along the wave) that matches our own.
There's no way you can prove randomness, and no real reason to believe in it, while there's evidence pointing towards other dimensions which things can interact and move over, that we are not [yet?] able to observe.
Quantum theory is a patchy one at best. Other theories that tie in effects at a quantum level, with those on a relativistic level, such a the various string theories, all support the idea of more dimensions.
Until we can control interactions and observations over these (or show they don't exist), anything that says "randomness is real" is plain uninformed.
Oh please!!! Didn't you spot the '(heh)' after "could care less", which also appeared after my use of "anyways", the bad word in question? Subtle, I know, but still, come on!
:-p
myeh, I forgive ya
"That's because you don't seem to have a lot of respect for people whose beliefs diverge from your own"
*clap* *clap* was trying to articulate a response, you did so beautifully.
I think it should be "a previously missing link", as it can no longer be a missing link if it's found... ...yes a little redundant, but i find labouring the point changes subconscious connotations derived from the term.
Apologies, I'm not getting emotional about this debate, any emotion's left over from my last post about guantanamo bay.
:-)
However I strongly disagree that evolution is not proven, we know that it happens, but shall refrain from repeating my other posts in this section of the thread
"Its difficult for people to create random stuff intentionally"
;-)
Yes, I remember seeing a documentary about genetic research using flies... oh they did everything to try and cause those 'random' gene mutations, they microwaved them, they heated them, they cooled them, they used chemicals, oh they did everything. I have to say, they're only flies, but even I felt a bit uncomfortable with that.
"Does randomness exist?"
I believe, ultimately, no. I believe random means more along the lines of 'pattern indecypherable', or sometimes 'pattern irrelevant' (eg, in the case of a computer generated 'random' number, the number is usually still generated by a predictable/reproducible algorithm, but as the algorithm is irrelevant to what you're using the numbers for, it may as well be random; it serves the purpose). I believe in absolute causality, as random as something appears, that's only because we're missing some/most of the picture.
This is a belief, and while strongly backed, can't be proven (as even with real random, predictions still have a chance of being correct, which could fool experiments). But then, even those 'god' folks seem to be on my side, as god does everything for a reason, despite the reason's not being clear to us (heh, which makes god rationable, thus can be expressed (even if not by us) through mathmatics
I will accept your challenge about the 6 legged lamb, maybe that would not be passed on, making it irrelevant in this discussion. What about:
"The treatment of infections due to Staphylococcus aureus was revolutionised in the 1940s by the introduction of the antibiotic penicillin.
Unfortunately, most strains of Staphylococcus aureus are now resistant to penicillin. This is because Staphylococcus aureus has 'learnt' to make a substance called ß-lactamase (pronounced beta-lactamase), that degrades penicillin, destroying its antibacterial activity"
I stick with my original statement, the path evolution has/may have taken is theory, it's in the past, we can only conjecture, but species do evolve, that is fact, otherwise we'd all be more like our parents, we could kill off the HIV virus, antibacteria resistant "superbugs" wouldn't be cropping up, and more.
Correct, the word sure is disgrace.
As for being full of shit, untrue, sorry. Sure you may not deserve to be bombed, but I didn't say that you do. I referenced America as a whole... Shrub isn't in power for no reason, America put him and his "administration" there, pay money that gives him power, etc etc, and as an entity, will (and to a small extent, are already) pay the price for that.
I'm sorry for everyone who gets caught up in it. I am totally against taking out the issues of a government/army against it's civilians, which is why I said "I am more and more feeling" rather than "I feel" [that it's deserved]. I disagree with these "terrorists" because so many of their targets are civilian, not government/military.
Unfortunately for you, the people who "represent" you are really really fucking up things for you, and as a person who is "represented" by them, you, to an extent, will share some of the worldwide anger they are creating. No it's not right, no it's not fair, nothing they are doing is. And this just makes us angier.
Are you implying that a truth seeking scientist might have a problem accepting something with no reason to other than "cuz it's like, written in this book, which I believe cuz someone else told me they believed it"???
"the problem is that you can't prove evolution"
What the hell are you talking about? Evolution is a known fact, we can even see species evolving ourselves. Like that lamb that was born with six legs... there isn't a species of lamb with six legs, it parents didn't have six legs, which means that a change must have occured. This animal wasn't able to walk by itself, which means that without human help, it would die... this is the natural selection bit. An animal born with better eyes/ears that could see/hear it's hunter/prey better would have the oposite effect.
The "theory" bit ISN'T that animals evolve, the "theory" bit is the path which evolution has taken to get everything to where it is now; which species have come from which etc.
Let me say one more time: evolution happens, we know it happens, we see it happening, it is not theory.
God put YOU here to test ME! ;-)
"Thanks, but you didn't answer my question"
How have I not answered your question? Your questions:
"but when did people start taking prisoner's accounts as gospel."
"How are they suddenly credible?"
"why people are in such a rush to believe things that could well be fabrications"
My answer was that it is not that we are automatically believing the accused are innocent, the problem we have is that they are not being given chance to defend themselves and claim their innocence, they are being held without being charged, and those who have been released, have been released without explanation as to why they were held, or any kind of most basic apology.
That said, if someone's not given chance by someone to say "it wasn't me", "I didn't do it", it makes you wonder why!
"How does that elevate the discussion?"
I already said what I intended to to help understanding and "elevate the discussion", and everyone who understands why I say what I did above that statement fully understands why I made the statement itself. America IS proving itself to be a complete disgrace (spelt right this time tho). You can't kidnap people outside the law (changing the law to allow you to kidnap people doesn't count), outside all human rights, and not expect the world get become furious with you. The only reason America's not in half as much trouble as it is at this moment is that the people doing the fighting (against) are religious nuts, which alienates themselves from the rest of the world who would actually agree with them more than they agree with what America is doing. But that won't last forever.
</rant>
I think it's more the case that we aren't given chance to find out if these people are guilty or anything first. Most people who deny their guilt in prison HAVE had the chance to convince people, and they failed to, usually (one would hope) for good reason. That's the bit that Guantanamo Bay lacks, and that's what sparks people being so pissed off with America about; not that they're holding people who say they're innocent, that they're holding people who haven't even been given chance to say they're innocent.
America's an absolute discrace, I find myself thinking more and more they deserve everything they get (I'll say hi to him in Guantanamo!)
oh come on, it's no different from that car I bought without paint...