Last time I used 1600 ISO film (instead of on my digi) the grain was aweful! I still find 400 hard enough to look at, the thought of using 400 for outdoors work I find surprising - maybe for newspapers it's fine - I don't know I don't do that kind of photography, maybe 1600 is ok for journalists...
Maybe I'm too used to England with the lack of sunlight, but there's no way I've ever been able to use 1/1000th sec on anything slower than f5.6 (approx - I don't pay it that much attention).
Humm, I think I know what to do this Saturday now - try and prove myself wrong to my satisfaction...
If only I'd had mod points I'd mod myself off topic...
You've missed the point. With a fast shutter speed (needed to catch the dove) you have minimal depth of field. Therefore 2 objects at different distances cannot both be in focus. Unless of course you took the 2 images in 2 separate photos and then photoshopped them together as the GP suggested
Maybe I should stop using the gravity example because of the conservation of energy violation - I've just not thought of an example yet that hits quite so hard at what people take for granted and is quite so easy to understand.
That said I'm sure most people take the fact that speed does not effect the passage of time for granted - doesn't make it false, just true in all the cases most people have observed...
I never meant to imply that the laws of physics themselves would change - I believe (and this is a belief I can't back it up) that they have always applied and they will always apply everywhere. This is why i scoff when people talk about the laws of physics breaking down in a signularity. However I do believe that our understanding of the laws is incomplete. I believe this, as the laws as we understand them do break down under extream circumstances (such as around a singularity). But this is a different thing.
So all I was meaning was, were gravity to stop applying to me tomorrow, then the laws would be the same as they ever were, the challenge would be to understand why the laws as we did understand them didn't explain this new phenomenon. Which suddenly implies I'm trying to justify the paranormal - which I'm certainly not...
Careful! Science "knows" that gravity will hold me to my chair tomorrow the same as it does today. If it suddenly stopped doing that then science will adjust to account for this change.
So while I'd agreet that our current understanding of physics/chemisty says that life is not possible in liquid methane, _if_ we found it, we'd have to accept that fact and try and figure out why we were wrong. That's what I think the GP has wrong, there is evidence against it, and no evidence for it. However that doesn't mean that it is impossible, just that everthing we know implies that it isn't going to happen.
Kind of like my chances of getting a date for this weekend, all the evidence so far says that there's no way it can happen, and no evidence to say that it's possible. But I could bump into someone cute at the gym tonight and you never know...
I always like the speculation that there could be life on gas giants. Bird type things at higher altitudes, fish at lower altitudes etc. Maybe they don't survive on earth because those nearer the surface are getting the lions share of resources - take that away and those resources become avalable for other more difficult niches.
Also one interesting postulate i heard was that intelegence in marine life was already fairly evident, tool use is also founs aquaticly. What possibly prevented dolphins and the like from becomming competitors to us was 3 things, 1) they needed their front legs more as flippers than they did as hands to hold tools. If mamals had been based on a 6/8 legged creature, we might have seen aquatic mamals besome much more adept at tool use that we currently do. 2) It's a bit difficult to start a fire under water, and fire being a major requirement for most engineering/science. 3) Many say it is farming that pushed us to where we are - it's a little more difficult to farm the ocean than the plains. i.e. you can't build as simple a fence because of the 3D nature of water a much larger structure is needed.
Change a few assumptions though, and I don't see why aquatic like life couldn't develop to a similar stage to our on a gas giant taking the above: 1) assume dolphins had 8 limbs - 6 for swimming, 2 for tool use. 2) Now put them in Jupiter's atmosphere, at the correct depth they'd float much like dolphins in water 3) If you're swimming in hydrogen, I imagine your issue is not fuel or heat, but the correct oxydiser - maybe instead of burning logs, there are other plant like life forms that are rich in oxygen that in a sea of hydrogen you can set light to.
You're confusing the indivisual and the corporation. But that's ok courts make the same mistake all the time so I can forgive you.
Atari doesn't create the games. Programmers do. Disney (the company) didn't create Micky Mouse, Walt did.
Yes in the modern world things are created via teams, so no one thing is the creation of any one person, and it's funded by the company, so the easy soilution seems to be to class the company as the creator. This is a mistake though. Disney has lost the right to claim copyright on Micky mouse cartoons as soon as Micky mouse cartoons are no longer any significant part of their income. If they want to use it as a trade mark, then trade mark it - if you want the protection of copyright then go ahead, but remember that copyright lapses 25 years (sorry, 50 years, ooops no 75 years, oops no...) after the creators death.
As soon as disney stops ripping off stories like Beauty and the beast, Hunchback, Hercules etc etc then they might have a leg to stand on. But if Disney themselves have no respect for the lapsed copyright of others then they are hypocrytical in trying to extend copyright.
Yes, if you watch the film "Cleopatra" and it says "All characters portrayed in this film are fictitious...". Therefore Cleopatera, Mark Antony and Julius himself can't have existed.
I never checked what it said at the end of "Jesus Christ Superstar though..."
I have had the exact same conversation myself. The first time she asked, it got so far as describing how the computer might know how to put the characters that come from your keyboard onto the screen. Then she wanted to know how the keyboard could communicate with the computer. So I start talking about serial protocols and microcontrollers and keyboard scan patterns. Then she wanted to know how a microcontroller might work, which then needed a description of basic software, which brought us right back to entering characters into the computer.
The second time this conversation came up I spent a long time before hand explaining the concept of abstractions (she was asking about my day at work and couldn't understand what i was talking about and wanted to know). One explanation of black boxes later and a black box diagram of the computer on her desk and I got a "Is that it? So how does the memory work then?" a quick black box diagram later and I got a "Is that it? How does..." You get the idea. If you can, as you suggest, black box in such a way to put off questions about the details, as we do, and provided your audience doesn't want the entire answer, but each part of the answer provides a reward, then in my experience you can keep people going much longer...
I shouldn't feed the troll, but that's what taxes are for and is what they do already. Where else does over 50% of my income go if not on the national heath, benefits, education etc etc.
Surely it's more like: Gameplay = budget - effort put into graphics + inspiration
so if you have a great idea, but little money you can build tetris; if you have loads of money, but no ideas you can still build an immersive environment to give good game play.
Science demands that all theories are proven. Wrong. Science demands all theories are falsifiable, (I'm ignoring mathematical theories here). A theory is also useful if it makes predictions which we can then run further experiments on to prove or disprove the theory. Note even if a theory is known to be flawed it can still be useful. See Newtonian Gravity.
e.g. Big Bang theorises all matter started in one place because we observe all matter expanding. This is a valid theory because it matches observation evidence and predicts what will happen - that _most_ matter moves away due to initial inertia. It is useful because it predicts how mater should behave and leads us to question how this process could have started and to conduct further experiments to try to establish how it could have occured. It can be disproved by observing a significant number of galaxies that to not move in a pattern indicating a single starting point.
Invisible Pink Elephants the size of a quark controlling the universe is not a valid theory because: 1) they are unobservable Therefore cannot be disproved 2) They don't allow is to give any predictions about what future or past behaviour will be/was like
Science is about knowledge, not Truth or Belief or Answers.
Repeat after me - Science is not about belief! Scientific method is a method to understand the universe. Some people believe science brings us closer to "the Truth" some believe it brings us closer to "God" - all of which is good, but science itself has no belief in it - those who say otherwise are misleading you.
No chance about it, the Bees that required larger wings and/or didn't use the figure of 8 pattern required more food than than the bees that tried something different. Shame about those bees that tried the figure of 9 pattern, but hey, who said life has to be fair?
Slight misunderstanding/bad phrasing on my part - apologies:
Ok then let's take your drink driving example. The government forbids people to drink and drive but because it doesn't want to ban alcohol it happens anyway. God forbids people to sin, but because he doesn't want to ban free will it happens anyway.
So far so good. So the point is that it all comes down to choice. Do we choose to follow, or do we choose to go our own path. There being a penalty for going down our own path. So taking the drink example I have a choice to drive or to drink. If i drink then I must walk home or use public transport. With God, my choice is to drive the car(worship him) or Drink and drive (exercise free will and not worship him). There is no path where I can have a drink (exercise free will) and not do something wrong. That is like the government outlawing alcohol(don't not worship me) yet handing out free alcohol (giving us free will). We still have the choice to not drink it, but drinking it would be illegal. Kind of hypocrytical.
So God gave us a choice. Either worship me, or commit sin. Either exist in heaven or exist in hell. Eternal happyness or eternal pain. So far so good. But why is Hell a christain concept and not a Jewish one? But I musn't get side tracked.
So by your argument following his way is just as valid a choice to God as not worhiping him. Hey by your argument God isn't happy unless people exercise their free will and don't worship him; otherwise those that do worship him are less tasty.
But then if God was happy with people not worshiping him, then why was Sodom destroyed? If people chose the alternate path, why is the old testament respelendant with examples of God wiping them out? Why have hell at all if the choice is to follow him or not? Why punish people for not following him if he wants people to be free to not follow him?
People say this, but "the fall" is a logical fallacy. God was perfect God created humans in his image God created the tree of knowledge The perfect human with no knowledge of evil, followed the serpent's advice and ate from this tree As a punishment for gaining knowledge of good and evil, humanity was banished from the garden of Eden We've been punished for this ever since.
One way or another either God created something inperfect, or we were designed to fail. i.e. we were always faulty, the only conclusion to draw from Genesis is that God intended us to fail and made damn sure it happened so he could blame us for anything in his works later.
And I'm not trying to disprove the existance of God. That is impossible. I'm trying to prove that a God is not the simplest way to account for the evidence we see. It is the simplest explanation, but not the simplest solution.
The you've been taught badly: The Big Bang is a valid theory because it can be proved false. If I can find a number of galaxies moving in a direction not consistent with the inflationary universe then I have disproved the big bang. However I can't find these, which lends further evidence that our Theory of the Big Bang might be an accurate model. ID is not a valid theory, because there is no experiment I can perform which could falsify it. It makes no predictions which can be verified. In short it tells us nothing of value about the cosmos. It possibly tells us a lot of interest about humanity, but that's a different issue...
There are other theories besides the big bang as to what might have created the universe, they just aren't as simple/well tested and are not as simple to explain to the general populous.
Science is about knowledge, not Truth or Belief or Answers. No theory can be proven true. A theory must always be provable as false otherwise it's dogma. Take gravity; if CDs stopped obeying gravity tomorrow we'd have to ammend the theroy of gravity to account for this. We all accept gravity as a fact, but for all we know, we could stop sticking to the earth tomorrow. If this happened science would have to accept this fact and ammend the theories to cope(assuming we survived:-).
Fine, String theory doesn't make sense to me; doesn't make it invalid. Lack of understanding/comprehension of you part does not make your beliefs valid.
The ID "flap" is not about Science + politics = bad, it's religion + politics vs science + politics.
and with Regards to the bible standing up to rigor; as has been pointed about above and I'll now steal, the bible isn't even internally consistent:
Read Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1:3-12 I Corinthians 15:3-8
Now, write a simple, consistent, chronological narrative of that one day *without ommitting one single biblical detail*
You are likening biology to a work of art! If you've had to deal with my shoulder on a cold day you'd not think the human body was a work of art! Or if you'd seen a deformed child born you'd question how perfect creation is. Or is this god experimenting with an impressionist art?
Straight theatre groups can do shakespere (That's out of copyright) Orchestral groups can do any classical music.
Musical societioes have G&S. And if you think we can write our own musicals that people will come and see, then I want what you're smoking. How many orchestral groups write their own music, how many actors write their own plays.
the world of performance arts needs some things out of copyright to practise with that people do know and will come and see in order to pay the bills.
People come to see what they know. On another slant should we still be paying for rights to perform shakespeare or to perform Bach?
Let me give an example then of release into the public domain being for the public good: Gilbert and Sullivan - It went out of copyright about 50 years ago and so my university had a thriving G&S society because of this. Had we to pay for rights to perform the work, we wouldn't be able to function - or at least we wouldn't have grand sets and expansive lighting and have had the money to experiment and do what students should.
I wouldn't have got into theatre, I (probably) wouldn't have gained the social skills I now have, I would likely have had a very different career - and certainly a much less interesting love life.
So I gained muchly by copyright lapsing. What was lost? well, G&S's great grandchildren see no more income from it, but they have all the money from 70 years of performances in the bank already.
i.e. the creators of the content did very well out of it, as did their children. The creators are protected so why not for the public good release the copyright? Why even have any copyright protection after the person's death at all (except to prevent them from being assasinated to release the copyright)
Slashdot Mirror
There's always one smart arse! :-p
Last time I used 1600 ISO film (instead of on my digi) the grain was aweful! I still find 400 hard enough to look at, the thought of using 400 for outdoors work I find surprising - maybe for newspapers it's fine - I don't know I don't do that kind of photography, maybe 1600 is ok for journalists...
Maybe I'm too used to England with the lack of sunlight, but there's no way I've ever been able to use 1/1000th sec on anything slower than f5.6 (approx - I don't pay it that much attention).
Humm, I think I know what to do this Saturday now - try and prove myself wrong to my satisfaction...
If only I'd had mod points I'd mod myself off topic...
You've missed the point.
With a fast shutter speed (needed to catch the dove) you have minimal depth of field. Therefore 2 objects at different distances cannot both be in focus. Unless of course you took the 2 images in 2 separate photos and then photoshopped them together as the GP suggested
Maybe I should stop using the gravity example because of the conservation of energy violation - I've just not thought of an example yet that hits quite so hard at what people take for granted and is quite so easy to understand.
That said I'm sure most people take the fact that speed does not effect the passage of time for granted - doesn't make it false, just true in all the cases most people have observed...
I never meant to imply that the laws of physics themselves would change - I believe (and this is a belief I can't back it up) that they have always applied and they will always apply everywhere. This is why i scoff when people talk about the laws of physics breaking down in a signularity.
However I do believe that our understanding of the laws is incomplete. I believe this, as the laws as we understand them do break down under extream circumstances (such as around a singularity). But this is a different thing.
So all I was meaning was, were gravity to stop applying to me tomorrow, then the laws would be the same as they ever were, the challenge would be to understand why the laws as we did understand them didn't explain this new phenomenon.
Which suddenly implies I'm trying to justify the paranormal - which I'm certainly not...
At least it's not an asteroid of dog's milk...
Careful!
Science "knows" that gravity will hold me to my chair tomorrow the same as it does today.
If it suddenly stopped doing that then science will adjust to account for this change.
So while I'd agreet that our current understanding of physics/chemisty says that life is not possible in liquid methane, _if_ we found it, we'd have to accept that fact and try and figure out why we were wrong.
That's what I think the GP has wrong, there is evidence against it, and no evidence for it. However that doesn't mean that it is impossible, just that everthing we know implies that it isn't going to happen.
Kind of like my chances of getting a date for this weekend, all the evidence so far says that there's no way it can happen, and no evidence to say that it's possible. But I could bump into someone cute at the gym tonight and you never know...
I always like the speculation that there could be life on gas giants. Bird type things at higher altitudes, fish at lower altitudes etc.
Maybe they don't survive on earth because those nearer the surface are getting the lions share of resources - take that away and those resources become avalable for other more difficult niches.
Also one interesting postulate i heard was that intelegence in marine life was already fairly evident, tool use is also founs aquaticly. What possibly prevented dolphins and the like from becomming competitors to us was 3 things,
1) they needed their front legs more as flippers than they did as hands to hold tools.
If mamals had been based on a 6/8 legged creature, we might have seen aquatic mamals besome much more adept at tool use that we currently do.
2) It's a bit difficult to start a fire under water, and fire being a major requirement for most engineering/science.
3) Many say it is farming that pushed us to where we are - it's a little more difficult to farm the ocean than the plains.
i.e. you can't build as simple a fence because of the 3D nature of water a much larger structure is needed.
Change a few assumptions though, and I don't see why aquatic like life couldn't develop to a similar stage to our on a gas giant taking the above:
1) assume dolphins had 8 limbs - 6 for swimming, 2 for tool use.
2) Now put them in Jupiter's atmosphere, at the correct depth they'd float much like dolphins in water
3) If you're swimming in hydrogen, I imagine your issue is not fuel or heat, but the correct oxydiser - maybe instead of burning logs, there are other plant like life forms that are rich in oxygen that in a sea of hydrogen you can set light to.
Or have I been reading too much sci-fi?
"But that is the second word the Knights Who Say Ni cannot hear! Oh no I just said it, and it as well, no I said it again..."
Am I the first to say:
Brian: "You're All individuals"
Crowd: "Yes, we are all individuals"
Man 1: "I'm not"
Man 2: "Shh"
You're confusing the indivisual and the corporation. But that's ok courts make the same mistake all the time so I can forgive you.
Atari doesn't create the games. Programmers do. Disney (the company) didn't create Micky Mouse, Walt did.
Yes in the modern world things are created via teams, so no one thing is the creation of any one person, and it's funded by the company, so the easy soilution seems to be to class the company as the creator. This is a mistake though. Disney has lost the right to claim copyright on Micky mouse cartoons as soon as Micky mouse cartoons are no longer any significant part of their income. If they want to use it as a trade mark, then trade mark it - if you want the protection of copyright then go ahead, but remember that copyright lapses 25 years (sorry, 50 years, ooops no 75 years, oops no...) after the creators death.
As soon as disney stops ripping off stories like Beauty and the beast, Hunchback, Hercules etc etc then they might have a leg to stand on. But if Disney themselves have no respect for the lapsed copyright of others then they are hypocrytical in trying to extend copyright.
Yes, if you watch the film "Cleopatra" and it says "All characters portrayed in this film are fictitious...".
Therefore Cleopatera, Mark Antony and Julius himself can't have existed.
I never checked what it said at the end of "Jesus Christ Superstar though..."
Anyone want this Cray then? I keep trying to install XP on it, but I can't find where to stick the install CD....
I have had the exact same conversation myself. The first time she asked, it got so far as describing how the computer might know how to put the characters that come from your keyboard onto the screen. Then she wanted to know how the keyboard could communicate with the computer. So I start talking about serial protocols and microcontrollers and keyboard scan patterns. Then she wanted to know how a microcontroller might work, which then needed a description of basic software, which brought us right back to entering characters into the computer.
The second time this conversation came up I spent a long time before hand explaining the concept of abstractions (she was asking about my day at work and couldn't understand what i was talking about and wanted to know).
One explanation of black boxes later and a black box diagram of the computer on her desk and I got a "Is that it? So how does the memory work then?" a quick black box diagram later and I got a "Is that it? How does..." You get the idea.
If you can, as you suggest, black box in such a way to put off questions about the details, as we do, and provided your audience doesn't want the entire answer, but each part of the answer provides a reward, then in my experience you can keep people going much longer...
I shouldn't feed the troll, but that's what taxes are for and is what they do already.
Where else does over 50% of my income go if not on the national heath, benefits, education etc etc.
Surely it's more like:
Gameplay = budget - effort put into graphics + inspiration
so if you have a great idea, but little money you can build tetris; if you have loads of money, but no ideas you can still build an immersive environment to give good game play.
Science demands that all theories are proven.
Wrong.
Science demands all theories are falsifiable, (I'm ignoring mathematical theories here). A theory is also useful if it makes predictions which we can then run further experiments on to prove or disprove the theory.
Note even if a theory is known to be flawed it can still be useful. See Newtonian Gravity.
e.g. Big Bang theorises all matter started in one place because we observe all matter expanding. This is a valid theory because it matches observation evidence and predicts what will happen - that _most_ matter moves away due to initial inertia. It is useful because it predicts how mater should behave and leads us to question how this process could have started and to conduct further experiments to try to establish how it could have occured. It can be disproved by observing a significant number of galaxies that to not move in a pattern indicating a single starting point.
Invisible Pink Elephants the size of a quark controlling the universe is not a valid theory because:
1) they are unobservable Therefore cannot be disproved
2) They don't allow is to give any predictions about what future or past behaviour will be/was like
Science is about knowledge, not Truth or Belief or Answers.
Repeat after me - Science is not about belief! Scientific method is a method to understand the universe.
Some people believe science brings us closer to "the Truth" some believe it brings us closer to "God" - all of which is good, but science itself has no belief in it - those who say otherwise are misleading you.
No chance about it, the Bees that required larger wings and/or didn't use the figure of 8 pattern required more food than than the bees that tried something different.
Shame about those bees that tried the figure of 9 pattern, but hey, who said life has to be fair?
Slight misunderstanding/bad phrasing on my part - apologies:
Ok then let's take your drink driving example.
The government forbids people to drink and drive but because it doesn't want to ban alcohol it happens anyway.
God forbids people to sin, but because he doesn't want to ban free will it happens anyway.
So far so good.
So the point is that it all comes down to choice. Do we choose to follow, or do we choose to go our own path. There being a penalty for going down our own path.
So taking the drink example I have a choice to drive or to drink. If i drink then I must walk home or use public transport.
With God, my choice is to drive the car(worship him) or Drink and drive (exercise free will and not worship him). There is no path where I can have a drink (exercise free will) and not do something wrong.
That is like the government outlawing alcohol(don't not worship me) yet handing out free alcohol (giving us free will). We still have the choice to not drink it, but drinking it would be illegal. Kind of hypocrytical.
You see I think I do understand...
So God gave us a choice. Either worship me, or commit sin. Either exist in heaven or exist in hell. Eternal happyness or eternal pain.
So far so good.
But why is Hell a christain concept and not a Jewish one? But I musn't get side tracked.
So by your argument following his way is just as valid a choice to God as not worhiping him. Hey by your argument God isn't happy unless people exercise their free will and don't worship him; otherwise those that do worship him are less tasty.
But then if God was happy with people not worshiping him, then why was Sodom destroyed? If people chose the alternate path, why is the old testament respelendant with examples of God wiping them out?
Why have hell at all if the choice is to follow him or not? Why punish people for not following him if he wants people to be free to not follow him?
People say this, but "the fall" is a logical fallacy.
God was perfect
God created humans in his image
God created the tree of knowledge
The perfect human with no knowledge of evil, followed the serpent's advice and ate from this tree
As a punishment for gaining knowledge of good and evil, humanity was banished from the garden of Eden
We've been punished for this ever since.
One way or another either God created something inperfect, or we were designed to fail. i.e. we were always faulty, the only conclusion to draw from Genesis is that God intended us to fail and made damn sure it happened so he could blame us for anything in his works later.
And I'm not trying to disprove the existance of God. That is impossible. I'm trying to prove that a God is not the simplest way to account for the evidence we see. It is the simplest explanation, but not the simplest solution.
The you've been taught badly:
:-).
The Big Bang is a valid theory because it can be proved false. If I can find a number of galaxies moving in a direction not consistent with the inflationary universe then I have disproved the big bang. However I can't find these, which lends further evidence that our Theory of the Big Bang might be an accurate model.
ID is not a valid theory, because there is no experiment I can perform which could falsify it. It makes no predictions which can be verified. In short it tells us nothing of value about the cosmos. It possibly tells us a lot of interest about humanity, but that's a different issue...
There are other theories besides the big bang as to what might have created the universe, they just aren't as simple/well tested and are not as simple to explain to the general populous.
Science is about knowledge, not Truth or Belief or Answers.
No theory can be proven true. A theory must always be provable as false otherwise it's dogma. Take gravity; if CDs stopped obeying gravity tomorrow we'd have to ammend the theroy of gravity to account for this. We all accept gravity as a fact, but for all we know, we could stop sticking to the earth tomorrow. If this happened science would have to accept this fact and ammend the theories to cope(assuming we survived
Fine, String theory doesn't make sense to me; doesn't make it invalid.
Lack of understanding/comprehension of you part does not make your beliefs valid.
The ID "flap" is not about Science + politics = bad, it's religion + politics vs science + politics.
and with Regards to the bible standing up to rigor; as has been pointed about above and I'll now steal, the bible isn't even internally consistent:
Read Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1:3-12 I Corinthians 15:3-8
Now, write a simple, consistent, chronological narrative of that one day *without ommitting one single biblical detail*
You are likening biology to a work of art!
If you've had to deal with my shoulder on a cold day you'd not think the human body was a work of art! Or if you'd seen a deformed child born you'd question how perfect creation is. Or is this god experimenting with an impressionist art?
We don't need anything! But it's nice.
Straight theatre groups can do shakespere (That's out of copyright)
Orchestral groups can do any classical music.
Musical societioes have G&S.
And if you think we can write our own musicals that people will come and see, then I want what you're smoking.
How many orchestral groups write their own music, how many actors write their own plays.
the world of performance arts needs some things out of copyright to practise with that people do know and will come and see in order to pay the bills.
People come to see what they know.
On another slant should we still be paying for rights to perform shakespeare or to perform Bach?
Let me give an example then of release into the public domain being for the public good:
Gilbert and Sullivan - It went out of copyright about 50 years ago and so my university had a thriving G&S society because of this. Had we to pay for rights to perform the work, we wouldn't be able to function - or at least we wouldn't have grand sets and expansive lighting and have had the money to experiment and do what students should.
I wouldn't have got into theatre, I (probably) wouldn't have gained the social skills I now have, I would likely have had a very different career - and certainly a much less interesting love life.
So I gained muchly by copyright lapsing.
What was lost? well, G&S's great grandchildren see no more income from it, but they have all the money from 70 years of performances in the bank already.
i.e. the creators of the content did very well out of it, as did their children. The creators are protected so why not for the public good release the copyright? Why even have any copyright protection after the person's death at all (except to prevent them from being assasinated to release the copyright)