Which reminds me of my AI prof: "If it doesn't work, it's AI. If it works, it's software engineering." The punch line being that this line of reasoning applied to the same topics, just at different points in time.
I'm convinced that we won't know when hard AI will be first around. Everyone will be too busy calling it a dumb program.
In that time, the only way to travel was via roads. If there's a custom barrier where you pay if you want to do anything but travel personally through it, it's exactly like a toll road for commercial vehicles. It doesn't even matter if you don't do business in that city - you wanted to pass through that customs barrier, you had to pay. In certain cases, traveling 200 miles or so could mean passing through 20 customs barriers. Sure, it didn't impact anyone who traveled for leisure - but no one really traveled for leisure at that time. You traveled to sell your wares, or you stayed put.
You don't have to imagine what the country would look like - there's actually a neat historical example in Germany for this. At the end of the 18th century, Germany was splintered into many local city states, and had approximately 1800 customs barriers. The impact on traffic and goods was so blatantly obvious to everyone that the states voluntarily abandoned their individual independence and formed toll coalitions.
The people who argue for privatization of everything are merely ignorant of history. Most of their ideas have been tried already, and abandoned because of their catastrophic impact.
It's a "feature" of the system. It means that there is no way to play favorites with official moderators. It does mean though that idiots occasionally get mod points and proceed to blow them all on modding someone down with whom they disagree.
But really, don't worry about it - idiots are still outnumbered by decent moderators without vendettas. Furthermore, this type of use is generally fixed by the metamod system: slashdot.org/metamod.pl.
I've been around for years, and this issue has always been around. After a while, you get used to it. Not to mention that your karma will get high enough to absorb drive-by moderation.
Sheesh, you can't read, can you? I said federal government. That means that unless you live in the state that happens to support NPR via a grant, you only contribute 2% to the budget of NPR.
Finally, the federal government orders AIG around because without the bailout, it would cease to exist. As a result, it is nonsensical to hand out performance bonuses. If Obama wants to cut $900k from the federal budget, I'm sure NPR would continue to produce content.
As for the state budgets, you don't get to bitch about them unless you actually live in the affected state.
The Pope has plenty of authority where it matters: With Catholics. He tells them what to do, and a very large number of them do it.
Here's why I think you have an irrational problem with religion: that sentence is completely unrelated to reality. In the Americas, which has the largest concentration of roman catholics, the authority of the Pope is severely limited. Brazil might welcome him with massed throngs, but few people there consider the Pope their final authority. Mexico is strongly religious, strongly catholic, but the veneration is far more directed at saints rather than at the Pope. The US is incredibly ambivalent towards even appearing to endorse anything the Pope says directly. In Italy, the Pope barely registers. Same in France, the other largely catholic country. Poland is about the only country in Europe that is deeply connected to the Vatican, and that only because of the previous Pope. And in Africa, the Catholic teachings are heavily localized so as to appeal to the local population. The Pope might be the closest thing to an absolute authority there, but even that is limited.
So no, your facts are either incorrect, or dwell on history that no one currently living is responsible for. The fact that you insist on either using incorrect assumptions or outdated data points leads me to conclude that your core idea isn't based on a rational line of thought. Which in turn means that it is pointless to argue.
Your assumptions are incorrect. The CPB might get federal funding, but only about 17% of its budget comes from the federal government. 23% of it comes from state and local tax revenues, and 60% of the rest comes from private contributions. That makes about 2% of the NPR budget coming out of federal sources.
I also don't understand why you equate licensee support with NSF and endowment for the arts. NPR material is licensed to local radio stations for use - there actually is no NPR station. Only stations that carry NPR material.
So taxpayers across the nation own about 2% of the products produced. And if you want access to their material, I can pretty much download anything I want from the sites of the various local stations.
So what's your point exactly? That they ought to be smacked down for abusing copyright in the case listed? Sure. That they somehow are owned by all Americans? Hardly. If anything, they are owned by those who contribute directly.
The majority of NPR's funding comes from listener contributions. About 2% comes from government grants. Even the most conservative assessment of where the funding comes from tops out at about 5%. I'm just curious as to how you would enforce that 2%-5%. Should that fraction of each production be public domain? Should 2-5% of all productions be public domain? Or should the donors own the copyright to the shows?
You don't think Islamic suicide bombers are carrying an "us vs. them mentality? Or the 9/11 flight teams
Note my use of mainstream. There are far more inclusionist Muslims than there are inclusionist Scientologist. Especially once you get into the hierarchy. Same for your digs at the various other religions. You're analogy with the Pope might have had traction 800 years ago, but the Church's position in secular politics was emasculated several times in the last 300 years.
Methinks you have an unhealthy fixation on any organized religion, and are incapable of seeing those who do good in the name of their God, and who welcome people with other beliefs. If anything, you're the kind of person that makes atheists the world over look bad: shrill, with historic arguments that have long ago run their course and that are laden with emotional trigger words.
Because Religulous is not a statistical study, and as such not a credible source for extrapolating towards a larger population? Because it isn't even a documentary, but more an interest piece in the vein of the Moore films?
And people wonder why American education is going down the tubes... it's because too many Americans confuse entertainment with reality.
Look at Mormons. They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap. Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion? Catholicism has excommunication, same idea.
Nonsense. Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who "don't buy into their crap." I say it's actually their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults. Excommunication is reserved for cardinal sins, not merely associating with people who don't buy your crap. Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.
Finally, there are a few reasons why Scientology is far more dangerous than today's mainstream Abrahamic religions, Hinduism or any other organized religion. There is the US vs Them mentality that pervades the organization, the complete disregard for laws in their pursuit of their enemies and the practical enslavement of the low-rung members. In other words, the reason that Scientology is dangerous is that it is as loony as the fringe suicide cults that have always existed, and it is as large as many respectable religious organizations. With the former comes extreme (and deadly) actions, with the second comes power to carry out the extreme actions in great numbers and under cover.
Hubbard might have laughed at all the money Cruise has forked over, but he would be laughing on his yacht while figuring out how to extract more money.
Off-topic comment: "Think about it" does not indicate insight that others can't see or don't have. On the contrary, it indicates that the insight is something derived from something that you already have, and that you can reach just like everyone else.
Apparently, the JMicron controller that's been faulted for at least two of the drives in questions is also found in 3 OCZ SSDs. At least, that's what anandtech reports, and they've been very good with these kinds of investigations in the past.
I'd suggest to apply the same technique that should be applied to all new technologies: get a thorough understanding of the technology and the involved manufacturers before buying one. And any price that's too good to be true probably is - cutting edge technology never is cheap, and SSDs are still cutting edge technology.
I like your speeding analogy - although it seems to me that the proper analogy would be that you're responsible for knowing the speed limit without the speed limit being posted anywhere on the road. And that the speed limit changes in an arbitrary fashion.
Yeah, there are two possible courses of action for me: I either don't consume any entertainment at all outside the patently free of copyright (20000 leagues under the sea, etc), or I don't care about whether I infringe at all.
Either which way, the content industry is screwing itself.
Regarding the iTunes issue, you should be able to burn the iTunes tracks to a CD, and then rip it to any format you like. End of iTunes DRM. Might be too late, and it is a hassle, but it could be a solution for the future.
Yes, there are millions more copies in circulation but does it change anything for anybody?
It does - but not for the listeners. It changes the perspective for those who make money off of creating copies and distributing them. For those people, those millions of songs represent millions of dollars they could have had.... if it wasn't for those pirates.
It's pure greed at work. And considering how making money has become a new religion for quite a few people.... I actually agree with another poster who compared it to the fight of the Catholic religion against the popularization of the bible.
That's.... messed up. I'm not even sure what else there is to say about this. At least $200 for damages, even if you had no idea that what you were doing was copyright infringement? How the hell are you supposed to stay out of this?
"Vigorous defense of trademark" is not a defense for filing a claim unsupported by law.
Here's the issue: the only place where questions of law are settled is a court room. Which in turn means that the only way to find out whether something is unsupported by law is to file a lawsuit and see where the chips fall.
Yes, some cases are highly unlikely to succeed. I doubt Sun would be able to successfully sue the Pope for trademark infringement. But I don't think that anyone here knows enough law to unequivocally state that this claim is unsupported by law.
Pretty much. I've got limited real estate on my screen. Even more so on a netbook. To top it off, I have limited bandwidth, occasionally use metered bandwidth, and often play online games where any interruption is deadly.
I'll actually go one step further: as long as there is any alternative that does not display ads, I will use it. I will pay a significant amount of money (at least a few hundred dollars) and put up with other significant UI issues (including learning a brand new one) if I can get my hands on a OS that doesn't have ads.
Yes, I know. This will most likely be similar to a Netzero play: free OS, free software, as long as you watch the ads. It could even be a price differentiator, like the various editions of Windows Vista. But even Netzero abandoned the business model of supporting free product with ads. And I also understand that filing for a patent does not constitute a product announcement. But it's never too early to start the bitching when it comes to ideas as braindead as this one.
I know people have gotten used to having TV subsidized by ads, and I know that a lot of people use the computer as a glorified TV. But a significant portion of users have a computer because it is nothing like a TV. And those will abandon an ad-driven OS in droves.
Ah.... a flame by an AC artist. Beautiful. I try not to respond to ACs, but this is just too perfect to pass up.
Number 1, you're confusing me with someone who writes code, something I realized a long time ago I should leave to smarter people. Instead, I write stuff that people use to buy software, or keep using software. Think of it as liner notes or the authenticity paper for a new Mozart piece.
Number 2, you're committing the delicious irony of denigrating all programmers on a geek website, using a web browser, a protocol and an infrastructure that all have their roots in the mind of a programmer or computer scientist. You can start by apologizing to Vint Cerf as a start.
Number 3, and here's where the going gets good. You seem to think that writing software won't further the discussion of the human condition - yet this is exactly what you are doing. Are you so unaware of your surrounding, so absorbed by your artistic navel gazing that you fail to see the contributions that others have made to your ability to feel important? Apparently. Finally, you are so narcissistic, so blinded by your own need to be superior to others that you completely fail to see that artists have never really done anything. Oh yes, there's the Sistine Chapel, the Brandenburger Concertos, the Venus de Milo, even "Yesterday"... but really, no artist ever stopped a population from starving. No artist ever delivered a city from a siege, created a life-saving device - or heck, even a device that makes life simpler and more convenient. Might they have inspired others to do so? Possibly. But muses are interchangeable, and in the end, are at best catalysts for actions, never actors themselves.
So when you're saying that programmers are somehow jealous or inferior to artists, you're merely demonstrating that your ignorance knows no bounds. While those "secretaries" created something that changed the course of history and represents the most important technological advance in the history of humanity, you might have strung together a few tunes that evaporate into the night, or speckled some ephemeral surface with some color.
Of all the things that are in this world, you - yes, you - are the most insignificant and forgettable spec. The accolades belong solely to those who do - secretaries like Vint Cerf, Dennis Ritchie, Mark Andreessen, Alan Turing, or the Woz.
And your (note the possessive form) English sucks.
hat's an equivalent statement to "Patronage is the only acceptable model" when it comes to creative work.
Only if you expand patronage to mean everything that doesn't involve getting a pay check from someone who was never involved in the creation of whatever it is you're getting the check for.
In fact, under this model, there's nothing else to sell *other* than labor.
Technically, the value that is inherent in a finished product is the value of the work that transformed the raw material into the finished product. In that sense, you're right, there is no fee-for-product arrangement, because there is no product.
If you want to be technical, make sure you know your terms.
There's a huge difference between being sarcastic and saying "fuck you." The former might indicate disdain for language or an idea, but the latter is pretty much the most powerful succinct expression for conveying personal disregard and contempt.
What makes you think that that wasn't exactly the message I wanted to convey? Because it was. Polite language isn't always the same as effective language.
France with their Dear Facist Leader, Sarkozy can fuck off.
I'm confused. I thought France was the land of pinko-commie socialists. Can you people please make up your mind and settle on one stereotype? I'd like to know what terms I should use to be a proper American bashing other countries.
So, clearly, patronage should be the only way to do it, right?
Red Herring. The current argument advanced by this guy and the various copyright agencies is that copyright is the only way to do it. It patently isn't.
So in other words, the only reasonable model of economic exchange is fee-for-service?
Another Red Herring. There's also fee-for-product. Not to mention that a corporation is not a person, and therefore not part of the discussion on how a person should be compensated for intellectual work.
As for your dig about cursing, your sarcasm isn't a sign of elevated argumentation either. If you want to throw rocks, make sure it isn't your glass house your throwing them at.
Software is a material good that can be objectively valued, music is art and cannot be rationally valued.
Really? Software can be objectively valued? Just to take the most recent example, what's the value of Tower of Goo? 1 Cent? 20 dollars? 0.99 dollars?
As for getting compensated for writing good programs - I'd be ecstatic if I'd get a small lump sum for one of them. Because you know what? I never got a penny for any of them. That's because I was writing them to solve specific problems that arose during normal work duties. In other words, work for hire, for which I got a salary. Copyright resides with the company.
For the rest of your argument - I won't pick it apart. It'll take me hours to point out every inconsistency, unmentioned assumption and unsupported assertion. Suffice to say that royalties are not the only method of compensation that make sense for intellectual work, as the software industry regularly demonstrates.
Slashdot Mirror
Which reminds me of my AI prof: "If it doesn't work, it's AI. If it works, it's software engineering." The punch line being that this line of reasoning applied to the same topics, just at different points in time.
I'm convinced that we won't know when hard AI will be first around. Everyone will be too busy calling it a dumb program.
In that time, the only way to travel was via roads. If there's a custom barrier where you pay if you want to do anything but travel personally through it, it's exactly like a toll road for commercial vehicles. It doesn't even matter if you don't do business in that city - you wanted to pass through that customs barrier, you had to pay. In certain cases, traveling 200 miles or so could mean passing through 20 customs barriers. Sure, it didn't impact anyone who traveled for leisure - but no one really traveled for leisure at that time. You traveled to sell your wares, or you stayed put.
You don't have to imagine what the country would look like - there's actually a neat historical example in Germany for this. At the end of the 18th century, Germany was splintered into many local city states, and had approximately 1800 customs barriers. The impact on traffic and goods was so blatantly obvious to everyone that the states voluntarily abandoned their individual independence and formed toll coalitions.
The people who argue for privatization of everything are merely ignorant of history. Most of their ideas have been tried already, and abandoned because of their catastrophic impact.
It's a "feature" of the system. It means that there is no way to play favorites with official moderators. It does mean though that idiots occasionally get mod points and proceed to blow them all on modding someone down with whom they disagree.
But really, don't worry about it - idiots are still outnumbered by decent moderators without vendettas. Furthermore, this type of use is generally fixed by the metamod system: slashdot.org/metamod.pl.
I've been around for years, and this issue has always been around. After a while, you get used to it. Not to mention that your karma will get high enough to absorb drive-by moderation.
Sheesh, you can't read, can you? I said federal government. That means that unless you live in the state that happens to support NPR via a grant, you only contribute 2% to the budget of NPR.
Finally, the federal government orders AIG around because without the bailout, it would cease to exist. As a result, it is nonsensical to hand out performance bonuses. If Obama wants to cut $900k from the federal budget, I'm sure NPR would continue to produce content.
As for the state budgets, you don't get to bitch about them unless you actually live in the affected state.
The Pope has plenty of authority where it matters: With Catholics. He tells them what to do, and a very large number of them do it.
Here's why I think you have an irrational problem with religion: that sentence is completely unrelated to reality. In the Americas, which has the largest concentration of roman catholics, the authority of the Pope is severely limited. Brazil might welcome him with massed throngs, but few people there consider the Pope their final authority. Mexico is strongly religious, strongly catholic, but the veneration is far more directed at saints rather than at the Pope. The US is incredibly ambivalent towards even appearing to endorse anything the Pope says directly. In Italy, the Pope barely registers. Same in France, the other largely catholic country. Poland is about the only country in Europe that is deeply connected to the Vatican, and that only because of the previous Pope. And in Africa, the Catholic teachings are heavily localized so as to appeal to the local population. The Pope might be the closest thing to an absolute authority there, but even that is limited.
So no, your facts are either incorrect, or dwell on history that no one currently living is responsible for. The fact that you insist on either using incorrect assumptions or outdated data points leads me to conclude that your core idea isn't based on a rational line of thought. Which in turn means that it is pointless to argue.
Your assumptions are incorrect. The CPB might get federal funding, but only about 17% of its budget comes from the federal government. 23% of it comes from state and local tax revenues, and 60% of the rest comes from private contributions. That makes about 2% of the NPR budget coming out of federal sources.
I also don't understand why you equate licensee support with NSF and endowment for the arts. NPR material is licensed to local radio stations for use - there actually is no NPR station. Only stations that carry NPR material.
So taxpayers across the nation own about 2% of the products produced. And if you want access to their material, I can pretty much download anything I want from the sites of the various local stations.
So what's your point exactly? That they ought to be smacked down for abusing copyright in the case listed? Sure. That they somehow are owned by all Americans? Hardly. If anything, they are owned by those who contribute directly.
The majority of NPR's funding comes from listener contributions. About 2% comes from government grants. Even the most conservative assessment of where the funding comes from tops out at about 5%. I'm just curious as to how you would enforce that 2%-5%. Should that fraction of each production be public domain? Should 2-5% of all productions be public domain? Or should the donors own the copyright to the shows?
You don't think Islamic suicide bombers are carrying an "us vs. them mentality? Or the 9/11 flight teams
Note my use of mainstream. There are far more inclusionist Muslims than there are inclusionist Scientologist. Especially once you get into the hierarchy. Same for your digs at the various other religions. You're analogy with the Pope might have had traction 800 years ago, but the Church's position in secular politics was emasculated several times in the last 300 years.
Methinks you have an unhealthy fixation on any organized religion, and are incapable of seeing those who do good in the name of their God, and who welcome people with other beliefs. If anything, you're the kind of person that makes atheists the world over look bad: shrill, with historic arguments that have long ago run their course and that are laden with emotional trigger words.
Because Religulous is not a statistical study, and as such not a credible source for extrapolating towards a larger population? Because it isn't even a documentary, but more an interest piece in the vein of the Moore films?
And people wonder why American education is going down the tubes... it's because too many Americans confuse entertainment with reality.
Look at Mormons. They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap. Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion? Catholicism has excommunication, same idea.
Nonsense. Mormons are quite free and able to interact with people who "don't buy into their crap." I say it's actually their defining characteristic when compared to other loony cults. Excommunication is reserved for cardinal sins, not merely associating with people who don't buy your crap. Not to mention that excommunication is not the tool of control that it was during the middle ages.
Finally, there are a few reasons why Scientology is far more dangerous than today's mainstream Abrahamic religions, Hinduism or any other organized religion. There is the US vs Them mentality that pervades the organization, the complete disregard for laws in their pursuit of their enemies and the practical enslavement of the low-rung members. In other words, the reason that Scientology is dangerous is that it is as loony as the fringe suicide cults that have always existed, and it is as large as many respectable religious organizations. With the former comes extreme (and deadly) actions, with the second comes power to carry out the extreme actions in great numbers and under cover.
Hubbard might have laughed at all the money Cruise has forked over, but he would be laughing on his yacht while figuring out how to extract more money.
Off-topic comment: "Think about it" does not indicate insight that others can't see or don't have. On the contrary, it indicates that the insight is something derived from something that you already have, and that you can reach just like everyone else.
Apparently, the JMicron controller that's been faulted for at least two of the drives in questions is also found in 3 OCZ SSDs. At least, that's what anandtech reports, and they've been very good with these kinds of investigations in the past.
I'd suggest to apply the same technique that should be applied to all new technologies: get a thorough understanding of the technology and the involved manufacturers before buying one. And any price that's too good to be true probably is - cutting edge technology never is cheap, and SSDs are still cutting edge technology.
I like your speeding analogy - although it seems to me that the proper analogy would be that you're responsible for knowing the speed limit without the speed limit being posted anywhere on the road. And that the speed limit changes in an arbitrary fashion.
Yeah, there are two possible courses of action for me: I either don't consume any entertainment at all outside the patently free of copyright (20000 leagues under the sea, etc), or I don't care about whether I infringe at all.
Either which way, the content industry is screwing itself.
Regarding the iTunes issue, you should be able to burn the iTunes tracks to a CD, and then rip it to any format you like. End of iTunes DRM. Might be too late, and it is a hassle, but it could be a solution for the future.
Yes, there are millions more copies in circulation but does it change anything for anybody?
It does - but not for the listeners. It changes the perspective for those who make money off of creating copies and distributing them. For those people, those millions of songs represent millions of dollars they could have had.... if it wasn't for those pirates.
It's pure greed at work. And considering how making money has become a new religion for quite a few people.... I actually agree with another poster who compared it to the fight of the Catholic religion against the popularization of the bible.
Or the short version: Yes, you can.
That's.... messed up. I'm not even sure what else there is to say about this. At least $200 for damages, even if you had no idea that what you were doing was copyright infringement? How the hell are you supposed to stay out of this?
"Vigorous defense of trademark" is not a defense for filing a claim unsupported by law.
Here's the issue: the only place where questions of law are settled is a court room. Which in turn means that the only way to find out whether something is unsupported by law is to file a lawsuit and see where the chips fall.
Yes, some cases are highly unlikely to succeed. I doubt Sun would be able to successfully sue the Pope for trademark infringement. But I don't think that anyone here knows enough law to unequivocally state that this claim is unsupported by law.
Pretty much. I've got limited real estate on my screen. Even more so on a netbook. To top it off, I have limited bandwidth, occasionally use metered bandwidth, and often play online games where any interruption is deadly.
I'll actually go one step further: as long as there is any alternative that does not display ads, I will use it. I will pay a significant amount of money (at least a few hundred dollars) and put up with other significant UI issues (including learning a brand new one) if I can get my hands on a OS that doesn't have ads.
Yes, I know. This will most likely be similar to a Netzero play: free OS, free software, as long as you watch the ads. It could even be a price differentiator, like the various editions of Windows Vista. But even Netzero abandoned the business model of supporting free product with ads. And I also understand that filing for a patent does not constitute a product announcement. But it's never too early to start the bitching when it comes to ideas as braindead as this one.
I know people have gotten used to having TV subsidized by ads, and I know that a lot of people use the computer as a glorified TV. But a significant portion of users have a computer because it is nothing like a TV. And those will abandon an ad-driven OS in droves.
Oh, for a want of mod points... but yes, that's what no interference by a governing body means. Extra props for making me laugh with that insight.
Ah.... a flame by an AC artist. Beautiful. I try not to respond to ACs, but this is just too perfect to pass up.
Number 1, you're confusing me with someone who writes code, something I realized a long time ago I should leave to smarter people. Instead, I write stuff that people use to buy software, or keep using software. Think of it as liner notes or the authenticity paper for a new Mozart piece.
Number 2, you're committing the delicious irony of denigrating all programmers on a geek website, using a web browser, a protocol and an infrastructure that all have their roots in the mind of a programmer or computer scientist. You can start by apologizing to Vint Cerf as a start.
Number 3, and here's where the going gets good. You seem to think that writing software won't further the discussion of the human condition - yet this is exactly what you are doing. Are you so unaware of your surrounding, so absorbed by your artistic navel gazing that you fail to see the contributions that others have made to your ability to feel important? Apparently. Finally, you are so narcissistic, so blinded by your own need to be superior to others that you completely fail to see that artists have never really done anything. Oh yes, there's the Sistine Chapel, the Brandenburger Concertos, the Venus de Milo, even "Yesterday"... but really, no artist ever stopped a population from starving. No artist ever delivered a city from a siege, created a life-saving device - or heck, even a device that makes life simpler and more convenient. Might they have inspired others to do so? Possibly. But muses are interchangeable, and in the end, are at best catalysts for actions, never actors themselves.
So when you're saying that programmers are somehow jealous or inferior to artists, you're merely demonstrating that your ignorance knows no bounds. While those "secretaries" created something that changed the course of history and represents the most important technological advance in the history of humanity, you might have strung together a few tunes that evaporate into the night, or speckled some ephemeral surface with some color.
Of all the things that are in this world, you - yes, you - are the most insignificant and forgettable spec. The accolades belong solely to those who do - secretaries like Vint Cerf, Dennis Ritchie, Mark Andreessen, Alan Turing, or the Woz.
And your (note the possessive form) English sucks.
hat's an equivalent statement to "Patronage is the only acceptable model" when it comes to creative work.
Only if you expand patronage to mean everything that doesn't involve getting a pay check from someone who was never involved in the creation of whatever it is you're getting the check for.
In fact, under this model, there's nothing else to sell *other* than labor.
Technically, the value that is inherent in a finished product is the value of the work that transformed the raw material into the finished product. In that sense, you're right, there is no fee-for-product arrangement, because there is no product.
If you want to be technical, make sure you know your terms.
There's a huge difference between being sarcastic and saying "fuck you." The former might indicate disdain for language or an idea, but the latter is pretty much the most powerful succinct expression for conveying personal disregard and contempt.
What makes you think that that wasn't exactly the message I wanted to convey? Because it was. Polite language isn't always the same as effective language.
France with their Dear Facist Leader, Sarkozy can fuck off.
I'm confused. I thought France was the land of pinko-commie socialists. Can you people please make up your mind and settle on one stereotype? I'd like to know what terms I should use to be a proper American bashing other countries.
So, clearly, patronage should be the only way to do it, right?
Red Herring. The current argument advanced by this guy and the various copyright agencies is that copyright is the only way to do it. It patently isn't.
So in other words, the only reasonable model of economic exchange is fee-for-service?
Another Red Herring. There's also fee-for-product. Not to mention that a corporation is not a person, and therefore not part of the discussion on how a person should be compensated for intellectual work.
As for your dig about cursing, your sarcasm isn't a sign of elevated argumentation either. If you want to throw rocks, make sure it isn't your glass house your throwing them at.
Software is a material good that can be objectively valued, music is art and cannot be rationally valued.
Really? Software can be objectively valued? Just to take the most recent example, what's the value of Tower of Goo? 1 Cent? 20 dollars? 0.99 dollars?
As for getting compensated for writing good programs - I'd be ecstatic if I'd get a small lump sum for one of them. Because you know what? I never got a penny for any of them. That's because I was writing them to solve specific problems that arose during normal work duties. In other words, work for hire, for which I got a salary. Copyright resides with the company.
For the rest of your argument - I won't pick it apart. It'll take me hours to point out every inconsistency, unmentioned assumption and unsupported assertion. Suffice to say that royalties are not the only method of compensation that make sense for intellectual work, as the software industry regularly demonstrates.