The money I make a year on songwriting could maybe buy a nice dinner. Without someone looking out for my interests, I'd make nothing.
Let me repeat myself from other posts I've made in the past: the fact that you write stuff down on a piece of paper and send it to somebody does not entitle you to a check. Since this is a tech site, I'll compare this to writing software: just because you wrote some software doesn't mean that you're entitled to receive money. I don't care what the size is of the check is. Software writers are at least ahead of the curve and trying various methods to entice people to pay them directly. What I see from song writers instead is "I wrote some stuff that's used somewhere, pay me forever. And I deserve to be paid enough to not have to do anything else."
To that I can only say one thing: fuck off. I write a ton of crap. Some of it is good, some of it isn't, but I know it makes a difference. Some of it is specific to the situation and the client, some of it is generic and useful to everyone in the field. I do not expect to get paid in perpetuity for my writing, and I don't expect some third party entity to hunt down documents that kinda look like mine, or people who have something that looks like my document without proof they paid for it.
That's how it ought to be. You do work, you get paid. Wanna get paid again? Do more work. Which, by the way, is how art used to be compensated. And plenty of awesome work was created through that system - work that is arguably better than about 99.99% of the crap that came out in the last 10 years, when copyright enforcement truly started to get nuts.
You're right - my bad. For the purpose of this discussion though, we can also ignore Cars. Disney would not have had any influence on any production aspect of Cars in the weeks that were between the completion of the acquisition and the release of Cars.
Sheesh. You realize that's a book adaptation, right? Not to mention that it was profitable, but not exactly a blockbuster? Also, I exclude Pixar because Pixar was bought recently. The only movie that has come out since the buy-out was Up, and was fully done with the complete Pixar setup. Disney corporate contributed nothing but marketing, merchandising and distribution. That's not creative.
No. What I said and what you said are fundamentally different. You assume like-risk, I don't. Furthermore, I don't assume that pools are formed by individuals. I merely assume that a demand exists, and that there is a product to fill that demand.
You also misunderstand the reason that insurance works. It works BECAUSE cost is externalized onto all the people who pay for more insurance than they need.
If people would pay for exactly the insurance they need, they could just as well pay a regular amount into a savings fund, and draw down from there once something happens. That's the only thing they need. If they encounter a situation that exceeds the monthly amount they're paying, they're directly being subsidized by others - who could be paying less if they wouldn't be subsidizing others.
Let me repeat that: the entire point of insurance is to overcharge a lot of people a little bit so that a few people don't go bankrupt. Plus generate profit for the insurer.
Finally, you also seem to misunderstand my last comment. There is a total cost to society as a whole when people and companies go bankrupt. There are the obvious ones (layoffs, unemployment benefits being paid out, etc) and the less obvious ones (kids being raised in a worse environment, and being a bigger drain on society down the road). Sometimes, it is cheaper for society as a whole to subsidize the prevention of catastrophic events (such as a medically-related bankruptcy) rather than mop up after it.
It has nothing to do with it being cheaper because it doesn't come out of my pocket. Absolutely nothing. It is cheaper because in the balance sheet of a society, it is less expensive.
Somewhat. I more specifically had the Disney channel in mind, which I would argue is more the core demographic and content that Disney wants to be directly associated with.
Rats. Already posted, so no mod points for you. But yes. The entire content industry - scratch that, all industries - hates the fact the concept of ownership transferring. It's a onetime payment that results in a loss of inventory for them. If, however, they can get people to shell out money for access... well, they can get partial payments that cumulatively are a lot higher than what they could expect from a one-time payment, and they have to produce less.
For them, it's win-win on both fronts. For consumers, it's a loss no matter how you look at it.
The thing that they have of value is the ability to produce new films
I have to disagree. The one thing that Disney can do like no one else, and which is therefore their primary value, is merchandising the crap out of existing content. When was the last time you saw a good Disney movie (Pixar doesn't count)? When was the last time you saw Disney produce original content that even its current target audience won't cringe at in a few years?
For crying out loud, they're releasing a double-feature of Toy Story 1 and 2 in 3D now! Creatively, Disney is dead. Their saving grace in that department is Pixar. And Disney knows that - which is exactly why they're focusing so much on merchandise, 3D, theme parks, copyright protection, and now this scheme. They know they can't create new content. That's why they're coming up with a million ideas on how to sell you old stuff again. And again. And again.
Nonsense. The demand for insurance is that it is easier to mitigate risk if you pay a small regular chunk of money you don't need in return for an occasional large chunk of money when you need it. The supply of insurance exists because entities are willing and able to pay more than the compound cost over a large set of entities.
Businesses like it because it simplifies their accounting and long-term planning. Not to mention that it frees up resources that don't have to be held in reserves. Individuals like it because an unlikely, but possible catastrophe doesn't mean that they're fucked financially until they die. Governments like it because people and businesses with insurance are able to take more risks, are less impacted by catastrophes and will be socially more stable.
There are universal benefits to people and businesses having insurance. To the point that it is cheaper to hand out insurance than deal with the after-effects of not having people and businesses insured.
Ah, yes, the exuberant naivety of youth in college, where all problems can be solved through theoretical solutions requiring an infinite amount of time and money.
Here's how it works in real life: * All solutions require that the cost to implement the solution is less than the cost of not implementing it. That's if people are competent, and don't require the solution to cost nothing. * The time that people spend working on the solution is time not spent on other things. If everything goes well, time is scheduled according to what is the most critical or provides the most ROI. If it doesn't, expect to work on the solution while having to still work on everything else. * If everything goes well, the adequate solution is substituted for the perfect solution. If something goes wrong, the solution that's implemented will actually compound the problem.
Here's the reality in a nutshell: Google doesn't create an architecture for 20 million servers because it expects that it will only need 10 million. The time that would have to be spent creating an architecture for 20 million servers is time that isn't spent building the architecture for 10 million. And the only thing worse than hitting the architectural limit of 10 million later is not having an architecture for 10 million when you hit your current limit.
I've got save games from RPGs that take up a significant portion of that. Not to mention that the smallest downloadable games clock in at 50MB. So yes, using all the advertised features of the Xbox in a realistic manner requires you to purchase additional storage.
As far as I understand it, LAN play will be possible. It will just require that the LAN let everyone connect to Blizzard's battle.net servers. Gameplay after that should stay local.
Sadly, I posted already, so I can't mod you up. But yes, the only hurdle so far to automakers locking people out of doing unapproved modifications is that there was no technological way of doing that. However, every industry has at some point or other attempted to look out unauthorized competition. It started with Guilds in the medieval times and now lives through patents, copyright extensions and software-based access control.
As a result, it seems to me that the natural state of affairs for corporations is to create things where access is as restricted as the technology of the day allows it.
Indeed. A 512 MB card shouldn't cost more than $5 right now, while a 2G card should be under $20. They're nickel and diming their customers in the wrong places. If I could buy a nice 100 GB hard disk for $50, I would not only spring for that, but also download far more content - which in turn would drive up my perceived value of the system.
Instead, I'm getting the impression that I'm being fleeced every time I want to do something useful. Maybe that PS3 isn't such a bad idea after all.
I'm trying. However, someone else keeps voting to keep the same bastards in office. I'd also love to start with a fresh constitution that doesn't fill a small book and is more sensible than the current. I'm even ok with just taking the US constitution and use it where possible for the state constitution. But again, someone keeps voting to keep the status quo. Bastards.
If you think a Republic is somehow a Democracy without any of the bad side effects, you're sadly mistaken. All it takes for the republic of the US of A to turn into Super California are three things: - Redrawing of the state borders every 10 years by the incumbent state representatives. - Law-making through direct ballot proposals that anyone can write up. - Require that passing a budget requires a 2/3rd super-majority.
None of these things are incompatible with a republic. The problem with a democracy - and yes, also with a republic - is that we get exactly the government we deserve. And apparently, in California, we deserve the government of a Banana Republic. Hooray.
If anything's left out, it is the "not". The expression that was common until the past few years was "I couldn't care less." It has now morphed into "I could care less" which isn't that much of an issue during speech. Speech isn't expected to be grammatically correct, and we fill in words and structures right and left when listening to people speak.
In writing, however, it becomes a major distraction, as the expectation is that writing is clear and follows accepted rules. Not to mention that the original author is not there to provide answers to any questions that might be had.
As for your bolded example, you're spot on. It is grammatically incorrect, and leads to confusion. This is generally what happens when speech gets transcribed exactly into writing: it generates incoherent text.
Regarding the fuel, there is a distinct advantage to being able to use anything that can be ionized as fuel: you can scoop up interstellar dust during your voyage and use that. Yes, it's very little, and it won't be greater than burnrate, but it's something. And the longer the voyage, the more important this will be.
Technically, that's not a grammar flame, that's a semantic flame. The sentence "I could care less" is grammatically correct - it's the content that's wrong. And for me, my biggest language pet peeve ever. I have to do mental gymnastics every time someone says it to make sure that the topic really isn't important to them, and that they didn't mean what the sentence means: that it matters an indeterminate amount.
And now, we return to your regular slashdot programming of flames, rants and internet fights.
Ditto.I think I bought my last thinkpad last year. From what I've seen, Lenovo doesn't know how to create solid laptops that have business-level specs, can take a beating, and don't have features that you will never need or use (like a fold-out screen).
I'm just wondering what would constitute an emergency that's not political suicide. 9/11-style attack? North Korea launching nukes towards Alaska? Kiddy-porn? Note that I'm not even bringing up child abuse, because apparently downloading of child pornography is much worse than the creation child pornography.
Sorry, I can't think of a reason where the free flow of information would present a risk to national security.
Nice. You mean it would be like China shutting various aspects of the Internet for National Day? I have a friend in Shanghai, and it's getting more and more complicated explaining to him why China is bad and the US is better.
The major news corporations report the news that they think will get them viewers, readers or listeners. The only possible conclusion from this is that not enough people in the US are interested in that kind of news.
Slashdot Mirror
The money I make a year on songwriting could maybe buy a nice dinner. Without someone looking out for my interests, I'd make nothing.
Let me repeat myself from other posts I've made in the past: the fact that you write stuff down on a piece of paper and send it to somebody does not entitle you to a check. Since this is a tech site, I'll compare this to writing software: just because you wrote some software doesn't mean that you're entitled to receive money. I don't care what the size is of the check is. Software writers are at least ahead of the curve and trying various methods to entice people to pay them directly. What I see from song writers instead is "I wrote some stuff that's used somewhere, pay me forever. And I deserve to be paid enough to not have to do anything else."
To that I can only say one thing: fuck off. I write a ton of crap. Some of it is good, some of it isn't, but I know it makes a difference. Some of it is specific to the situation and the client, some of it is generic and useful to everyone in the field. I do not expect to get paid in perpetuity for my writing, and I don't expect some third party entity to hunt down documents that kinda look like mine, or people who have something that looks like my document without proof they paid for it.
That's how it ought to be. You do work, you get paid. Wanna get paid again? Do more work. Which, by the way, is how art used to be compensated. And plenty of awesome work was created through that system - work that is arguably better than about 99.99% of the crap that came out in the last 10 years, when copyright enforcement truly started to get nuts.
Precisely. :)
You're right - my bad. For the purpose of this discussion though, we can also ignore Cars. Disney would not have had any influence on any production aspect of Cars in the weeks that were between the completion of the acquisition and the release of Cars.
Sheesh. You realize that's a book adaptation, right? Not to mention that it was profitable, but not exactly a blockbuster? Also, I exclude Pixar because Pixar was bought recently. The only movie that has come out since the buy-out was Up, and was fully done with the complete Pixar setup. Disney corporate contributed nothing but marketing, merchandising and distribution. That's not creative.
No. What I said and what you said are fundamentally different. You assume like-risk, I don't. Furthermore, I don't assume that pools are formed by individuals. I merely assume that a demand exists, and that there is a product to fill that demand.
You also misunderstand the reason that insurance works. It works BECAUSE cost is externalized onto all the people who pay for more insurance than they need.
If people would pay for exactly the insurance they need, they could just as well pay a regular amount into a savings fund, and draw down from there once something happens. That's the only thing they need. If they encounter a situation that exceeds the monthly amount they're paying, they're directly being subsidized by others - who could be paying less if they wouldn't be subsidizing others.
Let me repeat that: the entire point of insurance is to overcharge a lot of people a little bit so that a few people don't go bankrupt. Plus generate profit for the insurer.
Finally, you also seem to misunderstand my last comment. There is a total cost to society as a whole when people and companies go bankrupt. There are the obvious ones (layoffs, unemployment benefits being paid out, etc) and the less obvious ones (kids being raised in a worse environment, and being a bigger drain on society down the road). Sometimes, it is cheaper for society as a whole to subsidize the prevention of catastrophic events (such as a medically-related bankruptcy) rather than mop up after it.
It has nothing to do with it being cheaper because it doesn't come out of my pocket. Absolutely nothing. It is cheaper because in the balance sheet of a society, it is less expensive.
Somewhat. I more specifically had the Disney channel in mind, which I would argue is more the core demographic and content that Disney wants to be directly associated with.
Rats. Already posted, so no mod points for you. But yes. The entire content industry - scratch that, all industries - hates the fact the concept of ownership transferring. It's a onetime payment that results in a loss of inventory for them. If, however, they can get people to shell out money for access... well, they can get partial payments that cumulatively are a lot higher than what they could expect from a one-time payment, and they have to produce less.
For them, it's win-win on both fronts. For consumers, it's a loss no matter how you look at it.
The thing that they have of value is the ability to produce new films
I have to disagree. The one thing that Disney can do like no one else, and which is therefore their primary value, is merchandising the crap out of existing content. When was the last time you saw a good Disney movie (Pixar doesn't count)? When was the last time you saw Disney produce original content that even its current target audience won't cringe at in a few years?
For crying out loud, they're releasing a double-feature of Toy Story 1 and 2 in 3D now! Creatively, Disney is dead. Their saving grace in that department is Pixar. And Disney knows that - which is exactly why they're focusing so much on merchandise, 3D, theme parks, copyright protection, and now this scheme. They know they can't create new content. That's why they're coming up with a million ideas on how to sell you old stuff again. And again. And again.
Nonsense. The demand for insurance is that it is easier to mitigate risk if you pay a small regular chunk of money you don't need in return for an occasional large chunk of money when you need it. The supply of insurance exists because entities are willing and able to pay more than the compound cost over a large set of entities.
Businesses like it because it simplifies their accounting and long-term planning. Not to mention that it frees up resources that don't have to be held in reserves. Individuals like it because an unlikely, but possible catastrophe doesn't mean that they're fucked financially until they die. Governments like it because people and businesses with insurance are able to take more risks, are less impacted by catastrophes and will be socially more stable.
There are universal benefits to people and businesses having insurance. To the point that it is cheaper to hand out insurance than deal with the after-effects of not having people and businesses insured.
Ah, yes, the exuberant naivety of youth in college, where all problems can be solved through theoretical solutions requiring an infinite amount of time and money.
Here's how it works in real life:
* All solutions require that the cost to implement the solution is less than the cost of not implementing it. That's if people are competent, and don't require the solution to cost nothing.
* The time that people spend working on the solution is time not spent on other things. If everything goes well, time is scheduled according to what is the most critical or provides the most ROI. If it doesn't, expect to work on the solution while having to still work on everything else.
* If everything goes well, the adequate solution is substituted for the perfect solution. If something goes wrong, the solution that's implemented will actually compound the problem.
Here's the reality in a nutshell: Google doesn't create an architecture for 20 million servers because it expects that it will only need 10 million. The time that would have to be spent creating an architecture for 20 million servers is time that isn't spent building the architecture for 10 million. And the only thing worse than hitting the architectural limit of 10 million later is not having an architecture for 10 million when you hit your current limit.
I've got save games from RPGs that take up a significant portion of that. Not to mention that the smallest downloadable games clock in at 50MB. So yes, using all the advertised features of the Xbox in a realistic manner requires you to purchase additional storage.
As far as I understand it, LAN play will be possible. It will just require that the LAN let everyone connect to Blizzard's battle.net servers. Gameplay after that should stay local.
Sadly, I posted already, so I can't mod you up. But yes, the only hurdle so far to automakers locking people out of doing unapproved modifications is that there was no technological way of doing that. However, every industry has at some point or other attempted to look out unauthorized competition. It started with Guilds in the medieval times and now lives through patents, copyright extensions and software-based access control.
As a result, it seems to me that the natural state of affairs for corporations is to create things where access is as restricted as the technology of the day allows it.
Indeed. A 512 MB card shouldn't cost more than $5 right now, while a 2G card should be under $20. They're nickel and diming their customers in the wrong places. If I could buy a nice 100 GB hard disk for $50, I would not only spring for that, but also download far more content - which in turn would drive up my perceived value of the system.
Instead, I'm getting the impression that I'm being fleeced every time I want to do something useful. Maybe that PS3 isn't such a bad idea after all.
I'm trying. However, someone else keeps voting to keep the same bastards in office. I'd also love to start with a fresh constitution that doesn't fill a small book and is more sensible than the current. I'm even ok with just taking the US constitution and use it where possible for the state constitution. But again, someone keeps voting to keep the status quo. Bastards.
If you think a Republic is somehow a Democracy without any of the bad side effects, you're sadly mistaken. All it takes for the republic of the US of A to turn into Super California are three things:
- Redrawing of the state borders every 10 years by the incumbent state representatives.
- Law-making through direct ballot proposals that anyone can write up.
- Require that passing a budget requires a 2/3rd super-majority.
None of these things are incompatible with a republic. The problem with a democracy - and yes, also with a republic - is that we get exactly the government we deserve. And apparently, in California, we deserve the government of a Banana Republic. Hooray.
If anything's left out, it is the "not". The expression that was common until the past few years was "I couldn't care less." It has now morphed into "I could care less" which isn't that much of an issue during speech. Speech isn't expected to be grammatically correct, and we fill in words and structures right and left when listening to people speak.
In writing, however, it becomes a major distraction, as the expectation is that writing is clear and follows accepted rules. Not to mention that the original author is not there to provide answers to any questions that might be had.
As for your bolded example, you're spot on. It is grammatically incorrect, and leads to confusion. This is generally what happens when speech gets transcribed exactly into writing: it generates incoherent text.
Apparently, you're confusing sarcasm, satire, irony, clarity of speech and idioms. Quite a feat.
Regarding the fuel, there is a distinct advantage to being able to use anything that can be ionized as fuel: you can scoop up interstellar dust during your voyage and use that. Yes, it's very little, and it won't be greater than burnrate, but it's something. And the longer the voyage, the more important this will be.
Technically, that's not a grammar flame, that's a semantic flame. The sentence "I could care less" is grammatically correct - it's the content that's wrong. And for me, my biggest language pet peeve ever. I have to do mental gymnastics every time someone says it to make sure that the topic really isn't important to them, and that they didn't mean what the sentence means: that it matters an indeterminate amount.
And now, we return to your regular slashdot programming of flames, rants and internet fights.
Ditto.I think I bought my last thinkpad last year. From what I've seen, Lenovo doesn't know how to create solid laptops that have business-level specs, can take a beating, and don't have features that you will never need or use (like a fold-out screen).
I'm just wondering what would constitute an emergency that's not political suicide. 9/11-style attack? North Korea launching nukes towards Alaska? Kiddy-porn? Note that I'm not even bringing up child abuse, because apparently downloading of child pornography is much worse than the creation child pornography.
Sorry, I can't think of a reason where the free flow of information would present a risk to national security.
Nice. You mean it would be like China shutting various aspects of the Internet for National Day? I have a friend in Shanghai, and it's getting more and more complicated explaining to him why China is bad and the US is better.
The major news corporations report the news that they think will get them viewers, readers or listeners. The only possible conclusion from this is that not enough people in the US are interested in that kind of news.
Yes, and every school-yard scrap is assault and battery - even attempted murder. Sure.