Just keep on going in this direction, increase the bubble/metal ratio and soon we'll have transparent aluminium which looks like air, feels like air, and has the structural strength of air! Think of all the applications!!!
So long as they also learn how to dig wells (not as common knowledge as you'd think in certain parts of the world) it's worth the adverts. Would you rather die of thirst or see an AOL popup?
Hmm, ok, maybe the example is badly chosen, but you know what I mean...;-)
But it's mine. Why can't I sell/assign/give away the rights if I want to?
It's only yours until the instant you share it with someone else. As long as it's still in your head (or hidden in a cupboard somewhere), it's yours. Once you share it with someone else, it's theirs too. And then if it's shared with everyone in the entire world, then it's everyone's.
Copyright is just an artificial limitation on this fundamental concept. It has no basis in any fundamental ideas - only the sophisticated idea of rewarding people for sharing quality stuff with everyone to encourage them to share more.
It is *definitely* not about helping huge corporations make a buck.
Excellent, excellent. The man was clearly a visionary. Pretty taoistic argument, too - remove the laws about (IP) theft, and everyone will be acting according to what they think is right and looking down on people who steal; make laws about it, and everyone will be taking advantage of them to steal more! In this case, the 'everyone' is the big record companies, who are ripping off the artists (and trying to rip off everyone else too, but they're going to find that a bit hard to manage methinks).
Do what you need to achieve your goals. If you goal is to work at the same job forever, stick to your contract. If your goal is to get promoted, out-perform your requirements.
Your contract only states what the job requires of you. If you stick to your contract, you're performing according to expectation. You'll probably get a 3% raise to cover inflation, and that's it. Soon you'll have that young new guy who joined ten years after you as your boss because he exceeded requirements rather than just met them.
It's tit for tat. Just think of what you're trying to achieve.
Yes, and requiring people to arrive not even one minute late when they routinely work unpaid overtime is great company policy to improve employee morale, productivity and general performance.
Having that sort of requirement seems to imply that your company considers its employees to be little more than robots. That's fine if you work at the local McDonald's, but for an IT firm that's unforgiveable.
I think you're incorrect. The only people doing anything wrong are the RIAA. The limited copyright protection - in fact the whole concept of such a right to prevent unlicensed copy - is as a result of OUR willingness to give up part of our innate rights to make it easier for artists to make a living. We've given up the innate right to freely share ideas and other abstract thoughts.
We have given up this right to encourage more quality being released into the intellectual commons (which is the only type of "intellectual property" which exists originally). Are we getting quality from that tradeoff these days? No we're not. We're getting loads of crap, we're being asked to pay outrageous prices for it, the whole thing's being shoved in our faces as if we were criminals, and we're even getting sued!!!
The right of free speech is fundamental. The right to be heard is not - don't equate it to the right not to be silenced. The right to listen to a tune and sing it back to someone else, the right to hear an idea and repeat it to someone else - that is very fundamental, however.
Daniel
Re:Birds of a feather
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They steal outright from musicians, in the form of low royalties or in the form of music copyrights.
Which the artists willingly agree to. If you agree to give me your money, how is it theft? The artists know what they are getting into, and yet they still sign the contracts.
That is only part of the story. The musicians have little choice about it, seeing as the big labels have a practical monopoly on distributing music - hell, they own most of the small labels too...
They steal outright from consumers, in the form of exorbitant prices for albums that are mediocre at best.
Which, once again, the consumers agree to pay. If the prices were so incredibly exorbitant, then consumers would not buy the CDs. Music is not a necessity, people can live without it.
Yes and no, again. The consumers have no choice to go and buy xyz CD from another label who doesn't charge exhorbitant prices. If they did, maybe they wouldn't be downloading so many songs off the internet... fyi I don't buy CDs (haven't bought one for about 4-5 years). Saying that music is not a necessity is irrelevant. Who gave the record companies the right to decide who can listen to what? WE did. And we can take it back. And we are taking it back. And they can sue all they want, that's the way it is and they'd better get on with it.
Did you read the second page of the article? It mentions how some media company executive got a report from Forrester Research by copying it from some other studio. Forrester Research sells the report for a good healthy 800 bucks. If that's not profit deprivation, I don't know what is.
Depends how intelligent you think he is. As people often see themselves in others, the fact that you considered both possibilities says plenty about you...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
So how is it that so many programs (written in C++ - winblows is C++ I believe) still are chock full of buffer overflows?
Daniel
That's what I'm doing right now, for a project several orders of magnitudes larger than projects which php could not handle in the long run.
Daniel
Hibernate.
Daniel
Spoken like someone who's never had to maintain a large PHP project...
Daniel
Don't forget his collection of used condoms.
It's in a big box under his bed.
Daniel
Soon, you'll get a ticket for picking your nose in front of a traffic camera.
Daniel
5 steps is too complex for most slashdotters...
Daniel
Well understood and well-disseminated in first-world countries, but don't make assumptions about the rest of the world.
Daniel
Posting it on slashdot. I hear lots of people read that site.
Daniel
All we need now is weather people to predict when the next hurricane is going to hit our servers...
Daniel
Just keep on going in this direction, increase the bubble/metal ratio and soon we'll have transparent aluminium which looks like air, feels like air, and has the structural strength of air! Think of all the applications!!!
Daniel
So long as they also learn how to dig wells (not as common knowledge as you'd think in certain parts of the world) it's worth the adverts. Would you rather die of thirst or see an AOL popup?
;-)
Hmm, ok, maybe the example is badly chosen, but you know what I mean...
Daniel
But it's mine. Why can't I sell/assign/give away the rights if I want to?
It's only yours until the instant you share it with someone else. As long as it's still in your head (or hidden in a cupboard somewhere), it's yours. Once you share it with someone else, it's theirs too. And then if it's shared with everyone in the entire world, then it's everyone's.
Copyright is just an artificial limitation on this fundamental concept. It has no basis in any fundamental ideas - only the sophisticated idea of rewarding people for sharing quality stuff with everyone to encourage them to share more.
It is *definitely* not about helping huge corporations make a buck.
Daniel
I think quite possibly what he meant is that they can use the computers to learn about ways of improving their farming, to learn to dig wells, etc.
Knowledge is power, as they say...
Daniel
Sounds like an accounting nightmare...
Daniel
Excellent, excellent. The man was clearly a visionary. Pretty taoistic argument, too - remove the laws about (IP) theft, and everyone will be acting according to what they think is right and looking down on people who steal; make laws about it, and everyone will be taking advantage of them to steal more! In this case, the 'everyone' is the big record companies, who are ripping off the artists (and trying to rip off everyone else too, but they're going to find that a bit hard to manage methinks).
Daniel
Bullshit to you.
Do what you need to achieve your goals. If you goal is to work at the same job forever, stick to your contract. If your goal is to get promoted, out-perform your requirements.
Your contract only states what the job requires of you. If you stick to your contract, you're performing according to expectation. You'll probably get a 3% raise to cover inflation, and that's it. Soon you'll have that young new guy who joined ten years after you as your boss because he exceeded requirements rather than just met them.
It's tit for tat. Just think of what you're trying to achieve.
Daniel
Yeah, that's the way forward to get great references too. You're bound to find another job when they phone up your previous employer...
Daniel
Yes, and requiring people to arrive not even one minute late when they routinely work unpaid overtime is great company policy to improve employee morale, productivity and general performance.
Having that sort of requirement seems to imply that your company considers its employees to be little more than robots. That's fine if you work at the local McDonald's, but for an IT firm that's unforgiveable.
Daniel
More important crucial question:
are you working in some sort of slave labor camp?
No, this is not normal. Get away from that company as fast as you can. Soon they'll be requiring you to ask the line manager for toilet breaks.
Daniel
That's actually a good question. Anyone know which reaction is being used there? Surely not the pp chain?
Daniel
I think you're incorrect. The only people doing anything wrong are the RIAA. The limited copyright protection - in fact the whole concept of such a right to prevent unlicensed copy - is as a result of OUR willingness to give up part of our innate rights to make it easier for artists to make a living. We've given up the innate right to freely share ideas and other abstract thoughts.
We have given up this right to encourage more quality being released into the intellectual commons (which is the only type of "intellectual property" which exists originally). Are we getting quality from that tradeoff these days? No we're not. We're getting loads of crap, we're being asked to pay outrageous prices for it, the whole thing's being shoved in our faces as if we were criminals, and we're even getting sued!!!
The right of free speech is fundamental. The right to be heard is not - don't equate it to the right not to be silenced. The right to listen to a tune and sing it back to someone else, the right to hear an idea and repeat it to someone else - that is very fundamental, however.
Daniel
They steal outright from musicians, in the form of low royalties or in the form of music copyrights.
Which the artists willingly agree to. If you agree to give me your money, how is it theft? The artists know what they are getting into, and yet they still sign the contracts.
That is only part of the story. The musicians have little choice about it, seeing as the big labels have a practical monopoly on distributing music - hell, they own most of the small labels too...
They steal outright from consumers, in the form of exorbitant prices for albums that are mediocre at best.
Which, once again, the consumers agree to pay. If the prices were so incredibly exorbitant, then consumers would not buy the CDs. Music is not a necessity, people can live without it.
Yes and no, again. The consumers have no choice to go and buy xyz CD from another label who doesn't charge exhorbitant prices. If they did, maybe they wouldn't be downloading so many songs off the internet... fyi I don't buy CDs (haven't bought one for about 4-5 years). Saying that music is not a necessity is irrelevant. Who gave the record companies the right to decide who can listen to what? WE did. And we can take it back. And we are taking it back. And they can sue all they want, that's the way it is and they'd better get on with it.
Daniel
Did you read the second page of the article? It mentions how some media company executive got a report from Forrester Research by copying it from some other studio. Forrester Research sells the report for a good healthy 800 bucks. If that's not profit deprivation, I don't know what is.
Daniel
Depends how intelligent you think he is. As people often see themselves in others, the fact that you considered both possibilities says plenty about you... ;-)
Daniel