This is what I'm worried about. If no one can make money creating [music/art/fill in your favorite easily-replicatable thing], no one will do it anymore. Then where will we be?
Strongly disagree. People payed for scarcity, not the music.
Let me try to understand you correctly. Intellectual property[1] is not scarce - it is 100% copyable, for free, by anyone with access to a single instance of the IP. If people are only paying for scarcity, and IP is not scarce, you have just claimed that the IP is worthless. I couldn't disagree with that more. I believe IP is still valuable, in spite of its complete and utter non-scarcity. IOW, I pay for the music because the music itself has value. Maybe I'm also paying for big media to find the "next big thing", the studio equipment, the production, the marketing, etc., but I'm paying for the music too.
People payed for personal, live performances and still do because they are scarce. People buy original canvas paintings (as opposed to reproductions) for the same reason.
These things aren't IP precisely because they are not perfectly reproducible. Instead of a canvas painting, we should talk about photographs, especially digital photographs. They certainly aren't scarce - anyone can buy a camera and take them, and photographs are really easy to copy, especially if they are digital. But the good ones have value despite their lack of scarcity - maybe they capture a cool-looking scene, a mood, a rare event, etc. Are those worthless? Maybe it's just a matter of personal opinion at this point.
Making money as an artist is great if you can do it, but there is no necessary relation.
100% agreed. But I think the good artists are worth paying for, and that's why I support the notion that some people can and should make careers out of their art - and be able to be compensated for it. If people find that they cannot make careers out of art because the general public finds their creations worthless, we might lose out on good art.
[1] Let's not get caught up in the semantics of the word "property". "Intellectual property" is the generally-accepted term for the things and concepts we're discussing.
People do *not* have a right to be compensated. Let's say I go out into a field (designated as a public resource) and dig a hole. A really big hole. I work 10 hours a day in the blazing sun and now there is a hole big enough for 2 or 3 olympic sized swimming pools. I've put a *lot* of work into that hole. Who is going to pay me? Probably nobody, because nobody wants that hole. Just because you work hard on something doesn't mean it has value.
I don't think the OP's point was that hard work or time create value. The point was that people should be compensated for creating something which other people find valuable. Obviously digging a hole in the middle of a public field for no reason has no value.
I don't think there is an appropriate tangible, physical analogy for valuable intellectual property, which is why it's such a big f'ing problem. The best I can come up with is, you dig a hole and put in a swimming pool using your own materials and tools, but as soon as it's finished, every neighbor on your street starts using it immediately for free. You personally aren't deprived of its use, but your neighbors haven't compensated you for the value you created by digging the hole.
There was never an "industry" for things like books and recorded music for most of history, yet music and writing have existed for thousands of years. Cavemen painted on the walls of their caves. Nobody paid them, but it was still done.
The only reason there is an industry for non-tangible goods like recorded music and art is because someone is willing to exchange money/goods/services for them! The instant that happened - the instant the music or art was found to be as valuable as some amount of money or some good or some service - an industry developed. Why wasn't there an industry for caveman paintings? I don't really know, maybe there was. But if there wasn't, it's probably because those paintings were not found to be valuable enough to warrant an exchange of other goods or services. Said caveman painter needed a "day job" to support himself and did his paintings in his spare time.
Do you think it's a good idea for creators of intellectual property - not just music and art, but things like software, science, mathematics, etc. - to need a "day job" to support themselves while they do their IP creating in their spare time? Do you really think science and engineering would have gotten to where they have with people taking an hour or two per day to work on their projects, while most of their time is spent harvesting crops?
Frankly, I think music in general would be a lot better if there weren't a bunch of corporations making widgets out of it. Agreed. But I think music would be worse if it weren't possible for anyone to devote a significant amount of time to their instrument/music/composing with no possibility of compensation - not because they have failed to create value, but simply because people can get the valuable intellectual property for free by copying it.
Re:Does it do inline asm yet?
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
LLVM has supported inline asm since release 1.7, and the support has steadily been getting better at each release, with major improvements in 1.8 and 1.9.
The only problem with the x86 inline asm support in 2.2 is the lack of support for the x87 floating point stack in the inline asm register constraints. See "Known Problems" in the 2.2 release notes.
I know somethingawful.com does not count as scientific research, but this is exactly what Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka (founder of somethingawful.com) said in his speech at UIUC back in 05. The talk was meant to be humorous, but there's a lot of truth in it as well. A video of the speech is here:
You've got to be kidding. Were you around in 1999-2001? People in college dorms would fire up Napster, download music as crappy 128kbps MP3s - you know, where high-frequency stuff like cymbals and hi-hats sound like hissing snakes - and blast the music at parties and in the common areas. No one bought a single CD.
That's correct; time spent commuting can't be used for much else, at least much else very often. When I read, watch movies, use computers, or think about anything of any importance, I do NOT want to do so:
on a moving vehicle that starts and stops every minute or so
in a place that lets in hot and/or cold outside air every couple of minutes
in a place that has other people
in a place that has people moving around, talking
in a place with loud engine noise
in any sort of place where I cannot lay out on a full-size sofa or sit in a full-size desk chair
Public transportation can be useful, but it's not a substitute for my non-moving, climate-controlled, private, quiet, spacious living room/workstation/office.
Sigh. I would have thought my quip about memes would have tipped off the mods and potential repliers. My original post was a reference to this post, which itself was a refernce to this joke, both of which are meant to be funny, not serious.
The majority of college students[1] don't live in dorms which are on the university's network
I'd bet that the vast majority of college students who don't live in dorms still have broadband internet access via Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, local ISPs, whoever. I certainly did when I lived off-campus during college.
[1] http://www.alternet.org/rights/70021/ - tracing this quote back a couple of articles: "since less than 20 percent of college students live on campus and use the residence hall networks, this means that less than 4 percent of the infringers are using campus networks, and they are responsible for less than 9 percent of the losses. Over 91 percent of the claimed losses are on commercial networks."
that Intel's Core 2 also had a problem with the TLB when first released, although that problem manifested itself as data corruption instead of a lockup. Here are the twoarticles from The Inquirer about it - the second one especially. And note that this document was released after Intel had shipped the buggy Core 2's.
However, Intel was able to fix it without incurring a large performance loss. It's a shame for AMD that they weren't able to do the same.
I disagree, this is only true if you concede that records are practical to sell.
The ideal of capitalism is that you can sell anything which has value. Music has value, and people have been selling it successfully for years. I disagree with anyone who advocates obtaining something of value without paying for it. Doing so is contrary to all the principles of capitalism, and aligns much more closely with communism. Maybe that's where we're headed, but that's a much longer discussion.
Back to today and reality. The reality of capitalism is what you said, which I quoted. If something has value, but is impossible to sell for profit, pretty soon no one will be able to sell it. I think eventually that means the death of music as we know it. Maybe new systems for directly supporting the artist will come about. That would be awesome, but I haven't seen any viable ones yet. Radiohead's experiment doesn't count for reasons outlined in other posts. Maybe most slashdotters would welcome the death of pop music and rock stars as we know it, but (call me whatever names you like), I enjoy a lot of pop and rock music. I think it would be sad for it to die.
Seriously. There is a story about this on Slashdot at least every other day with no actual new legal/economic/industry developments, resulting in the exact same comments and arguments rehashed. Yes, I know I can just ignore it. Yes, I must be new here. But what's wrong with some constructive criticism of Slashdot?
FWIW I think the only way we'll see the stories disappear is if we stop reading and commenting on them (which means/. loses ad revenue and will stop posting them).
To preface my thoughts: your response was probably the most thoughtful and well-reasoned I've gotten since I have been posting anti-piracy messages on Slashdot. You make quite a few good points that I agree with. Here are my rebuttals:
Don't forget that the media market has not been a level playing field for a very long time. Britney Spears didn't become popular because the marketplace heard her and said "hey, we like that, give us more."
Maybe Britney didn't become popular of her own merits, and maybe Big Media had been using her as a cash cow (no insult to Britney intended) for a long time. But I'm willing to bet that however crappy her music is/was, it was among the most pirated music on the internet. To me, that is the market saying, "hey, we like that, give us more."
Piracy is one of the few powers that individuals have over the big corporations, and frankly, I can't blame people for seizing the opportunity and using it to the hilt.
Maybe. It's also possible that people are using the "big corporations are corrupt" excuse to download their favorite songs for free, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted. From my experience in college (which was 2000-2004, so admittedly over 3 years ago at the earliest), my scenario was definitely the case.
And to those of you who have made their living in music and are now complaining that you can't make that living anymore-- I have only one thing to say-- GET A JOB LIKE THE REST OF US, BUM!
I'd want to say that to a great majority of artists nowadays. But if artists can't support themselves via music in the future (which is where I think we're headed if things continue at their present course), I think we'd miss out on some good music. Maybe you and many others would disagree.
The fact that something is illegal doesn't make it wrong, and that seems to be the crux of your argument.
A personal belief that piracy is okay (and thus not paying for something someone else has created) is the crux of your argument. I disagree with that, I think it is wrong. Given that, every other argument you make is pretty much immaterial.
I agree with your first two points. I disagree with the last one.
Legalising drugs would give children easier access to drugs...Destroying the black market and replacing it with a legal and regulated market would prevent this. Ever seen 15 year old kids drinking their parents' beer in a park, or smoking, or hanging around outside the local liquor store giving people $20 to buy them alcohol? It would definitely happen with other drugs. And what regulations would you propose that wouldn't be tantamount to making the drugs illegal?
In my experience, the only thing vaguely resembling sluggish is the nominally slower load.
That's what the OP meant by "sluggish". Nominally slower to you is sluggish to him. Anecdotally, I agree with the OP - the slower load time makes the entire thing seem sluggish.
That you paid a ridiculous amount of money for
The point is that he and his company has already have it. Switching away from it once they already have it doesn't save them money. Go on, give me the whole locked-in-for-upgrades schpiel. He and his company can re-evaluate their costs and needs when the time comes to upgrade.
or stole.
Why are you making accusatory assumptions like this, and why is it relevant?
Or, maybe you should consider for a moment that I'm the boss.
If you were the boss, you would have mandated ODF already, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Good, and with similar forethought, let's increase the fine for speeding to $250,000.
I'm not sure why you are talking about increasing anything. The fines for both speeding and copyright infringement are publicly available and have been for as long as I can remember. I might be willing to risk $200-$300 for speeding. I'm not willing to risk $250-$10,000 per song for sharing illegally on Kazaa.
You imply you want to reduce the fine for copyright infringement because "the punishment doesn't fit the crime". What evidence do you have to support this claim, other than anecdotal or "common sense"? Can you cite a study which has quantified the monetary loss due to massive copyright infringement on networks such as Kazaa?
Maybe. But I'm not going to leave my financial future up to a judge or jury's definition of "reasonable". Everyone else on/. can go ahead and do whatever they want; I'm going to avoid the issue entirely by not illegally sharing files.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what I'm worried about. If no one can make money creating [music/art/fill in your favorite easily-replicatable thing], no one will do it anymore. Then where will we be?
Let me try to understand you correctly. Intellectual property[1] is not scarce - it is 100% copyable, for free, by anyone with access to a single instance of the IP. If people are only paying for scarcity, and IP is not scarce, you have just claimed that the IP is worthless. I couldn't disagree with that more. I believe IP is still valuable, in spite of its complete and utter non-scarcity. IOW, I pay for the music because the music itself has value. Maybe I'm also paying for big media to find the "next big thing", the studio equipment, the production, the marketing, etc., but I'm paying for the music too.
People payed for personal, live performances and still do because they are scarce. People buy original canvas paintings (as opposed to reproductions) for the same reason.These things aren't IP precisely because they are not perfectly reproducible. Instead of a canvas painting, we should talk about photographs, especially digital photographs. They certainly aren't scarce - anyone can buy a camera and take them, and photographs are really easy to copy, especially if they are digital. But the good ones have value despite their lack of scarcity - maybe they capture a cool-looking scene, a mood, a rare event, etc. Are those worthless? Maybe it's just a matter of personal opinion at this point.
Making money as an artist is great if you can do it, but there is no necessary relation.100% agreed. But I think the good artists are worth paying for, and that's why I support the notion that some people can and should make careers out of their art - and be able to be compensated for it. If people find that they cannot make careers out of art because the general public finds their creations worthless, we might lose out on good art.
[1] Let's not get caught up in the semantics of the word "property". "Intellectual property" is the generally-accepted term for the things and concepts we're discussing.
I don't think the OP's point was that hard work or time create value. The point was that people should be compensated for creating something which other people find valuable. Obviously digging a hole in the middle of a public field for no reason has no value.
I don't think there is an appropriate tangible, physical analogy for valuable intellectual property, which is why it's such a big f'ing problem. The best I can come up with is, you dig a hole and put in a swimming pool using your own materials and tools, but as soon as it's finished, every neighbor on your street starts using it immediately for free. You personally aren't deprived of its use, but your neighbors haven't compensated you for the value you created by digging the hole.
There was never an "industry" for things like books and recorded music for most of history, yet music and writing have existed for thousands of years. Cavemen painted on the walls of their caves. Nobody paid them, but it was still done.The only reason there is an industry for non-tangible goods like recorded music and art is because someone is willing to exchange money/goods/services for them! The instant that happened - the instant the music or art was found to be as valuable as some amount of money or some good or some service - an industry developed. Why wasn't there an industry for caveman paintings? I don't really know, maybe there was. But if there wasn't, it's probably because those paintings were not found to be valuable enough to warrant an exchange of other goods or services. Said caveman painter needed a "day job" to support himself and did his paintings in his spare time.
Do you think it's a good idea for creators of intellectual property - not just music and art, but things like software, science, mathematics, etc. - to need a "day job" to support themselves while they do their IP creating in their spare time? Do you really think science and engineering would have gotten to where they have with people taking an hour or two per day to work on their projects, while most of their time is spent harvesting crops?
Frankly, I think music in general would be a lot better if there weren't a bunch of corporations making widgets out of it. Agreed. But I think music would be worse if it weren't possible for anyone to devote a significant amount of time to their instrument/music/composing with no possibility of compensation - not because they have failed to create value, but simply because people can get the valuable intellectual property for free by copying it.LLVM has supported inline asm since release 1.7, and the support has steadily been getting better at each release, with major improvements in 1.8 and 1.9.
http://llvm.org/releases/1.7/docs/ReleaseNotes.html
http://llvm.org/releases/
The only problem with the x86 inline asm support in 2.2 is the lack of support for the x87 floating point stack in the inline asm register constraints. See "Known Problems" in the 2.2 release notes.
I know somethingawful.com does not count as scientific research, but this is exactly what Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka (founder of somethingawful.com) said in his speech at UIUC back in 05. The talk was meant to be humorous, but there's a lot of truth in it as well. A video of the speech is here:
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/comedy-goldmine/lowtax-speaks-at.php
There is no transcript that I'm aware of, and I don't know the timestamp where he makes that point, but it's in there.
11?
Some analysts say "looming recession", people think "Oh noes" and stop buying stuff/investing => recession.
You've got to be kidding. Were you around in 1999-2001? People in college dorms would fire up Napster, download music as crappy 128kbps MP3s - you know, where high-frequency stuff like cymbals and hi-hats sound like hissing snakes - and blast the music at parties and in the common areas. No one bought a single CD.
- on a moving vehicle that starts and stops every minute or so
- in a place that lets in hot and/or cold outside air every couple of minutes
- in a place that has other people
- in a place that has people moving around, talking
- in a place with loud engine noise
- in any sort of place where I cannot lay out on a full-size sofa or sit in a full-size desk chair
Public transportation can be useful, but it's not a substitute for my non-moving, climate-controlled, private, quiet, spacious living room/workstation/office.Sigh. I would have thought my quip about memes would have tipped off the mods and potential repliers. My original post was a reference to this post, which itself was a refernce to this joke, both of which are meant to be funny, not serious.
(*) It will be fought by entrenched fishing interests
(FWIW it is my firm belief that this phrase should become the next Slashdot meme.)
(*) It will be fought by entrenched fishing interests
It will be fought by entrenched fishing interests
Who wants to try to make this phrase the next Slashdot meme? I do.
I'd bet that the vast majority of college students who don't live in dorms still have broadband internet access via Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, local ISPs, whoever. I certainly did when I lived off-campus during college.
[1] http://www.alternet.org/rights/70021/ - tracing this quote back a couple of articles: "since less than 20 percent of college students live on campus and use the residence hall networks, this means that less than 4 percent of the infringers are using campus networks, and they are responsible for less than 9 percent of the losses. Over 91 percent of the claimed losses are on commercial networks."that Intel's Core 2 also had a problem with the TLB when first released, although that problem manifested itself as data corruption instead of a lockup. Here are the two articles from The Inquirer about it - the second one especially. And note that this document was released after Intel had shipped the buggy Core 2's.
However, Intel was able to fix it without incurring a large performance loss. It's a shame for AMD that they weren't able to do the same.
The ideal of capitalism is that you can sell anything which has value. Music has value, and people have been selling it successfully for years. I disagree with anyone who advocates obtaining something of value without paying for it. Doing so is contrary to all the principles of capitalism, and aligns much more closely with communism. Maybe that's where we're headed, but that's a much longer discussion.
Back to today and reality. The reality of capitalism is what you said, which I quoted. If something has value, but is impossible to sell for profit, pretty soon no one will be able to sell it. I think eventually that means the death of music as we know it. Maybe new systems for directly supporting the artist will come about. That would be awesome, but I haven't seen any viable ones yet. Radiohead's experiment doesn't count for reasons outlined in other posts. Maybe most slashdotters would welcome the death of pop music and rock stars as we know it, but (call me whatever names you like), I enjoy a lot of pop and rock music. I think it would be sad for it to die.
Yeah, yeah. Well played. I knew someone was going to say that as soon as I posted.
Seriously. There is a story about this on Slashdot at least every other day with no actual new legal/economic/industry developments, resulting in the exact same comments and arguments rehashed. Yes, I know I can just ignore it. Yes, I must be new here. But what's wrong with some constructive criticism of Slashdot?
FWIW I think the only way we'll see the stories disappear is if we stop reading and commenting on them (which means /. loses ad revenue and will stop posting them).
Maybe Britney didn't become popular of her own merits, and maybe Big Media had been using her as a cash cow (no insult to Britney intended) for a long time. But I'm willing to bet that however crappy her music is/was, it was among the most pirated music on the internet. To me, that is the market saying, "hey, we like that, give us more."
Piracy is one of the few powers that individuals have over the big corporations, and frankly, I can't blame people for seizing the opportunity and using it to the hilt.Maybe. It's also possible that people are using the "big corporations are corrupt" excuse to download their favorite songs for free, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted. From my experience in college (which was 2000-2004, so admittedly over 3 years ago at the earliest), my scenario was definitely the case.
And to those of you who have made their living in music and are now complaining that you can't make that living anymore-- I have only one thing to say-- GET A JOB LIKE THE REST OF US, BUM!I'd want to say that to a great majority of artists nowadays. But if artists can't support themselves via music in the future (which is where I think we're headed if things continue at their present course), I think we'd miss out on some good music. Maybe you and many others would disagree.
A personal belief that piracy is okay (and thus not paying for something someone else has created) is the crux of your argument. I disagree with that, I think it is wrong. Given that, every other argument you make is pretty much immaterial.
That's what the OP meant by "sluggish". Nominally slower to you is sluggish to him. Anecdotally, I agree with the OP - the slower load time makes the entire thing seem sluggish.
That you paid a ridiculous amount of money forThe point is that he and his company has already have it. Switching away from it once they already have it doesn't save them money. Go on, give me the whole locked-in-for-upgrades schpiel. He and his company can re-evaluate their costs and needs when the time comes to upgrade.
or stole.Why are you making accusatory assumptions like this, and why is it relevant?
Or, maybe you should consider for a moment that I'm the boss.If you were the boss, you would have mandated ODF already, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I'm not sure why you are talking about increasing anything. The fines for both speeding and copyright infringement are publicly available and have been for as long as I can remember. I might be willing to risk $200-$300 for speeding. I'm not willing to risk $250-$10,000 per song for sharing illegally on Kazaa.
You imply you want to reduce the fine for copyright infringement because "the punishment doesn't fit the crime". What evidence do you have to support this claim, other than anecdotal or "common sense"? Can you cite a study which has quantified the monetary loss due to massive copyright infringement on networks such as Kazaa?
Maybe. But I'm not going to leave my financial future up to a judge or jury's definition of "reasonable". Everyone else on /. can go ahead and do whatever they want; I'm going to avoid the issue entirely by not illegally sharing files.
The obvious conclusion is that if you want to avoid bankruptcy, don't illegally share songs on Kazaa. I don't see what's so hard about that.