Saying that big record labels give artists a lousy deal is not a justification for Apple to want artists to give their work away for free to advertise Apple's music service.
Free trial periods are fairly common and standard though; not just for internet services but in everything from telecoms to consumer products ("If you're not completely satisfied in 30-days return it for a full refund") to drug dealers.
So, does Apple's free trial period have a "if you're not satisfied, return all the music you got for free without paying the artists" clause?
Ah, the classic blunder of confusing physical goods with intellectual property. You can wave a magic wand to get a house cleaned. Someone is running a service where a significant portion of users sign up to pay you some change for each cleaning after a 3 month free trial. Is it really a bad deal, even if it did take you a lot of time to make your magic wand?
No.
in your metaphor, you're starting a housecleaning service, and you hire other people to clean houses. And your business model is that you don't pay these other people because you're giving your customers a three month free trial of your housecleaning service.
The people you hire should be happy! They're helping you set up your business!
Of course, once your business is set up the people who got your music for free won't buy your music (because they just got it for free) but, hey, recognition! That's just like money, almost.
Start a job. You won't get paid for the first month if you're on a monthly salary.
But you do get paid. They don't say "work for us for three month for free, then if we decide keep you on, we will start paying you."
Apple isn't saying "we'll pay you in three months". They're saying "in order to promote our brand, you won't get paid at all for the stuff of yours we sell.
but wanting to get paid for work you didn't do (make the copy) is also extraordinary.
It is anonymous coward assholes like you, who think that art, and writing, and music-- in short, creative endeavours in general-- is not work, and shouldn't need to be paid for, who are the problem, not the solution.
Yes, I am aware that it is now possible to copy stuff for almost no money.
"Shoulder the cost of three months of not being paid" ??? This is a brand new service, a brand-new revenue stream. It costs her, or any of the other "less fortunate" artists, not a single dime.
Say, I want you to come clean my house. Oh, and cut the grass, too. Don't worry, it won't cost you a single dime-- I'll provide the cleaning supplies and even buy the gas for your lawnmower.
Of course, I'm asking you to give your work away for free, but, hey, it "won't cost you a single dime."
I'll give you recognition! In fact, I'll tell lots of other people you will work for them for free, too!
I don't know about her music, but as of now, I say, horray for Taylor Swift. Apple's business plan is "to get customers for OUR new business, we will give away YOUR music for free!" Yeah. So, basically, Apple is saying that they, the world's most profitable company, require individual artists to DONATE THEIR WORK FOR FREE... to get Apple's business started. And they're calculating that individual artists don't have any leverage, there's nothing they can do about it. So, it's nice to see a singer whose work is selling millions of copies per month standing up to them. Horray for her.
Can we please get a medium.com tag so I can filter out this garbage. I don't want to read any "science" blog from an "author" who doesn't even know what chaotic means.
The use of the word "chaotic" is accurate here.
The inaccurate word used in the summary (not the article) was "orbit". It is the rotation that is chaotic, not the orbit.
Nevertheless, the science is pretty interesting. Sorry you don't want to hear about it.
What is this another case of beat up random people that you can because you can't get the ones you want ? http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de... There you go, as of 2011 China is at 27% of the emissions and still growing in both percentage and absolute amount. Maybe these people need to disinvest in China and stop buying Chinese products ? Or maybe they just have some sort of a grudge they are pursuing by other means.
(I will point out that this large number is only because China has such a large population. In terms of emission per person, USA beats them hands down)
Can't do that. China is, at this point, decades ahead of the US in renewable energy tech. There's no way we can address climate change in any reasonable timeframe without using Chinese products, at least in the near term. I don't know if China's huge investment in renewable tech is related to the fact that they don't have a Chamber of Commerce over there, I'll leave that for you to consider.
That is why climate change is a wicked hard problem: you can't solve it on your own-- it has to be a collaborative solution involving multiple countries.
And that, in turn, is why some people would rather deny that the problem exists rather than find a way to solve it: they have an ideology that says the US should never work in collaboration with other nations, not ever, not for any purpose. They don't have any mechanism in their ideology to solve the problem, so the only choice is to deny it exists.
Actively avoiding scientific data like that from the Magellan project?
?
Two of the top ten hits suggests that this refers to a spacecraft that orbited Venus, so I assume that this is some reference to the Venus greenhouse effect?
That's a great link, AC... but it says the opposite of what you said it does. It does not at any point say Obama is doing this-- in fact, the one "sock puppet army" that it says it has unmasked is actually against Obama.
From page 4 of the article you reference, referring to what that article calls a "sock puppet army" and the article here calls "professional internet trolls": "These accounts had consistent multi-faceted views: They were generally pro-Palestine and anti-Israel; they wrote “We (USA)” to present themselves as Western; were against Syria and US President Barrack Obama, and attempted to project themselves as pro-Islam with derogatory comments against Christianity. “Who is this sock puppet army? It’s difficult to speculate"
It's amusing that in the comments on this article about pro-Russia propaganda-trolls, most of the comments are by the very pro-Russia propaganda trolls that the article exposes, belittling the article and blaming the west
Second, you do know that the rare earth elements are not actually "rare," right? They are roughly the same abundance as copper.
There's no such thing as lithium ore.
Sure there are. "Ore" is just a word meaning "a mineral deposit containing a desired substance in economically recoverable concentrations." Lithium ores are typically lithium-containing phyllosilicate minerals, often in the form of evaporite deposits.
You strip mine millions of tons, process it and get a few tons in return.
"If you could, either relativity is wrong, or you can use this to make a time machine to access the past."
Well, relativity is most certainly 'wrong', in the sense that there is more to the universe that it does not cover.
Saying "there are things it doesn't cover" is not the same as saying "it's wrong."
Of course, that's not really wrong, any more than Newton was wrong. Newton was not attempting to model relativistic effects, and Einstein was not attempting to model string theory. And luckily, we are not made out of light, so the speed of light has little to do with
The phrase "speed of light" is historical usage. An equally accurate phrase would be the universal conversion factor from units of space (meters) to units of time (seconds). It doesn't apply just to light, it is a universal constant that applies to pretty much everything in the universe, not just light. Most particularly, it applies to gravity.
a machine designed to alter a local region's gravitational constant,
If you alter the gravitational potential, the gravitational time dilation will mean that external observers will observe your speed of light as having changed. If you're in a gravity well, your clocks have slowed down, so it looks (from the outside) as if light has slowed down. But, inside the region of altered gravitational potential, if you measure the speed of light, it's still moving at the speed of light. You can't travel faster than the speed of light where you are.
that can travel at arbitrary speeds relative to the destination because it carries it's own engine with it. Relativity does not forbid a starship.
If you could travel at arbitrary speed (in any direction, in any reference frame), relativity says you could make a time machine. Space is time. If you can travel faster than the speed of light you can travel backwards or forward in time.
But none of that would ever allow you to travel back in time. That would be akin to traveling in a negative direction.
Right. If you can travel faster than the speed of light, but only one direction, then you can't make a time machine.
Nothing can go as fast as light. Slower or faster, sure, but not c.
Light goes as fast as light.
More specifically, you can't send MATTER, ENERGY, or INFORMATION faster than the speed of light IN VACUUM.
The fact that there are "things" that travel faster than light (such as phase velocities) is well known; in these neither the matter nor the energy travels faster than light, and they don't carry information.
If you could, either relativity is wrong, or you can use this to make a time machine to access the past.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying that big record labels give artists a lousy deal is not a justification for Apple to want artists to give their work away for free to advertise Apple's music service.
Free trial periods are fairly common and standard though; not just for internet services but in everything from telecoms to consumer products ("If you're not completely satisfied in 30-days return it for a full refund") to drug dealers.
So, does Apple's free trial period have a "if you're not satisfied, return all the music you got for free without paying the artists" clause?
Ah, the classic blunder of confusing physical goods with intellectual property. You can wave a magic wand to get a house cleaned. Someone is running a service where a significant portion of users sign up to pay you some change for each cleaning after a 3 month free trial. Is it really a bad deal, even if it did take you a lot of time to make your magic wand?
No.
in your metaphor, you're starting a housecleaning service, and you hire other people to clean houses. And your business model is that you don't pay these other people because you're giving your customers a three month free trial of your housecleaning service.
The people you hire should be happy! They're helping you set up your business!
Of course, once your business is set up the people who got your music for free won't buy your music (because they just got it for free) but, hey, recognition! That's just like money, almost.
Isn't it?
Start a job. You won't get paid for the first month if you're on a monthly salary.
But you do get paid. They don't say "work for us for three month for free, then if we decide keep you on, we will start paying you."
Apple isn't saying "we'll pay you in three months". They're saying "in order to promote our brand, you won't get paid at all for the stuff of yours we sell.
but wanting to get paid for work you didn't do (make the copy) is also extraordinary.
It is anonymous coward assholes like you, who think that art, and writing, and music-- in short, creative endeavours in general-- is not work, and shouldn't need to be paid for, who are the problem, not the solution.
Yes, I am aware that it is now possible to copy stuff for almost no money.
"Shoulder the cost of three months of not being paid" ??? This is a brand new service, a brand-new revenue stream. It costs her, or any of the other "less fortunate" artists, not a single dime.
Say, I want you to come clean my house. Oh, and cut the grass, too. Don't worry, it won't cost you a single dime-- I'll provide the cleaning supplies and even buy the gas for your lawnmower.
Of course, I'm asking you to give your work away for free, but, hey, it "won't cost you a single dime."
I'll give you recognition! In fact, I'll tell lots of other people you will work for them for free, too!
I don't know about her music, but as of now, I say, horray for Taylor Swift.
Apple's business plan is "to get customers for OUR new business, we will give away YOUR music for free!"
Yeah. So, basically, Apple is saying that they, the world's most profitable company, require individual artists to DONATE THEIR WORK FOR FREE... to get Apple's business started.
And they're calculating that individual artists don't have any leverage, there's nothing they can do about it.
So, it's nice to see a singer whose work is selling millions of copies per month standing up to them.
Horray for her.
My point is that the statement "carbon dioxide is the most important gas on the planet, without it there would be no plants" misses the point.
carbon dioxide is the most important gas on the planet, without it there would be no plants.
And water is the most important liquid on the planet, without it there would be no plants or animals. But that doesn't mean too much won't drown you.
Quoting Paracelsus, "dosis facit venenum" ("The dose makes the poison.")
Well, if he had been an actual Nazi stormtrooper, that's kind of frightening. Except that he would have to be pretty old by now.
A guy in a costume from a 1977 movie, though....
Because a "chaotic" or "unpredictable" orbit is a practical impossibility
To the contrary, it is likely that all orbits in systems with more than two bodies are chaotic. That includes our solar system.
Fortunately for us, the time scale for unpredictability for the solar system is many billions of years.
and is not what we found.
Well, that part was correct. What was found was that the rotations were chaotic. The orbits seem to be regular.
Aren't "cycling" and "chaotic" mutually exclusive?
No. Chaotic systems cycle-- look up, say "strange attractor". Or even google "cycle AND chaos theory."
What makes it chaotic is that the phase of the cycling is predictable in the short term, unpredictable in the long term.
Can we please get a medium.com tag so I can filter out this garbage. I don't want to read any "science" blog from an "author" who doesn't even know what chaotic means.
The use of the word "chaotic" is accurate here.
The inaccurate word used in the summary (not the article) was "orbit". It is the rotation that is chaotic, not the orbit.
Nevertheless, the science is pretty interesting. Sorry you don't want to hear about it.
What is this another case of beat up random people that you can because you can't get the ones you want ? http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de... There you go, as of 2011 China is at 27% of the emissions and still growing in both percentage and absolute amount. Maybe these people need to disinvest in China and stop buying Chinese products ? Or maybe they just have some sort of a grudge they are pursuing by other means.
(I will point out that this large number is only because China has such a large population. In terms of emission per person, USA beats them hands down)
Can't do that. China is, at this point, decades ahead of the US in renewable energy tech. There's no way we can address climate change in any reasonable timeframe without using Chinese products, at least in the near term. I don't know if China's huge investment in renewable tech is related to the fact that they don't have a Chamber of Commerce over there, I'll leave that for you to consider.
That is why climate change is a wicked hard problem: you can't solve it on your own-- it has to be a collaborative solution involving multiple countries.
And that, in turn, is why some people would rather deny that the problem exists rather than find a way to solve it: they have an ideology that says the US should never work in collaboration with other nations, not ever, not for any purpose. They don't have any mechanism in their ideology to solve the problem, so the only choice is to deny it exists.
Actively avoiding scientific data like that from the Magellan project?
?
Two of the top ten hits suggests that this refers to a spacecraft that orbited Venus, so I assume that this is some reference to the Venus greenhouse effect?
https://www.google.com/search?...
They're typically defining "poverty" as less than 1/2 the median income.
Citation needed.
These sources don't define it that way:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www...
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www...
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15...
So, the CEO's side of the story is that it's all somebody else's fault.
OK, that's not surprising. That's one side of the story. And, the other side says?
...while Obama (and everyone else) are doing the same shit.
That's a great link, AC... but it says the opposite of what you said it does. It does not at any point say Obama is doing this-- in fact, the one "sock puppet army" that it says it has unmasked is actually against Obama.
From page 4 of the article you reference, referring to what that article calls a "sock puppet army" and the article here calls "professional internet trolls":
"These accounts had consistent multi-faceted views: They were generally pro-Palestine and anti-Israel; they wrote “We (USA)” to present themselves as Western; were against Syria and US President Barrack Obama, and attempted to project themselves as pro-Islam with derogatory comments against Christianity.
“Who is this sock puppet army? It’s difficult to speculate"
Right, I was referring to the article referenced, not the slashdot thread.
It's amusing that in the comments on this article about pro-Russia propaganda-trolls, most of the comments are by the very pro-Russia propaganda trolls that the article exposes, belittling the article and blaming the west
You're aware that lithium is a rare earth element, right?
First, lithium is not a rare earth element.
http://www.rareelementresource...
Second, you do know that the rare earth elements are not actually "rare," right? They are roughly the same abundance as copper.
There's no such thing as lithium ore.
Sure there are. "Ore" is just a word meaning "a mineral deposit containing a desired substance in economically recoverable concentrations." Lithium ores are typically lithium-containing phyllosilicate minerals, often in the form of evaporite deposits.
You strip mine millions of tons, process it and get a few tons in return.
"If you could, either relativity is wrong, or you can use this to make a time machine to access the past."
Well, relativity is most certainly 'wrong', in the sense that there is more to the universe that it does not cover.
Saying "there are things it doesn't cover" is not the same as saying "it's wrong."
Of course, that's not really wrong, any more than Newton was wrong. Newton was not attempting to model relativistic effects, and Einstein was not attempting to model string theory. And luckily, we are not made out of light, so the speed of light has little to do with
The phrase "speed of light" is historical usage. An equally accurate phrase would be the universal conversion factor from units of space (meters) to units of time (seconds). It doesn't apply just to light, it is a universal constant that applies to pretty much everything in the universe, not just light. Most particularly, it applies to gravity.
a machine designed to alter a local region's gravitational constant,
If you alter the gravitational potential, the gravitational time dilation will mean that external observers will observe your speed of light as having changed. If you're in a gravity well, your clocks have slowed down, so it looks (from the outside) as if light has slowed down. But, inside the region of altered gravitational potential, if you measure the speed of light, it's still moving at the speed of light. You can't travel faster than the speed of light where you are.
that can travel at arbitrary speeds relative to the destination because it carries it's own engine with it. Relativity does not forbid a starship.
If you could travel at arbitrary speed (in any direction, in any reference frame), relativity says you could make a time machine. Space is time. If you can travel faster than the speed of light you can travel backwards or forward in time.
But none of that would ever allow you to travel back in time. That would be akin to traveling in a negative direction.
Right. If you can travel faster than the speed of light, but only one direction, then you can't make a time machine.
Lithium is relatively rare compared to, say, silicon in the Earth's crust, but we're not going to run out.
What you mean to say it, we need to develop better techniques to refine lithium out of lower-grade ores.
This is strange. "20 to 40% power loss" seems to be an awfully poor inverter; existing inverters are 4-8 % loss.
Rather than rewire every house in America, wouldn't it make more sense to just design better inverters?
Nothing can go as fast as light. Slower or faster, sure, but not c.
Light goes as fast as light.
More specifically, you can't send MATTER, ENERGY, or INFORMATION faster than the speed of light IN VACUUM.
The fact that there are "things" that travel faster than light (such as phase velocities) is well known; in these neither the matter nor the energy travels faster than light, and they don't carry information.
If you could, either relativity is wrong, or you can use this to make a time machine to access the past.
And, how does this all relate to the much-feared, much-publicized "global warming".
Short answer: it isn't. They are unrelated phenomena.
I must note that the hottest decade on record was the same decade in which the ozone layer was most depleted.
Factually incorrect.