Seriously, it's also like saying that "they" (whoever is a part of saying this) is the sole target of copyright infringement in any case due to the internet. In that logic we should tax everyone in the United States x amount of money just in case anybody infringes any copyright ever on anything and then pay it up equally to all copyright holders in the US. This idea just doesn't make any sense. It's not somebody's job in a capitalist society to make excuses for and to help a business model that just isn't working out and can be done in a myriad other ways.
I would agree. I think we need congressmen who are thoughtful, levelheaded and decisive when they have thought things out based on as much evidence as possible. Congressmen that have principles and a passion for public service over self-service. These people can have any professional background. What we can give them is a series of expert counsels on each topic that congress discusses. Such as a tech counsel on related questions or science on science, etc.
You mention that living organisms have changed the Earth. After Europeans began to populate the Americas, the earthworm was introduced into the environment. Supposedly that alone changed the face of the entire continent in a few hundred years.
Notice that the message spread by terrorists and the means of spreading it are often condemned by others wanting to spread a similar but more peaceful message, yet it's hard to deny who gets their message to a wider audience. Yes, they may get their message out quickly to a very wide audience, but their message is based on fear and because of that fact it will not last any longer than they can keep people's attention with their actions.
The message of peace is spread somewhat behind the scenes between one person and another. It has a more lasting effect because it involves meditation on conceptions about the world.
Well, that would be grossly different from what obviousness has meant in the past. Traditionally, an invention is obvious if any person having ordinary skill in the art (e.g. a generic electrical engineer) and a comprehensive knowledge of prior art and absolutely no imagination whatsoever, could reasonably have made the invention at that time. Does this mean that if you are a Macguyver then everything is obvious?
I was referring only to people who buy the music used not to those that resell it. The people who resell theirs have already supported the artist but the people who buy the used only . Certainly x years on down the road something may only be available in a used format and I'm not talking about this either. As you mention, movies and also games many people buy and beat in a week and then the next week they are bought used. That is usually considered by that patron as fair but they probably won't ever buy a copy that directly benefits the artist (all talk of companies compensating artists properly aside.) However, if someone downloads something, they haven't used their money yet and may choose to buy a copy supporting the artist (I'm not saying this is the best way or the most common, I just would like to hear open dialogue about the true effects of economic models and their pros and cons.)
It's really annoying when people make generalizations that sound like "either people pirate everything and buy nothing or people pirate nothing and buy everything." Theoretically, I could choose to buy nothing and consume nothing and there are many other permutations of that. Not to mention if someone infringes something, that does not preclude them from buying it later (not that it always happens that way.)
I believe that there is a difference between children born in the late 70's to the 80's and those before. The younger generations have had saturated intellectual property juggernauts shoved on them constantly. They have been told they need everything they see and they need lots of it. This isn't exactly at odds with the spirit of earlier times, but it became much more intense in recent times. People born before then have a much easier time saying "I can cut entertainment, it's not that important to me." However, modern youth have a much harder time with that. They have been told that they need and want everything. So, what do companies like Disney, Sony, MGM,etc do when they have helped create something in their own interest that goes against it?
I think the serial model might come back into play. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (and clearly, many other writers in the past) released the Sherlock Holmes novels on a part-by-part basis and we have demolished that recently. You can't infringe what doesn't exist. A new form of that is releasing the beta version of your independent game and charging a certain amount for it less than the full price but making that key work for the final version. This has worked extremely well for Mount & Blade http://www.taleworlds.net/
Just as a parting shot and a question I would like people to answer: Can someone tell me if there is any monetary difference to an artist when someone buys their intellectual property used or when they infringe it? The only real difference I can detect is that one is legal and the other isn't but both prevent the artist from receiving money.
I remember back in middle school when I was called out of the middle of class to change a computer's desktop resolution back to 640x480 or something like that because they didn't know how.
FTA: a field of 1,000 current wind turbiens takes 64,000 acres and powers 500,000 homes. A magleve wind turbine takes ~100 acres and powers 750,000. It uses neodymium rare earth magnets instead of electromagnets and, being maglev, doesn't lose power to friction.
thank you for someone coming forth and speaking out against ID being taught in science classes who also believes in old earth ID theory. At the very least, I don't understand how people seem to think that the Earth and the species on it have to be created very fast instead of slowly (compared to human life expectancy, civilization etc) If they claim to believe in a God who does as he wills then why can't God make a slow(er) universe?
ideally unions and the owners of ford shouldn't be at odds, they should be both involved in the profit margins directly and the expenses, that way they would realize when the company would be hurt by something they wanted to force on it and that they would see postive monetary results when they improve the company's standing.
I know this is a bit off topic, but your post reminded me. When did bribery turn into lobbying? As far as I am concerned that's what lobbying is, legal bribery (at least where money is involved.)
What gets me is how it seems that a feeling is always there that because someone fired a gun in the name of expelling an occupying force that the occupying force must defeat that insurgent group and prevent the members from having any role in the country's future simply because they put up armed resistance. Our country is founded on an insurgent group who took up arms, the British government moved to crush the resistance rather than negotiate and look what happened? Does Bush even think for a second how many Americans would react to a force occupying their homes even for what might be argued to be a "good" reason.
I completely agree with you. I've always felt that Games shouldn't be "How do I beat this system?" They should be "What should I do next?" In terms of thinking for many games, there are huge logical flaws in how "real world" they feel and so you have to create specialized thinking to the game itself instead of approaching things from a more free, individual way. This can be easily seen in MMORPGS where character classes are often constructed in such a way that the player must choose to fulfill a niche role with monotonous and contrived button combinations in order to play the "best" or the most optimal way to get the most mathematical success in hitpoints/damage or the like.
The idea is that in the past when population was lower, all hunter-gatherers could live in tropical areas where it didn't take much work. In today's world, hunter-gatherers do more work because the population of the Earth has increased and forced them to live in fringe environments like the arctic.
Conservatives will always say "Man, nothing stimulates the economy like a war." I'll amend that to be "Like a war that doesn't occur on your own soil." But there is a truth to that, massive government spending on goods, services and R&D will stimulate the hell out of an economy. But what if we didn't put it towards war? What if we said we're putting a WWII level of effort into developing a new green economy and fixing our infrastructure? Yeah, I always found that funny that war has intrinsically been equated with the economic boost associated with it. To me, it is in actuality an excuse that allows for the taking of a few chances. In peace time, as we have seen for many years, companies feel as though they can simply sit on their technologies as long as people are buying the old stuff. Or at the very least they feel they can marginally improve something as opposed to using true innovation in their products.
If its never been passable before why was it called a passage? The early European explorers and their governments knew the importance of being the first one to find a Northwest passage if one existed. They didn't know for sure if one did exist. It's like talking about a Western route to the Indies when there isn't a direct path from Europe.
So... what if you gave it to them without a harddrive? would that void the warranty? Would they say that the lack of a harddrive caused the crack? Would they get you to sign an affidavit saying you were still using the pre-installed system?
I don't see the point of saying "we can't do this." You don't need to write a book about the fact that it's common sense that we don't have the ability to colonize other planets yet. As we move along things will become apparent if, in fact, we get technologies that will help us in this quest. We don't have to obsess over the possibility certainly and I hope we don't (kind of like string theory is today.) Maybe if he's saying that we should n't attempt to replace conservation with colonization then I would agree with him.
Of course a grade-school age child would kill people in his school as opposed to any other place, as another poster said, it's where the stress comes from that led them to choose violence. Every school day, the choices, opinions and the things out of one's control such as one's body or family situation comes under scrutiny by peers. Children are in a much worse position to deal with this than most adults because they haven't yet learned how pointless it is to worry about other's opinions about one's self. However, that is why most of shootings by children happen in school.
Tilted Mill made Immortal Cities: Children of the Nile which is a great city-building Ancient Egypt game, I'd suggest everyone who likes building ancient or cities in general to check that one out. It had nice little features like having families who were contiguous and you could see what occupations they held over time. They also did away with that whole Caesar/Pharaoh thing of needing to place streets juuuuust right to get the maximum efficiency out of your city so one would be more able to create interesting looking cities. Besides, I always thought that was an unnecessary feature. I believe Tilted Mill also made Caesar IV which brought back that street thing and was generally a game that I did not enjoy. However, it will be interesting to see what they do.
and ironically, I personally believe that the founding father's intentions were for future citizens of the US to change the constitution to the changing needs of our nation. I think they wanted the constitution to reflect the idea that the US would be different in that it would be founded to meet the needs of the people not simply of the will of the rulers.
Slashdot Mirror
here is the link to Neil Turok's TED talk where he wishes for the next Einstein to be African. http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/232
Seriously, it's also like saying that "they" (whoever is a part of saying this) is the sole target of copyright infringement in any case due to the internet. In that logic we should tax everyone in the United States x amount of money just in case anybody infringes any copyright ever on anything and then pay it up equally to all copyright holders in the US. This idea just doesn't make any sense. It's not somebody's job in a capitalist society to make excuses for and to help a business model that just isn't working out and can be done in a myriad other ways.
I would agree. I think we need congressmen who are thoughtful, levelheaded and decisive when they have thought things out based on as much evidence as possible. Congressmen that have principles and a passion for public service over self-service. These people can have any professional background. What we can give them is a series of expert counsels on each topic that congress discusses. Such as a tech counsel on related questions or science on science, etc.
You mention that living organisms have changed the Earth. After Europeans began to populate the Americas, the earthworm was introduced into the environment. Supposedly that alone changed the face of the entire continent in a few hundred years.
but more peaceful message, yet it's hard to deny who gets their message to a wider audience. Yes, they may get their message out quickly to a very wide audience, but their message is based on fear and because of that fact it will not last any longer than they can keep people's attention with their actions.
The message of peace is spread somewhat behind the scenes between one person and another. It has a more lasting effect because it involves meditation on conceptions about the world.
Skinner hates Chomsky, Tesla hates Edison.
I was referring only to people who buy the music used not to those that resell it. The people who resell theirs have already supported the artist but the people who buy the used only . Certainly x years on down the road something may only be available in a used format and I'm not talking about this either. As you mention, movies and also games many people buy and beat in a week and then the next week they are bought used. That is usually considered by that patron as fair but they probably won't ever buy a copy that directly benefits the artist (all talk of companies compensating artists properly aside.) However, if someone downloads something, they haven't used their money yet and may choose to buy a copy supporting the artist (I'm not saying this is the best way or the most common, I just would like to hear open dialogue about the true effects of economic models and their pros and cons.)
It's really annoying when people make generalizations that sound like "either people pirate everything and buy nothing or people pirate nothing and buy everything." Theoretically, I could choose to buy nothing and consume nothing and there are many other permutations of that. Not to mention if someone infringes something, that does not preclude them from buying it later (not that it always happens that way.)
I believe that there is a difference between children born in the late 70's to the 80's and those before. The younger generations have had saturated intellectual property juggernauts shoved on them constantly. They have been told they need everything they see and they need lots of it. This isn't exactly at odds with the spirit of earlier times, but it became much more intense in recent times. People born before then have a much easier time saying "I can cut entertainment, it's not that important to me." However, modern youth have a much harder time with that. They have been told that they need and want everything. So, what do companies like Disney, Sony, MGM,etc do when they have helped create something in their own interest that goes against it?
I think the serial model might come back into play. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (and clearly, many other writers in the past) released the Sherlock Holmes novels on a part-by-part basis and we have demolished that recently. You can't infringe what doesn't exist. A new form of that is releasing the beta version of your independent game and charging a certain amount for it less than the full price but making that key work for the final version. This has worked extremely well for Mount & Blade http://www.taleworlds.net/
Just as a parting shot and a question I would like people to answer: Can someone tell me if there is any monetary difference to an artist when someone buys their intellectual property used or when they infringe it? The only real difference I can detect is that one is legal and the other isn't but both prevent the artist from receiving money.
I remember back in middle school when I was called out of the middle of class to change a computer's desktop resolution back to 640x480 or something like that because they didn't know how.
...why not make some maglev wind turbines?
http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-wind-turbines-1000x-more-effiencient-than-normal-windmill/
FTA: a field of 1,000 current wind turbiens takes 64,000 acres and powers 500,000 homes. A magleve wind turbine takes ~100 acres and powers 750,000. It uses neodymium rare earth magnets instead of electromagnets and, being maglev, doesn't lose power to friction.
thank you for someone coming forth and speaking out against ID being taught in science classes who also believes in old earth ID theory. At the very least, I don't understand how people seem to think that the Earth and the species on it have to be created very fast instead of slowly (compared to human life expectancy, civilization etc) If they claim to believe in a God who does as he wills then why can't God make a slow(er) universe?
ideally unions and the owners of ford shouldn't be at odds, they should be both involved in the profit margins directly and the expenses, that way they would realize when the company would be hurt by something they wanted to force on it and that they would see postive monetary results when they improve the company's standing.
I know this is a bit off topic, but your post reminded me. When did bribery turn into lobbying? As far as I am concerned that's what lobbying is, legal bribery (at least where money is involved.)
What gets me is how it seems that a feeling is always there that because someone fired a gun in the name of expelling an occupying force that the occupying force must defeat that insurgent group and prevent the members from having any role in the country's future simply because they put up armed resistance. Our country is founded on an insurgent group who took up arms, the British government moved to crush the resistance rather than negotiate and look what happened? Does Bush even think for a second how many Americans would react to a force occupying their homes even for what might be argued to be a "good" reason.
I completely agree with you. I've always felt that Games shouldn't be "How do I beat this system?" They should be "What should I do next?" In terms of thinking for many games, there are huge logical flaws in how "real world" they feel and so you have to create specialized thinking to the game itself instead of approaching things from a more free, individual way. This can be easily seen in MMORPGS where character classes are often constructed in such a way that the player must choose to fulfill a niche role with monotonous and contrived button combinations in order to play the "best" or the most optimal way to get the most mathematical success in hitpoints/damage or the like.
The idea is that in the past when population was lower, all hunter-gatherers could live in tropical areas where it didn't take much work. In today's world, hunter-gatherers do more work because the population of the Earth has increased and forced them to live in fringe environments like the arctic.
So... what if you gave it to them without a harddrive? would that void the warranty? Would they say that the lack of a harddrive caused the crack? Would they get you to sign an affidavit saying you were still using the pre-installed system?
I don't see the point of saying "we can't do this." You don't need to write a book about the fact that it's common sense that we don't have the ability to colonize other planets yet. As we move along things will become apparent if, in fact, we get technologies that will help us in this quest. We don't have to obsess over the possibility certainly and I hope we don't (kind of like string theory is today.) Maybe if he's saying that we should n't attempt to replace conservation with colonization then I would agree with him.
What about hands free?
Of course a grade-school age child would kill people in his school as opposed to any other place, as another poster said, it's where the stress comes from that led them to choose violence. Every school day, the choices, opinions and the things out of one's control such as one's body or family situation comes under scrutiny by peers. Children are in a much worse position to deal with this than most adults because they haven't yet learned how pointless it is to worry about other's opinions about one's self. However, that is why most of shootings by children happen in school.
Tilted Mill made Immortal Cities: Children of the Nile which is a great city-building Ancient Egypt game, I'd suggest everyone who likes building ancient or cities in general to check that one out. It had nice little features like having families who were contiguous and you could see what occupations they held over time. They also did away with that whole Caesar/Pharaoh thing of needing to place streets juuuuust right to get the maximum efficiency out of your city so one would be more able to create interesting looking cities. Besides, I always thought that was an unnecessary feature. I believe Tilted Mill also made Caesar IV which brought back that street thing and was generally a game that I did not enjoy. However, it will be interesting to see what they do.
and ironically, I personally believe that the founding father's intentions were for future citizens of the US to change the constitution to the changing needs of our nation. I think they wanted the constitution to reflect the idea that the US would be different in that it would be founded to meet the needs of the people not simply of the will of the rulers.