How do you propose to separate creation with packaging/distribution in a digital world? In other words, how do you propose that artists are compensated fairly, yet price digital copies of works taking into account that, since there are in effect infinity copies of that work, the price per copy rapidly approaches zero?
The iPod is the first MP3 player that everyone mentions, because it was the first non-shitty MP3 player on the market. Before then, most MP3 players had tiny amounts of storage, and were a bitch to use. Apple came along and made the MP3 player simple to use.
Possibly. Remember that there are lots of really good Open Source games (Dwarf Fortress, for one). Also remember that the whole of the game doesn't have to be open source for it to contribute to the community. id Software has open sourced almost all of its game engines. The community then took those, and improved upon them.
Programming LAN parties would be cool. I've heard of a few code-a-thons or code jams held by places like Facebook and such, but never around where I am:(
Small Corporation: This closed source software has a bug.
Big Corporation: Yes, we know.
Small Corporation: Could you please fix it?
Big Corporation: Oh, its already been fixed. You just need to buy the new version.
Or you could say that here's a great OS that is free, and does just about everything you would do with a computer (for people who mainly surf the web, email, store pictures, play music, and type documents). Plus, you can choose from a couple different desktop setups. You don't even have to mention Windows.
Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good thing. If management is enforcing use of tools over recommendations from the people who actually know what they're doing, then your office probably has a lot of other things wrong with it. The person that is actually doing the job should have the biggest say in what tool is used.
If your guy using Emacs has to open up another shell window to grep through header files, then he doesn't know his tools very well. Now, he could simply be new to Emacs, but just about all programmers editors have this functionality built in.
What you're really getting at is that a person is more productive if they know their tools, not just which tools they know. If someone is a Vim wizard, and has been using it for 20 years, don't you think he'd be faster in Vim than if you plopped him down in front of VS? Or Eclipse?
He would have to do it using his own funds, instead of the company's funds, for one. And he would be speaking on his behalf, not claiming to speak on behalf of everyone who works or invests in that company.
Nice site, but it doesn't help those of us that have pre-existing conditions. Currently it says that plans start at $50/month, but I wonder what that'll shoot up to once they get wind of my disorder.
The court can only decide the Constitutionality of a law if the question has been posed to it. It can't just hold a press conference on Thursday saying, "These following laws are now found to be unconstitutional," and that be it. So stop saying they're not doing the job properly.
I think a better way to go about your goal is, instead of having the State Legislatures attempt to rule whether something is Constitutional or not, have it set up so that citizens and State Legislatures can hold conventions in their States calling the question of whether a law is Constitutional or not. After a sufficient number of state conventions have asked the question (probably about half the Union, like you had), the Supreme Court is then charged with deciding the Constitutionality of the law.
This is the best of both worlds: The original Separation of Powers is still respected (the Legislative Branch isn't deciding judiciary matters), and it should be possible for concerned citizens to bring the measure before the Court without having had felt the adverse effects of the law to start (i.e. You don't need to have had the DMCA used against you before you can challenge its validity). I still see a problem in how it would proceed once it got to the SCOTUS, however. Who would perform the arguments on either side? Would the Justice dept be obligated to defend the law? Or should the head sponsor of the bill argue in favor? Who would be the person arguing against?
In order for the Supreme Court to nullify a law, the case has to be brought before them by someone adversely affected by it first. They can't just say, "We don't think this law is Constitutional" whenever legislation is passed. The question has to be posed to them first.
Depends on how its brought. In most countries, copyright violation is treated as a civil matter, and so the 3-strikes penalty would be a civil punishment.
So rather than be taxed a little more to help make sure that everyone has care, you'd rather pay a lot more for procedures to cover those who simply can't afford it. Makes perfect sense.
You say you would do that, but once you got into office, would you follow through? And that's not really something you can answer right now (unless you actually are in higher office). Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. But it does rock absolutely, too.
Here's a question though, for the second part of your comment. You say that you would clarify that US Single Payer would only apply to lawful residents. What about tourists? And how would a tourist go about proving they were here legally? And would the ER still be bound by law (not to mention the physician's ethics) to treat everyone who walked through the door?
Except 1): Many big ISPs already have sweetheart deals with Congress, and 2): Even if they don't, many of them simply don't have any competition, therefore no reason to increase service and lower prices.
From what I heard, they specifically said they wouldn't deploy DOCSIS 3.0 unless they could do metered billing, which nobody wants. So much for "market forces" forcing companies to deliver what their customers want.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to point out where Apple has rejected stuff on OS X? Cause your shitty joke doesn't work then.
How do you propose to separate creation with packaging/distribution in a digital world? In other words, how do you propose that artists are compensated fairly, yet price digital copies of works taking into account that, since there are in effect infinity copies of that work, the price per copy rapidly approaches zero?
The iPod is the first MP3 player that everyone mentions, because it was the first non-shitty MP3 player on the market. Before then, most MP3 players had tiny amounts of storage, and were a bitch to use. Apple came along and made the MP3 player simple to use.
For most, non-audiophile people, 256kbps AAC is "good enough". And it is damn good, anyway.
AAC was created by Dolby. But that's right, it only plays on Apple Devices.
I'm just gonna leave this here.
The developer fees for the iPhone aren't ~$2000 more than Android, which is about the difference they've spent on dev hardware.
Possibly. Remember that there are lots of really good Open Source games (Dwarf Fortress, for one). Also remember that the whole of the game doesn't have to be open source for it to contribute to the community. id Software has open sourced almost all of its game engines. The community then took those, and improved upon them.
Programming LAN parties would be cool. I've heard of a few code-a-thons or code jams held by places like Facebook and such, but never around where I am :(
Small Corporation: This closed source software has a bug. Big Corporation: Yes, we know. Small Corporation: Could you please fix it? Big Corporation: Oh, its already been fixed. You just need to buy the new version.
Or you could say that here's a great OS that is free, and does just about everything you would do with a computer (for people who mainly surf the web, email, store pictures, play music, and type documents). Plus, you can choose from a couple different desktop setups. You don't even have to mention Windows.
Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good thing. If management is enforcing use of tools over recommendations from the people who actually know what they're doing, then your office probably has a lot of other things wrong with it. The person that is actually doing the job should have the biggest say in what tool is used.
If your guy using Emacs has to open up another shell window to grep through header files, then he doesn't know his tools very well. Now, he could simply be new to Emacs, but just about all programmers editors have this functionality built in.
What you're really getting at is that a person is more productive if they know their tools, not just which tools they know. If someone is a Vim wizard, and has been using it for 20 years, don't you think he'd be faster in Vim than if you plopped him down in front of VS? Or Eclipse?
He would have to do it using his own funds, instead of the company's funds, for one. And he would be speaking on his behalf, not claiming to speak on behalf of everyone who works or invests in that company.
Nice site, but it doesn't help those of us that have pre-existing conditions. Currently it says that plans start at $50/month, but I wonder what that'll shoot up to once they get wind of my disorder.
The court can only decide the Constitutionality of a law if the question has been posed to it. It can't just hold a press conference on Thursday saying, "These following laws are now found to be unconstitutional," and that be it. So stop saying they're not doing the job properly.
I think a better way to go about your goal is, instead of having the State Legislatures attempt to rule whether something is Constitutional or not, have it set up so that citizens and State Legislatures can hold conventions in their States calling the question of whether a law is Constitutional or not. After a sufficient number of state conventions have asked the question (probably about half the Union, like you had), the Supreme Court is then charged with deciding the Constitutionality of the law.
This is the best of both worlds: The original Separation of Powers is still respected (the Legislative Branch isn't deciding judiciary matters), and it should be possible for concerned citizens to bring the measure before the Court without having had felt the adverse effects of the law to start (i.e. You don't need to have had the DMCA used against you before you can challenge its validity). I still see a problem in how it would proceed once it got to the SCOTUS, however. Who would perform the arguments on either side? Would the Justice dept be obligated to defend the law? Or should the head sponsor of the bill argue in favor? Who would be the person arguing against?
In order for the Supreme Court to nullify a law, the case has to be brought before them by someone adversely affected by it first. They can't just say, "We don't think this law is Constitutional" whenever legislation is passed. The question has to be posed to them first.
Depends on how its brought. In most countries, copyright violation is treated as a civil matter, and so the 3-strikes penalty would be a civil punishment.
So rather than be taxed a little more to help make sure that everyone has care, you'd rather pay a lot more for procedures to cover those who simply can't afford it. Makes perfect sense.
You say you would do that, but once you got into office, would you follow through? And that's not really something you can answer right now (unless you actually are in higher office). Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. But it does rock absolutely, too.
Here's a question though, for the second part of your comment. You say that you would clarify that US Single Payer would only apply to lawful residents. What about tourists? And how would a tourist go about proving they were here legally? And would the ER still be bound by law (not to mention the physician's ethics) to treat everyone who walked through the door?
I'm doing my part to combat this. I'm one of those "cheaper young 'uns", and I typically don't stay past 5:30, unless its really, really needed.
They don't even have to go that far; they just have to lay the fiber and lease it out to anyone who wants to offer services.
So why aren't our urban centers filled with Japan level broadband? Cities like LA and NYC are definitely dense enough to where they could handle it.
Except 1): Many big ISPs already have sweetheart deals with Congress, and 2): Even if they don't, many of them simply don't have any competition, therefore no reason to increase service and lower prices.
From what I heard, they specifically said they wouldn't deploy DOCSIS 3.0 unless they could do metered billing, which nobody wants. So much for "market forces" forcing companies to deliver what their customers want.