This is slashdot. It leans far left and toward science and aways away from Microsoft, MPAA/RIAA, and SCO.
Poppycock. Mod me off topic if you will, but there are plenty of libertarian oriented views on Slashdot, and that generally is considered leaning to the right.
Recording your own music video to a popular tune and for non-commercial use should be considered fair use. I agree.
It's unlikely that you are competing with any official distribution of the song or its derivative products. So long, of course, as you aren't posting it for all the world on a content sharing or social networking site. See there's the rub. If someone puts the original recording of, say, an OK Go song on their video and shows it to their friends when they come over, that's fine. If they post it on YouTube for all the world to see, people who want to hear the song can now just go to YouTube and hear the full quality song.
Which of course raises the question...why didn't the record companies find a way to preempt this a few years back by coming up with a legal income stream for doing just that. Instead of lobbying lawmakers to press in legistation to sue everyone over "improperly distributed music", why not just change the rules so that if you post what is ostensibly a full quality version of the song, you are also required to prominently provide a link to the artists / label's homepage, or a valid store where the song / album / original DVD can be purchased?
Perfect idea? Maybe not. But the RIAA and co. need to start thinking about diversifying...that or just dying off and letting the new paradigm decide how we'll do things in the future. Either way.
On Sept 10, 2001, nobody had flown commercial airliners into the WTC or the Pentagon yet, either. "It hasn't happened yet" is a damned weak argument. Liberty or security?
Do we risk excessive rules and regulations over things that have not occurred yet or are unlikely to occur simply because they could occur? Or do we govern lightly, potentially exposing those risks, but allowing latitude to the common citizen to get on with their lives without excessive intervention?
I would personally prefer to err on the side of liberty on this one, but it's a question worth asking. "It hasn't happened yet" is not necessarily any weaker of an argument than "one day it could happen." The nuclear plant could meltdown. The asteroid could hit the earth. You could die driving to work in your automobile. The check could get lost in the mail.
I support some caution, but where do we draw the line?
I actually have some minor hearing loss in one of my ears and I can hear the difference between MP3s and lossless formats. I've done blind tests with friends, and they can hear the difference as well. For a lot of people it may not matter as they get enough of the song information to satisfy them, but it does matter to some of us.
To be fair, though, the way a lot of modern music is produced it's harder and harder to tell the difference. Of course, it's my opinion that modern production is just getting worse. I will admit to being shocked when U2's "How To Dismantle and Atomic Bomb" sounded better on MP3 than off the CD (quality of the songs themselves aside.)
Microsoft will drive Vista through you skull just like they did with Windows 2000 and Windows XP. It may take 3 years to get it through your thick skulls that Vista is your future but you will eventually get it. Yeah, and Windows ME! They really got us with that one!
What could possibly give them reason to not force Vista on its customers being in the position they are in? I think in terms of market share and influence, Microsoft may be in it's weakest position in years. They are still a powerful, profitable company, but they've lost a lot of their clout. As MS gaffs, Apple continues to influence the marketplace and various Linux distributions are becoming more and more ubiquitous. Probably neither of them will be the "market leader" without radical shifts in strategy, but it's not necessary for either of them to be the market leader...I think Microsoft knows they are losing market share to the alternatives, and that people are on to them and turned off by their "shove it down their throats" mentality. They are facing difficult times as the dominant force in the industry...just look at how desperate they are to acquire Yahoo...further indication of Google's own growing power and influence over the web.
Markets change (cough, cough, record industry), and Microsoft, a lumbering giant with it's operating procedure set well in place, is learning that it has little choice but to adapt if they are going to survive as the market leader...or at all.
because of ReactOS. The minute XP dies ReactOS gets a boost.
I'm all for ReactOS, but I don't think they will present a credible threat to Microsoft without gaining a significant boost in support...logistically, financially and promotionally.
OK, I've read that quote (from the summary) over a few times and I have not a single clue what Ballmer is trying to say. Would someone please translate that in to something resembling a sentence for me? "I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said"
I don't know if I'd call Ballmer a fanboy. He is the CEO after all, and he would certainly know how bad Vista is. If anyone has the right to throw a chair at MS, it's him.
There. Fixed that for ya. I sure couldn't do that to a MS product.
Linux -- at its core is a commercial product. Some of the biggest contributors are commercial entities like IBM, Red Hat, Novell, etc. Check out who makes contributions to the kernel sometime.
It just happens to be a non-proprietary commercial product. Humbug. Major commercial entities may all have a stake in Linux, but it is still a community effort...it's just that a large block of that community are corporate interests. In many cases companies that actually care about real innovation and end user satisfaction as much as profits. This does not detract from the fact that there is community involvement, and that there are still many non-corporate contributors to the construction, maintenance and promotion / distribution of the OS.
Linux is still a work in progress, if it wasn't there would be no more kernel updates.
When *isn't* something that is still "alive" and used a work in progress? Heck if you shouldn't release work in progress goggle wouldn't have any apps; and putting daily builds/feature based check ins on sourceforge wouldn't happen either. 100% Accurate.
Of course, I suppose this is a bad time to mention that Linux and Google don't charge end users for their "works in progress"...
In 1918 the USSR was the size of Belgium, including only the Moscow and St. Petersburg area. The whole Siberia and Far East of Russia were occupied by the USA, Canada and Japan. South, Ukraine, was hold by France, etc. Still somehow they manged to fight out these powers and unite the country. Perhaps (being an American) I'm guilty of ignorance here, but could you point me to some historical sources indicating that the USSR was the size of Belgium in 1918? I'm more curious than anything...I presume that was the division of the country most strongly held by the Bolsheviks? Also, I've never heard of U.S. / Canadian occupation of Siberia and the far east (I presume you're refering to present day Alaska - also, I know Japan and Russia had some longstanding territorial disputes and conflicts in that region.) I'm not challenging your statement (unless it's incorrect)...I simply don't know much about that region of the world during that time period.
f all they're doing is spreading out the payment over 3-4 years, with a small premium thrown in, that's not such a bad deal. I'd happily pay a $25-50 premium on software like Office in order to receive constant updates. So if what they want is $115 annually instead of 300 at once, that's fine by me. These products don't usually have more than a 3-4 year life-cycle anyway, and this way instead of being stuck with a single version, you get something which improves over time. Until they change the terms, or significantly alter the software, or start making other software dependent on that software. This is about MS lock in disguised as a "better way of doing things." Better for Microsoft, sure, but not for the end user. That's why they ran Netscape out of town. That's why they pushed and shoved their way onto every manufacturer's computers. That's why they've had such a heavy hand influencing the hardware market to make sure things would work on Windows until Windows became the standard. They are very clever business people over at MS, but they only care about the customer's view of the product enough to hook em and reel em in. Since all the major software companies followed right along, I have little choice but to use Windows or the more expensive OS X (hardware included.)
But if you take off your microsoft-bashing hat for a second, this isn't as stupid as it looks. I would but ever since they got to me I can't seem to get the damn thing off my head...
Not only do you have to go to the mfg website to get the drivers but FIRST you have to have a second computer to download the damn network drivers on. Then you have to figure out some way to sneaker net the things onto XP. That was of course, after you opened up your machine to figure out what NIC you have and what brand and model your mother board is. XP is a brain dead POS at installing drivers automagicaly. Beg to differ. I had completely the opposite scenario with my wireless cards in my two machines. Granted, an older version of Ubuntu didn't see them, but the latest one did and installed them "automagically". When I installed Windows (dual boot) on the same machines, I had to plug in an ethernet cable to go find drivers. I don't remember which chipset they used, but they were both NetGear cards.
In fairness, I had to do a little configuration scripting for my PCMCIA card on my laptop in Linux...but XP still had no idea what to do with it (Hawking Wireless card or something like that.)
I'm not saying there aren't problems installing some drivers in Linux sometimes...on some machines, there certainly are...but I have to say that though XP probably has a more stable track record on that front, it is far from flawless.
Average users don't buy or install OS's ! In fact they can't keep straight disk size versus DRAM size.
In fact - if normal folks did install OS's we would already be using Linux because 95% of the time a modern Linux distro will load all the typical drivers for you. XP is so fucking brain-dead you have to go to the computers manufacturers web site to get the damn drivers and install them manually.
Wait, wait, wait!
First, I completely agree that the average user (assuming that means grandma, or those that use their computers for little more than basic games and internet surfing) doesn't know the difference disk space and DRAM size. But I do have issue with the initial statement, and the earlier poster's assessment:
Normal people don't install operating systems, they buy a machine in a box at the computer shop.
While its true that most people who buy computers get an OS in the box as it were, it raises the question: who is Microsoft selling boxed copies of its software to? Medium to large businesses are better off with volume licenses, and computer manufactuers and distributors are better off going OEM. So the boxed stuff must be targeted at someone (along with the prime time ads that Microsoft runs to market them.)
Of course, I'm running with a little conjecture here because a) I'm assuming Microsoft has made decent money off of retail versions of their OS and b) it's difficult to find actual sales figures or number of units sold (if anyone can cite a source, I'd be interested to know.)
I also think there's a reason that Windows is easy to install. If it was all OEM's and power users, I'd think the install process might be a little friendlier toward them.
All that said, I prefer Linux. I just have a three main gripes, and if I had the time to become a better programmer I could probably better contribute to fixing those gripes. The first is games, which is getting better, but not quite up to where the "average user" can just "install", click and go (and I'm talking about most of the more popular MMOs, shooters, sims and strategy games here -- I know what available in the repositories...and kudos to Eve Online for building a Linux client.) The second is drivers. I'm pretty impressed with Ubuntu, as it does manage to find and deal with most of my hardware effectively. If the hardware manufacturers would get on the ball and keep up, that would go a long way to solving those ills.
I can probably forgive those first two (as there are some pretty fun Linux games, and the driver issue isn't really Linux's fault, nor limited to Linux...Vista's recent video card issues, for example), but the final one is the reason I don't use Linux as my dominant OS right now. I'm an audio guy, and I need solid, reliable audio software (and for the hardware to work with it) without me having to tweak things or learn the intricacies of "JACK"...I'd also like my audio software to not crash periodically at inopportune times (Ardour, I'm talking to you.) Many professionals can insert there own type of software for "audio software" above, and I think we find one of the problems Linux is facing. Let's face it. For grandma, once it's set up and someone's shown her how to use it, it's no different than doing the same thing with Windows. E-mail, photos, genealogical research, maybe a game of yahtzee, chess or solitaire. Most of us, however, use their computers for more and more nowadays, and in a rapidly evolving economy, our professional work really comes to the forefront. Audio work, video work, image manipulation, financial tools...
I'm not saying there isn't software out there that can do these things, but I am saying that working professionals find that for one reason or another (stability and usability in my case...and believe me, I learn to use new audio software all the time, so it's not unwillingness to learn new things) these products don't compete with many of the Windows or Mac offerings. And that's a shame. Cuz
Essentially, the reason that a small satellite drastically increases the odds that the asteroid will hit us on a second path is the same reason that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Florida. And yet that deterministic statement fails to take into account all the other effects individual effects that could take place in such a scenario. Does it matter where the satellite hits the asteroid? How about if the asteroid hits two satellites? Are there other small chunks of rock floating out that could hit the asteroid and cause even further deflection? It's all well and good to talk about it, and even to make some serious inquiry in the event of actual danger, but this whole piece sounds a bit ridiculous (Little Milton, indeed!) "Because NASA/JPL/ESA/(insert organization here) wants to cover up their mistakes is a ridiculous reason to not find a more definitive, peer reviewed analysis of the situation.
Besides which, I for one have better things to do than hang around contemplating and asteroid that may or may not hit when I'm in my 60s. Or maybe not. I am on Slashdot, after all.
First they tell me California is doomed by the 2030s, and now they tell me probably the whole world is too...SHEESH.
* Waste that is toxic for hundreds of thousands of years
If you reprocess it and burn the actinides it is 300 years for uranium ore levels of radioactivity. Besides, many chemicals we tolerate in other energy systems ( such as photovoltaics ) are toxic indefinitely ( Lithium, Arsenide, Gallium ). If you can tolerate photovoltaics or the molten salts used in solar thermal plants, then nuclear waste is not a problem. Well, the article is discussing solar thermal, so I'll stick to that. How does the waste cycle of molten salts in a solar thermal plant relate to the minimum 300 year life cycle of nuclear waste (the effects of which,if I understand correctly, can only be contained by a sufficient density of material.)
I also think that might qualify as argument by fear.
* NIMBY (not in my back yard)
This is a problem with all energy generation and not specific to nuclear. It applies just as well to windmills and solar as it does to nuclear plants. Furthermore this is a legislative problem, not a technical one. I personally have no qualms about having a solar or wind farm in my backyard (I'd quite welcome the notion), but have known people who think it "doesn't look nice." I don't think most of these people have a very clear grasp of the energy situation on our planet right now...nor a very keen sense of asthetics, in my opnion.
I won't argue your other points though, because I think they're right. I will add that power plant accidents in general seem to be rare, as is sabotage of power plants and infrastructure (though this being slashdot, I may be proven wrong in a post or two.)
I'm sorry, but I just can't buy into the argument that $1 per-track is too expensive or that CDs in general are overpriced. Not when video games are $60 each. Starbucks charges more than $1.50 for a plain cup of coffee.
At the Ralphs Grocery Store down the street (they are an average, Kroger owned supermarket), the generic loaf of white bread cost $2.00.
At the pump, regular unleaded gasoline was $3.69 a gallon two days ago.
Mass Market Paperback books range from $5.99 to $9.99.
New Release DVDs have been between $2.00 to $6.00 for several years now...to RENT
At this point, you can have most songs a la carte, without the baggage of songs you dislike. If we can open up more avenues for new music to be heard without buying it, then we can buy what we like with confidence.
I have to agree with the parent. A dollar for a song (especially a DRM free song) that we are going to listen to over and over again is very reasonable considering the amount of work that often goes into creating and producing a song. Perhaps the production chain is not as massive as many video games have become, but I dare say in most cases the replay value is higher.
And just in case anyone suggests that all those items mentioned above are physical objects and thus have more value than the ethereal song, consider any time you may have spent working in retail, or a service industry, where you produced nothing of "value." We don't consider that work worthless in our society.
Rabid liberal, moderate liberal, and liberal moderator who explains the "conservative" position. The rabid liberal makes inane points that are whatever the current comic book left talking points are, the moderate liberal explains a rational but left of center position, and the moderator describes the conservative position but only in the most half-baked and ignorant terms "as she understands them". You mean those guys from the Cato Institute, the Project for the New American Century and the Foreign Policy Research institute are all liberals? I'm sure they'll be happy to know, now, where they stand.
Again, rights don't stop being rights just because they can be misused. I can use my right to free speech to ruin another person's career, but that doesn't mean free speech is bad. Similarly, I can use my right to drive on the highway (conferred upon me by my driver's license) to run down a pedestrian, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give a driver's license to anyone. You can use that free speech right to a point, but if you are uttering slander or libel, I think lines get drawn regarding the legality of it (at least as a civil matter.) That said, IANAL...
As far as the car thing goes, I tend to think of that in another category from the right to free speech or the right to bear arms, but maybe that's because I live in L.A.
I'm pretty mixed about the 2nd Amendment thing myself. I appreciate the notion of an armed populace being able to resist government oppression, but at this point the government seems to exercise such psychological puppetry over the populace that guns seem to be an impotent option...well, that and if the U.S. government could turn our own military against the civilians (and I really doubt that would work out right now), they have significantly more powerful guns.
How ironic...not being logged in on this machine my captcha was "prejudge".
Not only could I die of old age waiting for the laws to change for the better (or any given copyright to expire), the universe could assume a constant temperature before it happens. "Obey now, change the law later" is simply a cry to knuckle under. The law isn't going to be changing, except to the worse. The only choices are to give in or to disobey. You are precisely part of the problem. I never said change the law later. Try to change it NOW.
How about this as an alternative: Pirate all you want now, under the unjust copyright regime we have currently, but quit doing so when copyright laws return to something more reasonable (say at a minimum, no DMCA 1201, copyright terms of considerably less than lifetime, no statutory damages for non-commercial infringement, and a narrower meaning of "derivative work", and no DMCA 512 counter-counter-notices). Here's the problem with your alternative. Not only could I die of old age waiting for the laws to change for the better (or any given copyright to expire), the universe could assume a constant temperature before it happens. "Disobey now, wait for the law to change later" is irresponsible laziness allowing the status quo to continue. The law isn't going to be changing, except for the worse. At least not without some kind of action. If you're just going to sit around, "pirate" material and wait, you are just looking for a free lunch for as long as you can get it, at the expense of those who created the material you desire.
If indeed the consumer governs the market, then the consumer needs to stop participating in the market to change it. We need to convince others to stop participating in that market till it changes. Simply disobeying the laws by unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted materials merely empowers the larger corporate interests because they see that there is still value there (because people still desire the content), and thus in their minds profit to be had. If they don't see profit to be had, THEN they will have to give up on that market or adapt to it, particularly if it's clear that there is still value to the content, but no-one wants to participate in their method of valuation.
But the useless disobedience of torrenting and retorrenting ebooks, music and film without the copyright holder's permission is not gonna make them do anything but fight harder. And frankly, the lawyers involved love that people like yourself are willing to perpetuate this game. They don't want a dialogue, or a solution to the problem. They want us vs. them, right vs. wrong, because it keeps them in business. You can still get your content under threat of punishment, the author doesn't get paid, the publishers are indignant...
It is critical to please the consumer, but economics is not exclusively about the consumer. If the content creator doesn't get reimbursed for materials the consumer wants, the content stops.
Now if the author is writing for pure pleasure and not profit, then there's no problem here...but then those authors aren't pushing books through publishers and external marketing campaigns. They're just posting the books on their websites for download...so this discussion is not about them because they've already chosen to exercise their copyrights in such a way that the reader is allowed to redistribute the information a certain way. This discussion IS about those who are trying to make a living off of writing and publishing. If you don't like the way they do things, STOP ACQUIRING THEIR MATERIAL. Don't let it show up in torrents. Don't share it with your friends. Tell people not to buy it. If distribution comes to a crawl, no matter how good you think the content is, that system will have to shutdown or change.
I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to see that they are perpetuating the very system they aim to bring down. It happens on the other side as well, as I've cited about the music industry in previous posts...where they unsustainably work to the detriment of the content creators who provide them with their material, as well as working against the very consumers they need to stay alive.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure intelligence has anything to do with it...
This is slashdot. It leans far left and toward science and aways away from Microsoft, MPAA/RIAA, and SCO.
Poppycock. Mod me off topic if you will, but there are plenty of libertarian oriented views on Slashdot, and that generally is considered leaning to the right.
It's unlikely that you are competing with any official distribution of the song or its derivative products. So long, of course, as you aren't posting it for all the world on a content sharing or social networking site. See there's the rub. If someone puts the original recording of, say, an OK Go song on their video and shows it to their friends when they come over, that's fine. If they post it on YouTube for all the world to see, people who want to hear the song can now just go to YouTube and hear the full quality song.
Which of course raises the question...why didn't the record companies find a way to preempt this a few years back by coming up with a legal income stream for doing just that. Instead of lobbying lawmakers to press in legistation to sue everyone over "improperly distributed music", why not just change the rules so that if you post what is ostensibly a full quality version of the song, you are also required to prominently provide a link to the artists / label's homepage, or a valid store where the song / album / original DVD can be purchased?
Perfect idea? Maybe not. But the RIAA and co. need to start thinking about diversifying...that or just dying off and letting the new paradigm decide how we'll do things in the future. Either way.
Do we risk excessive rules and regulations over things that have not occurred yet or are unlikely to occur simply because they could occur? Or do we govern lightly, potentially exposing those risks, but allowing latitude to the common citizen to get on with their lives without excessive intervention?
I would personally prefer to err on the side of liberty on this one, but it's a question worth asking. "It hasn't happened yet" is not necessarily any weaker of an argument than "one day it could happen." The nuclear plant could meltdown. The asteroid could hit the earth. You could die driving to work in your automobile. The check could get lost in the mail.
I support some caution, but where do we draw the line?
I let my avatar read it.
I actually have some minor hearing loss in one of my ears and I can hear the difference between MP3s and lossless formats. I've done blind tests with friends, and they can hear the difference as well. For a lot of people it may not matter as they get enough of the song information to satisfy them, but it does matter to some of us.
To be fair, though, the way a lot of modern music is produced it's harder and harder to tell the difference. Of course, it's my opinion that modern production is just getting worse. I will admit to being shocked when U2's "How To Dismantle and Atomic Bomb" sounded better on MP3 than off the CD (quality of the songs themselves aside.)
What could possibly give them reason to not force Vista on its customers being in the position they are in? I think in terms of market share and influence, Microsoft may be in it's weakest position in years. They are still a powerful, profitable company, but they've lost a lot of their clout. As MS gaffs, Apple continues to influence the marketplace and various Linux distributions are becoming more and more ubiquitous. Probably neither of them will be the "market leader" without radical shifts in strategy, but it's not necessary for either of them to be the market leader...I think Microsoft knows they are losing market share to the alternatives, and that people are on to them and turned off by their "shove it down their throats" mentality. They are facing difficult times as the dominant force in the industry...just look at how desperate they are to acquire Yahoo...further indication of Google's own growing power and influence over the web.
Markets change (cough, cough, record industry), and Microsoft, a lumbering giant with it's operating procedure set well in place, is learning that it has little choice but to adapt if they are going to survive as the market leader...or at all.
I'm all for ReactOS, but I don't think they will present a credible threat to Microsoft without gaining a significant boost in support...logistically, financially and promotionally.
-- Alan Greenspan
There. Fixed that for ya. I sure couldn't do that to a MS product.
Of course, I suppose this is a bad time to mention that Linux and Google don't charge end users for their "works in progress"...
But if you take off your microsoft-bashing hat for a second, this isn't as stupid as it looks. I would but ever since they got to me I can't seem to get the damn thing off my head...
In fairness, I had to do a little configuration scripting for my PCMCIA card on my laptop in Linux...but XP still had no idea what to do with it (Hawking Wireless card or something like that.)
I'm not saying there aren't problems installing some drivers in Linux sometimes...on some machines, there certainly are...but I have to say that though XP probably has a more stable track record on that front, it is far from flawless.
Average users don't buy or install OS's ! In fact they can't keep straight disk size versus DRAM size. In fact - if normal folks did install OS's we would already be using Linux because 95% of the time a modern Linux distro will load all the typical drivers for you. XP is so fucking brain-dead you have to go to the computers manufacturers web site to get the damn drivers and install them manually.
Wait, wait, wait!
First, I completely agree that the average user (assuming that means grandma, or those that use their computers for little more than basic games and internet surfing) doesn't know the difference disk space and DRAM size. But I do have issue with the initial statement, and the earlier poster's assessment:
Normal people don't install operating systems, they buy a machine in a box at the computer shop.
While its true that most people who buy computers get an OS in the box as it were, it raises the question: who is Microsoft selling boxed copies of its software to? Medium to large businesses are better off with volume licenses, and computer manufactuers and distributors are better off going OEM. So the boxed stuff must be targeted at someone (along with the prime time ads that Microsoft runs to market them.)
Of course, I'm running with a little conjecture here because a) I'm assuming Microsoft has made decent money off of retail versions of their OS and b) it's difficult to find actual sales figures or number of units sold (if anyone can cite a source, I'd be interested to know.)
I also think there's a reason that Windows is easy to install. If it was all OEM's and power users, I'd think the install process might be a little friendlier toward them.
All that said, I prefer Linux. I just have a three main gripes, and if I had the time to become a better programmer I could probably better contribute to fixing those gripes. The first is games, which is getting better, but not quite up to where the "average user" can just "install", click and go (and I'm talking about most of the more popular MMOs, shooters, sims and strategy games here -- I know what available in the repositories...and kudos to Eve Online for building a Linux client.) The second is drivers. I'm pretty impressed with Ubuntu, as it does manage to find and deal with most of my hardware effectively. If the hardware manufacturers would get on the ball and keep up, that would go a long way to solving those ills.
I can probably forgive those first two (as there are some pretty fun Linux games, and the driver issue isn't really Linux's fault, nor limited to Linux...Vista's recent video card issues, for example), but the final one is the reason I don't use Linux as my dominant OS right now. I'm an audio guy, and I need solid, reliable audio software (and for the hardware to work with it) without me having to tweak things or learn the intricacies of "JACK"...I'd also like my audio software to not crash periodically at inopportune times (Ardour, I'm talking to you.) Many professionals can insert there own type of software for "audio software" above, and I think we find one of the problems Linux is facing. Let's face it. For grandma, once it's set up and someone's shown her how to use it, it's no different than doing the same thing with Windows. E-mail, photos, genealogical research, maybe a game of yahtzee, chess or solitaire. Most of us, however, use their computers for more and more nowadays, and in a rapidly evolving economy, our professional work really comes to the forefront. Audio work, video work, image manipulation, financial tools...
I'm not saying there isn't software out there that can do these things, but I am saying that working professionals find that for one reason or another (stability and usability in my case...and believe me, I learn to use new audio software all the time, so it's not unwillingness to learn new things) these products don't compete with many of the Windows or Mac offerings. And that's a shame. Cuz
Besides which, I for one have better things to do than hang around contemplating and asteroid that may or may not hit when I'm in my 60s. Or maybe not. I am on Slashdot, after all.
First they tell me California is doomed by the 2030s, and now they tell me probably the whole world is too...SHEESH.
I really don't mind if you sit this one out...
If you reprocess it and burn the actinides it is 300 years for uranium ore levels of radioactivity. Besides, many chemicals we tolerate in other energy systems ( such as photovoltaics ) are toxic indefinitely ( Lithium, Arsenide, Gallium ). If you can tolerate photovoltaics or the molten salts used in solar thermal plants, then nuclear waste is not a problem. Well, the article is discussing solar thermal, so I'll stick to that. How does the waste cycle of molten salts in a solar thermal plant relate to the minimum 300 year life cycle of nuclear waste (the effects of which
I also think that might qualify as argument by fear.
* NIMBY (not in my back yard)
This is a problem with all energy generation and not specific to nuclear. It applies just as well to windmills and solar as it does to nuclear plants. Furthermore this is a legislative problem, not a technical one. I personally have no qualms about having a solar or wind farm in my backyard (I'd quite welcome the notion), but have known people who think it "doesn't look nice." I don't think most of these people have a very clear grasp of the energy situation on our planet right now...nor a very keen sense of asthetics, in my opnion.
I won't argue your other points though, because I think they're right. I will add that power plant accidents in general seem to be rare, as is sabotage of power plants and infrastructure (though this being slashdot, I may be proven wrong in a post or two.)
At the Ralphs Grocery Store down the street (they are an average, Kroger owned supermarket), the generic loaf of white bread cost $2.00.
At the pump, regular unleaded gasoline was $3.69 a gallon two days ago.
Mass Market Paperback books range from $5.99 to $9.99.
New Release DVDs have been between $2.00 to $6.00 for several years now...to RENT
At this point, you can have most songs a la carte, without the baggage of songs you dislike. If we can open up more avenues for new music to be heard without buying it, then we can buy what we like with confidence.
I have to agree with the parent. A dollar for a song (especially a DRM free song) that we are going to listen to over and over again is very reasonable considering the amount of work that often goes into creating and producing a song. Perhaps the production chain is not as massive as many video games have become, but I dare say in most cases the replay value is higher.
And just in case anyone suggests that all those items mentioned above are physical objects and thus have more value than the ethereal song, consider any time you may have spent working in retail, or a service industry, where you produced nothing of "value." We don't consider that work worthless in our society.
No, really. No, just wait a sec...she's here somewhere, I'll show you. I promise...just one second, while I...guys?
I have to agree. If you have exclusive rights to "distribute" based on your patents, then I would think that you could do so as you please.
Wait...you mean there's another point of view?
As far as the car thing goes, I tend to think of that in another category from the right to free speech or the right to bear arms, but maybe that's because I live in L.A.
I'm pretty mixed about the 2nd Amendment thing myself. I appreciate the notion of an armed populace being able to resist government oppression, but at this point the government seems to exercise such psychological puppetry over the populace that guns seem to be an impotent option...well, that and if the U.S. government could turn our own military against the civilians (and I really doubt that would work out right now), they have significantly more powerful guns.
How ironic...not being logged in on this machine my captcha was "prejudge".
How about this as an alternative: Pirate all you want now, under the unjust copyright regime we have currently, but quit doing so when copyright laws return to something more reasonable (say at a minimum, no DMCA 1201, copyright terms of considerably less than lifetime, no statutory damages for non-commercial infringement, and a narrower meaning of "derivative work", and no DMCA 512 counter-counter-notices). Here's the problem with your alternative. Not only could I die of old age waiting for the laws to change for the better (or any given copyright to expire), the universe could assume a constant temperature before it happens. "Disobey now, wait for the law to change later" is irresponsible laziness allowing the status quo to continue. The law isn't going to be changing, except for the worse. At least not without some kind of action. If you're just going to sit around, "pirate" material and wait, you are just looking for a free lunch for as long as you can get it, at the expense of those who created the material you desire.
If indeed the consumer governs the market, then the consumer needs to stop participating in the market to change it. We need to convince others to stop participating in that market till it changes. Simply disobeying the laws by unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted materials merely empowers the larger corporate interests because they see that there is still value there (because people still desire the content), and thus in their minds profit to be had. If they don't see profit to be had, THEN they will have to give up on that market or adapt to it, particularly if it's clear that there is still value to the content, but no-one wants to participate in their method of valuation.
But the useless disobedience of torrenting and retorrenting ebooks, music and film without the copyright holder's permission is not gonna make them do anything but fight harder. And frankly, the lawyers involved love that people like yourself are willing to perpetuate this game. They don't want a dialogue, or a solution to the problem. They want us vs. them, right vs. wrong, because it keeps them in business. You can still get your content under threat of punishment, the author doesn't get paid, the publishers are indignant...
It is critical to please the consumer, but economics is not exclusively about the consumer. If the content creator doesn't get reimbursed for materials the consumer wants, the content stops.
Now if the author is writing for pure pleasure and not profit, then there's no problem here...but then those authors aren't pushing books through publishers and external marketing campaigns. They're just posting the books on their websites for download...so this discussion is not about them because they've already chosen to exercise their copyrights in such a way that the reader is allowed to redistribute the information a certain way. This discussion IS about those who are trying to make a living off of writing and publishing. If you don't like the way they do things, STOP ACQUIRING THEIR MATERIAL. Don't let it show up in torrents. Don't share it with your friends. Tell people not to buy it. If distribution comes to a crawl, no matter how good you think the content is, that system will have to shutdown or change.
I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to see that they are perpetuating the very system they aim to bring down. It happens on the other side as well, as I've cited about the music industry in previous posts...where they unsustainably work to the detriment of the content creators who provide them with their material, as well as working against the very consumers they need to stay alive.