I feel pretty much the same way. I'd even have paid $100 or so for it.
If my decisions come down to finding the best "free" phone, then I still may go for the Pre if it's free. But yeah, I'd rather wait for a better Android phone for all those same reasons.
Yep. I used to communicate with one particular jail, and I knew what person to ask for when I had a question. It was long before I figured out that the person I was talking to was an inmate on work "release" (not really release if he stays in the building I guess)
I can't imagine that working in a *prison* setting, though.
And yeah, clueless IT people. I could tell you stories at both ends of the spectrum - one jail whose booking database had an XML api, and others where toothless Jimmy was responsible for all the computer thingies.
It takes a very special person to like someone SOOOO much that whatever they say, you can still twist it around into saying something positive. On your own.
Why don't we have digital yellow lights with a 5 second countdown? It doesn't have to be a digital number, but some sort of light sequence. If we have the technology to use motion, magnetic, and weight sensors to optimize lights, then don't we have the technology to use a few more LED lights than just the 3 light sequence we have? Now, THAT would win an award for innovation.
"How about the uproar over Janet Jackson's breast at the Superbowl? One freaking breast. And yet "Saw" was recently shown on the Syfy channel. How fucked up is that?"
I'm with you on pretty much all of that.
The Janet Jackson thing was that the show is advertised as a family show (rating numbers, promotion etc) and then that whole performance happened. If the show is advertised as such, I don't think there'd be much problem with it.
And Saw... yeah... I saw bits of it while it was on. But it was Saw II, which I didn't like a too much. How much did they cut out? They had to have cut out a great deal. But you're right, the whole suggestive nature of the movie is more important than what's shown in explicit scenes.
Even Saw I was more implicit than explicit, except for a few scenes. (That's part of what makes it originally a great movie.)
"The problem is that when there is a significant drop in income, what is the next stop in economics?... you can bet there will be less product next year. It's the nature of the game.
So in music (or movies) when you take away the income, ... less art is made, and we are all poorer for it."
Yes! You found my point! Except what if the production of milk DOESN'T go down? Do you still cry for the milk farmers or just be happy that we all have milk?
Because that's exactly what's happening with art. More art continues to be made even though the cost of production (both the original creation and the individual copies) is dropping dramatically. You astutely pointed to movies where the cost of original creation is huge (as opposed to movies and books where one can create that for damned near free at home). However, even the cost of movies is decreasing. Movies that rival big-budget movies are released every year with very small budgets. The costs are decreasing. Even then, the benefactors (we call them producers) have plenty of ways to make back their investments outside of $20 DVD sales. I don't think any of us (including Mike) have all the answers to exactly how that will happen, but it is out there happening, even with filmmakers, as long as there's a reason to buy. The only point I'm adding to that is that even if the pot of gold shrinks, the production can still continue or increase. Plenty of economic shifts have happened historically where there's less money to be made on a particular product yet more product is out there.
Ok... so you agree that historically, artists worked on salary or commission, and even the ones that didn't continue to make money continued to make art. These things have nothing to do with copyright or copyright infringement, so what was the point of your first post again? I mean, you agree that artists were historically paid to create art and not paid for individual copies (unless they did the copying by hand) and not paid for each individual view/consumption of the art. Did you actually have a point?
Ok... so their distribution was limited. I don't know what that has to do with anything. The (false) point was that art won't get made if they can't sell it as the best art has always been sold. My counterpoint was that the best, most historic art did in fact get made without a pay-per-copy business model, and art continues to get made today without a pay-per-copy model. Don't know what's "quaint" about something that's worked since the dawn of art.
It depends on the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that art won't happen or it will be harder to get rich off of it?
As someone who cares about production and the economy, what do I care about more: the price of milk or the production of milk? If, due to economic forces, 1B gallons of milk are produced in 2008 for $1B, and then 1B gallons of milk are produced in 2009 for $500M, sure, the GDP has dropped by $500M but the amount of actual production is the same. As long as there's still a healthy milk industry, milk is still being made, why do I care if those producing it make less money? That's just economics.
Um, no. Pointing out the futility of "scarcifying" infinite goods is not collectivism. If you could copy food or cars infinitely at no marginal cost, then it's not "collectivism" to say that we should get to copying. Why is art different? You may well be able to argue that art is different, but at least that's where your premise should start if you're going to make such a case.
"The finest, most lauded artists throughout history SOLD their art"
No, the finest, most lauded artists throughout history performed their work on commission, or worked full time as directors. This is something you learn in a basic art or music history class. They did *not* make their money by selling copies of easily-copyable bits. In fact, the statement holds true that many artists work not for the money at all. Many of the "most lauded artists throughout history" died poor and were barely acknowledged in their lifetime, but yet they still kept creating art. You may see that as a shame, but you can't just rewrite history by making statements that "most lauded artists throughout history SOLD their art"... it's just not true.
No, Tivo didn't create a market that didn't exist before. Tivo wasn't the first DVR product. All those ideas already existed. The only thing Tivo did uniquely was identifying similar (you may also like...) shows to record.
It just so happens that Tivo had the prettiest package and better marketing than those that came before it.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point is. Innovation always comes in increments and never from ethereal genesis.
It might be defamation if Novus is accusing Shaw of predatory pricing and saying outright that the prices won't last. They would have to have a basis for a claim that Shaw's prices are temporary. That may be exactly what's happening, but how would you prove it enough to make that claim in an ad?
Huh... well, what's really cool about this site is that come Monday, Mike will be really cool about this, put things back together, explain a little about what happened, and move on without throwing a tantrum like a lot of folks would do. The vulnerability may even be something most people can learn and not some random common SQL injection thing.
You do know what lobbyists are, right? Lobbyists could be there to represent anyone... teachers, farmers, conservatives, environmentalists. Any people can can form a group might send a lobbyist. Are you saying it should be illegal for private citizens to talk to lawmakers?
Do you have a citation for that? That wasn't mentioned in this article. I kinda hope Chrome OS isn't like that and just a browser window. I would hope for something more along the lines of Xandros's Presto OS. Maybe that's what you meant, but even that would be capable of more than just running Google Docs, such as OpenOffice, Gimp, or Picasa.
Taking the Javascript engine out of the browser and putting it in the OS makes sense. That's what Google Gears does already, right? That's what I mean when I talk about adding those features to the OS.
Hope I'm not just getting my hopes up, but that sounds like a better idea than stripping down Android.
1. How do you know that Chrome OS won't actually be just a souped up version of Android with a better brand name? It's possible that Chrome and Android already share some common code or a common code base.
2. Chrome itself maybe fairly buggy, but the neat things it does at the core are pretty cool... spawning separate processes for tabs, javascript with tracing, etc. Carry that concept to the OS, and there you go.
3. Yes, there have been failed attempts to turn the browser into an OS in the past, but not anymore. Today, people use their browser for most things, and laymen already have trouble knowing the difference between the OS and the big blue e for the Internet. Tying the browser to the OS has already been done successfully. And Mozilla has already proven that the browser can be extended beyond a browser. The distinction is irrelevant anymore.
Points 4 and 5 seem off, too. So, the OS is designed to work better with the cloud. I just don't get where you're coming from on this one.
I have to admit that I'm rather surprised that a separate issue did not come up. That is, many schools make students sign something saying that any code they create as a student has the copyright automatically assigned to the school.
It's a state college. Can a state-sponsored college claim copyright on anything?
Think of it at those TV rating labels, except that they don't actually have to appear on the screen. It's just a single tag of code that computers can read and humans never have to see. All this does is give more power and control to parents and takes nothing away from anyone else.
I hate censorship because I think it's the parents' responsibility to protect their children. This helps parents, and it the ideal alternative to censorship.
As long as it can be played digitally, it can be copied digitally. With CDs, the most primitive method still works: plug up your CD player's headphone jacks into the audio-in on your sound cart, and record the incoming audio stream.
The same also applies to video: if it can be played on the computer screen, there's probably some software that can capture the video stream. The most primitive method is always going to be foolproof.
And someone will come up with a less primitive method, too, to actually copy the while thing as is, DVD menus as all. It's only a matter of time.
And depending on the actual BD hardware to do the DRM is silly, too. As long as there's a player that doesn't including the invasive DRM crap, that's the preferable one to buy.
The is the only thing I don't like about Blu-Ray. I hope it isn't an issue when people actually start buying them
On the post: See, The Palm Pre Can Be Offered For Free
If my decisions come down to finding the best "free" phone, then I still may go for the Pre if it's free. But yeah, I'd rather wait for a better Android phone for all those same reasons.
Also I think I may prefer a horizontal keyboard.
On the post: Pro Tip: If You Run A Prison, Maybe Don't Give The Guy In Jail For Computer Fraud The Job Of Reprogramming Your Computers
Re: Rehabilitation
I can't imagine that working in a *prison* setting, though.
And yeah, clueless IT people. I could tell you stories at both ends of the spectrum - one jail whose booking database had an XML api, and others where toothless Jimmy was responsible for all the computer thingies.
On the post: Obama Open To Helping Newspapers, To Avoid Reporting Becoming 'All Blogosphere'
Re: You guys are SOOOO blogosphere!
On the post: Arizona Dumping Redflex Cameras... But Giving Redflex An Award For Innovation?
Re: Re: Re: Article is Wrong! (Continued)
On the post: Arizona Dumping Redflex Cameras... But Giving Redflex An Award For Innovation?
On the post: FCC To Study Single Rating System For Movies, Video Games, TV & Music
I'm with you on pretty much all of that.
The Janet Jackson thing was that the show is advertised as a family show (rating numbers, promotion etc) and then that whole performance happened. If the show is advertised as such, I don't think there'd be much problem with it.
And Saw... yeah... I saw bits of it while it was on. But it was Saw II, which I didn't like a too much. How much did they cut out? They had to have cut out a great deal. But you're right, the whole suggestive nature of the movie is more important than what's shown in explicit scenes.
Even Saw I was more implicit than explicit, except for a few scenes. (That's part of what makes it originally a great movie.)
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows File Sharers Buy More Media
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So in music (or movies) when you take away the income, ... less art is made, and we are all poorer for it."
Yes! You found my point! Except what if the production of milk DOESN'T go down? Do you still cry for the milk farmers or just be happy that we all have milk?
Because that's exactly what's happening with art. More art continues to be made even though the cost of production (both the original creation and the individual copies) is dropping dramatically. You astutely pointed to movies where the cost of original creation is huge (as opposed to movies and books where one can create that for damned near free at home). However, even the cost of movies is decreasing. Movies that rival big-budget movies are released every year with very small budgets. The costs are decreasing. Even then, the benefactors (we call them producers) have plenty of ways to make back their investments outside of $20 DVD sales. I don't think any of us (including Mike) have all the answers to exactly how that will happen, but it is out there happening, even with filmmakers, as long as there's a reason to buy. The only point I'm adding to that is that even if the pot of gold shrinks, the production can still continue or increase. Plenty of economic shifts have happened historically where there's less money to be made on a particular product yet more product is out there.
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows File Sharers Buy More Media
Re:
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows File Sharers Buy More Media
Re: Re: Re:
It depends on the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that art won't happen or it will be harder to get rich off of it?
As someone who cares about production and the economy, what do I care about more: the price of milk or the production of milk? If, due to economic forces, 1B gallons of milk are produced in 2008 for $1B, and then 1B gallons of milk are produced in 2009 for $500M, sure, the GDP has dropped by $500M but the amount of actual production is the same. As long as there's still a healthy milk industry, milk is still being made, why do I care if those producing it make less money? That's just economics.
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows File Sharers Buy More Media
Re:
Um, no. Pointing out the futility of "scarcifying" infinite goods is not collectivism. If you could copy food or cars infinitely at no marginal cost, then it's not "collectivism" to say that we should get to copying. Why is art different? You may well be able to argue that art is different, but at least that's where your premise should start if you're going to make such a case.
"The finest, most lauded artists throughout history SOLD their art"
No, the finest, most lauded artists throughout history performed their work on commission, or worked full time as directors. This is something you learn in a basic art or music history class. They did *not* make their money by selling copies of easily-copyable bits. In fact, the statement holds true that many artists work not for the money at all. Many of the "most lauded artists throughout history" died poor and were barely acknowledged in their lifetime, but yet they still kept creating art. You may see that as a shame, but you can't just rewrite history by making statements that "most lauded artists throughout history SOLD their art"... it's just not true.
Get to your history books, kiddo.
On the post: Fresh Off Victory Over Dish, TiVo Sues AT&T, Verizon
Re: Re: Re:
It just so happens that Tivo had the prettiest package and better marketing than those that came before it.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point is. Innovation always comes in increments and never from ethereal genesis.
On the post: Is It Defamation To Mock Your Competitors' Promotional Campaign?
Re: Goliath tries to crush David....twitter shitstorm ensues
If you're right, it sounds like a problem that may work itself out.
Except that filing baseless defamation suits should have consequenses...
On the post: Is It Defamation To Mock Your Competitors' Promotional Campaign?
It might be defamation if Novus is accusing Shaw of predatory pricing and saying outright that the prices won't last. They would have to have a basis for a claim that Shaw's prices are temporary. That may be exactly what's happening, but how would you prove it enough to make that claim in an ad?
On the post: Could Evidence-Based Copyright Law Ever Be Put In Place?
On the post: NPR Plays Spot The Healthcare Lobbyists At Healthcare Reform Hearing
Re: Why can't we just get rid of lobbyists again?
On the post: Why Is Google Turning Chrome Into An Operating System?
Re: Re: Umm...
Taking the Javascript engine out of the browser and putting it in the OS makes sense. That's what Google Gears does already, right? That's what I mean when I talk about adding those features to the OS.
Hope I'm not just getting my hopes up, but that sounds like a better idea than stripping down Android.
On the post: Why Is Google Turning Chrome Into An Operating System?
Umm...
2. Chrome itself maybe fairly buggy, but the neat things it does at the core are pretty cool... spawning separate processes for tabs, javascript with tracing, etc. Carry that concept to the OS, and there you go.
3. Yes, there have been failed attempts to turn the browser into an OS in the past, but not anymore. Today, people use their browser for most things, and laymen already have trouble knowing the difference between the OS and the big blue e for the Internet. Tying the browser to the OS has already been done successfully. And Mozilla has already proven that the browser can be extended beyond a browser. The distinction is irrelevant anymore.
Points 4 and 5 seem off, too. So, the OS is designed to work better with the cloud. I just don't get where you're coming from on this one.
On the post: Student Wins Against Professor's Threats Over Posting Code Online
It's a state college. Can a state-sponsored college claim copyright on anything?
On the post: Justice Department Says Free Speech Not Stifled By Web Labeling Bill
I hate censorship because I think it's the parents' responsibility to protect their children. This helps parents, and it the ideal alternative to censorship.
On the post: How The Entertainment Industry Plans To Kill DVDs
DRM is useless
Next >>