How will musicians, writers, movie studios, news organizations, software companies etc even approach covering the costs of producing their work if the first person who buys it can make infinite number of copies and share them with the whole world?
1) musicians make money out of concerts
2) writers: I don't see the demise of the printed book anytime soon
3) news organizations do not own the news. If you think they don't "copy" news/data already made available, think again. News outlets survive because they (are supposed to) provide an added-value such as commentaries, opinion pieces, etc.
4) movie studios make money from cinema entries, an experience which you cannot copy. Piracy has not diminished their revenue (studies), neither for that nor DVDs
5) software companies make money out of maintenance and contract for upgrades. Necessary model even for Open Source s/w (see Red Hat).
I hope artists can get a better deal for themselves and increasing availability of channels apart from traditional record companies may give them a better negotiating position. Free market will take care of it.
Considering the majors have a quasi-monopoly on the market, it's hard to trust that it will take care of it so easily.
Please mod parent up (why is it still only 4 Insightful as I am reading it?).
Epine, this is a brilliant post. There are so many powerful ideas in it. Out of curiosity, where have you learnt about those? Personal experience? You sound like someone who is into personal development or at least has read books on the topic.
"I was listening to you the other day and I started to get this feeling, so I started to wonder if there was more to your story." The first five words will catch most women off guard, the rest of it is fairly non-directive, and the woman will regard it as a small trophy that you, as a man, admit to having emotional responses.
Simply brilliant. But as you say, the best thing in all regards is to remain authentic, as in: truthful to your feelings.
My social life is pretty amazing now. The point is that you get to meet people sharing the same interests, or like Petrus said, sometimes purely for socialising. The power of this is that a lot of people are basically a bit shy - even in those socialising groups - and will just love it if you come to them and start chatting. Much, much easier than in a bar with completely random strangers, if you ask this introvert (but social-loving) geek.
I made so many friendly acquaintances I now see regularly and a even a few new friends (I use this term sparingly) - I highly recommend it. There must be other Web sites of that kind BTW.
In France it did not start in Paris, actually, but in Lyon with the Velov (Velib in Paris). The Velov not only incited people to use free bikes to commute, it actually made more people use their own bikes.
There is no question this type of plan is the way forward for cities. Less congestion, less pollution, faster commute, healthier city dwellers, etc. The list of advantages is huge.
And it works very well.
Forget about the Dean Kamen's Segway mirage...
Excerpt from the Wikipedia description:
The film discusses disparities the filmmaker sees in ratings and feedback: between Hollywood and independent films, between homosexual and heterosexual sexual situations, between male and female sexual depictions, and between violence and sexual content.
[...]
The director used a private investigator [...] to unmask the identities of the ratings and appeals board members.
DB design is a pretty good analogy for the concept
I have to take issue with you on this.
So if Address2 is optional, you would want to split Address into its own table with a parent key pointing back to the user entry.
Sure. That works for the database layer because you assume a query language that let you directly access the Address2 table/entity class.
Not so much so in programming languages.
In programs, the concept of navigation is fundamental. For instance you want to give the implementor of the User class the possiblity to navigate from User to the Address2 possibly held by User, but only in that direction, by looking at the corresponding field/attribute.
You do not want to give access to all the possible instances of Address2. There isn't / should not be any "select * from Address2 where user_key = 'myUser.key'" (unless in SQL or OQL of course, again, that's at the DB access layer, not at the business object layer).
You do not want to break practices of neat programming structures (be they in OO or in procedural languages) that are meant to prevent maintenance from becoming nightmarish and costly. Yes, you could program a Address(2)Accessor class of some sort (increasing the complexity of your program - are you going to do this for every entity/class?), make that one a singleton (urrghh) if a desperate attempt to keep control of your program, but that will only make things more difficult to deal with in the long, medium and short term.
In summary, while I think you make interesting points, I'm just saying one has to be very careful when making DB analogies
for programming languages. Maybe a car analogy though... ?
Function reject.
