Google Fi is about combining multiple cellular networks, while Scratch Wireless only uses a single cellular network. Both let you seamlessly roam between cellular and wifi.
Which you get when using a T-Mobile phone abroad, where it can use multiple cell networks and can switch mid call between Wifi and various cellular networks, or at least the old UMA phones could do some time around 2003. Perhaps they could not go from one WiFi network to another mid-call, but will Google's phone really do this?
You said:
it hasn't stopped any of it
Your anecdote is not enough to prove your position, and no number of examples will do so.
I haven't smoked pot. Not that I was never curious... rather, doing so may get me arrested, thrown in jail, or fined.
My anecdote is enough to entirely disprove your statement.
If you fire them from space, they're space guns!
And if you control them from an iPhone, they're n guns!
No, no, they should be looking over fake plans to raise thebattleship Yamato and put her into space. Go big, or go home.
Or... maybe those are the real plans?
There are plenty of laws against smoking Pot, it hasn't stopped any of it
[citation needed]
...create anything. Just 'cos the 'net makes it easy to copy and distribute creative works does not make it OK. People who just don't want to pay for stuff should admit it instead of pretending they have some kind of real philosophy or that is is for the creators' good (I mean, it might be, but it should be up to them to decide, not some guy in a basement who really just wants free stuff).
I agree with you so far. When I was in college, I didn't want to pay for anything because I couldn't afford anything. Now I've had real income for a while, so I'm happy to pay for the IP I use. Generally, IP should be honored via copyright and patents.
The problem is the middle level. I want creators to get well paid and consumers to get well priced access. That does not need a record company, say, in the traditional sense.
Copyright needs to (I reckon) end with the death of the creator; simple. And the creator has to be a human not a corporation. Probably legally difficult, but makes sense to me. I guess we need ways for copyright to be signed over to a corporation; or do we? Leased instead, until the 'death' of either party or until some agreed time prior. That way a corp can 'own' the copyright but only till the creator dies or the contract is up, whichever comes first.
Wait, why does it need to be so long? What you suggest is shorter than the current Infinity-1 the middle men are aiming for, but what was wrong with the original 14+14years on copyright? It's not like 99.999% of IP can be monetized past 5 years anyway.
I think that copyright can be owned by corporations in a problem. It should always be owned by the creator, and they can license it to corporations if they would like. Creators should never lose their copyright.
This argument I keep hearing that free distribution of, for example, music benefits the musician because they 'make more money in live shows anyway' is moronic in the extreme. Like every musician has the same business model? Sure, for some it might work that way: http://gizmodo.com/5903937/six... but not everybody can keep touring. They get older -- do they suddenly lose the right to make any money off their life's work because they can't tour behind it? Musician thinks: "Gee, I've got kids, a wife who works, I can't spend 10 months a year on the road like when I was 25 -- and double whammy, I don't get royalties either 'cos apparently I 'benefit' from all the exposure I get from my music being free." One size never fits all and ideology is often a cover for greed.
Okay, I wanted to preface my post by saying I pay (a lot) for IP, and I'm an honest guy. And honestly, what you say here is pure crap. I'm a developer, and I don't get to coast on the fruit of my "life's work" forever. You want to make more money, produce more IP. Like everyone. Music and video are not special.
By the way, it's because of the blood-sucking middle men that musicians can't make a decent buck from their recordings.
Ideally, creators get to say what happens. That's bound to encourage people to create. They can release their songs into the wild if they want, or not. But it's not up to 'us' to decide.
Creators get to participate in the conversation. The People get to say what happens. We had a reasonable deal at first: max 28 years of copyright. Then the lawmakers started listening to the IP holders instead of The People and we have the crap system that doesn't let anything ever go into Public Domain.
However, if it's in the public domain, there is no monetary incentive to locate, digitize, and restore such a film. It either sits in a vault somewhere, decomposing (maybe even on nitrate film - egad!), or maybe it was transferred onto videotape before its copyright expired.
Counter argument: if the copyright holder felt that there was money to be made by transferring to another medium and selling, it would have already happened.
Instead, all those nitrate copies are locked away and will either burn or decompose. Many of those old movies have copies lurking away, open to non-copyright holders if they had the right to make updated copies and release them. But copyright prevents this.
If a communication barrier exists because of some demographic difference between one employee and everyone else, why should a company have to tolerate what they may be able to measure as a reduced level of productivity because of it?
I'm not saying it should happen, but it *does* happen... I've been fired from jobs for simply "not fitting in" myself... why should being older or even being of a difference race somehow protect somebody from such an evaluation?
I suppose the upshot is that the OS X app store doesn't behave like some of the other app stores.
The iOS and Windows app stores do not allow you to publish an application that can execute external code. The APIs are restricted and their use may be discovered during the approval process.
OS X app store submission process doesn't appear to have the same restrictions.
From my logic class I learned the first thing you said is called the inverse, but the inverse is not equal to the original statement. The equivalent is the contrapositive. We form the contrapositive by negating the first and last part and swapping them. So you get something like "it could think of a reason".
What the hell? Not only is this volcano some super-super volcano that can destroy the world, but it can think of a reason to do so?
Well that's it. Drones forming Skynet is one thing, but a friggin' volcano with a temper is entirely different...
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
