One question: Can this model of operation continue indefinitely?
Yes. Yes, it can.
One question: Can this model of operation continue indefinitely?
Yes. Yes, it can.
There are two sides of this issue. On the one hand, piracy of this definition is inescapable. As you say, it is very easy to accomplish, and as I pointed out, it is very simply justified. It is very easy to convince oneself that there is no immorality involved. On the other hand, if the artist is to be able to survive on his art, then he really must be compensated for his work.
Don't get me wrong, here. The system currently in place, the music industry in particular, is a broken mess. The industry stifles progress in multiple directions, and completely incentivizes the wrong things. An artist's work results in a great deal of income, but the artist really only receives a relatively small cut. I suppose that those who are deeply successful still receive enough money that perhaps they just don't care, but it's a harrowing ride for those at the beginning of a career which may or may not get anywhere. The music industry doesn't only treat their consumer base with inhuman disregard, but their talent, both musical and technical, really gets abused, too.
I don't think it's wrong to implement copyright. It does have a purpose: to enable artists to be properly compensated for their work. It's been ravenously abused, though. There's way too much money involved, and the length of copyright in the modern world is outrageous. The continuous push to extend the term further toward doomsday and exaggerate the penalties for violations is an absurdity that needs to stop. You're right about one thing at least: it's harmful on a cultural level.
The lawsuits in particular, I find ridiculous. I'd wager that the music industry has lost a great deal more money as a direct result of their campaign of civil suits (both in paying lawyers and resulting boycotts), than they ever could possibly have lost to the original piracy.
Let's understand something. It doesn't matter what you do. You can implement draconian DRM measures. You can wave subpoenas around like a gun at a bank robbery. You can bribe congressmen until your overt suggestions are made law. None of these things will stop piracy. It's too easy to do, and it's too easy for an individual to justify to himself. You can never stop to piracy. The best that can be hoped for, is to mitigate it. It's better for the entertainment industry to widely express disapproval of piracy, while serenely accepting its reality in secret, than to set about wrecking the lives of individuals via law suits, and dirtying themselves by associating with politicians.
My point is this: Copyright isn't the problem. Those who would abuse copyright are the problem. As pirates and consumers, we're all up Shit Creek here, and while the artists aren't really in the same boat as us, it remains that they're still as lost in want of a paddle as we are. Without the copyright laws, they wouldn't really even have YouTube as an option.
Those who pirate their entertainment tend not to be likely to spend money on the content, to begin with. While I have no doubt that there are a good deal of jerks out there that could easily afford to pay for their consumption, the majority, I suspect, would do without, if no avenue existed to obtain the works without fee. That's really just the way the market works out. The impression I get, is that people tend to be willing to part with otherwise unallocated personal funds in exchange for such things that they like, but many just don't have those unallocated personal funds available to spend. Thus, Napster-like services are born and continue to mutate and propagate.
Downloading these things is easy for people to justify to themselves. They weren't possibly going to spend money on it, anyway; or the original copy still exists where it was to begin with, so it isn't really like actually sneaking a CD in your jacket pocket from a rack at Sam Goody at the mall. The store still has their copy to sell, you now have what you wanted, and nobody's poorer for it. See? Very easy.
Meanwhile, all the other kiddies in the class are asking each other if they've seen the new and hot feature film, or heard Taylor Swift's new album. Not being one with the tide is somewhat more difficult to justify, as that attaches more directly to one's identity. If you can't obtain or experience the cultural icons, then you may have to detach from your preferred social grouping, and toss in with some sort of hipsters or curmudgeons. This may be downright unthinkable to a lot of social drones, especially when they are very young, and as yet lack the experience needed to carve out an identity of their own. So abstaining from these musics, books and movies due to lack of funding becomes overwhelmingly more difficult to justify than obtaining copies from a faceless stranger in the night.
It's a cultural pressure we have, to consume, and the aggressive hyping and advertising the entertainment industry rains down upon us strangely promote it. The advertisements call an individual's attention to it, he tells his friend and his friend tells him back. Now it's a thing to both of them. They've connected on it. They connect with others on it. Some will have the capacity to pay for it, others won't. Those that can pay for it, by and large, do. Those that can't either get copies from those who can, or begrudgingly go without. Those who go without loose their connection with those who didn't, and become a lower caste in the social hierarchy (despite their greater integrity than the second group, which I suspect sometimes makes them spiteful-- thus: hipsters). Those who got their copies for free are then threatened by the industry over their life choices, and therefore, the cries of entitlement begin.
That's my guess at it, anyway.
Rubber. It's on Netflix, if you've not discovered it.
The problem is that Star Trek isn't a very good science fiction premise.
Really good science fiction isn't really about the space exploration or the robots, or the time travel, or what have you. Really good science fiction uses those features to make you think about things that you might not otherwise have context to think about.
When you watch Star Trek, the original series especially, you really need to take it in with the culture of the time. It was a time when racism was normal, and women were treated as second-class citizens. Star Trek presented a scenario where men and women, whether they be white, black or not even human, were all treated by each other as equals. What made it especially classy, is that this was done without any characters getting preachy. They simply went on about their business, as well they should. To characters on Star Trek, working together in harmony was a given, and that a man should think women lesser than he, or that a white man should be somehow superior to a black man was more alien than the strange creatures they met. It was so many generations lost to their culture, that it was no longer even a thing. This is what Gene Roddenberry presented to us with Star Trek. In creating this series, he meant to show us that this is what we can become, if we abandon these notions of hate and inherent superiority, and just work together. Infinite diversity, in infinite combinations.
Roddenberry couldn't have expressed that in a modern scenario, nor would it have worked so well in an historical scenario. A military starship three hundred years in the future, on the other hand? It was a pretty damned elegant fit, and frankly, I think that makes it a pretty worthy work of science fiction.
Ah, but they know why they want their privacy, and are concerned that you might want yours for the same sorts of purposes.
It wasn't enough to wake us up, here in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley (about halfway between Modesto and Fresno on 99, where I am).
I don't think that's what Mashiki meant. 64-bit versions of Windows run 32-bit applications just fine, and the mere virtue of being 64-bit does not require 4GB of RAM or more. It just doesn't make much sense anymore, to continue making a specific version of the OS to support a hardware standard that's been obsolete for a decade, give or take a year.
That's technically true, but cbiltcliffe also makes the point that it's not his responsibility. cbiltcliffe doesn't care about the US postal service's fee. The Canadian postal service has given him a price for delivery of his letter, and he pays said price. His end of the transaction is done, and whatever agreement the Canadian postal service has with the US postal service is, that is the Canadian postal service's problem, not his. Whether or not the Canadian postal service's fee includes the US postal service's fee is not guaranteed, and any additional fee for international shipping may indeed be considerably greater than the US postal service's fee to complete the delivery.
What I came up with was almost identical; the year started and ended with the Winter Solstice, and consists of 13 months of 28 days. Where mine differs, though, is that instead of a "minimonth", I choose to exclude the extra day or two from any week, month or year; a period of time I call "Offset". These days being excluded from a week means that any given day on the calendar will always be the same day of the week from one year to the next. That is to say, under this calendar, if the first day of the first month this year is Monday, then next year and every year, it will or has been Monday (as is the first day of every month, in point of fact). In fact, the 1st, 8th, 15th and 21st would always be Monday, and Friday would always be the 5th, 12th, 19th and 26th.
I've only ever used this system in unpublished works of fiction, though I find it interesting that this same idea has been explored by others.
Seasons and duration of day are logical and meaningful things to base your units of time on. Nuclear decay and EM wavelengths are a rather illogical basis, as these things don't have a practical use or observation in the common life of humans in general. Days and seasons, on the other hand, have an apparent and obvious cycle, which can be observed without need of special equipment. Furthermore, they have an immediate and profound affect on our environment. This is the difference between light and dark, between heat and cold, between growth and recess. These cycles dictate when we can grow food, and how long we have to complete tasks. It therefore makes a great deal of sense that we would want to keep track of these things. The only failing, is that the larger units aren't always comprised of a whole number of the smaller units, as they are based on difference cycles, which are not actually related to eachother.
Now, on the other hand, if we lived on a starship or perhaps a space station unassociated with any particular planet, your timekeeping method could reasonably be arbitrary. You might choose to base it on the crew's mode average circadian rhythm, perhaps. In those circumstances, you would have eliminated the conditions that have inspired our current timekeeping system.
You know, what I find funny about this, is that the only console games I ever see commercials for these days are FPS, with the occasional Third Person affair.
Perhaps this is speculation too far, but this pair of changes almost suggests that many Windows users haven't changed the way they use the operating system—or their computers—since the mid 1990s. The Windows Vista-era mechanism of "Start and then type," now seven-years-old, apparently hasn't caught on and quite plausibly isn't even known by many Windows users.
Am I missing something important, or does this idea where you're expected to type the thing you want to do kind of abandon the whole point of using a GUI instead of a command line?
I'm not exactly opposed to having the feature there, but if you automatically have to resort to it, then your GUI needs to be reconsidered.
I dunno, $200k seems about right to me. 30k seems quite a bit low for a police officer, though. The tricky thing about deciding how much a cop's salary should be, is that you've gotta pay him enough to keep him honest. If he's having trouble making the rent each month, then taking a bribe here and there might start to sound pretty good to him.
It's not clear to me that the existence of reincarnation precludes the possibility of the universe existing with simulation-like properties.
Unix will self-destruct in five seconds... 4... 3... 2... 1...