If copyright did not exist, people would STILL pay for art. It just wouldn't be the guaranteed monopoly protection.
History is against you. Most artists died in poverty.
In the days when an artist could die in poverty, most people didn't have money to pay them, and the means to reach those that could were nearly non-existent. People have disposable income now and have had for quite some time. An artist that dies in poverty today means there was no market for what he was creating, or he or she wasn't clever enough to discover them.
If your art is easily reproducible, then it wasnt all that unique to begin with.
Spoken like someone who never created anything worthwhile in his life.
Yeah, you're right about that. That was probably about the dumbest thing anyone has ever said in the history of words. Evidently writing isn't art. Music, movies, photography, or design aren't worthwhile art forms either. Reproducibility is a factor of technology, not the value of the object being reproduced. I'm pretty sure that given time, indistinguishable reproductions of the greatest artworks ever created will be available via 3D printers in the poster's mom's basement. I'm seriously having a hard time trying to figure out what the hell he thinks he was talking about.
That you need to set aside time, and restrict your usage at other times, says clearly you DO have a problem.
No, it means clearly you need to get out of your mother's basement and find something engaging to do with your life.
but if you are going to criticize X, criticize it on it's flaws, it's got enough of them, don't try to invent shit.
Yes, probably off-topic, but I've found myself saying exactly that in pretty much every conversation I've had regarding religion, politics, and economic policy for the last five years. It's sad to see it's now infected technology.
Not taking a jab at you personally, but I've never understood the "you deserve what you got, silly victim!" mentality. No victims *deserve* to be victimized. Sure, they could have taken better steps to protect themselves, but I can just as easily say "you deserve that cancer you got" for not getting regular boob or prostate squashings. It's technically true that many people are vulnerable because they don't know how important it is to protect themselves, but directly blaming them for it is counter-productive.
Would you feel better if I said you "earned" being victimized? You smoke two cartons of Camels a week in this day and age, and you don't just deserve cancer, you earned it. You evidently put a lot of effort into pretending that the fact that your cancer was all but inevitable somehow didn't apply to you. Enjoy your winnings!
You don't have to be Morman to understand how addiction works.
No, but it does take someone who understands addiction to understand how addiction works. And it's pretty clear to anyone who who has ever regularly used caffeinated substances the parent poster isn't one of them.
And once again, I'm tethered to a screen. PC wins this one.
Once 9" tablets surpass 1080p, they'll be near "retina display" pixel density.
Unless you're using the above mentioned HDMI on a bigger screen. Now you want higher resolution. PC wins again.
Computer novices already have enough trouble using a mouse.
Computer gamers - which I believe is what started this thread - use them extensively. PC again.
The laptop concept of having to carry a keyboard even where you aren't going to be needing one has become blue in the tooth.
True, however the concept of being stuck without a keyboard when you do need one hasn't gone away. This is a tie. Size and portability are a huge plus for small platforms but even something simple as typing an essay is frustrating to the point of distraction on a table.
heavy web apps
Mobile CPUs are slowly catching up to desktop CPUs in speed.
Very, very slowly - and it's not like they've stopped developing desktop and laptop CPUs. Point PC - for now.
integration with applications
Web site developers and tablet application developers want this integration to be mediated on the server side, with web applications using OAuth to authenticate to each other.
And a tie. I'll reiterate the AC's point because it's true: there are many areas that a tablet or phone simply cannot match a PC for even something as seemingly trivial as web browsing.
(b), the memory usage is massive. It's better now that I've upgraded my machine to 8 GB, but you shouldn't have to do that for a BROWSER. This (massive resource usage) kind-of negates the idea of an inexpensive, low powered browser appliance.
After switching to Chrome, I immediately noticed that if it *was* updating, it was doing it in a completely unobtrusive way, and the resource usage was significantly lower. I'd been using Firefox since the original beta, but after switching to Chrome never looked back.
I recently switched to Chrome from Firefox because Firefox just plain broke. I'm a tab-whore and it would literally take 10 minutes before Firefox became usable. It was not unusual to see a 1.4G Firefox footprint. I switched to Chrome and I was so happy to see 30M and 50M threads here and there. But then as I started completing my migration I noticed that tabs started loading slower and slower. Now, with the exact same session loaded, Chrome is using about 20% more memory than Firefox ever did. It's an absolute pig. I'm either going to have to change my browsing habits or find another new browser.