I feel that the perennial debate over the difference between games and sports is viewed very, very wrongly by our society. Games are viewed as being childish fripperies, whereas sports are serious tasks that require tactics and dedication. This is utter balderdash. Here is how I would define the difference between a sport and a game:
The activity in question shall be known as X.
if (X.winner(fitMan, skilledMan) == fitMan) {
xIsASport = true;}
else{
xIsASport = false;}
It's no good yelling "data wants to be free" - someone has to put the data together in the first place. And that someone, whether they be Madonna, Brad Pitt, Bill Gates - or me, deserves to be paid for their labour in doing that.
I know you aren't the first person to say this, and you won't be the last, but why, exactly? Why should they be paid?
I mean, if I go down a coal mine for a day and mine coal for the guy who owns the coal mine, he has agreed to pay me for my time and so I deserve to be paid. If someone agrees to pay me money if I give them this here desk and take it to their house, when I take it to their house and give it to them I deserve to be paid.
When I spend a large quantity of time and money recording an album or producing a film, I am essentially gambling that people will want to give me money for it. They don't have to. They never have had to. There has always been more art around than there has been demand. I am gambling that people will think that I am so much better than other people at making stuff they will pay me for making what I have made, with the implication that I will make more. That's it.
Anyway, voluntary donations seem to work fine - I mean, there was a torrent of DVD quality up before the release of Transformers 2. Cost of film: $200 million. Revenue before it was even released in my country: $600 million. Boo fucking hoo for the poor content creators who got ripped off on that deal, only becoming fabulously wealthy. This future where no one has to pay for media we keep getting warned about? It's here. Films are being made. Albums are being recorded. You or I could get them for free trivially. Next argument please.
No, the more accurate sentiment would be:
Civil suit vs individual pirates = Punatives are unfair
Civil suit vs BP = Compensate people for the damage you caused
Criminal suit against BP = This should happen
The flaw in your logic is conflating the ideas of civil and criminal court. If someone steals my wallet and gets caught, odds are that they'll never pay me back. They'll get community service, maybe jail, maybe a warning, but they will not have to pay me back. This is punishment, rather than compensation. If I sue the same guy in civil court, that is for compensation, not punishment - thus I can't just ask for 1000000% of what was in my wallet as punishment.
a) It's viruses, not virii.
b) In what way are pacemakers, or even, say, cybernetic prosthetics, going to be networked to mission-critical systems?*
c) This is so frickin' cyberpunk.
*This one is actually a real question - see, I did the 'functional communication sandwich' thing there.
But they can fine you for recording and distributing it (which is what Google is doing)
Wait, what? Where can I get this information? Where is it being distributed? IIRC, they just used some old bit of wireless network scanning software and happened to pick up more than they meant to. I don't exactly like Google having all my personal information, but thinking that Google gives some kind of massive shit about a few people's unsecured information is is definitely in the tinfoil hat zone.
If I had to, what I would class this as is the same as if you were walking down the street with a digital recorder, coming up with ideas for some sort of article you were writing about the area. While walking along talking into this digital recorder, creating files that will be sanitized and refactored before ever seeing the light of day, someone shouts some personal information. Then the German government gets all pissy about it and demands you hand over the tapes, and the FTC start an investigation.
Seriously guys, there are problems with Google. There are. This is not one of them, though.
Like a radio scanner that can pick up cell phone calls. Sure you listen, but you can never (legally) disseminate the information; even if you hear someone planning a murder.
So this implies that listening is ok? since that's all Google is doing, I fail to see the problem.
Right, I've had enough of this. Why do people simply allow this fallacy to continue? Apple's UIs are terrible!
The iPod is far more complex than it needs to be, the single good thing about the iPhone's interface is just a huge patent troll, the iPad I have never used so I will avoid comment, and the OS! Oh, the OS! A recording studio I practically lived in for a few months used a Mac, and on several occasions we spent hours just trying to move data onto an external drive - I believe the hardware on the year old box was failing, and when it wasn't we had to inexplicably use iTunes to move data files. Ok, so that was probably set up by some "security conscious" moron.
In general, though, the OS is terrible. One button mice were ok, they were a novelty. Fifteen years ago. Now I feel constrained by a 3 button, plus the extra four for scrolling. The only reason they've stuck with them is stubbornness - not because it makes sense, or because of the simplicity of it, but simply because The Mighty Steve refuses to admit that he might have been wrong. And dragging a drive to the trash - does that eject it or format it? I keep forgetting, since it is apparently random.
WTF is it that allows some of the most argumentative assholes on the web just overlook the one simple fact that Apple is really shitty at putting together a UI?
Hmm. Here in the UK on Orange I got my phone (a Cliq/Dext - I know, I know, but it's been good to me at least) effectively for free - a SIM only package with unlimited texts, calls and ~500MB data would have been £25/month. My package, with a free phone? £25/month.
Then again, there is some serious competition in our marketplace. Not a lot, but some. Go regulated markets!
Well, personally, I'm thrilled they're trying to keep NASA alive... Just consider the wealth of knowledge and understanding we've gained through Hubble alone.
Remind me, how many men are there on Hubble again?
Maybe because resumes get sent to HR and management, not experienced programmers?
From the wiki on life expectancy:
Average lifespan at birth in the UK: 79.4 years
Average lifespan at birth in the US: 78.2 years
So, minor win for the UK's far inferior system there. Now, from the wiki on infant mortality rates:
Infant deaths per 1000 live births / under 5's deaths per 1000 live births in the UK: 4.8 / 6.0
Infant deaths per 1000 live births / under 5's deaths per 1000 live births in the US: 6.3 / 7.8
Another one called for the Kingdom, there. Again, not a huge difference, but pretty significant if you're a parent of 1.8 out of 1000 children. So, the question seems to boil down to a choice between expensive good care or cheap effective care.
"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!" -- Looney Tunes, "What's Opera Doc?" (1957, Chuck Jones)
