That's why I put "best" in quotes.
That's why I put "best" in quotes.
Yup, Outlook's search is crap.
> MS office (because stupid people can only use outlook for email),
I dislike Outlook just as much as you, but what cross platform mail client and server handles shared calendars across Windows, and OSX ?
sarcasm, noun; the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
/sarcsam Because America has the "best" government money can buy son.
Speaking of the ocean a great documentary is Mission Blue (available on Netflix)
What a bad trailer.
Guy is too self-absorbed to spend any time with man's best friend so he ignores his dog
Ah, so the problem that bothers you is piggybacking, so to speak. Using other's work to bring attention to ads and products that generate income.
On piggybacking, I feel our "mother may I" system is a serious drag. I don't like the idea that artists should have control over how their works are used. The artists should receive money somehow, but they shouldn't be able to dictate usage on some far fetched notion that lack of control might somehow negatively impact potential profits. I believe that's the rationale commonly used to justify such control. For an example of the trouble such control causes, consider the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's album cover. They had to ask permission of each and every one of the hundred or so people they wanted on the cover, an expensive and time consuming project. For that reason, works like that album cover are quite rare.
It would be better if no permission was required, and artists whose work was used could simply apply for money from a publicly funded trust. Maybe don't even need to apply, perhaps the trust could actively work to discover such usages. Would have to be careful exactly how such a system was set up, as the potential for cheating is huge. I think it could be done and could work better than copyright.
Copying is in the hands of the masses now. The Internet is even more revolutionary than the Gutenberg printing press, which was perhaps the most revolutionary and life changing invention in the past 1000 years.
Understandable, as there is a lot of confusion on this subject. Took me a long time to work out answers I find satisfying.
Firstly, it's a mistake to equate copying with stealing. Copying is not stealing, copying is copying. Vandalism is not stealing. Littering is not stealing, Nor are speeding, trespassing, slander, forgery, creating a parody, taking photos in public spaces, insulting politicians, and a whole bunch of other activities in any way stealing. Nor is buying from Burger King stealing from McDonalds. When you say "stealing others' works" to mean copying, you fall for publisher propaganda that does want the public to accept that copying is in fact stealing, to stir public anger, slandering sharers as "thieves". They're trying to push our buttons.
To really steal someone else's work, you'd have to take credit for it. We have a name for that: plagiarism. You added "selling them as their own" to "stealing others' works", so what did you mean exactly? Were you talking about distributing others' works, or plagiarism? It's a big, important difference.
"they are undeniably causing harm by siphoning money away" Certainly it is harmful to McDonalds for a Burger King restaurant to open up nearby. Now publishers are being challenged by competition that they have never faced before, the Internet. We're 25 years into the rise of the Internet and the Age of Information, and they're still struggling to get it, meanwhile whining how unfair the whole thing is that their old business model that relied on media being a scarce resource doesn't work any more. They want the Internet and computers to be hamstrung so badly they work no better at moving information around than distribution via CD/DVD. That is asking far too much of us all. Just turn the clock back to the 1980s, rip up the Internet, uninvent the CD/DVD burner and hard drives bigger than 40M? They claim that artists will starve, seem to take it as a given that copyright is the glue that makes art possible. They're wrong. There are other ways to earn a living, such as crowdfunding. And it's not a new idea. Classical music was and still is mostly supported by patronage, not copyright.
The harm to us all is huge. Our public libraries should be a lot more digital than they are. Think of it: no more late returns, lost books, waiting for a copy to be returned because they're all checked out at the moment, and most of all, a much, much larger collection and searchability. If you've ever used a card catalog, one with actual little rectangles of cardboard with typing on them, you can see how much computer search surpasses that. Further, our education system relies far too much on private, for-profit printers. We should have a huge choice of excellent, open, online works available and used for basic education, We have some things. Wikipedia completely outstrips print encyclopedias, just no comparison between the two. We should have more, and we would if not for the evil known as extreme copyright,
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at just how true that it
I'm reminded of a phrase from Murphy's Computer Laws:
If builders built buildings the way programmers write programs,
then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
> I nearly sent them an energizer bunny
> but decided it might be a CLM.
Ah, Career Limiting Maneuver -- yup, don't rub their faces in it.
> I don't know why people continue to buy their stuff.
You get the popular Windows Apps along with the power of Unix under the hood.
i.e. Unix + Photoshop.
e.g. MS Office on OSX gives me _both_ the ribbon bar AND menu bar. Best of both worlds because _I_ get to decide which one works for me.
I guess Fight Club was right
"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others." -- the Dalai Lama