How does increasing manufacturing efficiency lead to low hourly pay for the workers? That doesn't make sense. I'd expect fewer workers, but higher hourly pay.
It's quiet because the Mac Pro upgrade was not announced in their big announcement, but only with a little "New" sign on their webstore after the show.
While I agree that 2-3 years is probably too short time, your reasoning is wrong. The purpose of copyright should be to incentivise the creation of creative works, not to perpetually reward the owners of works with a sustained commercial value.
Authors sell the rights to their books for income. The shorter the copyright period is the less valuable those rights will be. So it's not a question of "sustained commercial value", it's a question of the value of rights at the time of publication. 2-3 years would make writing a hobby for all but the very most popular authors.
I don't really care if the rights are less valuable. The author has no inherent (property) right to tell me that I can't make copies of his book. Furthermore, society would benefit if the book were in the public domain. It would be available from more sources than just the one state-granted monopoly that's selling them now.
>Furthermore, society would benefit if the book were in the public domain. It would be available from more sources than just the one state-granted monopoly that's selling them now.
No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be available from any source, because it would never get written at all. There's only so much time people are willing to put into an unpaid hobby.
Anyone who thinks it's worth the money, anyone who wants to thank him for writing a book, anyone who wants to encourage him to make more books, anyone who makes an impulse buy, anyone who wants a physical copy... you know, all the same exact people who pay for it now.
Except for all the people who will be happy to get it for free instead, which they couldn't do previously without breaking the (copyright) law. If you were able to walk into your local Barnes & Noble tomorrow and everything was free to take, I'm sure you wouldn't be ponying up the money for everything you walked out the door with in your arms.
Please bear in mind that I am not a company or a corporation. I’m just some guy. I paid for the production and posting of this video with my own money. I would like to be able to post more material to the fans in this way, which makes it cheaper for the buyer and more pleasant for me. So, please help me keep this being a good idea. I can’t stop you from torrenting; all I can do is politely ask you to pay your five little dollars, enjoy the video, and let other people find it in the same way.
I also imagine that Louis C.Ks audience is of a particular demographic where this may work (think relatively Internet savvy & intelligent , middle class 21-40 year old white people with disposable income).
If you were somebody creating lowest common denominator entertainment for an unemployed mother to put their kids in front of do you think you would get the same results?
Will they still pay when the novelty wears off, though? Also, it's one thing to send money to a guy who makes you laugh. How many people would voluntarily send money for a textbook or an SAT prep workbook?
I doubt anyone would be buying music if Napster hadn't been shut down.
> I doubt anyone would be buying music if Napster hadn't been shut down.
Did you actually use Napster during its heyday? Of all the P2P software I've ever tried, it was probably the worst--or perhaps just the one most poorly suited to casual piracy. The search system was a joke. Even when your search turned up results, it was hit or miss whether they were actually what you were looking for. My favorite example was a file named "Beethoven's 9th symphony - by Mozart" (it was actually a Handel piece).
Now it's easy to find private torrent trackers with huge, well-maintained collections in very high quality. Comments and ratings make it easy to decide which of several versions to download, and moderators will even help look for rare files if someone can't find what they want.
I think the death of Napster was a big favor to pirates everywhere.
I'm sure bittorrent & private trackers is better for the discerning pirate, however napster was far more accessible.
You simply typed in what you wanted, waited for the search to finish and clicked to download rather than found an indexing site, selected a torrent based on "seeds" and "peers" and then worried about things like magnet links.
Many people who are not tech savvy and want to pirate either get their friends to do it for them or are still using kazaa and friends.
This is a great argument, but a bit too idealistic in my opinion. If copyright kicks in a few years after I write my hit novel and then I see my revenue plummet to $0 even though I know tons of people are still willing to pay me for it, then I'd be less willing to write another book because of this. I'd be willing to bet that the next JK Rowlings of the world would fight tooth an nail to prevent any type of copyright change that doesn't at least extend until the authors death. Rowling and Stephen King aren't just in it for the money, but they do want to get paid.
Why should the author's death have any bearing on the length of copyright? That seems entirely unfair to the estate of the hypothetical dead author whose bestselling crowning achievement was written on his death bed, and entirely unfair to the public who want to have the works of unusually long-lived authors enter the public domain sooner.
This was just a hypothetical, extend it even after the authors death, this is fine by me. I'd like to see copyright such that the actual creator of the work defines how long the item stays under copyright. I say 1 year? Fine. I say until my death? Great. I say this book shall remain under copyright for 300 years? So be it. Take the good with the bad.
But the constitution gives Congress a wide latitude in the implementation, which is why the Supreme Court is unwilling to curtail the perpetual extensions that got us where we are today.
Yes you can. If you delete an item from your Dropbox you can see it by choosing "Show deleted files" from here you can choose to permanently delete the file. In my testing this also removes any trace of the file ever being created from Events. While Dropbox certainly could be keeping an undeletable log of everything you ever upload, there is no evidence that they are doing so.
While Dropbox certainly could be keeping an undeletable log of everything you ever upload, there is no evidence that they are doing so.
It is safer to assume that they are than to assume they are not. Maybe they got an NSL with a gag order that requires them to silently store logs indefinitely. There's no way of knowing, so just assume that's the case and plan accordingly (e.g. don't upload embarrassing college photos that would cause you problems if the upload logs were hacked and released to the public).
Aside from having to import data from case-sensitive environments, could you give an example of a case where you would actually /want/ you filesystem to be case-sensitive? When would it ever, be a good idea to have two distinct files called readme.txt and README.txt?
I really wish I could remember the specific example. We used camelCase for filenames on that project, and there were two distinct names (like "bookcase" and "bookCase") that did not sound alike, yet were the same letters. The sort of thing that meant something very different if you moved the space.
I prefer case-sensitive filesystems because the separation between works is semantically meaningful in English.
Example: checking out a repository where someone named (say) a file 'foo' and a directory 'Foo'. It happens. Most of the time that checkout will simply fail. Having this not work is less than enjoyable.
