Your Cake metaphor breaks down because of your intuition and experience of cakes. If everybody needs to study for 10 years to bake a cake, cakes would become are more expensive. If people are were willing to spend 5 bucks on a cake, baking would not be a lucrative carer and few people would pursue it. Politicians might then show concern about a cake talent crisis and fund programs to get girls more interested in baking at an earlier age, while cakes still cost 5 bucks a piece.
"If everybody had to study for 10 years to bake a cake, cakes would become more expensive"
This is not exactly true unless the demand for cakes is perfectly inelastic, but I will admit that if the cost of becoming a cake supplier increases, total supply should decrease (all else equal), the result will be a higher equilibrium price. The point I was trying to make with the cake metaphor is simply that the price of x is not determined by the cost of the inputs, but by the value of the output.
The part of your comment that I don't understand is the bit about the government support. I don't really see how that relates to the cake metaphor. Am I missing something?
Also, you're describing a situation that can logically only arise in the context of market failure (this is interesting because I alluded to this in my first comment).
If people aren't willing to pay the higher cost of the cake because the benefit doesn't justify the cost, why would it make sense for the government to use tax money to intervene?
Short answer: it doesn't.
This only makes sense if the total benefit of cake > the cost of the cake, but there was some market inefficiency in the way.
You could certainly argue that this is the case with scientific research. In fact I personally would agree with this argument. But it has nothing to do with how long the scientist spent in school and what they "deserve" to earn based on that education.
Stephen Bond, who wrote the linked page, is at http://plover.net/~bonds/. I could not find any OSCON talks by him. Can you please provide a link? I think you are confusing them based on the similar domain names.
You can't protect facts with copyright anywhere, AFAIK. The listing consists of more than facts, including a descriptive title, the descriptive text of the listing, and the attached images. These are all protected. At the moment, PadMapper does not copy any of these things. It's been pointed out. Let's not rehash what's already been said ad nauseum in the PadMapper story comments and stick to discussing this submission.
I don't think that copyright for photographs would be covered by the Craigslist claim though:
'Clicking "Continue" confirms that craigslist is the exclusive licensee of this content, with the exclusive right to enforce copyrights against anyone copying, republishing, distributing or preparing derivative works without its consent.'
I have an original photo and publish it as part of a listing ('the content'). The photo is not a derivative work.
> craigslist is the exclusive licensee of this content, with the exclusive right to enforce copyrights against anyone copying, republishing, distributing or preparing derivative works without its consent.'
> I have an original photo and publish it as part of a listing ('the content'). The photo is not a derivative work.
No, but if someone uses that photo (from the listing) to make something else, that something else is a derivative work, and thus covered by the craigslist license.
I suspect that the craigslist wording isn't intended to be restricted to derivative works. That is, I think that they meant to include content as is in addition to derived work from said content.
Yes, becuse if you grant someone exclusive rights then you need to possess those exclusive rights in the first place. If the material is not protectable, then you don't have any rights to grant to others.
I would be surprised if an author really wanted to do such a thing. The authors I know would be livid if a publisher, say, changed the ending. Publishers typically get the right to publish, and that's it. Opening a few books from my library randomly, the authors or their heirs all hold the copyright.
It's a bit more complicated: We don't have copyright as the americans do, it's split in "Urheberrecht" which is the part the the creator owns and cannot license or sell and the "Verwertungsrecht" which is the right to use the work.
Urheberrecht encompasses thing such as the right do defend against modifications that go against the spirit of the work or the author or against defacing it, the right to be named as the creator (though this one can be waived by contract depending on the circumstance) etc. The Urheberrecht can only be transferred by inheritance.
The Verwertungsrechte is anything related to the use of the work, such as selling, buying, (sub)licensing it.
Please keep in mind that this is a gross oversimplification and IANAL. The copyright situation is complicated enough for experts in the field and cannot be explained in a short post I guess :)
> The articles are littered with crappy advice confusing beginners, have little structure and are filled with ridiculous questions (questions in an wiki???)
The original wiki has questions, back-and-forth-discussion and loosely structured content on many pages. Maybe some pages need to be maintained/wikified/deprecated, but the EmacsWiki itself is fine. Also, it was never intended to be the authoritative GNU Emacs wiki. GNU Emacs is self-documenting. The non-standard stuff needs the wiki more.
Self-documenting or not, I think the point stands, the standard stuff is very well documented via many means (a nice tutorial, a very comprehensive manual, an emacs lisp tutorial and an emacs lisp reference all ship with Emacs in addition to things like describe-function, describe-key, describe-variable etc.), so the role of the Wiki is to supplement those and not replace them.
Really? The splash screen (literally the first thing that appears when you first run Emacs) has links to 3 key pieces of documentation: 2 tutorials and the reference manual, which is surprisingly comprehensive. It would be really hard for them to be more upfront about the documentation.
And Wikipedia, with its talk pages separated but attached to its articles, was the first wiki that made me think "huh, maybe this Wiki thing is actually a good idea."
I have always been frustrated by "traditional" wikis that intersperse random bits of discussion with the article. No one really seems to know where to discuss something. The threading is horrible.
I am very glad that Wikipedia realized that you need to separate discussion about an article from a single, authoritative, neutral article. They are two very different needs, and trying to mix them into one just doesn't work.
In my opinion, it really depends on the subject matter. For an encyclopedia, inline arguments are surely the wrong thing. But in that case, you're really using a wiki-like system as a more user-friendly, accessible content management system.
And for things like c2, I'd consider the lack of threading an advantage. For lots of technical discussions, this leads to clarifications that are hidden somewhere deep in that thread pile and would require an editor to factor those out in the main article. Which works fine with something that has a huge user base or paid people to work on it (i.e. Wikipedia or corp "wikis"), but not for everything.