Slashdot Mirror

Good roofs and fresh paint on a sharp looking lawn without human effort would be a shocker. But what does that do to an economy. We don't even know if humans should be involved in an economy or whether we best let robots and computers serve us all things that we need.

It's probably too late for this comment to get modded high enough for many people to see it, but I'm in the process of polishing/publishing a speculative fiction novel that attacks this topic. Preview version is available here.

I think the basic social motivation will evolve to (a) robots do boring work, (b) humans do creative work. Certainly, a robot driven economy will be capable of supporting a centralized leadership, but as long as the general population is given enough freedom to basically do whatever they want within a loose social construct it's hard to imagine many people would complain. Though, naturally a big part of a lot of speculative fiction is "Post Scarcity Economy" (which implies that enough resources are available to support everybody [regardless of whether they do any work or not] so that nobody is left wanting).

Two concepts that are truly impossible to anticipate the outcomes of... ruling classes are predisposed to nepotism and cronyism and these things invariably lead to corruption. The other thing is all centralized governments support censorship to a certain degree and it's impossible to draw a line where censorship can be enforced without removing people's freedom. It's not clear how robotics can be used to address these two concerns.

the works of Creative Commons authors everywhere

Citation needed, and I'm not just trying to be a dick... I am geniunely curious about how you search for CC licensed manuscripts.

I am a CC author and to my knowledge there are no methods to reliably search for CC licensed manuscripts that raise the bar above the "self-published" garbage that's out there.

I'll be putting out a "Version 2.1" of the linked novel sometime next year and the reason for all the revisions is because good writing requires many hours of editing. Editing is what separates "traditional publication" from many (not all) self-publishers and "CC authors" (who aren't already widely known).

So far, and I think for the rest of the time humanity exists, capitalism is the best economic system we are capable of having.

This is the conservative view on every topic of import: the status quo is the best system possible.

Wonderful logic! Well put, sir.

I suggest Tim Kreider's essay [thepaincomics.com] on the subject:

as Montag's colleagues assure him in Farenheit 451, "Believe me, houses have always been fireproof. Firemen have always burned books."

It's funny you allude to literature. This medium has an uncanny ability to fictionalize the truth into an absurd dramatization that mirrors the truth that's inherent in the world. The realizations that these books which follow simple plots in seemingly unrealistic situations tell us a lot about ourselves is refreshing.

I suggest Tim Kreider's essay [thepaincomics.com] on the subject:

capitalist liberal democracy is the final culmination of all social progress, apparently unable to imagine a more perfect system

Again replying to your quote, I'd point you towards my own book entitled 2076 that offers an imaginative look at the future. It's currently a draft and the final version won't hit bookshelves until next year, but I imagine you'll like at least some of the ideas.

Mind control? And you didn't get your cut? That's a drag. Next time your friend tries to do that to you, at least make sure he's willing to buy a few rounds at the local bar so you can at least get some payback.

To be honest, I wish /. would feature more SF. I am much more likely to pick up some fiction than the lately Ruby of Rails rag.

Though to be really honest, I wish /. would feature a review of my SF book, 2076. I've still got a couple more edits to do before the publication date latest this year, but if the complaint about lifeless characters is the worst part of Space Vulture than I think I've at least got that problem taken care of. And it's free.

2. They already don't respect your license. Why would they respect this.

I have to disagree. Software pirates respect Creative Commons licenses. CC is a "free distribution" license. There isn't any way to distribute CC licensed material so that the person you give it to can't give it to all their friends for free.

The argument here, if I understand it correctly, is bridging the gap between the Non-commercial license and the No-derivatives license.

The fact is that MOST creative types that have an interest in profiting from their creations tend to distribute Non-Commercial AND No-derivatives to protect their investment.

A while back I had a plan to distribute my novel as NC-ND up until I was able to draw some pre-determined sum on money through monetary donations collected on my site. I have since abandoned that because $0 came in over the course of over a year.

But for the reader who isn't interested in reselling it or creating derivative works, as long as it is CC, then they don't care about the other terms of the license. Right?

I want to answer your question with one of my own. What is so bad about having legislators or judges in the government who are sponsored by so-and-so? I admit that the comparison between entertainment and politics is extreme, but hopefully you agree that ensuring a stream of money to finance future projects is as important for writers as it is for politicians. A writer who takes money from Exxon might be tempted or persuaded to change minor points in his or her plotline to be more oil-friendly.

I agree. In my original post I mentioned giving readers a "read now, pay later" option. This would benefit the economy by ensuring that only authors with good stories will develop readerships. And *those* readers with tell their friends. And a fraction of the satisfied readers will click on the appropriate "Donate now" links on the novel's website and the author will get a very clear idea whether people are "buying" his (or her) work or not. In theory, writers who sell well will get the coveted opportunity to quit their day jobs and write full-time.

I even encourage giving interested parties the freedom to develop derivative works, but only on stories which have produced a certain level of revenue to satisfy the needs of the author (i.e. to prevent Hollywood from producing a film and profit from it without paying a dime for the rights). You can read more about that theory here.

Convenience to curl up with a disposal, replaceable relic of intellectual stimulation, you say?

# 8x11" two-page format for book capable printing [Download]

Find a good quality printer the fits 200+ sheets of paper and will reliably NOT insert the occasional blank sheet of paper during printing (I have used laser printers at my office to do this in the past, and it has worked like a charm).

(a) Print (I think you need to select Landscape format).

(b) Flip the pages over and put them back into the printed so that you'll print to the reverse side (paying carefully attention to put it in the correct orientation) and print again (so that even-numbered pages print on the back of odd numbered pages, and vice-versa).

(c) You can then cut the pages down the middle (I have a cheapo paper slicer for this, which makes it easy to line up 10-12 pages and then make a clean cut down the middle - though an office supply store might offer to do this for you).

(d) Sort the pages into two-copies of the story. Bring each stack down to the local office supply store to bind two-copies of the novel. Staples or Kinkos generally provides a service where they will "tape bind" a manuscript. You can add a cardboard front and back cover (have them cut it in half for you, so it fits) and it should cost between $3 and $4 per copy after all is said and done.

[and any feedback on these instructions is encouraged... because I would love for this procedure to be straightforward enough that people can easily print my book].

I fully agree with your points about DRM, but I respectfully disagree with your criticism of the price of e-Book readers and your requests for 'free' books for a number of different reasons.

You criticize the $400 pricetag without understanding how many companies failed before e-Ink became a reality. Please understand that it is an industry changing technology and the pioneering companies who developed it need to make money for the Venture Capitalists who invested in their ideas during the formative stages of the technology. Also, the components used in e-Ink are arguably in a stage of production that they don't enjoy the benefits of scale of mass-production that tends to lower prices.

On the other side of the coin, you don't seem to grasp the enormous effort that goes into writing a story or packaging a student textbook. The statement "Books yearn to be free" is a bit troubling. I suppose you might be reflecting purely on the "DRM-free" implication, but when you use the word 'free' it implies 'free to re-distribute'. From a very practical standpoint, I agree with you. I favor distributing my own novel for "free" (though what is currently posted is what I will call a "polished draft copy"). However, what I DON'T agree with is the economical aspects of "freeness". It realistically takes anywhere from 1e3 to 1e4 hours to write and edit a manuscript worth reading... so when readers suggest that they should get a 'free' copy of the book, I respectfully disagree.

That being said, I hope that someday a compromise of a business model is realized to transform the "pay, then enjoy" model into an "enjoy, then pay" system. And I think you would probably agree with me (based on "I can certainly afford a current-generation e-book reader"), but I just wanted to make a point:

Literature, software, music and movies are exist digitally and can theoretically be copied for $0, but the artists behind these formats still desire a business model so that they can potentially support themselves, and the nature of each of the different formats demands a different business model. For software, it is through support. For music, through performances. For movies, through rentals, disc DVD sales, and theatrical performances. For books, if you would accept the "enjoy, then pay" model it would make me (as an author) very happy.

I fully agree with your points about DRM, but I respectfully disagree with your criticism of the price of e-Book readers and your requests for 'free' books for a number of different reasons.

You criticize the $400 pricetag without understanding how many companies failed before e-Ink became a reality. Please understand that it is an industry changing technology and the pioneering companies who developed it need to make money for the Venture Capitalists who invested in their ideas during the formative stages of the technology. Also, the components used in e-Ink are arguably in a stage of production that they don't enjoy the benefits of scale of mass-production that tends to lower prices.

On the other side of the coin, you don't seem to grasp the enormous effort that goes into writing a story or packaging a student textbook. The statement "Books yearn to be free" is a bit troubling. I suppose you might be reflecting purely on the "DRM-free" implication, but when you use the word 'free' it implies 'free to re-distribute'. From a very practical standpoint, I agree with you. I favor distributing my own novel for "free" (though what is currently posted is what I will call a "polished draft copy"). However, what I DON'T agree with is the economical aspects of "freeness". It realistically takes anywhere from 1e3 to 1e4 hours to write and edit a manuscript worth reading... so when readers suggest that they should get a 'free' copy of the book, I respectfully disagree.

That being said, I hope that someday a compromise of a business model is realized to transform the "pay, then enjoy" model into an "enjoy, then pay" system. And I think you would probably agree with me (based on "I can certainly afford a current-generation e-book reader"), but I just wanted to make a point:

Literature, software, music and movies are exist digitally and can theoretically be copied for $0, but the artists behind these formats still desire a business model so that they can potentially support themselves, and the nature of each of the different formats demands a different business model. For software, it is through support. For music, through performances. For movies, through rentals, disc DVD sales, and theatrical performances. For books, if you would accept the "enjoy, then pay" model it would make me (as an author) very happy.

Me, too! This page outlines a distribution/sales plan for my novel once I revise it and decide that it is "done".

My theory is that the traditional standard of "pay first, then enjoy" can be satisfactorily substituted with "enjoy first, then pay".

The key to "online distribution" isn't that the sale price is zero. The key is that the "cost of goods sold" is zero. It costs $0 to sell 10,000 copies of a book online for $0 each (yes, webservers cost money to operate, but it is negligible). For printed books, a run of 10,000 copies would cost a publisher $10,000 to $50,000 (depending on several factors: book length, color or b/w, binding, quality). Thus, it would be foolish to just give those books away.

Additionally, I believe the world is changing from (a) pay and enjoy, to (b) enjoy and pay. With online distribution, a copy of a novel can be downloaded for free and "enjoyed", and then through PayPal donations an author can easily setup a system for users who think his work is "worthy" to pay him.

I call this Open Publication and it is a business model that I have adopted for distribution of my own novel.

I disagree. I would say, "You need to have a good story to tell". Good writing, on the other hand, is a matter of having a good editing process. As far as I can tell, editing a novel can be as much of a community effort as developing an Open Source computer program, where there is a central architect and several supporting developers.

Why do I think this? I have written a novel and published a version of it last summer. I have received several critiques from people who I would have otherwise never had heard of. I welcome comments and criticism from anybody who is willing to take a chance on a story that is "a work in progress". If the C&C is constructive, then you can bet that you'll get a mention in the acknowledgments paragraph at the beginning of the story to recognize your help.

So, no. I would freely admit that I am not the best writer in the world, but I think I have a good enough story that with some time I can publish a novel that will be enjoyable and attractive to a wide range of read

I have read that the "goal" of economy is to eliminate scarcity. Capitalism is just a method that spurs COMPETITION to give an advantage to groups who do the best to serve the goal of the economy. This takes advantage of the inherent nature of humans to be greedy, because a successful capitalist will become wealthy (as Gates has demonstrated).

If Gates is so satisfied with his wealth, power to him. I would say that, "Bill Gates has won capitalism" (and eliminated scarcity for himself).

The challenge of empowering "poor" societies (his proposition) is harder, though. It isn't capitalist. It is welfare and socialist and genuinely good (if done right). If he wants to eliminate scarcity for groups where resources are currently *very scarce*, he should looks towards sustainable production methods. Is energy a concern? Develop wind/solar/hydro power for the "poor". Is food a concern? Better agricultural techniques can be employed in the "poorer" areas of the world. Is the top concern health and medical related? Better medical facilities, doctors, and drugs should be setup in the poor countries. Is housing an issue? Construct strong and beautiful structures that the locals would be proud to move into.

As for Gates' proposition of "a kinder capitalism", I think he is looking at it wrong. I think he would have Microsoft be a monetary vehicle that produces a product for $x and sells it for $x+y dollars to "rich" peoples. This gives the "rich" societies a product they need (software) and leaves $y for socialism and welfare and genuine good for the "poor" world.

And to be honest, if Gates' efforts result in prosperity in the third world at the cost of $y (the Microsoft tax) which is paid willingly by the first world... then he will have succeeded in ways that pure "charity" organizations like UNICEF, the Red Cross, and the United Way never could.

Then again, it is Bill Gates and he is notorious for being a businessman first, so any "charity" from him should be taken with a grain of sand.

And if you'd care to delve into more of my ideas on the topic, they are buried throughout a novel that I've written which is available here. Granted, the novel is mostly about a group of citizens who aren't happy with things in a post-Capitalist world, but there is a lot of description about how such a world might be structured (and free feel to grep "Gates" in the text to see what I think about *that*).

There is some fiction listed here. I don't know how much of it allows for derivative works, but that would be one important distinction. Furthermore, I don't know how much of it would be fit for main stream consumption.

Personally, one of the novels there was written by me. The link on the page points here. You'll notice that I am not currently allowing for derivative works... but if the right production crew were to approach me with a script and a plan then it is a distinct possibility that I would take advantage of my author's rights and let them produce a derivative work.

This is what my sig should be:

2076: A Novel [2076book.com] about a possible future of America, offered as a free download.