No, the logical fallacy is one you're making, that bread and corn are exactly the same kind of goods as music, movies and software. The GP post was an "even if it were possible to copy bread" post; a hypothetical situation that we all know can't actually exist. This is because bread and corn are actually made up of materials, not just information. Furthermore, people will continue to purchase new movies, music, and software produced by others, simply because they're tired of the old material and the new material holds value for them because it is different and interesting.
People have always been willing to pay for entertainment and information in one way or another, but the same art, entertainment, information, and similar things hold different values for different people. It's not simple to calculate, the way the value of a loaf of bread is. And that's ultimately the problem with the way the media corporations are abusing the system. They're trying to claim specific values for what they're selling, but that's simply not possible, as every piece of copyrighted work holds a different value for each individual, and if you really find that actual value, no two are identical. Some differences in value will be quite drastic. That's why a system like Kickstarter is so much better - because it lets individuals decide what it's worth to themselves, and if the combined payment is sufficient, the creator proceeds to create the desired work.
Debates about speeding are always so stupid, and people like yourself only makes things worse.
First, there is no such thing as a perfectly safe speed. Any speed is fast enough to cause an accident (2mph in a parking lot can get it done just fine, depending on the circumstances), yet at the same time, sitting in your car stopped can also easily get you killed. (Even cowering at home because you're too scared to drive has its own risks.)
Which leaves us with only finding a sane point where the reward for driving faster is no longer worth the extra risk. That point is considerably higher in almost all cases than the posted speed limits. Which isn't surprising, because speed limits for safety has been a myth for decades now. It's been purely about profit for a long long time. Speed limits in the US used to be higher 40 years ago, when automobile handling and safety technology wasn't nearly as advanced as it is now, and they were safe enough even then. They were lowered, not for safety, but to preserve fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
So kindly take your uninformed, stupid, selfish opinion and shove it back up the bunghole you shat it out of.
There's too much data and too many variables. Even just inputting all the known, public data might significantly improve the accuracy, but there's also lots of unknown private data that can influence games. Algorithms like this can't account for things like the coach's son getting killed in an automobile accident the night before a game, or the star center getting hit with a bad flu. And when you make it complex enough to take in all that data, it still has to get all that data somewhere, which means it has to have access to all news feeds, and it has to be accurate at knowing which ones are appliccable, etc. etc... or you have to manually input all that data, which would take a horrific amount of time. In the end, it's so much easier to just intuitively account for things like that without using a computer, which I believe is why human experts are just as good as computers at predicting outcomes. We don't calculate the hard statistics as well, but we can account for the human element.
they are priced at a value the publisher thinks the market will bear, which is based on all sorts of ineffable assumptions to do with the value of ideas, the cost of the ink and paper is negligible.
Um... duh? That's what my whole post was about. That, and the fact that they're doing it wrong.
First, the books I'm talking about aren't available at the local library. Second, purchasing an e-book is a lot more convenient than making a trip to the library. Third, gas to drive to the library isn't free. Fourth, buying an e-book at an appropriate price (see my previous post) is usually cheap enough that it's worth it to me, even if I don't expect to read it more than once.
I've used libraries lots of times, but they're not always the answer.
I just mentally change everything as if the script had stuck with humans as CPUs. Picture Morpheus holding an Intel chip instad of a Duracel, and it all works out and makes so much more sense.
Not all the plot holes go away, but a lot of them do. (For example, why the Agents can't just break rules in the Matrix willy-nilly however they please, but rather must stick to bending them.)
And if what you posted is true, it explains exactly why the digital version should be much less expensive. The retailer (which you say is 50-60% of the big cost) has MUCH less overhead involved in selling a digital version rather than a physical copy. There's no shelf space required, no stock-boy required, no "sales associate" required, no delivery costs, and all the various costs associated with a physical copy. The only retailer costs for the digital version are the website, the file server, and the bandwidth. That's pennies a copy for any book worth a shit. Then there's the origination (by which I assume you mean the writing, editing, etc.). If the book is being primarily sold as physical copies, then that cost is already covered as well. The rest of the costs are completely gone for the digital copy.
So what they need to do is find a reasonable price point at a certain percentage below the cost of the physical book, such that people who otherwise wouldn't by either version will buy the digital copy, but not so low that they kill the market for the physical copies. That price point is considerably less than the cost of a paperback, nevermind the cost of a hardcover. For myself, that would be somewhere around 33-50% of the cheapest regular price for the paperback. There have been books I would have liked to buy the e-book version of, but didn't because they cost 40-50% more than the paperback. Since it's a book I'll probably only read once, I also don't want the paperback cluttering my shelves. So instead of buying the ebook for half the cost of the paperback I bought neither, and simply haven't read the book (and won't, until the e-book version is at a reasonable price).
I've never noticed any effects on my body from caffeine, and I've consumed fairly large amounts before. So it makes me wonder if the caffeine is still having the type of effects described in the article but just no noticable effects, or drastically diminished effects overall.
Not true. That's what copyright has been perverted to now, but that's not what it was supposed to be. Copyright is supposed to be the public temporarily giving up their right to do whatever they want with what they bought so the creator/author has temporary exclusive distribution rights to provide a monetary incentive for the creation of said work. The goal of copyright was not to allow people to make money. The goal was to have more works created for the public, with the assumption that more works is a good thing. The money is just the carrot to entice the artists/authors/creators/whatever to create those works. Or to put it another way, the money is the means, not the end. The original authors of copyright law clearly felt the end justified the means. Unfortuately, due to the steaming pile of feces copyright law has become, that is no longer the case. The end no longer justifies the means. That is why so many people pirate and don't care.
At least one can expect that a modern prince will have extensive education and experience in diplomacy and foreign relations.
Which really has nothing to do with it, because that's always been the case. The more pressing issues are (and always have been) the prince's character, and what's going to happen if there is no heir.
Re:That's why I like the basic Kindle
on
The eBook Backlash
·
· Score: 1
I love my Nook for all the same reasons, as well as that (for me at least) the e-ink is about as close to a real book as you'll get on a digital device. In fact it's so much like a regular book that I've found myself at times trying to flip the page, only to realize I'm reading an e-book. I might get a tablet eventually but it won't replace my Nook.
I remain baffled at how companies like Wizards of the Coast think it's acceptable to charge as much for online versions of stuff as they do for the real items (example here is MTG cards). Why the fuck would I pay the same price for something you can take away at your whim for any reason (or no reason) at all?
I don't understand all the details, but it has to do with running the engine more "lean". This allows better performance and efficiency from the same engine, but at the cost of higher emissions of certain types, or emissions that are more difficult to filter (like I said, I'm not sure exactly on the details). A quick look on Wikipedia indicates it's about NOx emissions specifically.
Too bad they (and I) can't buy the 70+mpg diesel VWs available over in Europe. Unfortunately, the engine used in those is one of those engines that doesn't pass our emissions laws.
1. US roads are, on average, built quite a bit larger to better accommodate larger vehicles. 2. The US has a lot less public transportation than most European countries, and almost none at all outside major metropolitan areas. Even many large cities have no (or very poor) public transportation. 3. The US has stricter safety and emissions laws, which the majority of the small super-efficient cars that are so popular in European countries don't pass. 4. US drivers drive on average over 13K miles a year.
We don't have the same high-eficiency vehicles available here due to different emissions laws. Brits go on about how they'd LOVE to be paying "only" $5 per gallon for gasoline. Well, I'd LOVE to be able to have a nice selection of vehicles available that get 50, 60, 70, or even more miles per gallon to offset the higher costs. Give me a small inexpensive car to buy that can hit that kind of milage, and I will gladly pay more per gallon. Until then, please kindly STFU.
I'm not trying to make it out to be anything. That was my first post on this topic. But on the subject of libraries, these days many people wear earbuds which will render it equally ineffective.
Slashdot Mirror
This post should be at +5 right now.
No, the logical fallacy is one you're making, that bread and corn are exactly the same kind of goods as music, movies and software. The GP post was an "even if it were possible to copy bread" post; a hypothetical situation that we all know can't actually exist. This is because bread and corn are actually made up of materials, not just information. Furthermore, people will continue to purchase new movies, music, and software produced by others, simply because they're tired of the old material and the new material holds value for them because it is different and interesting.
People have always been willing to pay for entertainment and information in one way or another, but the same art, entertainment, information, and similar things hold different values for different people. It's not simple to calculate, the way the value of a loaf of bread is. And that's ultimately the problem with the way the media corporations are abusing the system. They're trying to claim specific values for what they're selling, but that's simply not possible, as every piece of copyrighted work holds a different value for each individual, and if you really find that actual value, no two are identical. Some differences in value will be quite drastic. That's why a system like Kickstarter is so much better - because it lets individuals decide what it's worth to themselves, and if the combined payment is sufficient, the creator proceeds to create the desired work.
You use the Kickstarter model.
It's really not that difficult to figure out.
Debates about speeding are always so stupid, and people like yourself only makes things worse.
First, there is no such thing as a perfectly safe speed. Any speed is fast enough to cause an accident (2mph in a parking lot can get it done just fine, depending on the circumstances), yet at the same time, sitting in your car stopped can also easily get you killed. (Even cowering at home because you're too scared to drive has its own risks.)
Which leaves us with only finding a sane point where the reward for driving faster is no longer worth the extra risk. That point is considerably higher in almost all cases than the posted speed limits. Which isn't surprising, because speed limits for safety has been a myth for decades now. It's been purely about profit for a long long time. Speed limits in the US used to be higher 40 years ago, when automobile handling and safety technology wasn't nearly as advanced as it is now, and they were safe enough even then. They were lowered, not for safety, but to preserve fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
So kindly take your uninformed, stupid, selfish opinion and shove it back up the bunghole you shat it out of.
There's too much data and too many variables. Even just inputting all the known, public data might significantly improve the accuracy, but there's also lots of unknown private data that can influence games. Algorithms like this can't account for things like the coach's son getting killed in an automobile accident the night before a game, or the star center getting hit with a bad flu. And when you make it complex enough to take in all that data, it still has to get all that data somewhere, which means it has to have access to all news feeds, and it has to be accurate at knowing which ones are appliccable, etc. etc... or you have to manually input all that data, which would take a horrific amount of time. In the end, it's so much easier to just intuitively account for things like that without using a computer, which I believe is why human experts are just as good as computers at predicting outcomes. We don't calculate the hard statistics as well, but we can account for the human element.
they are priced at a value the publisher thinks the market will bear, which is based on all sorts of ineffable assumptions to do with the value of ideas, the cost of the ink and paper is negligible.
Um... duh? That's what my whole post was about. That, and the fact that they're doing it wrong.
First, the books I'm talking about aren't available at the local library. Second, purchasing an e-book is a lot more convenient than making a trip to the library. Third, gas to drive to the library isn't free. Fourth, buying an e-book at an appropriate price (see my previous post) is usually cheap enough that it's worth it to me, even if I don't expect to read it more than once.
I've used libraries lots of times, but they're not always the answer.
I just mentally change everything as if the script had stuck with humans as CPUs. Picture Morpheus holding an Intel chip instad of a Duracel, and it all works out and makes so much more sense.
Not all the plot holes go away, but a lot of them do. (For example, why the Agents can't just break rules in the Matrix willy-nilly however they please, but rather must stick to bending them.)
And if what you posted is true, it explains exactly why the digital version should be much less expensive. The retailer (which you say is 50-60% of the big cost) has MUCH less overhead involved in selling a digital version rather than a physical copy. There's no shelf space required, no stock-boy required, no "sales associate" required, no delivery costs, and all the various costs associated with a physical copy. The only retailer costs for the digital version are the website, the file server, and the bandwidth. That's pennies a copy for any book worth a shit. Then there's the origination (by which I assume you mean the writing, editing, etc.). If the book is being primarily sold as physical copies, then that cost is already covered as well. The rest of the costs are completely gone for the digital copy.
So what they need to do is find a reasonable price point at a certain percentage below the cost of the physical book, such that people who otherwise wouldn't by either version will buy the digital copy, but not so low that they kill the market for the physical copies. That price point is considerably less than the cost of a paperback, nevermind the cost of a hardcover. For myself, that would be somewhere around 33-50% of the cheapest regular price for the paperback. There have been books I would have liked to buy the e-book version of, but didn't because they cost 40-50% more than the paperback. Since it's a book I'll probably only read once, I also don't want the paperback cluttering my shelves. So instead of buying the ebook for half the cost of the paperback I bought neither, and simply haven't read the book (and won't, until the e-book version is at a reasonable price).
Really?
I've always been under the impression that it's because it's only uploading (ie. "distributing") that's illegal, not downloading.
I've never noticed any effects on my body from caffeine, and I've consumed fairly large amounts before. So it makes me wonder if the caffeine is still having the type of effects described in the article but just no noticable effects, or drastically diminished effects overall.
Not true. That's what copyright has been perverted to now, but that's not what it was supposed to be. Copyright is supposed to be the public temporarily giving up their right to do whatever they want with what they bought so the creator/author has temporary exclusive distribution rights to provide a monetary incentive for the creation of said work. The goal of copyright was not to allow people to make money. The goal was to have more works created for the public, with the assumption that more works is a good thing. The money is just the carrot to entice the artists/authors/creators/whatever to create those works. Or to put it another way, the money is the means, not the end. The original authors of copyright law clearly felt the end justified the means. Unfortuately, due to the steaming pile of feces copyright law has become, that is no longer the case. The end no longer justifies the means. That is why so many people pirate and don't care.
At least one can expect that a modern prince will have extensive education and experience in diplomacy and foreign relations.
Which really has nothing to do with it, because that's always been the case. The more pressing issues are (and always have been) the prince's character, and what's going to happen if there is no heir.
I love my Nook for all the same reasons, as well as that (for me at least) the e-ink is about as close to a real book as you'll get on a digital device. In fact it's so much like a regular book that I've found myself at times trying to flip the page, only to realize I'm reading an e-book. I might get a tablet eventually but it won't replace my Nook.
Exactly. The only way to really solve the problem is to make it impossible to text while driving.
Sounds great. Just give me a minute to whip up the test to determine who gets to vote.
The inherent problem with a benevolent monarchy is the succession.
I remain baffled at how companies like Wizards of the Coast think it's acceptable to charge as much for online versions of stuff as they do for the real items (example here is MTG cards). Why the fuck would I pay the same price for something you can take away at your whim for any reason (or no reason) at all?
I don't understand all the details, but it has to do with running the engine more "lean". This allows better performance and efficiency from the same engine, but at the cost of higher emissions of certain types, or emissions that are more difficult to filter (like I said, I'm not sure exactly on the details). A quick look on Wikipedia indicates it's about NOx emissions specifically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_burn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx
Googling should get more info, and perhaps someone else knows more about it than I.
Too bad they (and I) can't buy the 70+mpg diesel VWs available over in Europe. Unfortunately, the engine used in those is one of those engines that doesn't pass our emissions laws.
Here's a few more objective observations for you.
1. US roads are, on average, built quite a bit larger to better accommodate larger vehicles.
2. The US has a lot less public transportation than most European countries, and almost none at all outside major metropolitan areas. Even many large cities have no (or very poor) public transportation.
3. The US has stricter safety and emissions laws, which the majority of the small super-efficient cars that are so popular in European countries don't pass.
4. US drivers drive on average over 13K miles a year.
We don't have the same high-eficiency vehicles available here due to different emissions laws. Brits go on about how they'd LOVE to be paying "only" $5 per gallon for gasoline. Well, I'd LOVE to be able to have a nice selection of vehicles available that get 50, 60, 70, or even more miles per gallon to offset the higher costs. Give me a small inexpensive car to buy that can hit that kind of milage, and I will gladly pay more per gallon. Until then, please kindly STFU.
I'm not trying to make it out to be anything. That was my first post on this topic. But on the subject of libraries, these days many people wear earbuds which will render it equally ineffective.
Mod up informative. Once people find out how this device works and how easy it is to defeat, it will become completely useless.
Sounds most excellent!