Most of them would rather cry for the government to do something. Of course what they overlook is that the reason they are in this situation is because the government "did something" to fix some other perceived failing of the market.
How exactly could they "Tax" email? Who would pay the tax, the person sending or receiving?
The answer to you second question is, yes. That is the government would charge both. As to how they would do it, they would require every email provider to keep track of how many emails are sent and received by each account and charge those accounts the appropriate amount. It would mean the end of free email services like gmail, yahoo, etc.
The problem isn't the people who live way out in the country who expect to have mail delivered to their doorstep that are the root of the problem. It is the people who live/do business in metropolitan areas (or not) who expect that when they put something business related in the mail to someone they can expect it to get to that someone in a certain amount of time (that time primarily being determined by how far the recipient is from the sender rather than by how urban or rural the recipient's address is).
I think you point out where the science comes in, at least as a minimum. Saying that pure oxygen is a possible cause of cancer is an interpretation, and a questionable one at that, of science. Saying that cellphone Y emits a specific amount of radio energy is a scientific fact. If this label states something about the affects of the radio energy, then it quite likely will go over the line (since no studies currently have shown any solid evidence of negative affects of cellphone radio energy).
No, I am arguing that I don't sue those who have my permission to use my copyrighted material, even if they never asked for that permission. While I do sue those who do not have my permission to use my copyrighted material. Under copyright law, I get to decide who may use material for which I hold the copyright.
Government regulations are what keep you from dying every time you make toast, plug in the kettle, or turn on the TV.
As someone else pointed out that is Underwriters' Laboratory
They keep you safe on the roads.
You know, I'm pretty sure my parents drove before there were government safety regulations for cars, the only auto related injury either of them ever suffered was in a car with government mandated safety features
They stop your house from falling in,
the house I grew up in was built before government mandated building codes and the roof never fell in. There is something to the toxic chemicals being found in food argument you make, but I hope you never complain about the lack of local options for getting your food, a lot of those went away because they could not afford to meet government inspection rules.
It is not so much that the model is less dated than the fact that book publishers weren't as greedy in the heyday of the publishing industry (although much of that is due to differences in the way that book publishing developed vs the way that the music industry did).
The evidence suggests that enforcing existing regulations would have prevented this spill from happening. Therefore this spill is a terrible argument for new regulations. The people in charge who want to use this spill to pass further regulations were the people in charge when the regulations were not being enforced.
I love how its the fault of people who don't like government regulations that the people who favor government regulations failed to enforce the regulations.
What Media Matters really means is that who they choose not to sue may be politically motivated. The claim is that because they allow people they agree with to use their copyrighted material, they should be required to allow people they oppose to use their copyrighted material. What is the point of copyright if I don't get to pick and choose who gets to copy my material on whatever basis I wish?
You mean because the regulators did such a wonderful job at enforcing the regulations that were already in place that we should create new regulations?
I am never a fan of government regulations, but when there are problems with an industry we can discuss possible government regulations of that industry. However, I am always opposed to new regulations to address a problem that appears to have happened largely because exisitng regulations were not being followed. If regulators have failed to enforce existing regulations, what makes anyone think they will enforce any new regulations?
What took so long was that the publishers asserted that they had the rights to e-book along with the rights to phyiscal books even when the contracts explicitly mentioned "book form" but did not mention electronic format. The authors disagreed and one or more took a publisher to court over it. This is how long since the court case was settled in the authors' favor for some organization to work out a deal for a large group of authors.
Please be aware that the publishers do own the e-book rights to most more recent titles. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next little while. Book publishers have never taken as big a chunk of the money made on books as music publishers, so their busness model is not as clearly outdated as that of music publishers (meaning that book publishers may still have time to figure out how to continue to turn a profit in the electronic distribution age).
Sometimes it's nice being a geezer; I wonder what my grandfather was able to experience that I'll never get the chance to?
Tuberculosis.
If you really want to, you can still experience tuberculosis. On the other hand, smallpox, that's a treat that, unless we get really unlucky, no one will ever have the opportunity to experience again (smallpox is considered to be extinct although there may be a few samples in deep freeze in various biological weapons research laboratories throughout the world).
What the summary is complaining about is that nobody reviews the code to see if it is safe. The code is protected by law from being examined by patients who have the devices implanted in them or by the doctors (or their representatives) who order the devices implanted. Theoretically this is because the FDA reviews the devices for safety. The claim made is that the FDA does not do so. Actually, that is not the actual claim made that is what the summary (and probably the article) attempt to do by implication. If the device manufacturers follow the GMP (Good Manufacturing Process--which I am pretty sure they are required to do), the code and all changes to the code are very thoroughly documented internally by the company and if there is ever reason to suspect a problem with the devices because of that code, the documentation will be examined and anyone who knowingly approved bad code will be criminally liable. Even when there are no problems with that device, the FDA audits the companies on a regular basis and if their Validation documentation is not completely in order they can be subject to pretty severe fines and/or criminal charges. Several companies have been shut down because they were not properly documenting their validation procedures to satisfy the GMP regulations.
That being said, the article points out a flaw in the system that allows for potentially dangerous devices to be approved for use, but the danger is not nearly as large as the article paints it.
You are right. If the job I do were to go that way, I would get out of it and get into another profession. I don't love what I do enough to work that way. The problem with your argument is that there are enough people who love the idea of doing graphic design enough to work that way.
Personally, I suspect that the graphic design world will not stay that way for very long. However, graphic design will, also, no longer command the salaries it once did. It is too easy to do, not that I could, but I know a lot of people with the talent to do it.
I don't know, $265 is a decent return for four hours of work. Yeah it's a bit slim if it takes you 16 hours. It is certainly a viable living if on average those projects take you 10 hours. The problem is that there are more people who can do good design than there are jobs for them. As a matter of fact there are more people who can do good design and would like to make a living at design than there are jobs for them.
You shouldn't expect to make a living at something that lots of people can do and would like to do for a living. Especially when it is no longer necessary to live in high priced areas to do it.
Well, we will never know, since people like you seem to think that the best way to fix problems created by government regulation is more government regulation.
They hate it for the same reason that the music industry hates the Internet, they lose control of the marketplace and are unable to charge a premium for intangibles. Basically, the established design professionals are used to being able to charge more than the value they add to the product because it was too hard to find good alternatives. I am not saying that experienced, quality design professionals do not add significant value over most of what you can get from crowd sourcing sites. It's just that they want to charge more for that value than what it is worth in today's marketplace. When it was hard to find people who had a natural talent for design for a particular product or market segment, it was worth paying more for people who were proven at creating good designs for many different areas and additionally had experience in what types of design seem good in development, but turn out to be bad ideas in production. Now that it is easier to find people who are inexperienced, but have a natural talent, that experience is less valuable.
Please show me a historical basis for natural monopoly. The theory of "natural monopoly" was developed to justify the government supporting AT&T becoming a monopoly over telephone service back at the beginning of the 20th Century. The closest thing I know of a monopoly developing without direct intervention by the government is Microsoft.
Yes let's bring back the fairness doctrine where those companies that broadcast over the airwaves present both sides of every public issue that they bother to cover (even those that have more than two sides). You know where they have a sensible, logical sounding guy explaining why the policy that those doing the broadcast support makes good sense and a complete nutjob explaining why the policy those doing the broadcast support should be opposed (even if the nutjob has no connection whatsoever with any of the groups promoting the side he takes).
Slashdot Mirror
Most of them would rather cry for the government to do something. Of course what they overlook is that the reason they are in this situation is because the government "did something" to fix some other perceived failing of the market.
How exactly could they "Tax" email? Who would pay the tax, the person sending or receiving?
The answer to you second question is, yes. That is the government would charge both. As to how they would do it, they would require every email provider to keep track of how many emails are sent and received by each account and charge those accounts the appropriate amount. It would mean the end of free email services like gmail, yahoo, etc.
The problem isn't the people who live way out in the country who expect to have mail delivered to their doorstep that are the root of the problem. It is the people who live/do business in metropolitan areas (or not) who expect that when they put something business related in the mail to someone they can expect it to get to that someone in a certain amount of time (that time primarily being determined by how far the recipient is from the sender rather than by how urban or rural the recipient's address is).
I think you point out where the science comes in, at least as a minimum. Saying that pure oxygen is a possible cause of cancer is an interpretation, and a questionable one at that, of science. Saying that cellphone Y emits a specific amount of radio energy is a scientific fact. If this label states something about the affects of the radio energy, then it quite likely will go over the line (since no studies currently have shown any solid evidence of negative affects of cellphone radio energy).
No, it's a curse, because so many other people think they do that nobody listens.
That's fine, but don't claim that the solution to a problem caused by failure to enforce existing regulations is to enact more regulations.
No, I am arguing that I don't sue those who have my permission to use my copyrighted material, even if they never asked for that permission. While I do sue those who do not have my permission to use my copyrighted material. Under copyright law, I get to decide who may use material for which I hold the copyright.
There was lots of telephone service out there before the government decided that it would be better if AT&T had a monopoly.
But who do those regulations inside your big examples actually favor? The consumer or some corporate interest?
Government regulations are what keep you from dying every time you make toast, plug in the kettle, or turn on the TV.
As someone else pointed out that is Underwriters' Laboratory
They keep you safe on the roads.
You know, I'm pretty sure my parents drove before there were government safety regulations for cars, the only auto related injury either of them ever suffered was in a car with government mandated safety features
They stop your house from falling in,
the house I grew up in was built before government mandated building codes and the roof never fell in. There is something to the toxic chemicals being found in food argument you make, but I hope you never complain about the lack of local options for getting your food, a lot of those went away because they could not afford to meet government inspection rules.
It is not so much that the model is less dated than the fact that book publishers weren't as greedy in the heyday of the publishing industry (although much of that is due to differences in the way that book publishing developed vs the way that the music industry did).
The evidence suggests that enforcing existing regulations would have prevented this spill from happening. Therefore this spill is a terrible argument for new regulations. The people in charge who want to use this spill to pass further regulations were the people in charge when the regulations were not being enforced.
I love how its the fault of people who don't like government regulations that the people who favor government regulations failed to enforce the regulations.
What Media Matters really means is that who they choose not to sue may be politically motivated. The claim is that because they allow people they agree with to use their copyrighted material, they should be required to allow people they oppose to use their copyrighted material. What is the point of copyright if I don't get to pick and choose who gets to copy my material on whatever basis I wish?
You mean because the regulators did such a wonderful job at enforcing the regulations that were already in place that we should create new regulations?
I am never a fan of government regulations, but when there are problems with an industry we can discuss possible government regulations of that industry. However, I am always opposed to new regulations to address a problem that appears to have happened largely because exisitng regulations were not being followed. If regulators have failed to enforce existing regulations, what makes anyone think they will enforce any new regulations?
What took so long was that the publishers asserted that they had the rights to e-book along with the rights to phyiscal books even when the contracts explicitly mentioned "book form" but did not mention electronic format. The authors disagreed and one or more took a publisher to court over it. This is how long since the court case was settled in the authors' favor for some organization to work out a deal for a large group of authors.
Please be aware that the publishers do own the e-book rights to most more recent titles. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next little while. Book publishers have never taken as big a chunk of the money made on books as music publishers, so their busness model is not as clearly outdated as that of music publishers (meaning that book publishers may still have time to figure out how to continue to turn a profit in the electronic distribution age).
Sometimes it's nice being a geezer; I wonder what my grandfather was able to experience that I'll never get the chance to?
Tuberculosis.
If you really want to, you can still experience tuberculosis. On the other hand, smallpox, that's a treat that, unless we get really unlucky, no one will ever have the opportunity to experience again (smallpox is considered to be extinct although there may be a few samples in deep freeze in various biological weapons research laboratories throughout the world).
What the summary is complaining about is that nobody reviews the code to see if it is safe. The code is protected by law from being examined by patients who have the devices implanted in them or by the doctors (or their representatives) who order the devices implanted. Theoretically this is because the FDA reviews the devices for safety. The claim made is that the FDA does not do so. Actually, that is not the actual claim made that is what the summary (and probably the article) attempt to do by implication. If the device manufacturers follow the GMP (Good Manufacturing Process--which I am pretty sure they are required to do), the code and all changes to the code are very thoroughly documented internally by the company and if there is ever reason to suspect a problem with the devices because of that code, the documentation will be examined and anyone who knowingly approved bad code will be criminally liable. Even when there are no problems with that device, the FDA audits the companies on a regular basis and if their Validation documentation is not completely in order they can be subject to pretty severe fines and/or criminal charges. Several companies have been shut down because they were not properly documenting their validation procedures to satisfy the GMP regulations.
That being said, the article points out a flaw in the system that allows for potentially dangerous devices to be approved for use, but the danger is not nearly as large as the article paints it.
You are right. If the job I do were to go that way, I would get out of it and get into another profession. I don't love what I do enough to work that way. The problem with your argument is that there are enough people who love the idea of doing graphic design enough to work that way.
Personally, I suspect that the graphic design world will not stay that way for very long. However, graphic design will, also, no longer command the salaries it once did. It is too easy to do, not that I could, but I know a lot of people with the talent to do it.
I don't know, $265 is a decent return for four hours of work. Yeah it's a bit slim if it takes you 16 hours. It is certainly a viable living if on average those projects take you 10 hours. The problem is that there are more people who can do good design than there are jobs for them. As a matter of fact there are more people who can do good design and would like to make a living at design than there are jobs for them.
You shouldn't expect to make a living at something that lots of people can do and would like to do for a living. Especially when it is no longer necessary to live in high priced areas to do it.
Well, we will never know, since people like you seem to think that the best way to fix problems created by government regulation is more government regulation.
I would be willing to accept that Obama is not a real socialist, he seems much closer to being a fascist to me.
They hate it for the same reason that the music industry hates the Internet, they lose control of the marketplace and are unable to charge a premium for intangibles. Basically, the established design professionals are used to being able to charge more than the value they add to the product because it was too hard to find good alternatives. I am not saying that experienced, quality design professionals do not add significant value over most of what you can get from crowd sourcing sites. It's just that they want to charge more for that value than what it is worth in today's marketplace. When it was hard to find people who had a natural talent for design for a particular product or market segment, it was worth paying more for people who were proven at creating good designs for many different areas and additionally had experience in what types of design seem good in development, but turn out to be bad ideas in production. Now that it is easier to find people who are inexperienced, but have a natural talent, that experience is less valuable.
Please show me a historical basis for natural monopoly. The theory of "natural monopoly" was developed to justify the government supporting AT&T becoming a monopoly over telephone service back at the beginning of the 20th Century. The closest thing I know of a monopoly developing without direct intervention by the government is Microsoft.
Oh, so because people are more interested in listening to conservative talk shows, we should mandate that there be more liberal shows?
Yes let's bring back the fairness doctrine where those companies that broadcast over the airwaves present both sides of every public issue that they bother to cover (even those that have more than two sides). You know where they have a sensible, logical sounding guy explaining why the policy that those doing the broadcast support makes good sense and a complete nutjob explaining why the policy those doing the broadcast support should be opposed (even if the nutjob has no connection whatsoever with any of the groups promoting the side he takes).