You're right, I do see how this could cause some consumers problems. But.. this is only a big deal here today because this is Slashdot and they are Microsoft. There are ambiguous, misleading claims all over the place. Bottles of hairspray have "Certified CFC Free" labeled all over them... OF COURSE THEY ARE-- CFC's have been outlawed in the US for almost 30 years. Marketing is marketing.
Caveat Emptor.
Microsoft makes more money by segmenting the market. I get that. I don't hate them for that. They're a corporation. Their only reason for existence is to make money. This is a side-effect of that market segmentation. That's unfortunate. But, the crux of every single hypothetical on this website is "Customer Makes Assumption, Customer Gets Burned." Yet, nobody here is espousing some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
My mom has an HD TV and a regular DVD player. She bought an HD-DVD. It makes complete sense. It truly does. Except, she doesn't have an HD-DVD player. She opened it, Best Buy wouldn't accept the return. My mom made an assumption instead of asking somebody and had to eat $30 because of it. Yes, it's my mother, yes, it's too bad, but no, it's nobodies fault. And if that 30$ DVD was a $300 Vista upgrade, i'd say "Shame on you for not calling me! What are you dropping that kinda money for without planning ahead?"
Is Vista Home is STILL vista. If it can run Vista, then it's capable of running vista.
I have a pilots license. I'm certified capable to fly a number of different type of aircraft, but that's not enumerated on the license itself. Just because I'm a pilot doesn't mean I can fly an F-22 or a 747.
I'm capable of getting a date. I'm engaged. Just because I'm reasonably attractive doesn't mean I can date Jessica Alba.
These are flawed analogies but they illustrate a larger point: Absolutes are rare. Everyone knows this. Oh, and caveat emptor.
You're just trying to stick it to Microsoft because they said something that has a certain amount of ambiguity to it. The fact is that Home Basic, hell, Windows Vista Living-Out-Of-Car Pre-Basic Edition is STILL VISTA. You say "the implication is that if I buy a copy of Vista, it will work"... No... The implication is that the PC will run Vista. And it does.
And just like I said in my first post... If Microsoft only put "vista capable" stickers on PC's capable of running Ultimate, you and others here would be complaining that they're just manipulating people into buying more PC than they need.
This is just a classic Slasdhot-sticks-it-to-MSFT thing. I'm cool with that. I'm not the biggest Microsoft fan myself. They're just a company to me, and so is Apple and so is Google. I have no love or animosity for any of those companies. I make judgment calls on their merits, and not as an opportunity to show my fanboy colors.
Are you certain about your hypothetical you added at the end? Because all in all, there isn't a terrible difference between Home Basic and Home Premium. Most likely, it was machines listed as Vista Capable that couldn't run Ultimate.
And I have to say that I'd side with Microsoft here. I mean, when it comes down to it, if the PC can run any version of Windows Vista then it's CAPABLE of running Vista. Maybe it would be nice to have more info given to consumers, maybe a compatibility sticker on the bottom of the laptop, or even on the top lid of the laptop that's able to be easily peeled off.
I don't think that it would be a benefit to consumers to only label PC's capable of running Ultimate as "Vista Capable." It would perhaps lead consumers, on average, to buy more expensive machines than they need.
"In this case, any misfire or malfunction, and the plane blows up, not the target"
Why would you assume that? These are smart-bombs. They are programmed with a target. While I'm not certain, I'd wager that they don't arm themselves until they're in-transit.
I do think that a collision with the bomb would cause some damage, but it wouldn't "blow up."
Re:Another take on Peak Oil
on
Google Goes Green
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Oil has been used in different applications for quite a long time. Many hundreds of years. You may be right, though, that coal pre-dated the use of oil. But all that is irrelevant to my point...
Until we hit Peak Whale Oil, we'd never used a fossil fuel as our PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCE.
Despite the fact that coal and oil were used, until a few hundred years ago, the use of biological energy sources dramatically overshadowed use of fossil fuels.
What did I say that led you to believe I was talking about a "currently unknown energy source." At the time of Peak Whale Oil, Oil was already being used, just not as a major source of fuel. Ditto for today. This could be anything, advances in solar cell efficiency, economical use of hydrogen, genetically-modified switchgrasses able to grow extremely fast, who knows.
Re:Another take on Peak Oil
on
Google Goes Green
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Oil wasn't obvious as an energy source until somebody innovated and figured it out! I seriously hope that your post was a joke. Because i could change A SINGLE WORD and make it sound like a conversation that somebody had a few hundred years ago:
Not a very good analogy. We've moved from energy source to energy source in the past, not because we needed to, but because something better sort of fell in our lap. Today we're looking at a scenario where we need to move past biological fuels to survive as a society and possibly as a species, but there's not anything better staring us in the face.
Seriously. Until oil, we'd never used a fossil fuel. Our only sources of energy were BIOLOGICAL. Wood/etc for burning. Whale Oil. Muscle power. That was it. And no, oil didn't just fall in somebodies lap as an energy source. It was required because there REALLY WAS a crisis brewing around the virtual extinction of sperm whales.
And even more funny, whatever energy is predominant 100 years from now probably IS staring us in the face today. It's just going to take some innovation to get us there.
Another take on Peak Oil
on
Google Goes Green
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The US and other major world economies already went thru this "Peak Oil" crisis, although they didn't use that specific term at the time. Nevertheless, there were no shortage of educated economists predicting absolute DOOM for civilization. Economies would crumble. Our way of life would regress. Nothing short of disaster.
Of course, as has often been a trait of humanity, we rose to the occasion and, true to form, Peak Whale Oil was not the disaster so many thought it would be. Why? The biggest reason, of course, was the ingenuity of American business to not just lie down and die, but to innovate. They found that the black liquid bubbling up from the ground could be tapped as a brand new energy source, and they built out the huge infrastructure that was needed to make it happen.
The same thing will happen again. Nobody is going to just lie down as our world falls apart. If for no other reason than there's a (huge) buck to be made in preventing that.
Don't under estimate the powers of greed and self-preservation.
I'm a programmer, and while my work is usually an order of magnitude more complex than "Write this CRUD screen for this Access Database," it's nowhere near "develop a new programming language."
That being said..
Java used their own in-built controls so the language could be portable, cross-platform, etc.
Well.. why couldn't they keep that in place, but also write special-case code for the most popular platforms? Like, and excuse how crude this is:
switch (current_os) {
case XP:// load comdlg.dll
break;
case OSX:// Load cocoa? or whatever the hell mac uses...
break;
default:// Load in-built controls }
They're allowed to re-merge because Telecom is in a different statosphere today than it was in the ealy 1980's. When it was broken-up there really was NO COMPETITION to AT&T for "last mile" service. Today there are ubiquitous cell phone network(S!) as well as the internet and all the WiFi & VOIP goodness.
I'm sorry, but your post shows a complete ignorance of how macro economics and monetary theory actually work.
1. The Chinese (or anyone for that matter) does not "buy dollars" to "support the trade deficit." !!!!! They produce GOODS which we BUY from them in DOLLARS. You probably heard how they have a few hundred billion dollars or whatever in their Central Bank and you just ran with it. Perhaps some of their USD reserves were investments/speculations but the VAST MAJORITY were sent to China in exchange for the shoes and DVD players and shit that we Americans just LOOOOOVE.
2. The Chinese (or anyone for that matter) aren't buying T-Bills out of the kindness of their hearts in order to support our deficits. They're buying T-Bills because they MAKE DECENT INTEREST and they're the most rock-solid investment vehicle ON THE PLANET. The chance of default is SO LOW that it's non-existent. This would be like saying that eventually Investors will get tired of funding Google's R&D and stop buying their stock. They won't. Because they don't give a fuck about googles R&D. They own the stock because it's a good investment vehicle.
3. As somebody else said, China (or anyone else for that matter) has NO INTEREST in seeing the US Dollar decline in value.
---First, China pegs the Yuan to fluctuate with the dollar!! So if the dollar falls, their currency falls as well. This artificial-pegging is one of the big economic beefs that the US has with China. It eliminates the normal controls of the free market. If they didn't do this, in theory, the Yuan would have gained on the dollar over the past 7 years, making Chinese goods more expensive, making US manufacturers more competitive. But that hasn't happened because of the way the Chinese Gov't manipulates their currency.
---Second, China's number one trading partner is the US! They are a wealthy country right now primarily because of the US! Why oh why would the slaughter the goose that's laying their golden egg?
---Third, If china began selling off their stockpile of dollars quickly, it would they would lose out! If they have $1TN in USD's (they don't have that much, just an example), and they sold off the first $500bn, the second $500bn would be worth much less. Why would they do that?
---Fourth, Even if china sold off every one of their USD's, the USD would rebound. Simple supply and demand! It will flood the market, push down the value, and then it would reach a point low enough that it becomes a huge buying opportunity, so other Central Banks would move-in and speculate on the dollar and make a shitload. As they buy dollars on the free market, the dollar would rebound, end of story.
4. The only premise under which China could consider this would be a US-Sino war. WHY? WHY? WHY? Why would either side of that fight ever decide it was worthy? Bill Clinton was wrong about free trade in many ways, but he was right about a few things. Among them: Free trade stops wars. Our relationship with China is symbiotic. They need us. We need them. For all the talk of China rising-up they have a LONG LONG way to go before they reach parity with the US. Sure, their (costal) cities look modern, but the vast majority of the country is not yet modernized. No highways and bridges and dams and homes and sewer and water and gas. No subways and bus stations and airports and seaports and spaceports. Outside of the major cities, it's a very backwards country and it's going to take TRILLIONS of dollars to modernize it. They NEED us. We NEED them.
5. AND HERE'S THE BIG ONE: Adam Smith solved this problem almost THREE HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO when he wrote the book that's become the bedrock for modern economic theory. In "The Wealth of Nations" he proposed for the first time the idea that trade is universally good. His theory is simple: What can China ever do with that money except buy things from us? (Or from other people, who eventually buy things from us)?? Money is just a way to keep score. It has no intrinsic value. It's value is limited to the fact that it can be exchanged for something you need.
"Don't assume that you're getting all that stuff from federal income tax. Most of that is allocated to paying off loans, so you're actually mostly servicing the banks, not The People."
The federal budget is, obviously, free for all to peruse. According to my math, our debt service last year amount to about 13% of our federal budget.
True, but as Joel himself points out, knowing precisely which line or two needs to be added or altered can take hours and even days.
And no matter what anybody personally thinks about Joel, his writing, and his background, nobody can deny that he has built a successful software company from the ground-up without a dime of outside money. That's something that many developers have tried but VERY few have found any level of success. And it's hard to argue that it was somehow just a case of 'right place right time' when the guys bread-and-butter is BUG TRACKING SOFTWARE.
What apart my advocation of COPYRIGHT makes you think I would want to RESTRICT rights by saying you're FORBIDDEN from giving it away.
Likewise, if a builder wants to build a house and give it away, more power to 'em. But, if somebody who didn't own the house gave it away without the builders consent, that's clearly wrong. And you say, "it doesn't hurt the artist" Well.. what if the artist doesn't sell anything? They spent $100K to record the album and now you're giving it for free. How is that right? It cost me REAL MONEY and now you're getting benefit without my approval on my dime?
I agree with music piracy as guerilla warfare, but how can you possibly claim it's RIGHT and that the gov't shouldn't have tools to enforce existing laws?
Furthermore, to accommodate your pedantic tendencies, I used a CD-resale example somewhere around here. Find it if you can stretch your mind around the home analogy.
I agree with basically every point you made. In fact, if you read the GP to the post of mine that you replied to, you'll see I make many of the same points.
Piracy in the music industry is as rampant as it is because, as I said before, "price gouging for an inferior product" and I also pointed out that it's a case of 2 wrongs not making a right.
The RIAA works like another 4 letter agency, OPEC. It's a cartel. And I think it's GOOD that consumers have a little power. I think it's FANTASTIC. CD burners are to Music as hydrogen-by-water is to Oil. Moreso, because we actually HAVE cd-burners.
But that still doesn't it make it right from a legal POV. This law is about the Gov't having the best tools at its disposal to enforce laws with the best use of our tax dollars.
And to anyone that says they never heard of Gov't using civil laws to punish people... YES YOU HAVE!! What, exactly, do you think a speeding ticket is? It's a "civil in fraction" and it's a FINE.
Alright.. if you want to have a honest, high minded discussion of the issues, I'm all for that. But I'll tell you right now, I don't care about this enough to put up with BS and strawmen and deliberate mischaracterizations.
For example, when I said you can't give something away for free to some people and charge others. It was very clear in my example (record resale, houses on your block) that was talking micro, not macro. The fact that they give away the OLPC in Africa and charge twice the wholesale price in America has NOTHING to do with it.
On a micro scale, it's absolutely evident. It's considered the trick of a slimy salesman if he prices the product, be it a car or whatever, to what he thinks you can pay.
So if you can't handle debating things on their merits, just pass this one up and go harass the next guy.
Now, your excuse that it's free to copy the music so thusly it SHOULD be free, is just absurd to me. You can't just talk about music that's produced by conglomerates and defended by a slimy trade organization.
Use my original example.
I produce a software program that's successful but of limited market. I sell 1000 copies and make $50,000. Now, it begins to get pirated. Why should they have a RIGHT to something that I produced? Tell me that. Don't tell me that at $50k I'm making a profit. Profit margin is IRRELEVANT. You have no standing to tell me how much profit is "enough" for a product. How could you EVER make the mistake in thinking that you do?
So tell me, why should I just be forced to let somebody use what I produced without a say in the matter? Why do I not deserve exclusive rights to my work? I paid for it. I labored for it. It is MINE. If I want to let somebody use it, I should have that right. And if I want somebody to have to pay $x to use it, I should have that exclusive right.
Please educate me as to why you should just be able to help yourself without my permission?
Like it or not, artists USUALLY chose to delegate that responsibility to their labels. But it's NO DIFFERENT than me directly selling my software.
And if I CHOOSE not to delegate to a label and I CHOOSE to, say, let consumers pay whatever they like, that's entirely up to me. But it would be just as wrong for the government to tell me I MUST use flex-pricing like that as it is for them to tell me that i CAN'T.
So tell me, who are you to tell me I MUST let you use my software for free?
Furthermore, it's almost cliched to say that without copyright, creativity would be depressed. And a common thought is "yeah right." I mean, why would (a good example..) Metallica stop making music because they're only making TEN MILLION and not TWENTY MILLION? Of course they wont' stop.
But the next metallica. And, closer to home for me, the next Will Wright or Anders Heljsberg. Why would I ever spend all my free time writing that example software package if I know that I can't control how it's distributed?
How is THAT good for America? For the Human Race? For You? For Me?
There is little difference between what you said and what I said. You used an esoteric and needless amount of detail. The point is still the same. If somebody is easily making exact replicas of my home at no cost to them, why would anybody ever pay me for my home? They wouldn't.
Or, we can remove the analogy altogether and talk about something concrete:
A CD bought in 1985 had resale value. There was a rich aftermarket for these wares. Today, that market is almost entirely defunct. It used to be, anybody that desired a quality copy of John Does newest release and didn't want to pay full prices would buy in the resale market. Today, the market is only people who want a quality copy of John Does newest AND actually care about the physical media, liner notes, etc. Because if they just want a quality copy of the music, that's easy to get at no charge.
A shrinking market means less demand and therefore less value.
Because piracy begets piracy. It devalues things. If half the people on your block got their homes for free, how could you convince somebody to pay you $250k for YOURS?
There is a culture now that is very pervasive amongst those that are in the late 20's on down that music should be free as in beer. To many, it's almost outrageous to suggest that music should be paid for.
You can't give something away free for those who "can't afford it" and charge the ones that can. Pretty soon the ones that can are going to feel swindled and they're going to at least be TEMPTED to think that if it's free for everyone else, it ought to be free for them, too.
There is an argument to be made that rampant infringement DOES hurt our economy and society as a whole. If infringment deterred real artists, etc, all of US (and thus World) Culture would be negatively affected, although we wouldn't ever know what we're missing.
Let's just be real, here.. I'd challenge anyone here to claim that they've NEVER infringed on a copyright. We've all done it. I was a Senior in High School when Napster reached its apex. I've probably downloaded 3-4 thousand songs from P2P networks. I've run unlicensed copies of a dozens of software titles. I've made copies of CDs for friends and mixtapes and things.
I'm a PIRATE..
But, I'm not going to try to justify what I've done--what we've all done--as morally or legally right. It's not. I do think that it's the copyright holders own fault. Music at the quality of what's being produced today is dramatically overpriced. I'm 25 now and a professional with a professionals salary and I pay for everything now (usually iTunes, but some physical media) but I have no qualms about what I did as a HS & College student. Screw'em. They fu*k us so we fu*k them back. End of story. But still, two wrongs don't make a right.
And our beef is not--at least in this particular case--with the Gov't. I absolutely don't think the Government should price-fix IP. Their role is to enforce the laws, period. And copyright law is a good thing. With few exceptions, I don't think many people here have issues with the existence of copyrights. I think we have issues with being price gouged for an inferior product.
So I have to respect what the Gov't is trying to do. If I produce a software title and self-publish it and it gets pirated and I lose 50% of my five-figure sales, that's not some faceless corporation. That's money out of my pocket, and I'm just a normal, middle class software developer. I would really LIKE and even EXPECT the government to do their job and enforce the laws and stop people from stealing from me.
Our beef is with the labels/etc not with copyright law (for most of us, anyway). Don't confuse the two.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, I do see how this could cause some consumers problems. But.. this is only a big deal here today because this is Slashdot and they are Microsoft. There are ambiguous, misleading claims all over the place. Bottles of hairspray have "Certified CFC Free" labeled all over them... OF COURSE THEY ARE-- CFC's have been outlawed in the US for almost 30 years. Marketing is marketing.
Caveat Emptor.
Microsoft makes more money by segmenting the market. I get that. I don't hate them for that. They're a corporation. Their only reason for existence is to make money. This is a side-effect of that market segmentation. That's unfortunate. But, the crux of every single hypothetical on this website is "Customer Makes Assumption, Customer Gets Burned." Yet, nobody here is espousing some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
My mom has an HD TV and a regular DVD player. She bought an HD-DVD. It makes complete sense. It truly does. Except, she doesn't have an HD-DVD player. She opened it, Best Buy wouldn't accept the return. My mom made an assumption instead of asking somebody and had to eat $30 because of it. Yes, it's my mother, yes, it's too bad, but no, it's nobodies fault. And if that 30$ DVD was a $300 Vista upgrade, i'd say "Shame on you for not calling me! What are you dropping that kinda money for without planning ahead?"
No, that's crap.
... No... The implication is that the PC will run Vista. And it does.
Is Vista Home is STILL vista. If it can run Vista, then it's capable of running vista.
I have a pilots license. I'm certified capable to fly a number of different type of aircraft, but that's not enumerated on the license itself. Just because I'm a pilot doesn't mean I can fly an F-22 or a 747.
I'm capable of getting a date. I'm engaged. Just because I'm reasonably attractive doesn't mean I can date Jessica Alba.
These are flawed analogies but they illustrate a larger point: Absolutes are rare. Everyone knows this. Oh, and caveat emptor.
You're just trying to stick it to Microsoft because they said something that has a certain amount of ambiguity to it. The fact is that Home Basic, hell, Windows Vista Living-Out-Of-Car Pre-Basic Edition is STILL VISTA. You say "the implication is that if I buy a copy of Vista, it will work"
And just like I said in my first post... If Microsoft only put "vista capable" stickers on PC's capable of running Ultimate, you and others here would be complaining that they're just manipulating people into buying more PC than they need.
This is just a classic Slasdhot-sticks-it-to-MSFT thing. I'm cool with that. I'm not the biggest Microsoft fan myself. They're just a company to me, and so is Apple and so is Google. I have no love or animosity for any of those companies. I make judgment calls on their merits, and not as an opportunity to show my fanboy colors.
No, No, just install Gutsy Gibbon.... I mean... Barack Obama... and you'll never look back ;)
Are you certain about your hypothetical you added at the end? Because all in all, there isn't a terrible difference between Home Basic and Home Premium. Most likely, it was machines listed as Vista Capable that couldn't run Ultimate.
And I have to say that I'd side with Microsoft here. I mean, when it comes down to it, if the PC can run any version of Windows Vista then it's CAPABLE of running Vista. Maybe it would be nice to have more info given to consumers, maybe a compatibility sticker on the bottom of the laptop, or even on the top lid of the laptop that's able to be easily peeled off.
I don't think that it would be a benefit to consumers to only label PC's capable of running Ultimate as "Vista Capable." It would perhaps lead consumers, on average, to buy more expensive machines than they need.
Lightning is surprising because the "clouds" on venus are more accurately just blankets of Co2. We'd call that smog.
It would certainly be newsworthy if our Earthly smog suddenly began producing an electric charge.
"In this case, any misfire or malfunction, and the plane blows up, not the target"
Why would you assume that? These are smart-bombs. They are programmed with a target. While I'm not certain, I'd wager that they don't arm themselves until they're in-transit.
I do think that a collision with the bomb would cause some damage, but it wouldn't "blow up."
Oil has been used in different applications for quite a long time. Many hundreds of years. You may be right, though, that coal pre-dated the use of oil. But all that is irrelevant to my point...
Until we hit Peak Whale Oil, we'd never used a fossil fuel as our PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCE.
Despite the fact that coal and oil were used, until a few hundred years ago, the use of biological energy sources dramatically overshadowed use of fossil fuels.
What did I say that led you to believe I was talking about a "currently unknown energy source." At the time of Peak Whale Oil, Oil was already being used, just not as a major source of fuel. Ditto for today. This could be anything, advances in solar cell efficiency, economical use of hydrogen, genetically-modified switchgrasses able to grow extremely fast, who knows.
Oil wasn't obvious as an energy source until somebody innovated and figured it out! I seriously hope that your post was a joke. Because i could change A SINGLE WORD and make it sound like a conversation that somebody had a few hundred years ago:
Not a very good analogy. We've moved from energy source to energy source in the past, not because we needed to, but because something better sort of fell in our lap. Today we're looking at a scenario where we need to move past biological fuels to survive as a society and possibly as a species, but there's not anything better staring us in the face.
Seriously. Until oil, we'd never used a fossil fuel. Our only sources of energy were BIOLOGICAL. Wood/etc for burning. Whale Oil. Muscle power. That was it. And no, oil didn't just fall in somebodies lap as an energy source. It was required because there REALLY WAS a crisis brewing around the virtual extinction of sperm whales.
And even more funny, whatever energy is predominant 100 years from now probably IS staring us in the face today. It's just going to take some innovation to get us there.
The US and other major world economies already went thru this "Peak Oil" crisis, although they didn't use that specific term at the time. Nevertheless, there were no shortage of educated economists predicting absolute DOOM for civilization. Economies would crumble. Our way of life would regress. Nothing short of disaster.
Of course, as has often been a trait of humanity, we rose to the occasion and, true to form, Peak Whale Oil was not the disaster so many thought it would be. Why? The biggest reason, of course, was the ingenuity of American business to not just lie down and die, but to innovate. They found that the black liquid bubbling up from the ground could be tapped as a brand new energy source, and they built out the huge infrastructure that was needed to make it happen.
The same thing will happen again. Nobody is going to just lie down as our world falls apart. If for no other reason than there's a (huge) buck to be made in preventing that.
Don't under estimate the powers of greed and self-preservation.
I'm a programmer, and while my work is usually an order of magnitude more complex than "Write this CRUD screen for this Access Database," it's nowhere near "develop a new programming language."
// load comdlg.dll // Load cocoa? or whatever the hell mac uses... // Load in-built controls
That being said..
Java used their own in-built controls so the language could be portable, cross-platform, etc.
Well.. why couldn't they keep that in place, but also write special-case code for the most popular platforms? Like, and excuse how crude this is:
switch (current_os)
{
case XP:
break;
case OSX:
break;
default:
}
Or maybe it's all just for publicity.
Pshaw!
..Check and Mate.
This is why I all MY passwords are salted hashes that I then re-hash and re-salt. To Taste.
They're allowed to re-merge because Telecom is in a different statosphere today than it was in the ealy 1980's. When it was broken-up there really was NO COMPETITION to AT&T for "last mile" service. Today there are ubiquitous cell phone network(S!) as well as the internet and all the WiFi & VOIP goodness.
I'm sorry, but your post shows a complete ignorance of how macro economics and monetary theory actually work.
1. The Chinese (or anyone for that matter) does not "buy dollars" to "support the trade deficit." !!!!! They produce GOODS which we BUY from them in DOLLARS. You probably heard how they have a few hundred billion dollars or whatever in their Central Bank and you just ran with it. Perhaps some of their USD reserves were investments/speculations but the VAST MAJORITY were sent to China in exchange for the shoes and DVD players and shit that we Americans just LOOOOOVE.
2. The Chinese (or anyone for that matter) aren't buying T-Bills out of the kindness of their hearts in order to support our deficits. They're buying T-Bills because they MAKE DECENT INTEREST and they're the most rock-solid investment vehicle ON THE PLANET. The chance of default is SO LOW that it's non-existent. This would be like saying that eventually Investors will get tired of funding Google's R&D and stop buying their stock. They won't. Because they don't give a fuck about googles R&D. They own the stock because it's a good investment vehicle.
3. As somebody else said, China (or anyone else for that matter) has NO INTEREST in seeing the US Dollar decline in value.
---First, China pegs the Yuan to fluctuate with the dollar!! So if the dollar falls, their currency falls as well. This artificial-pegging is one of the big economic beefs that the US has with China. It eliminates the normal controls of the free market. If they didn't do this, in theory, the Yuan would have gained on the dollar over the past 7 years, making Chinese goods more expensive, making US manufacturers more competitive. But that hasn't happened because of the way the Chinese Gov't manipulates their currency.
---Second, China's number one trading partner is the US! They are a wealthy country right now primarily because of the US! Why oh why would the slaughter the goose that's laying their golden egg?
---Third, If china began selling off their stockpile of dollars quickly, it would they would lose out! If they have $1TN in USD's (they don't have that much, just an example), and they sold off the first $500bn, the second $500bn would be worth much less. Why would they do that?
---Fourth, Even if china sold off every one of their USD's, the USD would rebound. Simple supply and demand! It will flood the market, push down the value, and then it would reach a point low enough that it becomes a huge buying opportunity, so other Central Banks would move-in and speculate on the dollar and make a shitload. As they buy dollars on the free market, the dollar would rebound, end of story.
4. The only premise under which China could consider this would be a US-Sino war. WHY? WHY? WHY? Why would either side of that fight ever decide it was worthy? Bill Clinton was wrong about free trade in many ways, but he was right about a few things. Among them: Free trade stops wars. Our relationship with China is symbiotic. They need us. We need them. For all the talk of China rising-up they have a LONG LONG way to go before they reach parity with the US. Sure, their (costal) cities look modern, but the vast majority of the country is not yet modernized. No highways and bridges and dams and homes and sewer and water and gas. No subways and bus stations and airports and seaports and spaceports. Outside of the major cities, it's a very backwards country and it's going to take TRILLIONS of dollars to modernize it. They NEED us. We NEED them.
5. AND HERE'S THE BIG ONE: Adam Smith solved this problem almost THREE HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO when he wrote the book that's become the bedrock for modern economic theory. In "The Wealth of Nations" he proposed for the first time the idea that trade is universally good. His theory is simple: What can China ever do with that money except buy things from us? (Or from other people, who eventually buy things from us)?? Money is just a way to keep score. It has no intrinsic value. It's value is limited to the fact that it can be exchanged for something you need.
"Don't assume that you're getting all that stuff from federal income tax. Most of that is allocated to paying off loans, so you're actually mostly servicing the banks, not The People."
The federal budget is, obviously, free for all to peruse. According to my math, our debt service last year amount to about 13% of our federal budget.
Not a small amount, but no where NEAR "most."
In summary...640k ought to be enough for everybody ;)
"but most bugs are one or two liners anyway"
True, but as Joel himself points out, knowing precisely which line or two needs to be added or altered can take hours and even days.
And no matter what anybody personally thinks about Joel, his writing, and his background, nobody can deny that he has built a successful software company from the ground-up without a dime of outside money. That's something that many developers have tried but VERY few have found any level of success. And it's hard to argue that it was somehow just a case of 'right place right time' when the guys bread-and-butter is BUG TRACKING SOFTWARE.
What apart my advocation of COPYRIGHT makes you think I would want to RESTRICT rights by saying you're FORBIDDEN from giving it away.
Likewise, if a builder wants to build a house and give it away, more power to 'em. But, if somebody who didn't own the house gave it away without the builders consent, that's clearly wrong. And you say, "it doesn't hurt the artist" Well.. what if the artist doesn't sell anything? They spent $100K to record the album and now you're giving it for free. How is that right? It cost me REAL MONEY and now you're getting benefit without my approval on my dime?
I agree with music piracy as guerilla warfare, but how can you possibly claim it's RIGHT and that the gov't shouldn't have tools to enforce existing laws?
Furthermore, to accommodate your pedantic tendencies, I used a CD-resale example somewhere around here. Find it if you can stretch your mind around the home analogy.
I agree with basically every point you made. In fact, if you read the GP to the post of mine that you replied to, you'll see I make many of the same points.
Piracy in the music industry is as rampant as it is because, as I said before, "price gouging for an inferior product" and I also pointed out that it's a case of 2 wrongs not making a right.
The RIAA works like another 4 letter agency, OPEC. It's a cartel. And I think it's GOOD that consumers have a little power. I think it's FANTASTIC. CD burners are to Music as hydrogen-by-water is to Oil. Moreso, because we actually HAVE cd-burners.
But that still doesn't it make it right from a legal POV. This law is about the Gov't having the best tools at its disposal to enforce laws with the best use of our tax dollars.
And to anyone that says they never heard of Gov't using civil laws to punish people... YES YOU HAVE!! What, exactly, do you think a speeding ticket is? It's a "civil in fraction" and it's a FINE.
Alright.. if you want to have a honest, high minded discussion of the issues, I'm all for that. But I'll tell you right now, I don't care about this enough to put up with BS and strawmen and deliberate mischaracterizations.
For example, when I said you can't give something away for free to some people and charge others. It was very clear in my example (record resale, houses on your block) that was talking micro, not macro. The fact that they give away the OLPC in Africa and charge twice the wholesale price in America has NOTHING to do with it.
On a micro scale, it's absolutely evident. It's considered the trick of a slimy salesman if he prices the product, be it a car or whatever, to what he thinks you can pay.
So if you can't handle debating things on their merits, just pass this one up and go harass the next guy.
Now, your excuse that it's free to copy the music so thusly it SHOULD be free, is just absurd to me. You can't just talk about music that's produced by conglomerates and defended by a slimy trade organization.
Use my original example.
I produce a software program that's successful but of limited market. I sell 1000 copies and make $50,000. Now, it begins to get pirated. Why should they have a RIGHT to something that I produced? Tell me that. Don't tell me that at $50k I'm making a profit. Profit margin is IRRELEVANT. You have no standing to tell me how much profit is "enough" for a product. How could you EVER make the mistake in thinking that you do?
So tell me, why should I just be forced to let somebody use what I produced without a say in the matter? Why do I not deserve exclusive rights to my work? I paid for it. I labored for it. It is MINE. If I want to let somebody use it, I should have that right. And if I want somebody to have to pay $x to use it, I should have that exclusive right.
Please educate me as to why you should just be able to help yourself without my permission?
Like it or not, artists USUALLY chose to delegate that responsibility to their labels. But it's NO DIFFERENT than me directly selling my software.
And if I CHOOSE not to delegate to a label and I CHOOSE to, say, let consumers pay whatever they like, that's entirely up to me. But it would be just as wrong for the government to tell me I MUST use flex-pricing like that as it is for them to tell me that i CAN'T.
So tell me, who are you to tell me I MUST let you use my software for free?
Furthermore, it's almost cliched to say that without copyright, creativity would be depressed. And a common thought is "yeah right." I mean, why would (a good example..) Metallica stop making music because they're only making TEN MILLION and not TWENTY MILLION? Of course they wont' stop.
But the next metallica. And, closer to home for me, the next Will Wright or Anders Heljsberg. Why would I ever spend all my free time writing that example software package if I know that I can't control how it's distributed?
How is THAT good for America? For the Human Race? For You? For Me?
There is little difference between what you said and what I said. You used an esoteric and needless amount of detail. The point is still the same. If somebody is easily making exact replicas of my home at no cost to them, why would anybody ever pay me for my home? They wouldn't.
Or, we can remove the analogy altogether and talk about something concrete:
A CD bought in 1985 had resale value. There was a rich aftermarket for these wares. Today, that market is almost entirely defunct. It used to be, anybody that desired a quality copy of John Does newest release and didn't want to pay full prices would buy in the resale market. Today, the market is only people who want a quality copy of John Does newest AND actually care about the physical media, liner notes, etc. Because if they just want a quality copy of the music, that's easy to get at no charge.
A shrinking market means less demand and therefore less value.
Because piracy begets piracy. It devalues things. If half the people on your block got their homes for free, how could you convince somebody to pay you $250k for YOURS?
There is a culture now that is very pervasive amongst those that are in the late 20's on down that music should be free as in beer. To many, it's almost outrageous to suggest that music should be paid for.
You can't give something away free for those who "can't afford it" and charge the ones that can. Pretty soon the ones that can are going to feel swindled and they're going to at least be TEMPTED to think that if it's free for everyone else, it ought to be free for them, too.
There is an argument to be made that rampant infringement DOES hurt our economy and society as a whole. If infringment deterred real artists, etc, all of US (and thus World) Culture would be negatively affected, although we wouldn't ever know what we're missing.
Let's just be real, here.. I'd challenge anyone here to claim that they've NEVER infringed on a copyright. We've all done it. I was a Senior in High School when Napster reached its apex. I've probably downloaded 3-4 thousand songs from P2P networks. I've run unlicensed copies of a dozens of software titles. I've made copies of CDs for friends and mixtapes and things.
I'm a PIRATE..
But, I'm not going to try to justify what I've done--what we've all done--as morally or legally right. It's not. I do think that it's the copyright holders own fault. Music at the quality of what's being produced today is dramatically overpriced. I'm 25 now and a professional with a professionals salary and I pay for everything now (usually iTunes, but some physical media) but I have no qualms about what I did as a HS & College student. Screw'em. They fu*k us so we fu*k them back. End of story. But still, two wrongs don't make a right.
And our beef is not--at least in this particular case--with the Gov't. I absolutely don't think the Government should price-fix IP. Their role is to enforce the laws, period. And copyright law is a good thing. With few exceptions, I don't think many people here have issues with the existence of copyrights. I think we have issues with being price gouged for an inferior product.
So I have to respect what the Gov't is trying to do. If I produce a software title and self-publish it and it gets pirated and I lose 50% of my five-figure sales, that's not some faceless corporation. That's money out of my pocket, and I'm just a normal, middle class software developer. I would really LIKE and even EXPECT the government to do their job and enforce the laws and stop people from stealing from me.
Our beef is with the labels/etc not with copyright law (for most of us, anyway). Don't confuse the two.
They didn't spend 300MM on a BUILDING. If so, they'd have a goddamned baseball stadium.
They spent 300MM on a piece of modern art, a world-class PR machine that attracts interest and eyeballs.
Leaky or no, it was still the piece of art they wanted it to be.
Besides, who's to say the DESIGN is what's flawed here? Could it not just be the implementation? And wouldn't that be the fault of the builder?