I just think the use of a house analogy is completely confusing. Is there anyway you can revise your analogy to be about cars? Like for example "A license plate number identifies a particular car, not who is using a laptop in its trunk."
Oh I see how it is with you. The "white" light is the "more cleaner", "notable" light. Not the "black" light. No, the black light is filthy, disgusting, lazy light, in your estimation. Let the Congress encourage the production of the "white" light while keeping the black light down. Wouldn't want the "black" light finding its way into our children's dorm rooms and discotheques, because then it might steal our jobs and our women.
The corollary to that is that there are times when I purchase because its easier that pirating. Amazon is a good example of this. I own a Kindle. If its a book I want to read AND its available in the Kindle store AND its not ridiculously priced, I purchase it directly from Amazon. Note that I don't give a rat's ass about DRM. It doesn't even enter the equation for me. However, violate any one of these conditions and I search out a torrent.
And therein lies the business model of the new paradigm. Lower the barriers, sell more books/tracks/games/movies. Period. Full stop. Note that that doesn't mean you have to have absolutely no barriers, just that they need be low enough to compete with the pirates, who work under the same rules, just twisted for the black market, ie I don't neccessarily have to want to read it (although that's a bonus) but it has to attract my interest, it has to be available in the pirate market (surprising amounts of stuff I look for just aren't), and it has to have a low technical cost (ie no private trackers, no weird software installs, right platform/codec/format, no malware, adequate download time, veracity of content, ie I know the work has not been significantly altered).
The two markets can very much compete on these terms, but the legitimate market is seemingly unwilling to.
Actually, its not supply and demand economics at all. Its 'middleman economics'. Paul McCartney is (or was at some point) just thrilled that a given person will pay *any* amount of money to listen to his song. Similarly, anyone who liked Paul's music would pay any amount up to an arbitrary reasonable price (set by factors external to the transaction) to listen to it. This is well documented historical fact that is undebatable because Paul is rich and billions love his music.
The problem is the battalion of middlemen who decided that they too should become rich off of the efforts of Paul McCartney. Some legitimately deserve to make money at it because they are as essential in the process as the artist, some not so much. Somewhere along the line, America became an army of middlemen, mostly because it was really hard to produce studio quality art on any sort of scale that led to adequate compensation, thus there was a market demand for shitloads of middlemen.
In most of the examples I've seen of people bitching about copyright violations and DRM, it's not the artist. The general artists that I read about still remain tickled pink that people want to consume their work AND pay any amount for it, all the better if they can make a living at it. Yeah you still have your Lars Ulrich's and such, but there are many more Radioheads and Trent Reznors.
The internet is the hammer that we can use to break the chains of middleman economics. If anything, it is crushing the demand for the middleman and the ones who survive and thrive in this new paradigm are the ones who understand that. And that goes for ANY online endeavor, be it music, books, news, or whatever.
I don't think Amazon is doing it just to be a big jerk to the kiwis. The Kindle is still considered to be sort of a beta device testing the market for eBooks. There are still major technical and business hurdles to overcome before it can be a world wide device. If at anybody, you should direct your ire at mobile network operators and international publishers, who don't seem to want to let the Kindle model work outside the US: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/technology/10iht-kindle.4.20084663.html
"So you're advocating hacking his account. Classy. Where do you people get off? Christ, given some of the people I've known in MMO's when I used to play, if you were found hacking their account, you would be dead. Seriously, I know several people who if you did that to you would lose it and kill you where you stand."
That's rich. What are they going to do, slap me to death with their pasty arm flab? Stab me with their +5 Sword of Boneskull? Wheeze on me? I think I can handle a guy who does nothing but spends 18+ hours a day playing video games.
The difference between the WSJ and Fox News is that the WSJ whole-heartedly sells opinion. None of the facts from either source isn't readily available in the public domain. What they both sell, and in the case of the WSJ we buy, is their spin on the facts. The WSJ essentially says, "listen to us talk about what happened today and you will make money" (even if that isn't true, its still getting something). Fox news, on the other hand goes out of its way to pretend it doesn't sell bias, and on top of that, you don't get anything at all from consuming it other than a bit of Hannatized information about Obama to make you feel smart the next day at the watercooler.
"I have a large PDF that I sent through Amazon's conversion process. The "Table of Contents" menu item is disabled, but the table of contents in the text has links to the corresponding pages. So there's that."
I've had mixed results with Amazon's PDF conversion. Sometimes I get the links in the table of contents and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I get nothing at all. It makes me wonder if they are doing the conversion process with mechanical turk.
There should be no need to 'convert' PDFs with the DX though with its built in PDF reader, so it will be interesting to see that in action.
"Actually, both the USA and the Russians _tried_ using all sorts of paranormal stuff. None of them actually delivered any useful results."
Just out of curiosity, how do we know either way if the results were useful or not? Both efforts were likely classified and run through a propaganda matrix to throw off the other side. Unless you or the parent were involved in some way.
"Oh, please. Retelling an existing story in a new way is something humans have been doing for as long as stories have existed! It's a basic practice of all cultures."
Yes, but bitching about those retellings of those existing stories is something humans have been doing for nearly just as long as stories have existed.
Archaeologists have unearthed cave paintings in Altamira that were basically retellings of nearby existing cave paintings, but with minor details changed, such as the Star Deer being female instead of male, as it was in the original. There is also archaeological evidence that points to primitive screeds being carved by a caveman on pottery in the basement of his parents' cave that tells of how much better the original Altamira cave painting was, ending with a cryptic admonishment against the younglings that were apparently trespassing on the primitive patch of soft grass in front of the dwelling.
"Truth is, a totally free market doesn't work, at least, it doesn't work unless you happen to be at top of the corporate food chain."
Evidence: You only need to look at things that would not happen without government intervention to back this up. The fact is, there are things that the free market won't pay for because there is no profit motive, or no obvious immediate profit motive in them. Broadband penetration in the US is one example. 3G penetration in the US is another. There are vast areas of the country that will never be covered by broadband or 3G unless there is some sort of government intervention, simply because the cost of providing this coverage and associated maintenance outweighs the profit derived from providing it. This is where the free market breaks down.
Now, the larger problem with using the free market to solve the problems of the finance industry, in my estimation, is that the economy was never based on free market principles to begin with, largely because of the above mentioned breakdown of the free market. To attempt to solve its problem using free market principles would logically not work out for society (although it might indeed solve the immediate 'problem', but the damage to society would be too great because wealth would become ever more concentrated into the hands of the super wealthy).
In a truly free market, like attracts like, so money attracts money and poverty and debt attracts poverty and debt. This is something our society is trying to solve, as fairly as possible for both sides of the equation.
Right. Most people would probably say "Not that I know of" in response to "Have you ever broken the law?". That answer is a bit more nuanced than simple yes/no. It implies a person who at least strives to abide the law.
I get that this test is for consistency, but it really bugs me when these types of things come up. Life usually isn't that black and white. Even slashdot usually has an 'Other' option in its polls to accommodate the people who don't fall into the narrow answer set.
Or maybe that's why I wouldn't make a good Police. I think too much.
Slashdot Mirror
I just think the use of a house analogy is completely confusing. Is there anyway you can revise your analogy to be about cars? Like for example "A license plate number identifies a particular car, not who is using a laptop in its trunk."
Plus they drive on the wrong side in the UK. I wonder how many fatalities come from that fact alone.
"Where exactly do you think the mercury comes from? The planet of the same name?"
That and thermometers.
Oh I see how it is with you. The "white" light is the "more cleaner", "notable" light. Not the "black" light. No, the black light is filthy, disgusting, lazy light, in your estimation. Let the Congress encourage the production of the "white" light while keeping the black light down. Wouldn't want the "black" light finding its way into our children's dorm rooms and discotheques, because then it might steal our jobs and our women.
"I do it because its easier than purchasing."
The corollary to that is that there are times when I purchase because its easier that pirating. Amazon is a good example of this. I own a Kindle. If its a book I want to read AND its available in the Kindle store AND its not ridiculously priced, I purchase it directly from Amazon. Note that I don't give a rat's ass about DRM. It doesn't even enter the equation for me. However, violate any one of these conditions and I search out a torrent.
And therein lies the business model of the new paradigm. Lower the barriers, sell more books/tracks/games/movies. Period. Full stop. Note that that doesn't mean you have to have absolutely no barriers, just that they need be low enough to compete with the pirates, who work under the same rules, just twisted for the black market, ie I don't neccessarily have to want to read it (although that's a bonus) but it has to attract my interest, it has to be available in the pirate market (surprising amounts of stuff I look for just aren't), and it has to have a low technical cost (ie no private trackers, no weird software installs, right platform/codec/format, no malware, adequate download time, veracity of content, ie I know the work has not been significantly altered).
The two markets can very much compete on these terms, but the legitimate market is seemingly unwilling to.
Actually, its not supply and demand economics at all. Its 'middleman economics'. Paul McCartney is (or was at some point) just thrilled that a given person will pay *any* amount of money to listen to his song. Similarly, anyone who liked Paul's music would pay any amount up to an arbitrary reasonable price (set by factors external to the transaction) to listen to it. This is well documented historical fact that is undebatable because Paul is rich and billions love his music.
The problem is the battalion of middlemen who decided that they too should become rich off of the efforts of Paul McCartney. Some legitimately deserve to make money at it because they are as essential in the process as the artist, some not so much. Somewhere along the line, America became an army of middlemen, mostly because it was really hard to produce studio quality art on any sort of scale that led to adequate compensation, thus there was a market demand for shitloads of middlemen.
In most of the examples I've seen of people bitching about copyright violations and DRM, it's not the artist. The general artists that I read about still remain tickled pink that people want to consume their work AND pay any amount for it, all the better if they can make a living at it. Yeah you still have your Lars Ulrich's and such, but there are many more Radioheads and Trent Reznors.
The internet is the hammer that we can use to break the chains of middleman economics. If anything, it is crushing the demand for the middleman and the ones who survive and thrive in this new paradigm are the ones who understand that. And that goes for ANY online endeavor, be it music, books, news, or whatever.
His argument represents a quantum leap in the art of arguing.
"Works for me, particularly considering most commercial music today is overproduced slop I wouldn't buy or download on a bet."
I bet you a million dollars you would.
I don't think Amazon is doing it just to be a big jerk to the kiwis. The Kindle is still considered to be sort of a beta device testing the market for eBooks. There are still major technical and business hurdles to overcome before it can be a world wide device. If at anybody, you should direct your ire at mobile network operators and international publishers, who don't seem to want to let the Kindle model work outside the US: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/technology/10iht-kindle.4.20084663.html
I love how you get modded '0 Offtopic' for this. As if the mods were deeply offended by your dissing of the slashdot frist psot tradition.
"So you're advocating hacking his account. Classy. Where do you people get off? Christ, given some of the people I've known in MMO's when I used to play, if you were found hacking their account, you would be dead. Seriously, I know several people who if you did that to you would lose it and kill you where you stand."
That's rich. What are they going to do, slap me to death with their pasty arm flab? Stab me with their +5 Sword of Boneskull? Wheeze on me? I think I can handle a guy who does nothing but spends 18+ hours a day playing video games.
"Sure, but then they'll be hooked on griefing people. Really it is more addictive than the games themselves."
Easy solution to that: Just get them some heroin to take their minds off the griefing.
The 'people' you are referring to have a name. They are called 'inlaws'.
Gas, grass, or ass. Nobody gets her hard drive replaced for free.
err, rather than teh double negative, make that one sentence "All of the facts from each source are available in the public domain"
The difference between the WSJ and Fox News is that the WSJ whole-heartedly sells opinion. None of the facts from either source isn't readily available in the public domain. What they both sell, and in the case of the WSJ we buy, is their spin on the facts. The WSJ essentially says, "listen to us talk about what happened today and you will make money" (even if that isn't true, its still getting something). Fox news, on the other hand goes out of its way to pretend it doesn't sell bias, and on top of that, you don't get anything at all from consuming it other than a bit of Hannatized information about Obama to make you feel smart the next day at the watercooler.
"I have a large PDF that I sent through Amazon's conversion process. The "Table of Contents" menu item is disabled, but the table of contents in the text has links to the corresponding pages. So there's that."
I've had mixed results with Amazon's PDF conversion. Sometimes I get the links in the table of contents and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I get nothing at all. It makes me wonder if they are doing the conversion process with mechanical turk.
There should be no need to 'convert' PDFs with the DX though with its built in PDF reader, so it will be interesting to see that in action.
Not to mention, the best index in the world still won't make your highlights and annotations searchable like they are in the Kindle.
Or working for the government.
"I'd say that I'm surprised that there isn't a religion based on quantum mechanical terminology."
Actually there is: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/
"Actually, both the USA and the Russians _tried_ using all sorts of paranormal stuff. None of them actually delivered any useful results."
Just out of curiosity, how do we know either way if the results were useful or not? Both efforts were likely classified and run through a propaganda matrix to throw off the other side. Unless you or the parent were involved in some way.
"is how to in fact, make money grow on trees!"
That's easy. Legalize hemp. Next.
"Oh, please. Retelling an existing story in a new way is something humans have been doing for as long as stories have existed! It's a basic practice of all cultures."
Yes, but bitching about those retellings of those existing stories is something humans have been doing for nearly just as long as stories have existed.
Archaeologists have unearthed cave paintings in Altamira that were basically retellings of nearby existing cave paintings, but with minor details changed, such as the Star Deer being female instead of male, as it was in the original. There is also archaeological evidence that points to primitive screeds being carved by a caveman on pottery in the basement of his parents' cave that tells of how much better the original Altamira cave painting was, ending with a cryptic admonishment against the younglings that were apparently trespassing on the primitive patch of soft grass in front of the dwelling.
"Truth is, a totally free market doesn't work, at least, it doesn't work unless you happen to be at top of the corporate food chain."
Evidence: You only need to look at things that would not happen without government intervention to back this up. The fact is, there are things that the free market won't pay for because there is no profit motive, or no obvious immediate profit motive in them. Broadband penetration in the US is one example. 3G penetration in the US is another. There are vast areas of the country that will never be covered by broadband or 3G unless there is some sort of government intervention, simply because the cost of providing this coverage and associated maintenance outweighs the profit derived from providing it. This is where the free market breaks down.
Now, the larger problem with using the free market to solve the problems of the finance industry, in my estimation, is that the economy was never based on free market principles to begin with, largely because of the above mentioned breakdown of the free market. To attempt to solve its problem using free market principles would logically not work out for society (although it might indeed solve the immediate 'problem', but the damage to society would be too great because wealth would become ever more concentrated into the hands of the super wealthy).
In a truly free market, like attracts like, so money attracts money and poverty and debt attracts poverty and debt. This is something our society is trying to solve, as fairly as possible for both sides of the equation.
"This is where simple yes/no answers fall down."
Right. Most people would probably say "Not that I know of" in response to "Have you ever broken the law?". That answer is a bit more nuanced than simple yes/no. It implies a person who at least strives to abide the law.
I get that this test is for consistency, but it really bugs me when these types of things come up. Life usually isn't that black and white. Even slashdot usually has an 'Other' option in its polls to accommodate the people who don't fall into the narrow answer set.
Or maybe that's why I wouldn't make a good Police. I think too much.