The lack of your imagination doesn't imply that that there are limits on what I can argue. Most of the best programmers I've known (Carmack, perhaps Stallman) have thrived in an environment of utterly ILLEGAL piracy. Why? Because being enriched and entertained is the whole point of learning anything -- and when people see they can use their computers for more interesting things than writing term papers, they will USE, not futz around with, their computers.
My problem is not one of lack of imagination; I've been using mp3's longer than most anyone (4+ years ago). However, I do not, I can not, fool myself into thinking that these theoretical 'learning benefits' are sufficient reason to effectively make intellectual property null and void. I, unlike you (as long as you wish to make blanket statements), know what it takes to create new and innovative things. Having seen, and been behind, many hi-tech startups, I understand risk and reward quite well. The principles behind protecting music are much the same. The artists need to get paid for their work. The people who bring their work to the masses need to get paid. To make a long story short, IP is necessary. Although I do not lose anything when when the artists get robbed of their IP, I am too intellectually honest to make up some bullshit excuse that I am 'learning'. Nor do I think most college kids can make such a claim. Damn few are incapable of rubbing together the money to buy an extensive CD collection if they are truely motivated. If they're not motivated, they'll probably never make anything of themselves anyways.
Furthermore, it is ironic that you are saying that these kids need expensive IP based music, while advocating its destruction for all intents and purposes. Why can't these kids just go to mp3.com, or what have you, and get 'free' music? What? I didn't hear you! There isn't enough good free music? Has mp3.com, or any other organization which distributes free music, truely improved this in the past few years? Interesting view point you have there. You basically want to have your cake and eat it too. You purport IP protected music to be necessary to learn, but IP is not necessary? How are these would-be artists going to learn in the future in a world with no effective IP protection?
This position is even more futile when you take into account the fact that we are not even talking about 'ideas' here. We are talking about byte-for-byte copies of a singer's performance (e.g., song, voice(s), instruments, etc.). It is hard to argue they are obstructing anyone by not allowing you to get an exact copy of their work. In other words, if their music did not exist (read: No IP, no music) you would have nothing to copy at all, and if their music does exist (read: IP, music) you just can't pirate an exact digital copy. You can, however, still: buy it, listen to it on the radio, take notes on its composition, emulate its sound, etc., etc., etc.
You may enjoy not paying for music. Although, I lose nothing when the artists lose, I am just too intellectually honest to try to justify this behavior with absurd excuses. In any case, the issue here was the school's take on this. The fact of the matter is that a great many schools have already taken steps against it.
I know university admins. You don't. Their jobs aren't 'harder.' If you knew any admins, you'd know about the one cubicle everyone frequents because it has the sweet cd-rw setup that can copy anything they want. Guess who were the earliest adopters of Napster/Gnutella at univ's -- the admins!
Ahem, no. I've know many admin's too, in both corporate and educational institutions. The mere fact that some of them may participate in piracy does not mean they're willing to risk their necks over it. Very few institutions have the excess capacity to accomodate every student regularly trading mp3s. Perhaps you should talk to some of your admin friends again, and ask them how much their network slowed down when even a small fraction of students were using napster, et.al.
No, I was just pointing out that you "don't adapt well when change occurs." My world is just getting more interesting, while yours is spent dealing with unpleasant (for you) mindsets. Every major change requires a bit of upheaval on those who are shocked at the change. Always people are inconvenienced at the change. Always people adapt.
Umm, you don't understand. I have no direct stake in this other than my intellectual honesty. You, on the other hand, have committed yourself to a dream. A dream which you believe will profit you. I'm being pragmatic here...
No, you do intend offense, which shows you are a better and subtler writer than a thinker. I have no worry about doom; you are more worried than I am. But we shall see, won't we? I enjoy the wait; I hope you will sit with me and enjoy the view.
And my statements are categorically different from yours, how? You say I am too committed to the status quo. I say you're too committed to committed to unrealistic change. They're flip sides of the coin. I'm not saying you're "scared", I'm saying you're eagerly anticipating change without thinking it through. Deal with it.
I, for one, am not worried. To reiterate, I: a) Realize the need for Intellectual property b) know RIAA is not so easily toppled. Does this concern me any more than it should you? No.
I, too, certainly do find this recursive networking model interesting, just as I find the notion of various DoS attacks and its possible (or impossible) defense to it. Assuming gnutella is overhauled, it would be quite apppropriate for a relatively small group (e.g., 200 users) warez or mp3 group. As for stopping abuse and ramping up privacy (e.g., keeping RIAA from logging ips), the larger the "network" gets, and the less well they know each other, the harder it will be to keep it together. For those who think "well then everyone can just form small networks", one caveat: In order for these networks to survive they need to maintain strict privacy and use a relatively complex protocol. I do not believe that even 95% of music listeners have the requisite computers skills or the intelligence necessary for efficiently keeping themselves connected to a "network" which offers what they need. Thus, I still am quite confident of RIAA's ability to endure Gnutella and all its cousins. Not that you said anything to the contrary, but I'm sure some one will....:)
The nice thing is that you're not the one to define what "legitimate uses" means.
Yes, I personally am not the one who defines it. However, 99.99% of the content on both "networks" is illegal. With both "networks" the users who use it have a tendency to take more than their share of bandwidth--there simply isn't enough to go around, even with today's relatively moderate usage. Thus, many universities have already taken steps to shut down those "networks." It is not as if I've just arbitrarily pulled this out of my ass and declared that because I don't think napster is a legimimate use, all universities will act on this. They have. They will. They have every incentive to continue.
If napster/gnutella promotes computer learning and entertainment, then its the admins' jobs to serve the students who largely subsidize their jobs.
First, neither promote learning, you know it as well as I do. The most you can argue is that they entertain, but do not forget that they do so illegally. Second, The admins jobs is whatever the powers that be say it is. They are not obligated to entertain you--certainly on everyone else's dollar. Third, the students don't subsidize their jobs. The admins work for the school, not for the students. Damn few students even pay, it is their parents', the state, or some other organization 9 times out of 10. Which is a very important distinction, because if every student were to be allowed unrestricted access to napster (and the like), the uplinks would have to scale as well, the costs would increase, and the bandwidth bill per student could easily be 50+ bucks a month for every student. The people who are actually footing the bill (e.g., parents) may not accept this...
With all due respect, you're locked into the conservative models too much. People like you don't adapt well when change occurs.
With all due respect, people like you are always running around with their head in their hands screaming the world is about to ____end______! People, like me, just fundamentally understand that things are generally the way they are for a reason, real change is pretty damn rare. I've listened to all the arguments. Hell, I've even been using mp3s longer than 99.99% of the users and advocates (being one of the original founders of #mp3) And you know what? I do not see any compelling argument for thinking this "prediction" is going to be any different. RIAA, MPAA, and company will survive. They may adapt a little (e.g., target digital downloadable music), but the labels will still provide value for the mainstream artists (almost by definition). Artists will continue to sign almost exclusively with the major labels (with similar contracts). The labels will continue to set the prices. Thus, the companies that makeup RIAA will continue to profit like they always have.
In any case, time will prove me right. By that time, maybe you will have come a bit more center after your Xth failed prediction of impending doom or cataclysmic change. No offense, and good night.
There *ARE* people who use Napster for legit reasons.
Yeah, just like there might be legimate reasons for walking around in KKK garb (e.g., hood and mask). But don't expect me to attack the guy who gets his house burnt down for verbally assaulting the dress. Metallica _is_ getting looted of their IP, they have a right to be pissed off. If you want to yell at someone, perhaps you should yell at 99.999999% of Napster, who uses it illegally. Furthermore, if you can use a service which is used almost exclusively by "looters", I think you should be able to stomach just verbal assaults.
Hey, we're talking new technology here. Perhaps Gnutella is not perfect, but that doesn't mean the concept is invalid. Add some caching on each local server, and yes, perhaps some pure servers to pass the metadata around, and the tech problems go away.
The technology is new, and I'm sure some bugs will be worked out, but I think there are fundamental problems with decentralization. I don't think the fix is so trivial at all. I really doubt its viability, no matter what the hackers do. As for pure servers, if you depend on them, you might as well be napster.
As for network admins, their job is to enable communications, not stifle it. Yeah, all they have to do is pull the ethernet connection to the backbone, duh. Unlikely when the tools become as valuable for passing around useful URLs - or for scientists to pass genome information and other data around among themselves - as for MP3 collectors to collect songs. Unlike MP3 collectors, most users of consumer-to-consumer connections will not have to download such huge data files.
Ok well first off, a great deal of these napster and Gnutella users are on college campuses. Those network admins are only expected to facilitate legimate uses--providing for free pirated music simply isn't in their job descriptions. When illegimate uses crowd out the legimate users (e.g., well past full capacity bandwidth) the admins will simply push that much harder to eliminate it. People seem to think that because gnutella uses http protocol to transfer files (and because there is no one single server or port it uses), the users can't be locked out. This is simply untrue. Their usage patterns are unique, as you point out, they use far more bandwidth than anyone else (amongst other things). Furthermore, I firmly believe that RIAA or someone like me could write a program for these institutions to log onto the gnutella network and pretend to be a client (just like any student), then harvest all the clients' IP addresses, find out which ones match your subnet, and disconnect them from the network. I believe this will always be possible too.
As for the RIAA, MPAA, et cetra, I agree the audio and movie industries are as unlikely to be harmed in the long run by these technologies as the movie industry was by the VCR. The business model of the media producers will change though.
I'm not so sure if they'll even need to adapt much. The physical distribution costs of the media itself is only a small fraction of their costs. If they do decide to turn to the internet, they can shave whatever their shipping and material costs are, while enjoying the same profit margins. I, for one, do not believe the internet will "liberate" everyone from pricey music. Put simply, the music companies add substantial value for the artist other than just their physical distribution. They have editing, promoters, fashion people, sound technicians, contacts, you name it. In other words, I don't see self-promotion on the internet as being a realistic alternative for any mainstream artists any time soon; they are better off getting "gouged" by the companies and only making 1% of their sales(but a million times over), than selling 1000 copies (in all probability) and making 99% (or what have you). In any case, time will tell.
Has anyone here actually used it regularly? I've tried. You're lucky to see ~2000 hosts (which breaks often if someone leaves), and even when it lists that many hosts, searches are painfully slow and frequently broken. It doesn't hold a candle to napster as is. This recursive method may sound very interesting, in that you can theoretically put hundreds of thousands hosts together without centralization, but this also creates major problems with message propogation. Assuming you could even hold together a network of 20k users, and each of those users creates only creates 10 bytes a second (e.g., searches, etc), that means that in order for all of those users to have access to the rest of the network, each user would average about 200kilobytes/second, easily more than most users can afford. Even the original developer of gnutella didn't think it would scale past, what was it, 100 users (i forget exactly, but it wasn't terribly impressive). Add to this DoS programs and jerks, and you can kiss a smoothly working "network" goodbye.
Furthermore, I think the anonymity argument is sort of laughable. It is no more anonymous than napster if we assume that napster.com does not leak information, the file transfers are still host to host. RIAA, MPAA, etc. can still come after you. Nor will this thing, as a smoothly working network, manage to avoid network admins (assuming it doesn't fall under its own weight before then) forever. They might not be able to merely firewall a port or a host, but there is more than one way to skin a cat...
I have some respect for the author, but this thing is hardly going to change the world. I don't believe decentralization like this will ever become smooth enough and easy enough to use that most users (as opposed to "geeks", and those who make a point out of trying to pirate) will find it economical to pirate their stuff off the net. RIAA, MPAA, and all the interests they represent are here to stay, gnutella and its cousins won't even cause them to stumble.
You think shit is art, so I really don't think we have much more to discuss. Anyone who could call shit art with a straight face, could also call Katz a journalist. Likewise, if you can't spell "article", I can hardly expect you to know what a good article is. Furthermore, you are obviously quite well inside of Katz's target audience, so I'm wasting my words on you.
Assume for a minute that we have two parallel universes. In universe A, Adolf hitler writes regularly for slashdot, but you, being the only vantage point of interest, are allowed to "filter" all articles owned by Hitler. In universe B, Hitler exists but does not write for slashdot. Everything else (external) being equal, would you even attempt to argue that your experiences in both would be the same? Would you deny that Hitler shapes not only his own words, but also makes a substantial dent in the readership? That he affects arguments even in other forums? I hardly think so. No reasonable person could. Katz may not be as extreme as Hitler, but if you admit of Hitler's ability to affect others indirectly, you must also allow this for Katz. Thus, Katz does not operate in a vacuum. To say ignoring him and him not being present on slashdot are the same thing is simple foolishness. So I reiterate, he does affect me even when I ignore him.
Because he is a crappy writer in my opinion [not that this is just opinion], it is also entirely reasonable for me to think he affects me negatively whether or not I ignore him. In addition, I have seen evidence of this (some of which I ennumerated earlier). This being the case, I will do everything reasonable in my power to democratically push Katz out. I will not "force" him, I'll use persuasion. I'll argue. I'll mock him. I'll laugh at him. So long as Slashdot claims to be for free speech, this is perfectly within my rights. While you too are perfectly within your rights to yell back at me, do not think you are some how morally better for doing so. You have your opinion and "facts", I have mine.
As for the rest of this "argument", it is tedious, mindless, mistaken, and niggardly. I could refute (quite well I might add) each and every point, but why bother? I have no desire to get into war of the "cut and pastes." Since I suspect you'll have nothing more to add other than similarly tired arguments, I'll find something better. Good bye
The real issue here is waste. What is it about eating the meat per se that absolves you of the act? In my opinion, killing a deer and wasting it, is no better and no worse than, say, burning down a forest or cutting down a tree for thrills--you are needlessly wasting resources. Are the resources (e.g., plants, animals, trees, etc.) you are consuming being put to good use proportionately? If an avid hunter only selectively takes one buck a season for its hide and antlers (and does so reasonably, without excessive waste), and draws some significant satisfaction in it, I find it hard to draw a significant distinction between you (hunting and eating for enjoyment) and the hunter who wants for equal or greater enjoyment. It is not as if you need the meat per se; you enjoy that meat, therefore you hunt.
In other words, I can respect hunters and fisherman who do so tastefully and reasonably and not necessarily for the flesh. What I can not respect are those who kill for quick sadistic thrills (e.g., getting drunk with some buddies, and putting holes in anything that moves that isn't human, then just leaving it).
Columbine was news. WAVE was news. And there was analysis, although that's frankly a holy war.
You might technically be able to call this news (although that is debatable), but you know exactly what I mean. I would no more call Katz a journalist, than I would call people who make "art" from feces artists. He adds little to nothing to this world.
Intelligent people are smart enough to click a button. Also, there are intelligent people who like commenting on Katz articals
I disagree. What Katz's articles have is a sort of psuedo-intellectual following, but I don't associate this with intelligence. You are free to think otherwise, but that does not invalidate the fact that, as a result of Katz and similar rubbish, i'm hardpressed to find readers with whom i'd like to discuss anything. So yes, i'm still affected. I have known atleast 15 people who refuse to read slashdot as a result of Katz and his following.
I only recall one occasion on which there were 2 katz articals up simultaneously. Bandwidth is a non-issue if you turn him off. Mindshare is a non-issue if, as you believe, "intelligent people don't care about katz." If they don't care, then how does it waste their mindshare?
I've seen a number of times where Katz articles (it is NOT articals) are up simultaneously. Nonetheless, it is a non-issue, that was just an example. The fact of the matter is that Slashdot itself has finite bandwidth and CPU time. These limits do constantly make themselves felt. If 99% of the traffic on a given day is the Katz/argument stuff, then that leaves only a small and unreliable percentage left to pursuits I (amongst others) am interested in. Yes, this affects me.
Likewise, slashdot's mindshare is finite. If most all of the "content" is Katz and similar crap, little else will recieve much attention. It is a documented fact. Furthermore, If I, as an intelligent person, am going to spend a significant amount of time writing for slashdot, I would want to know it is going to get read. Not only does Katz run off most other intelligent people, but he also takes away the attention of others, thus I might as well essentially write for myself.
Dogma? I've never heard him say "you must believe this." I've heard him state opinions, but he's an opinion columnist, for christ's sake. "This approach to life," is stating opinions. If that's a problem, then you must be thinking of a different slashdot than I am.
Uh, Dogma need not be formally administrated. Look it up in your dictionary again. Katz promotes a certain mind set. Us versus them. Geeks versus Jocks. Individual versus corporate people. You name it. A number of people do take after him, I hear his beloved "phrases" and the views he purports aped on other articles all the time. If Katz is going to paint people or things in black or white, I want it to be the result of honest analytical thought, not a campaign to appease the disgruntled people of this world. There are parallels here to Naziim...
I don't consider the things I argue about pointless, unless they're in the "ultimately unimportant, but fun to discuss" category. Also, what is "pointless" is a matter of opinion, purely. If you don't like that, don't read it - it's moderated low enough that you don't have to.
Fact: These "discussions" do nothing for me. These discussions crowd out content that does. It affects me. It might be my opinion that the content is worthless, but that does not invalidate it.
What I am advocating is minding your own business. The only argument you've made about the undesireablity of Katz is that he detracts from your mindshare.
What you are advocating is my keeping my mouth shut because you happen to like Katz. You are being hypocritical at the very least. I see crap that I do not like, I speak out against it. I was taught to call a spade a spade. If Katz is manipulating many people on slashdot with formulaic efficiency, I'll be damned if I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
But it looks like a lot of people *do* care about katz - he's got high comment numbers in the hof, if that means anything. if these people are, as you contend, "not intelligent" then you shouldn't mind losing them. If they are intelligent, and they want to read Katz, then I ask again, who are you to stop them? Because you care more about what you want to talk about then what they want to talk about? and you think that whining like this will somehow convince them that katz is not worth talking about? Yeah, real mature.
Obviously, each person can only speak from his or her own perspective. I and many others think Katz is horrible. We state what we think about him. That is what democracy is about, not keeping your mouth shut. In addition, I also attempt to illuminate Katz's "style", for everyone to see. Perhaps when they see the truth, then Slashdot will have an economic incentive to cut him off.
I never "just whine." I stated my personal opinion for you, so I could show you how Katz's crap affected me even when I chose not to read him. For others (e.g., in my root comment), I pointed out Katz's "formula for success". Not a whine, just strongly supported observation. You don't seem to be able to handle it, so you are telling me to shut up.
Your argument is "people like Katz". But, if we listened to you, there would never be any criticisms of him, and thus you'd never be able to get an accurate picture of who likes him. Contrast this with my requests/arguments/etc for slashdot to change it's content, which is not, and never was, chosen in a democratic fashion.
It is funny though, in your initial comment you were afraid to be moderated down for supporting Katz. Yet you seem to assert that Katz is supported by most people and that moderation is meaningfull. I don't think you can have it both ways. In my opinion, both are flawed...but I don't have time left. Bye.
Columbine was news. WAVE was news. And there was analysis, although that's frankly a holy war.
You might technically be able to call this news (although that is debatable), but you know exactly what I mean. I would no more call Katz a journalist, than I would call people who make "art" from feces artists. He adds little to nothing to this world.
Intelligent people are smart enough to click a button. Also, there are intelligent people who like commenting on Katz articals I disagree. What Katz's articles have is a sort of psuedo-intellectual following, but I don't associate this with intelligence. You are free to think otherwise, but that does not invalidate the fact that, as a result of Katz and similar rubbish, i'm hardpressed to find readers with whom i'd like to discuss anything. So yes, i'm still affected. I have known atleast 15 people who refuse to read slashdot as a result of Katz and his following.
I only recall one occasion on which there were 2 katz articals up simultaneously. Bandwidth is a non-issue if you turn him off. Mindshare is a non-issue if, as you believe, "intelligent people don't care about katz." If they don't care, then how does it waste their mindshare?
I've seen a number of times where Katz articles (it is NOT articals) are up simultaneously. Nonetheless, it is a non-issue, that was just an example. The fact of the matter is that Slashdot itself has finite bandwidth and CPU time. These limits do constantly make themselves felt. If 99% of the traffic on a given day is the Katz/argument stuff, then that leaves only a small and unreliable percentage left to pursuits I (amongst others) am interested in. Yes, this affects me.
Likewise, slashdot's mindshare is finite. If most all of the "content" is Katz and similar crap, little else will recieve much attention. It is a documented fact. Furthermore, If I, as an intelligent person, am going to spend a significant amount of time writing for slashdot, I would want to know it is going to get read. Not only does Katz run off most other intelligent people, but he also takes away the attention of others, thus I might as well essentially write for myself.
Dogma? I've never heard him say "you must believe this." I've heard him state opinions, but he's an opinion columnist, for christ's sake. "This approach to life," is stating opinions. If that's a problem, then you must be thinking of a different slashdot than I am.
Uh, Dogma need not be formally administrated. Look it up in your dictionary again. Katz promotes a certain mind set. Us versus them. Geeks versus Jocks. Individual versus corporate people. You name it. A number of people do take after him, I hear his beloved "phrases" and the views he purports aped on other articles all the time. If Katz is going to paint people or things in black or white, I want it to be the result of honest analytical thought, not a campaign to appease the disgruntled people of this world. There are parallels here to Naziim...
I don't consider the things I argue about pointless, unless they're in the "ultimately unimportant, but fun to discuss" category. Also, what is "pointless" is a matter of opinion, purely. If you don't like that, don't read it - it's moderated low enough that you don't have to.
Fact: These "discussions" do nothing for me. These discussions crowd out content that does. It affects me. It might be my opinion that the content is worthless, but that does not invalidate it.
Ummm, the fundamental difference between roads and large scale public subsidizing of the arts, is that with roads there is a very clear and tangible public benefit. Few sane people would argue that they would be better off without roads. They are willing to pay relatively small taxes on something that fundamentally benefits them. The music industry today makes billions of dollars off of consumers. Every consumer who wants to listen spends money. With your model, in order to produce approximately the same quantity and quality of music, the government must spend atleast the same amount on the aggregate(e.g., 100 billion a year, or whatever it is). Are you ok with this level of taxation? It might very well quadruple your taxes if government is to subsidize your entertainment. And don't think for one minute that the government can replace free markets well. In other words, if a band sucks, few people will listen to them, resources will not be wasted on them. With the government model, we're going to require some buearacrat or some process to "decide" how to allocate resources. How do we differentiate truely "good" music from "bad" music with government? What socio-economic groups are to command the lions share of the music types? Is this to be done by population?New talent will get discovered how? Where is the incentive to take a risk?....So many holes... Never mind the efficiency issues. Or the secondary and tertiary economic effects of high taxes....
Sure, technology evolves rapidly. What is state of the art today, will be consumer grade tomorrow. However, the fact that it is technically possible to create a hollywood image quality film, does not mean society will ever view it like a hollywood film. Fifty years ago, on hearing of today's internet/computer/printing technology, one might have made similar predictions with novels, that it would obviate the need for these large publishing houses. Yet, when you look around today, this is clearly not the case. The popular authors for the eighties and nineties (e.g., Ken Follet, Grisham, Clancy, etc.) are still largely the same. Clearly, the technology for internet distribution exists. Yes, the facilities are in place (except if you regard decent "e-books" as being necessary). Yes, it is fully possible. Yet, it just isn't true. The publishers are alive and well, and, I feel, will stay this way.
You are ignoring issues such as marketing, distribution, signal to noise rations (e.g., Any idiot can get a word processor and write, but few can match Grisham's published writing. How do we pick the diamonds from the rough, so to speak? how do we develop talent? who pays for them to work at it?), professional editing, full time employement to produce quality work, etc.
Even going beyond toss-away novels, I'm hard pressed to find any areas which the average Joe has really replaced the professional. The internet has been around long enough now, we (you) would expect it. Sure, it brings new stuff to the table. Such as perl, linux, etc, but they are few in number, and none of them really compete head to head in the same way. They're simply alternatives. Perhaps worthwhile and notable, but not earth shattering. The "democratic" internet has yet to demonstrate otherwise.
Whee! I'm about to get modded into oblivion for defending Katz.
I'm not the type to mod you down simply because I disagree with you.
Some of what Katz does is journalism. Consider WAVE - I wouldn't have heard of it but for Katz.
I have yet to read a single Katz article that I would call "journalism." But even if he published such a thing, does it matter? He tries to pass everything else off as journalism too. Without getting too involved in this, I certainly would not call the "Hellmouth" or "Wave" series journalism. They were essentially common knowledge with a hysterical reactive pro-geek undertone. No where did I find any honest to god analytical thinking going on there. It's simply rubbish.
Some of his journalism is stuff I don't care about. "Chicklickers," or whatever is not of any interest to me - I find discussions of "this is the new demographic" boring. So I skip them. Simple, easy. I can even express why it doesn't interest me - My community is unlikely to attract these people, and these people are unlikely to be interested in me. If one day, every single Neo-Nazi went online, it wouldn't affect me in the least. My community would treat them with nothing but contempt, and they would have no reason to care about my community. Great. So when I saw the blurb, I skipped the artical.
Merely skipping may be a fine solution if you don't mind losing that forum. This is theoretically a community and, as such, I take some ownership of it. It is not as if what Katz does has no effect on the forum! When he is promoted, a couple things happen: a) The more intelligent readership get turned off and leave. This effects me by leaving me with mediocre "community members" whom generally can't make a case if their life depended on it. b) Because Katz's crap soaks up both bandwidth and mindshare, the other content suffers. In other words, if the powers-that-be have 2 or 3 Katz articles up, they have less interest in posting other information. c) Katz propogates dogma and geek FUD. This approach to life leaks into the rest of slashdot.
Two final points: 1. I like to argue. It's fun. Why do you care if I have fun?
I don't care if you argue per se. I care that pretty much all I see on slashdot is pointless arguments, which in turn detracts from slashdot. Although the slashdot owners may find they maximize their profits (arguably only in the short run) by focusing on these arguments, as a user I find I lose out because slashdot passes up on a rather unique opportunity. Namely, they have the mindshare of a large audience of technically literate people. They could do things with this, but they do not.
What you are essentially advocating is passivity. Why vote? Other people want it otherwise. Why make yourself heard, if most people want to think otherwise? Why fight for anything if you can just "move"?... No Thanks.
2. Slashdot wants to make money. So what? Does it hurt you? Nope - if you don't like the banner ads, there's IJB. If you don't like katz, turn him off.
The majority of Americans overeat, not all of them are overweight, and most don't have any more emotional problems than the average european. Not only do they overeat, but they eat poorly and don't get enough exercise. Put simply, the modern American diet is horrible. Overweight people are frequently the result of simply not being able to get away with this type of eating (e.g., propensity to gain weight)...which prompts inactivity, which prompts depression, which CAN lead eating even more.
In other words, it is not emotions that make Americans fat, it is our diets. We eat too much sugar, fat, etc. Our meals are high in carbohydrates. The typical American serving size is gigantic by international standards, which naturally prompts increased eating. When is the last time you've been to McDonalds? The supersize value meal soda's are like a gallon soda, a slight exaggeration, but it is truely disgusting, not to mention very unhealthy.
Finally, what about water?? That you gotta have!! Lost of it, everyday, what's the solution for that?? If you don't have access to food or cannot waste time eating you still have to carry water with you or is there gonna be a patch fot this too? Strikes me as unlikely.
I'm not in the military, but from my limited knowledge of the military the prime difference between food and water is logistics. Water is quite plentifull in most places, and can be made drinkable with the right equipment and experience. Whereas food/rations must be shipped and delivered to the battle scene. In other words, unlike water, you must have ships and/or airplanes deliver food to feed the troops. Logistics such as these are _major_ issues in even modern wars.
I didn't read the article either, but even if this thing were to only deliver vitamins, I'd imagine that'd free up meal selection substantially. In other words, they could eat all kinds of shit if they had to, and do so more sporadically, which they otherwise could not due to lack of vitamins. In pinch time, if this technology works as claimed, it just might give us an edge.
Mr Katz has written stuff which disagreed with his audience. He got flamed. He then wrote a number of pieces inspired by all the flames he received.
Really like what? Not all of slashdot is his target audience, he appeals to a certain faction very very consistently with the party line. As for the remainder, he does his best to inspire dislike...because that fattens the powers that be too. Katz is like the "new world" liberal equivelent of Rush Limbaugh, a small percentage adore his every incoherant babble, the rest tune in because they are drawn to it by anger, the urge to fight, yell, or what have you.
That is journalism - you get paid by the word. Intellectual honesty is nice, but money is the prime motivator for most journos.
Well first, I think Katz is absolutely the bottom of barrel insofar as "journalism" goes. Secondly, just because the majority of journalists today are worthless hacks, does not mean it is acceptable. Nor, for that matter, does it mean that Slashdot should foist Katz's crap on us.
BTW, I would be interested to hear the motivation of the Slashdot 'powers-that-be' for bringing Mr Katz to prominence.
I find this interesting in a way too, but I'm not suprised at all. If you look at the number of comments on Katz's articles, his "articles" easily draw the most comments of any other type of article or author when you average them. In other words, it can be reasonably assumed that Katz articles generate the more banner ad impressions (read: money) than any of the competing alternatives. Even though only a percentage of those comments praise him, the remainder of slashdot appears to be drawn to his stuff anyways (to flame, to argue, to play "devils advocate", etc.), and pack his pockets just as well (if not better) than his fanatics.
The fundamental problem with Katz boils down to an even more fundamental problem with Slashdot. That is, that while Slashdot claims to be "news for nerds", it is really "arguments for people who like to argue about stuff 'nerds' are interested in." Most of the 'content' on slashdot is arguments, there is little "usefull" content on slashdot that I would call usefull. By usefull, I mean, say, technical questions, like how to install/modify/hack a linux iopener. But these kinds of articles are rare, and they don't (or rather can't) draw a consistently large audience anywhere near Katz's numbers. Most everything on slashdot is of political nature. Since most people in this world are idiots (including slashdot), we have never ending useless arguments for the most part. Those who wish to cling to their absurd beliefs will do so generally, irregardless of the strength of the opposing arguments. To boil it all down, Katz is numero uno when it comes to drawing the arguments. He is slashdot's reason for existence personified.
My objection to this, of course, is that Katz is absolutely the most meaningless. The fact that he is even called a journalist is insulting. I suppose some part of me hopes I can get the "slashdot juniors" to wake up and smell the coffee. I want them to realize that they're being played. Perhaps then, slashdot will have a financial incentive for turning away Katz. Until that time, well I can argue too... =)
It is one thing for your style to match your readership, it is an entirely different thing when everything the "journalist" writes agrees with his audience's dogma. Not all journalists are like this. I would hardly say Katz is to self-defined "geeks", as the Economist is to conservatives. First, the Economist attempts to report the news, not merely parrot a group discussions with flowery and overly wordy writing. Second, I would hardly say there is even one group that always agrees with the content the Economist generates. Third, I believe that the Economist believes what they write, I really can't say this for Katz as he changes directions too fast. Fourth, Katz, unlike the Economist, writes horribly. His language is far too flowery. It is not merely a matter of targeting his audience (despite what some may claim), his writing really has little in the way of content or direction; without his "flowers" it would be immediately clear that he really has nothing to say other than the party line.
The bottom line is that Katz has nothing to offer slashdot other than warm fuzzy feelings for those who call themselves "geeks". Believe it or not, there are journalists in this world who choose to make something more of themselves.
a) Find Receptive Audience. Slashdot "geeks", yes! b) Periodically monitor their changing, but consistent, gripes and hopes. "society", "jocks", "corporations", "open source", etc... c) Write flowerly articles fully agreeing with them. Where possible, offend all those who otherwise would not read articles. d) Rinse, Repeat.
...If you notice everything Katz writes essentially fits this model.
I'm all for risk and return, but mere skins do not provide much in the way of return, and they certainly do confuse many users. MacOSX and Netscape 6 are improved in far more than just in "skins". I overall like what i've seen from Netscape6 thus far, but I do question the wisdom of trying to make things too pretty at the cost of ease of use (even though NS6's problems are more subdued, this is not true with most open source software).
There are really a couple of related points here (to me). The first was "Do online/mailorder stores operate at an unfair advantage to B&M retail?". Having done a bit of both, my conclusion is no. They each face different but relatively equal obstacles. No playing field is perfectly flat and anyone who doesn't like their current position (online/mailorder or B&M) should change strategies.
The problem is that it is only "level" (not that I necessarily agree with this) because some politicians have decided to give "E-commerce" a handicap. In other words, E-commerce is by nature of its design and/or management is less efficient, and needs an artificial advantage to compete in your opinion. If you are for "changing positions", why not just become a Brick and mortar when your method is inferior?
I think that Wal-Mart et alia have seen a way that a Mom'n'Pop might someday be a competitor and the retail giants are preparing to squash that tiny probability by lobbying Congress to collect taxes that will hardly affect the giants but will cripple the little guys. Of course, since they are basically waving money right under the noses of politicians, this may not be too tough of a sell.
Part of your problem is that you see every objection as being Walmart or something similar. Although the current lobbying may be Walmart and company, this is because they are large enough to do so, and stand to lose a great deal. There are some "Mom and Pops" plain old retailers that fear the tax advantage of online retailers too.
One thing that annoys me with your comments is that you like to vilify chains such as Walmart too much. They do provide a good service to people, whether or not you like it. The combination of their management and scale of their operation allows them to price things lowe, and often provide greater selection than any Mom and Pop does (generally speaking). While I grant you that you do lose some things in the process (e.g., a more personal touch, knowledgable service people, etc.), people consistently find Walmart's (et. al) value proposition greater than the mom and pop(this is why they've "won"). You may not personally like it. Even though may you find other people's preference of Walmart to the Mom and Pop is less advantageous to you, that does not mean society is better off paying more for things...or simply not being able to find what they want. If people, in the long term (as opposed to short term anticompetetive pricing), would rather pay 5 dollars for a given item and get a certain mediocre service than pay 8 dollars and get good service and a "smile" (or whatever you will), who are you to say this is wrong, in and of itself?
Furthermore, Walmart may be theoretically large enough to sway politicians, but if you look at the empirical evidence, this is simply not the case (atleast not yet). Both the Republicans and the Democrats are against taxing the internet for the most part(much to my dismay.) The Democrats view taxing the internet as regressive, or what have you. While the Republicans see not taxing the internet as a way to reduce taxes in general. This dogma combined with an utter lack of understanding and political aping of the internet puts them both against it. Put simply, the evidence ain't there yet.
The other point has to do with whether or not online (and by obvious extension, mailorder) merchants should now be subjected to sales tax when they have not been before. To me, unless there is some specific need for increasing the revenues collected through taxes, then one cannot even begin to justify increased tax collections.
Whatever your opinion on aggregate tax revenues may be, there is no good reason to give one party preferential treatment. Furthermore, if you accept that E-commerce is going to grow, and that it is going to grow at the expense of brick and mortars, you pretty much must conclude that tax revenues are going to shrink. In other words, freezing tax percentages does not assure tax revenues when the proportion of sales changes. Do you realize that if the internet were to replace all B&M sales tomorrow, that most states' tax revenues would be reduced by approximately 30%? Although this number is clearly too high, why should society be interested in driving reduced tax revenues while favoring a less than efficient business method? If we accept your conclusion, that the playing field is already "level", every customer is essentially getting the same price (unless you think the internet is so unattractive to the consumer that they need huge discounts), yet the state gets less money on every sale. Every internet sale that replaces a B&M sale, reduces revenues that the state would have otherwise had....
The only argument I see that stands against taxing the internet fairly is your own personal self-interest. That is to say, you get richer when your online retail operation gets taxed less. I really would love to hear a compelling argument for society!
Software exists to please the user, for most users this simply means getting the task done without confusing them. You are only one user. There may be a couple thousand like you, but you are still in the minority. It is fine if developers want to create skins, but they should realize that if they make this the default (or the only option), it has negative consequences for most users in most cases (except for most of these open source projects, which appeal mostly to "geeks").
So if I designed a "cool" (obviously subjective, but so are themes) bus with obstacles that only a jock could clear, this is fine by you? Forget old people, handicap people, geeks, etc. Because "you" are scared, maybe we should ditch modified busses to? Sounds pretty reasonable, if your intent is to serve as many people as possible.
First, not all churches are the same. Many lack such accouterments. In many of those which do, it is practically mandated by the particular religion.
Second, stained glass windows and the like may cost a lot to build, but they can hardly be sold (and replaced) short of selling the entire church. Furthermore, some patrons demand such things--it may hurt them (even if you believe cash is their prime objective).
Third, how many clergymen do you know that are rolling in the money? Damn few. They're obviously not in the business of making money.
Fourth, I strongly dislike NT, and I think it generally makes a poor choice. However, there are some situations (even "real-time mission critical systems") where it is actually more stable and cheaper than the alternatives due to lack of software, compatibility, etc.(though this likely isn't one of them.) Remember that keeping a server up is not your goal in and of itself, providing a solution is. It means little to have a server which never fails, but also never fails to give users problems. In other words, sometimes it is better to have a server which is only 99% reliable (even though this may be inexcusable), than one which simply can't accomodate the users.
Disclaimer: I'm not religious, I disagree with many religions in many areas, but your claims are simply misinformed. Likewise, I despise MS (for both business and technology practices), probably more than you, but I try not to let that blind me.
First point, you are totally overlooking the additional costs an online business faces. High overhead in Oracle (or equivalent) databases, 24x7 servers, programmers and 24x7 technical support not at minimum wage. A real building to house the servers. None of that is cheap.
Compared to the costs of having clerks handle the equivelent volume it is very cheap. Furthermore, businesses such as Walmart are, in fact, highly automated, with extensive databases, ERP type systems, etc.. Not only do they have to maintain a retail presense, but these kinds of operations have found it benefits them to computerize their business. I would not at all be surprised if Walmart spends more on IT per sale than these DotComs (those with similar volume), because they have to automate and support each and every outlet, not just corporate HQ.
Compare the cost of Wal-Mart having the customer come in to pick up their purchase ($0) vs. having to ship each purchase to the buyer. The cost of paying for delivery from the manufacturer or distributor to the point of sale is the same in each case. Can you say "additional expense"?
Ok, so the online retailer has to contend with shipping costs. So what? A retailer such as Walmart must ship to each and every outlet. This may, at first glance, appear necessarily cheaper because it is cheaper to ship 50 units to one location than ship 50 units to 50 different locations. However, it is not so simple in reality. Not only must the retailer contend with the significant overhead at each location, but they must keep inventories in tight check at each location. This is not simple at all. A minor miscalculation in demand can cost a great deal because you must keep stock at each location (these real time computer inventory systems help here...but these cost money as well).
Ahem, you cannot pay the taxes with a program on a CDROM. All you can do is calculate them. And guess what? Traditional mail order hasn't done this in the past unless the sale was to someone where they have a presence. Ever notice the fine print that says things like Residents of state X must pay sales tax? That is because people elsewhere are not paying the sales tax. You are supposed to declare and pay any sales tax on such purchases on your state income tax form but nearly nobody does.
First off, these payments are aggregated. It is not as if each individual transaction must have a corresponding tax check cut. Secondly, not all firms which ship are your "traditional mail order" firm. They find they have to have a presence (e.g., a sales force) in each state. These companies cope just fine...the costs to support taxes is less than penny per transaction (averaged) in the companies I know.
Let's also get into returns and credit card fraud. Online/mailorder merchants pay much higher fees to process credit cards because they never have the card physically. There is more actual fraud which drives up costs on the other side. When a customer wants to return an item there is the additional complication of tracking a return and making certain it actually arrives intact before generating the refund. Compare this to looking in the box, dropping it on the floor behind the counter and returning the cash.
Likewise, these companies I know have to contend with the same issue, just like every damn mail order in the country. Cry me a river.
In closing, anyone who thinks that being an online merchant is the fast track to millions and that online merchants are operating at some sort of advantage to B&M merchants has never done retail on either side. I think they should give it a try and collect those millions they seem to think are hanging from the low branches. I'll listen a lot closer when they've succeeded.
I know people in many different areas on both sides, and done some work in different companies as well. Your problem is that you are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing your limited experience as a tiny online startup to well established companies such as Walmart, yet lack of experience to know where their costs are. If you want to make a more fair comparison, compare your business to an equally sized brick and mortar of similar age.
The bottom line is that everything you and I mentioned above is totally irrelevant, none of it justifies government intervention. You wisely chose to avoid attempting to justify why your online retail operation should recieve preferential treatment while the retail operation from my example should not. If you provide an inferior service to the consumer which costs more by nature of your business model, why is it the governments obligation to intervene by artificially making your product more desirable than it would otherwise be? If you really can't provide good service to the consumer, if your costs are that high, then be a brick and mortar for christs' sake. The same goes for any business decision. If you choose to do business in the way you do business, then you should also have to live with the consequences. If, on the other hand, you are providing a significant benefit to the consumer, then your increased prices should be accepted by the consumer.
Online businesses already operate under several disadvantages such as [1] shipping costs;[2] a lack of consumer confidence in doing business online vs. a local store where they can deal with a store manager if needed; and [3] credit card processing fees (you can't pay cash online and bad checks fees make them too expensive to consider, even though you can process them completely online). What is Congress going to do to level that playing field?
Ok first point, you are totally neglecting the additional costs which almost every retailer faces. High overhead (e.g., the store front, sales personel, training, support, maintance, cleaning, parking, liability on your lots, etc etc etc) I'm sorry to tell you this, but these things do not come cheaply. In fact, they are very expensive.
Compare this with online retailers, who are almost by definition driven primarily by computers. This reduces the need for hired help substantially. Not only that, but the dotcoms gets the benefit of locating where ever it wants. The DotCom can use affordable quality labor for their shipping operations, yet still target high rent areas. Furthermore, The dotcom can consolidate all of their shipping into one central location. Compare this with the likes of Wallmart, they have to distribute their wares to hundreds of retail locations, keep them in stock (can you say inventory issues?), etc.
DotComs should, in fact, be able to operate even more efficiently (for those limited services they provide) across the board. Almost all these other issues you and others mention could be addressed by a similarly scaled (a brick and mortar of the same scale has it no better, and many times worse) and well run DotCom. The only real nagging issue online retailers will continue to face is shipping.
There is another major problem with sales taxes for online transactions: delivering those taxes to the appropriate jurisdiction. There are over 7,000 tax jurisdictions in the U.S. alone. How is a small business that only made one or two sales into a particular tax jurisdiction supposed to [1] calculate those taxes accurately with current tax table information; [2] cut and deliver a check to the appropriate authority; [3] fill out their income tax form listing the 7,000 different sets of sales taxes the paid during the year; [4] maintain several years of tax records; [5] make a profit?
Ahem. DotComs are not alone with this problem. Many companies which ship have had to contend with this issue before these DotCom were even a twinkle in some VCs eye. There are cdroms these companies buy which keep track of all the tax rates, they cope just fine. It would be a trivial matter to intergrate it within their CGIs and the like--the cost per transaction would be mere fractions of a penny. In addition, if this shipping commerce grows in popularity, there is nothing saying the federal government or some accounting standards board could not compile an official database of tax rates, to which everyone is held strictly accountable to (and nothing else, e.g., if it is out of date)...
What you are asking for is essentially a subsidy (yes, that's exactly what it is). Because the beloved online retailer can't bring the product to the consumer as cheaply, we're going to even things up with a tax disparity in their favor. In other words, the DotCom can operate 8% (or whatever tax rate) less efficiently so far as the consumer is concerned, and get away with it. On high dollar/low bulk items (e.g., computers, software, clothes, etc.) it is literally impossible for the brick and mortar to compete, because the government artifically boosts the online retailer.
Since you claim to be interested in "fairness", I ask you this. If I choose to locate my retail operation in say, Manhattan (or any mall in america for that matter), should I be given a tax benefit? If I locate my DotCom in Alaska, should I recieve a great tax benefit? And if to boot, by virtue of my location, I can't provide decent support, or help to the consumer, should I be given a further tax break? Obviously, the answer is no. The government should not try to intervene like this. Businesses should compete based on the efficiencies and services they bring to the table, not on the basis of which form of business the government seems to favor more at any given minute.
If the internet is the more efficient way to do whatever it does, it will, by definition, overcome those shipping costs, it would compete on price (though not necessarily in other departments). If the DotCom is able to compete based on the price savings they are able to generate for the consumer (not tax rates), I have no problem with that.
The reality today, however, is not anything resembling this. Most online retailers are illconcieved, operating almost entirely on lower prices (largely benefiting from not having to worry about taxes) and hype [and a few for better apparent selection]. Most online retailers even have sloppy and poorly designed sales websites. Their support is generally laughable. Their financial management is a joke. Their inventory controls are horrible...They are generally not all they are cracked up to be. There is no good reason for society to reward this lack of performance [even if it is inevitable] with an effective subsidy over their "brick and mortar" counterparts.
Slashdot Mirror
My problem is not one of lack of imagination; I've been using mp3's longer than most anyone (4+ years ago). However, I do not, I can not, fool myself into thinking that these theoretical 'learning benefits' are sufficient reason to effectively make intellectual property null and void. I, unlike you (as long as you wish to make blanket statements), know what it takes to create new and innovative things. Having seen, and been behind, many hi-tech startups, I understand risk and reward quite well. The principles behind protecting music are much the same. The artists need to get paid for their work. The people who bring their work to the masses need to get paid. To make a long story short, IP is necessary. Although I do not lose anything when when the artists get robbed of their IP, I am too intellectually honest to make up some bullshit excuse that I am 'learning'. Nor do I think most college kids can make such a claim. Damn few are incapable of rubbing together the money to buy an extensive CD collection if they are truely motivated. If they're not motivated, they'll probably never make anything of themselves anyways.
Furthermore, it is ironic that you are saying that these kids need expensive IP based music, while advocating its destruction for all intents and purposes. Why can't these kids just go to mp3.com, or what have you, and get 'free' music? What? I didn't hear you! There isn't enough good free music? Has mp3.com, or any other organization which distributes free music, truely improved this in the past few years? Interesting view point you have there. You basically want to have your cake and eat it too. You purport IP protected music to be necessary to learn, but IP is not necessary? How are these would-be artists going to learn in the future in a world with no effective IP protection?
This position is even more futile when you take into account the fact that we are not even talking about 'ideas' here. We are talking about byte-for-byte copies of a singer's performance (e.g., song, voice(s), instruments, etc.). It is hard to argue they are obstructing anyone by not allowing you to get an exact copy of their work. In other words, if their music did not exist (read: No IP, no music) you would have nothing to copy at all, and if their music does exist (read: IP, music) you just can't pirate an exact digital copy. You can, however, still: buy it, listen to it on the radio, take notes on its composition, emulate its sound, etc., etc., etc.
You may enjoy not paying for music. Although, I lose nothing when the artists lose, I am just too intellectually honest to try to justify this behavior with absurd excuses. In any case, the issue here was the school's take on this. The fact of the matter is that a great many schools have already taken steps against it.
Ahem, no. I've know many admin's too, in both corporate and educational institutions. The mere fact that some of them may participate in piracy does not mean they're willing to risk their necks over it. Very few institutions have the excess capacity to accomodate every student regularly trading mp3s. Perhaps you should talk to some of your admin friends again, and ask them how much their network slowed down when even a small fraction of students were using napster, et.al.
Umm, you don't understand. I have no direct stake in this other than my intellectual honesty. You, on the other hand, have committed yourself to a dream. A dream which you believe will profit you. I'm being pragmatic here...
And my statements are categorically different from yours, how? You say I am too committed to the status quo. I say you're too committed to committed to unrealistic change. They're flip sides of the coin. I'm not saying you're "scared", I'm saying you're eagerly anticipating change without thinking it through. Deal with it.
I, for one, am not worried. To reiterate, I: a) Realize the need for Intellectual property b) know RIAA is not so easily toppled. Does this concern me any more than it should you? No.
I, too, certainly do find this recursive networking model interesting, just as I find the notion of various DoS attacks and its possible (or impossible) defense to it. Assuming gnutella is overhauled, it would be quite apppropriate for a relatively small group (e.g., 200 users) warez or mp3 group. As for stopping abuse and ramping up privacy (e.g., keeping RIAA from logging ips), the larger the "network" gets, and the less well they know each other, the harder it will be to keep it together. For those who think "well then everyone can just form small networks", one caveat: In order for these networks to survive they need to maintain strict privacy and use a relatively complex protocol. I do not believe that even 95% of music listeners have the requisite computers skills or the intelligence necessary for efficiently keeping themselves connected to a "network" which offers what they need. Thus, I still am quite confident of RIAA's ability to endure Gnutella and all its cousins. Not that you said anything to the contrary, but I'm sure some one will.... :)
Yes, I personally am not the one who defines it. However, 99.99% of the content on both "networks" is illegal. With both "networks" the users who use it have a tendency to take more than their share of bandwidth--there simply isn't enough to go around, even with today's relatively moderate usage. Thus, many universities have already taken steps to shut down those "networks." It is not as if I've just arbitrarily pulled this out of my ass and declared that because I don't think napster is a legimimate use, all universities will act on this. They have. They will. They have every incentive to continue.
First, neither promote learning, you know it as well as I do. The most you can argue is that they entertain, but do not forget that they do so illegally. Second, The admins jobs is whatever the powers that be say it is. They are not obligated to entertain you--certainly on everyone else's dollar. Third, the students don't subsidize their jobs. The admins work for the school, not for the students. Damn few students even pay, it is their parents', the state, or some other organization 9 times out of 10. Which is a very important distinction, because if every student were to be allowed unrestricted access to napster (and the like), the uplinks would have to scale as well, the costs would increase, and the bandwidth bill per student could easily be 50+ bucks a month for every student. The people who are actually footing the bill (e.g., parents) may not accept this...
With all due respect, people like you are always running around with their head in their hands screaming the world is about to ____end______! People, like me, just fundamentally understand that things are generally the way they are for a reason, real change is pretty damn rare. I've listened to all the arguments. Hell, I've even been using mp3s longer than 99.99% of the users and advocates (being one of the original founders of #mp3) And you know what? I do not see any compelling argument for thinking this "prediction" is going to be any different. RIAA, MPAA, and company will survive. They may adapt a little (e.g., target digital downloadable music), but the labels will still provide value for the mainstream artists (almost by definition). Artists will continue to sign almost exclusively with the major labels (with similar contracts). The labels will continue to set the prices. Thus, the companies that makeup RIAA will continue to profit like they always have.
In any case, time will prove me right. By that time, maybe you will have come a bit more center after your Xth failed prediction of impending doom or cataclysmic change. No offense, and good night.
Yeah, just like there might be legimate reasons for walking around in KKK garb (e.g., hood and mask). But don't expect me to attack the guy who gets his house burnt down for verbally assaulting the dress. Metallica _is_ getting looted of their IP, they have a right to be pissed off. If you want to yell at someone, perhaps you should yell at 99.999999% of Napster, who uses it illegally. Furthermore, if you can use a service which is used almost exclusively by "looters", I think you should be able to stomach just verbal assaults.
The technology is new, and I'm sure some bugs will be worked out, but I think there are fundamental problems with decentralization. I don't think the fix is so trivial at all. I really doubt its viability, no matter what the hackers do. As for pure servers, if you depend on them, you might as well be napster.
Ok well first off, a great deal of these napster and Gnutella users are on college campuses. Those network admins are only expected to facilitate legimate uses--providing for free pirated music simply isn't in their job descriptions. When illegimate uses crowd out the legimate users (e.g., well past full capacity bandwidth) the admins will simply push that much harder to eliminate it. People seem to think that because gnutella uses http protocol to transfer files (and because there is no one single server or port it uses), the users can't be locked out. This is simply untrue. Their usage patterns are unique, as you point out, they use far more bandwidth than anyone else (amongst other things). Furthermore, I firmly believe that RIAA or someone like me could write a program for these institutions to log onto the gnutella network and pretend to be a client (just like any student), then harvest all the clients' IP addresses, find out which ones match your subnet, and disconnect them from the network. I believe this will always be possible too.
I'm not so sure if they'll even need to adapt much. The physical distribution costs of the media itself is only a small fraction of their costs. If they do decide to turn to the internet, they can shave whatever their shipping and material costs are, while enjoying the same profit margins. I, for one, do not believe the internet will "liberate" everyone from pricey music. Put simply, the music companies add substantial value for the artist other than just their physical distribution. They have editing, promoters, fashion people, sound technicians, contacts, you name it. In other words, I don't see self-promotion on the internet as being a realistic alternative for any mainstream artists any time soon; they are better off getting "gouged" by the companies and only making 1% of their sales(but a million times over), than selling 1000 copies (in all probability) and making 99% (or what have you). In any case, time will tell.
Nice talking to you.
Has anyone here actually used it regularly? I've tried. You're lucky to see ~2000 hosts (which breaks often if someone leaves), and even when it lists that many hosts, searches are painfully slow and frequently broken. It doesn't hold a candle to napster as is. This recursive method may sound very interesting, in that you can theoretically put hundreds of thousands hosts together without centralization, but this also creates major problems with message propogation. Assuming you could even hold together a network of 20k users, and each of those users creates only creates 10 bytes a second (e.g., searches, etc), that means that in order for all of those users to have access to the rest of the network, each user would average about 200kilobytes/second, easily more than most users can afford. Even the original developer of gnutella didn't think it would scale past, what was it, 100 users (i forget exactly, but it wasn't terribly impressive). Add to this DoS programs and jerks, and you can kiss a smoothly working "network" goodbye.
Furthermore, I think the anonymity argument is sort of laughable. It is no more anonymous than napster if we assume that napster.com does not leak information, the file transfers are still host to host. RIAA, MPAA, etc. can still come after you. Nor will this thing, as a smoothly working network, manage to avoid network admins (assuming it doesn't fall under its own weight before then) forever. They might not be able to merely firewall a port or a host, but there is more than one way to skin a cat...
I have some respect for the author, but this thing is hardly going to change the world. I don't believe decentralization like this will ever become smooth enough and easy enough to use that most users (as opposed to "geeks", and those who make a point out of trying to pirate) will find it economical to pirate their stuff off the net. RIAA, MPAA, and all the interests they represent are here to stay, gnutella and its cousins won't even cause them to stumble.
So I made a typo, sue me! I can spell article accurately more than 5% of the time.
You think shit is art, so I really don't think we have much more to discuss. Anyone who could call shit art with a straight face, could also call Katz a journalist. Likewise, if you can't spell "article", I can hardly expect you to know what a good article is. Furthermore, you are obviously quite well inside of Katz's target audience, so I'm wasting my words on you.
Assume for a minute that we have two parallel universes. In universe A, Adolf hitler writes regularly for slashdot, but you, being the only vantage point of interest, are allowed to "filter" all articles owned by Hitler. In universe B, Hitler exists but does not write for slashdot. Everything else (external) being equal, would you even attempt to argue that your experiences in both would be the same? Would you deny that Hitler shapes not only his own words, but also makes a substantial dent in the readership? That he affects arguments even in other forums? I hardly think so. No reasonable person could. Katz may not be as extreme as Hitler, but if you admit of Hitler's ability to affect others indirectly, you must also allow this for Katz. Thus, Katz does not operate in a vacuum. To say ignoring him and him not being present on slashdot are the same thing is simple foolishness. So I reiterate, he does affect me even when I ignore him.
Because he is a crappy writer in my opinion [not that this is just opinion], it is also entirely reasonable for me to think he affects me negatively whether or not I ignore him. In addition, I have seen evidence of this (some of which I ennumerated earlier). This being the case, I will do everything reasonable in my power to democratically push Katz out. I will not "force" him, I'll use persuasion. I'll argue. I'll mock him. I'll laugh at him. So long as Slashdot claims to be for free speech, this is perfectly within my rights. While you too are perfectly within your rights to yell back at me, do not think you are some how morally better for doing so. You have your opinion and "facts", I have mine.
As for the rest of this "argument", it is tedious, mindless, mistaken, and niggardly. I could refute (quite well I might add) each and every point, but why bother? I have no desire to get into war of the "cut and pastes." Since I suspect you'll have nothing more to add other than similarly tired arguments, I'll find something better. Good bye
The real issue here is waste. What is it about eating the meat per se that absolves you of the act? In my opinion, killing a deer and wasting it, is no better and no worse than, say, burning down a forest or cutting down a tree for thrills--you are needlessly wasting resources. Are the resources (e.g., plants, animals, trees, etc.) you are consuming being put to good use proportionately? If an avid hunter only selectively takes one buck a season for its hide and antlers (and does so reasonably, without excessive waste), and draws some significant satisfaction in it, I find it hard to draw a significant distinction between you (hunting and eating for enjoyment) and the hunter who wants for equal or greater enjoyment. It is not as if you need the meat per se; you enjoy that meat, therefore you hunt.
In other words, I can respect hunters and fisherman who do so tastefully and reasonably and not necessarily for the flesh. What I can not respect are those who kill for quick sadistic thrills (e.g., getting drunk with some buddies, and putting holes in anything that moves that isn't human, then just leaving it).
You might technically be able to call this news (although that is debatable), but you know exactly what I mean. I would no more call Katz a journalist, than I would call people who make "art" from feces artists. He adds little to nothing to this world.
I disagree. What Katz's articles have is a sort of psuedo-intellectual following, but I don't associate this with intelligence. You are free to think otherwise, but that does not invalidate the fact that, as a result of Katz and similar rubbish, i'm hardpressed to find readers with whom i'd like to discuss anything. So yes, i'm still affected. I have known atleast 15 people who refuse to read slashdot as a result of Katz and his following.
I've seen a number of times where Katz articles (it is NOT articals) are up simultaneously. Nonetheless, it is a non-issue, that was just an example. The fact of the matter is that Slashdot itself has finite bandwidth and CPU time. These limits do constantly make themselves felt. If 99% of the traffic on a given day is the Katz/argument stuff, then that leaves only a small and unreliable percentage left to pursuits I (amongst others) am interested in. Yes, this affects me.
Likewise, slashdot's mindshare is finite. If most all of the "content" is Katz and similar crap, little else will recieve much attention. It is a documented fact. Furthermore, If I, as an intelligent person, am going to spend a significant amount of time writing for slashdot, I would want to know it is going to get read. Not only does Katz run off most other intelligent people, but he also takes away the attention of others, thus I might as well essentially write for myself.
Uh, Dogma need not be formally administrated. Look it up in your dictionary again. Katz promotes a certain mind set. Us versus them. Geeks versus Jocks. Individual versus corporate people. You name it. A number of people do take after him, I hear his beloved "phrases" and the views he purports aped on other articles all the time. If Katz is going to paint people or things in black or white, I want it to be the result of honest analytical thought, not a campaign to appease the disgruntled people of this world. There are parallels here to Naziim...
Fact: These "discussions" do nothing for me. These discussions crowd out content that does. It affects me. It might be my opinion that the content is worthless, but that does not invalidate it.
What you are advocating is my keeping my mouth shut because you happen to like Katz. You are being hypocritical at the very least. I see crap that I do not like, I speak out against it. I was taught to call a spade a spade. If Katz is manipulating many people on slashdot with formulaic efficiency, I'll be damned if I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
Obviously, each person can only speak from his or her own perspective. I and many others think Katz is horrible. We state what we think about him. That is what democracy is about, not keeping your mouth shut. In addition, I also attempt to illuminate Katz's "style", for everyone to see. Perhaps when they see the truth, then Slashdot will have an economic incentive to cut him off.
I never "just whine." I stated my personal opinion for you, so I could show you how Katz's crap affected me even when I chose not to read him. For others (e.g., in my root comment), I pointed out Katz's "formula for success". Not a whine, just strongly supported observation. You don't seem to be able to handle it, so you are telling me to shut up.
Your argument is "people like Katz". But, if we listened to you, there would never be any criticisms of him, and thus you'd never be able to get an accurate picture of who likes him. Contrast this with my requests/arguments/etc for slashdot to change it's content, which is not, and never was, chosen in a democratic fashion.
It is funny though, in your initial comment you were afraid to be moderated down for supporting Katz. Yet you seem to assert that Katz is supported by most people and that moderation is meaningfull. I don't think you can have it both ways. In my opinion, both are flawed...but I don't have time left. Bye.
You might technically be able to call this news (although that is debatable), but you know exactly what I mean. I would no more call Katz a journalist, than I would call people who make "art" from feces artists. He adds little to nothing to this world.
Intelligent people are smart enough to click a button. Also, there are intelligent people who like commenting on Katz articals
I disagree. What Katz's articles have is a sort of psuedo-intellectual following, but I don't associate this with intelligence. You are free to think otherwise, but that does not invalidate the fact that, as a result of Katz and similar rubbish, i'm hardpressed to find readers with whom i'd like to discuss anything. So yes, i'm still affected. I have known atleast 15 people who refuse to read slashdot as a result of Katz and his following.
I've seen a number of times where Katz articles (it is NOT articals) are up simultaneously. Nonetheless, it is a non-issue, that was just an example. The fact of the matter is that Slashdot itself has finite bandwidth and CPU time. These limits do constantly make themselves felt. If 99% of the traffic on a given day is the Katz/argument stuff, then that leaves only a small and unreliable percentage left to pursuits I (amongst others) am interested in. Yes, this affects me.
Likewise, slashdot's mindshare is finite. If most all of the "content" is Katz and similar crap, little else will recieve much attention. It is a documented fact. Furthermore, If I, as an intelligent person, am going to spend a significant amount of time writing for slashdot, I would want to know it is going to get read. Not only does Katz run off most other intelligent people, but he also takes away the attention of others, thus I might as well essentially write for myself.
Uh, Dogma need not be formally administrated. Look it up in your dictionary again. Katz promotes a certain mind set. Us versus them. Geeks versus Jocks. Individual versus corporate people. You name it. A number of people do take after him, I hear his beloved "phrases" and the views he purports aped on other articles all the time. If Katz is going to paint people or things in black or white, I want it to be the result of honest analytical thought, not a campaign to appease the disgruntled people of this world. There are parallels here to Naziim...
Fact: These "discussions" do nothing for me. These discussions crowd out content that does. It affects me. It might be my opinion that the content is worthless, but that does not invalidate it.
Economist on the Nazi regime.
Ummm, the fundamental difference between roads and large scale public subsidizing of the arts, is that with roads there is a very clear and tangible public benefit. Few sane people would argue that they would be better off without roads. They are willing to pay relatively small taxes on something that fundamentally benefits them. The music industry today makes billions of dollars off of consumers. Every consumer who wants to listen spends money. With your model, in order to produce approximately the same quantity and quality of music, the government must spend atleast the same amount on the aggregate(e.g., 100 billion a year, or whatever it is). Are you ok with this level of taxation? It might very well quadruple your taxes if government is to subsidize your entertainment. And don't think for one minute that the government can replace free markets well. In other words, if a band sucks, few people will listen to them, resources will not be wasted on them. With the government model, we're going to require some buearacrat or some process to "decide" how to allocate resources. How do we differentiate truely "good" music from "bad" music with government? What socio-economic groups are to command the lions share of the music types? Is this to be done by population?New talent will get discovered how? Where is the incentive to take a risk? ....So many holes...
Never mind the efficiency issues. Or the secondary and tertiary economic effects of high taxes....
Sure, technology evolves rapidly. What is state of the art today, will be consumer grade tomorrow. However, the fact that it is technically possible to create a hollywood image quality film, does not mean society will ever view it like a hollywood film. Fifty years ago, on hearing of today's internet/computer/printing technology, one might have made similar predictions with novels, that it would obviate the need for these large publishing houses. Yet, when you look around today, this is clearly not the case. The popular authors for the eighties and nineties (e.g., Ken Follet, Grisham, Clancy, etc.) are still largely the same. Clearly, the technology for internet distribution exists. Yes, the facilities are in place (except if you regard decent "e-books" as being necessary). Yes, it is fully possible. Yet, it just isn't true. The publishers are alive and well, and, I feel, will stay this way.
You are ignoring issues such as marketing, distribution, signal to noise rations (e.g., Any idiot can get a word processor and write, but few can match Grisham's published writing. How do we pick the diamonds from the rough, so to speak? how do we develop talent? who pays for them to work at it?), professional editing, full time employement to produce quality work, etc.
Even going beyond toss-away novels, I'm hard pressed to find any areas which the average Joe has really replaced the professional. The internet has been around long enough now, we (you) would expect it. Sure, it brings new stuff to the table. Such as perl, linux, etc, but they are few in number, and none of them really compete head to head in the same way. They're simply alternatives. Perhaps worthwhile and notable, but not earth shattering. The "democratic" internet has yet to demonstrate otherwise.
I'm not the type to mod you down simply because I disagree with you.
I have yet to read a single Katz article that I would call "journalism." But even if he published such a thing, does it matter? He tries to pass everything else off as journalism too. Without getting too involved in this, I certainly would not call the "Hellmouth" or "Wave" series journalism. They were essentially common knowledge with a hysterical reactive pro-geek undertone. No where did I find any honest to god analytical thinking going on there. It's simply rubbish.
Merely skipping may be a fine solution if you don't mind losing that forum. This is theoretically a community and, as such, I take some ownership of it. It is not as if what Katz does has no effect on the forum! When he is promoted, a couple things happen:
a) The more intelligent readership get turned off and leave. This effects me by leaving me with mediocre "community members" whom generally can't make a case if their life depended on it.
b) Because Katz's crap soaks up both bandwidth and mindshare, the other content suffers. In other words, if the powers-that-be have 2 or 3 Katz articles up, they have less interest in posting other information.
c) Katz propogates dogma and geek FUD. This approach to life leaks into the rest of slashdot.
I don't care if you argue per se. I care that pretty much all I see on slashdot is pointless arguments, which in turn detracts from slashdot. Although the slashdot owners may find they maximize their profits (arguably only in the short run) by focusing on these arguments, as a user I find I lose out because slashdot passes up on a rather unique opportunity. Namely, they have the mindshare of a large audience of technically literate people. They could do things with this, but they do not.
What you are essentially advocating is passivity. Why vote? Other people want it otherwise. Why make yourself heard, if most people want to think otherwise? Why fight for anything if you can just "move"?
See above arguments.
The majority of Americans overeat, not all of them are overweight, and most don't have any more emotional problems than the average european. Not only do they overeat, but they eat poorly and don't get enough exercise. Put simply, the modern American diet is horrible. Overweight people are frequently the result of simply not being able to get away with this type of eating (e.g., propensity to gain weight)...which prompts inactivity, which prompts depression, which CAN lead eating even more.
In other words, it is not emotions that make Americans fat, it is our diets. We eat too much sugar, fat, etc. Our meals are high in carbohydrates. The typical American serving size is gigantic by international standards, which naturally prompts increased eating. When is the last time you've been to McDonalds? The supersize value meal soda's are like a gallon soda, a slight exaggeration, but it is truely disgusting, not to mention very unhealthy.
I'm not in the military, but from my limited knowledge of the military the prime difference between food and water is logistics. Water is quite plentifull in most places, and can be made drinkable with the right equipment and experience. Whereas food/rations must be shipped and delivered to the battle scene. In other words, unlike water, you must have ships and/or airplanes deliver food to feed the troops. Logistics such as these are _major_ issues in even modern wars.
I didn't read the article either, but even if this thing were to only deliver vitamins, I'd imagine that'd free up meal selection substantially. In other words, they could eat all kinds of shit if they had to, and do so more sporadically, which they otherwise could not due to lack of vitamins. In pinch time, if this technology works as claimed, it just might give us an edge.
Really like what? Not all of slashdot is his target audience, he appeals to a certain faction very very consistently with the party line. As for the remainder, he does his best to inspire dislike...because that fattens the powers that be too. Katz is like the "new world" liberal equivelent of Rush Limbaugh, a small percentage adore his every incoherant babble, the rest tune in because they are drawn to it by anger, the urge to fight, yell, or what have you.
Well first, I think Katz is absolutely the bottom of barrel insofar as "journalism" goes. Secondly, just because the majority of journalists today are worthless hacks, does not mean it is acceptable. Nor, for that matter, does it mean that Slashdot should foist Katz's crap on us.
I find this interesting in a way too, but I'm not suprised at all. If you look at the number of comments on Katz's articles, his "articles" easily draw the most comments of any other type of article or author when you average them. In other words, it can be reasonably assumed that Katz articles generate the more banner ad impressions (read: money) than any of the competing alternatives. Even though only a percentage of those comments praise him, the remainder of slashdot appears to be drawn to his stuff anyways (to flame, to argue, to play "devils advocate", etc.), and pack his pockets just as well (if not better) than his fanatics.
The fundamental problem with Katz boils down to an even more fundamental problem with Slashdot. That is, that while Slashdot claims to be "news for nerds", it is really "arguments for people who like to argue about stuff 'nerds' are interested in." Most of the 'content' on slashdot is arguments, there is little "usefull" content on slashdot that I would call usefull. By usefull, I mean, say, technical questions, like how to install/modify/hack a linux iopener. But these kinds of articles are rare, and they don't (or rather can't) draw a consistently large audience anywhere near Katz's numbers. Most everything on slashdot is of political nature. Since most people in this world are idiots (including slashdot), we have never ending useless arguments for the most part. Those who wish to cling to their absurd beliefs will do so generally, irregardless of the strength of the opposing arguments. To boil it all down, Katz is numero uno when it comes to drawing the arguments. He is slashdot's reason for existence personified.
My objection to this, of course, is that Katz is absolutely the most meaningless. The fact that he is even called a journalist is insulting. I suppose some part of me hopes I can get the "slashdot juniors" to wake up and smell the coffee. I want them to realize that they're being played. Perhaps then, slashdot will have a financial incentive for turning away Katz. Until that time, well I can argue too... =)
It is one thing for your style to match your readership, it is an entirely different thing when everything the "journalist" writes agrees with his audience's dogma. Not all journalists are like this. I would hardly say Katz is to self-defined "geeks", as the Economist is to conservatives. First, the Economist attempts to report the news, not merely parrot a group discussions with flowery and overly wordy writing. Second, I would hardly say there is even one group that always agrees with the content the Economist generates. Third, I believe that the Economist believes what they write, I really can't say this for Katz as he changes directions too fast. Fourth, Katz, unlike the Economist, writes horribly. His language is far too flowery. It is not merely a matter of targeting his audience (despite what some may claim), his writing really has little in the way of content or direction; without his "flowers" it would be immediately clear that he really has nothing to say other than the party line.
The bottom line is that Katz has nothing to offer slashdot other than warm fuzzy feelings for those who call themselves "geeks". Believe it or not, there are journalists in this world who choose to make something more of themselves.
a) Find Receptive Audience. Slashdot "geeks", yes!
b) Periodically monitor their changing, but consistent, gripes and hopes. "society", "jocks", "corporations", "open source", etc...
c) Write flowerly articles fully agreeing with them. Where possible, offend all those who otherwise would not read articles.
d) Rinse, Repeat.
...If you notice everything Katz writes essentially fits this model.
I'm all for risk and return, but mere skins do not provide much in the way of return, and they certainly do confuse many users. MacOSX and Netscape 6 are improved in far more than just in "skins". I overall like what i've seen from Netscape6 thus far, but I do question the wisdom of trying to make things too pretty at the cost of ease of use (even though NS6's problems are more subdued, this is not true with most open source software).
The problem is that it is only "level" (not that I necessarily agree with this) because some politicians have decided to give "E-commerce" a handicap. In other words, E-commerce is by nature of its design and/or management is less efficient, and needs an artificial advantage to compete in your opinion. If you are for "changing positions", why not just become a Brick and mortar when your method is inferior?
Part of your problem is that you see every objection as being Walmart or something similar. Although the current lobbying may be Walmart and company, this is because they are large enough to do so, and stand to lose a great deal. There are some "Mom and Pops" plain old retailers that fear the tax advantage of online retailers too.
One thing that annoys me with your comments is that you like to vilify chains such as Walmart too much. They do provide a good service to people, whether or not you like it. The combination of their management and scale of their operation allows them to price things lowe, and often provide greater selection than any Mom and Pop does (generally speaking). While I grant you that you do lose some things in the process (e.g., a more personal touch, knowledgable service people, etc.), people consistently find Walmart's (et. al) value proposition greater than the mom and pop(this is why they've "won"). You may not personally like it. Even though may you find other people's preference of Walmart to the Mom and Pop is less advantageous to you, that does not mean society is better off paying more for things...or simply not being able to find what they want. If people, in the long term (as opposed to short term anticompetetive pricing), would rather pay 5 dollars for a given item and get a certain mediocre service than pay 8 dollars and get good service and a "smile" (or whatever you will), who are you to say this is wrong, in and of itself?
Furthermore, Walmart may be theoretically large enough to sway politicians, but if you look at the empirical evidence, this is simply not the case (atleast not yet). Both the Republicans and the Democrats are against taxing the internet for the most part(much to my dismay.) The Democrats view taxing the internet as regressive, or what have you. While the Republicans see not taxing the internet as a way to reduce taxes in general. This dogma combined with an utter lack of understanding and political aping of the internet puts them both against it. Put simply, the evidence ain't there yet.
Whatever your opinion on aggregate tax revenues may be, there is no good reason to give one party preferential treatment. Furthermore, if you accept that E-commerce is going to grow, and that it is going to grow at the expense of brick and mortars, you pretty much must conclude that tax revenues are going to shrink. In other words, freezing tax percentages does not assure tax revenues when the proportion of sales changes. Do you realize that if the internet were to replace all B&M sales tomorrow, that most states' tax revenues would be reduced by approximately 30%? Although this number is clearly too high, why should society be interested in driving reduced tax revenues while favoring a less than efficient business method? If we accept your conclusion, that the playing field is already "level", every customer is essentially getting the same price (unless you think the internet is so unattractive to the consumer that they need huge discounts), yet the state gets less money on every sale. Every internet sale that replaces a B&M sale, reduces revenues that the state would have otherwise had....
The only argument I see that stands against taxing the internet fairly is your own personal self-interest. That is to say, you get richer when your online retail operation gets taxed less. I really would love to hear a compelling argument for society!
Software exists to please the user, for most users this simply means getting the task done without confusing them. You are only one user. There may be a couple thousand like you, but you are still in the minority. It is fine if developers want to create skins, but they should realize that if they make this the default (or the only option), it has negative consequences for most users in most cases (except for most of these open source projects, which appeal mostly to "geeks").
So if I designed a "cool" (obviously subjective, but so are themes) bus with obstacles that only a jock could clear, this is fine by you? Forget old people, handicap people, geeks, etc. Because "you" are scared, maybe we should ditch modified busses to? Sounds pretty reasonable, if your intent is to serve as many people as possible.
First, not all churches are the same. Many lack such accouterments. In many of those which do, it is practically mandated by the particular religion.
Second, stained glass windows and the like may cost a lot to build, but they can hardly be sold (and replaced) short of selling the entire church. Furthermore, some patrons demand such things--it may hurt them (even if you believe cash is their prime objective).
Third, how many clergymen do you know that are rolling in the money? Damn few. They're obviously not in the business of making money.
Fourth, I strongly dislike NT, and I think it generally makes a poor choice. However, there are some situations (even "real-time mission critical systems") where it is actually more stable and cheaper than the alternatives due to lack of software, compatibility, etc.(though this likely isn't one of them.) Remember that keeping a server up is not your goal in and of itself, providing a solution is. It means little to have a server which never fails, but also never fails to give users problems. In other words, sometimes it is better to have a server which is only 99% reliable (even though this may be inexcusable), than one which simply can't accomodate the users.
Disclaimer: I'm not religious, I disagree with many religions in many areas, but your claims are simply misinformed. Likewise, I despise MS (for both business and technology practices), probably more than you, but I try not to let that blind me.
Compared to the costs of having clerks handle the equivelent volume it is very cheap. Furthermore, businesses such as Walmart are, in fact, highly automated, with extensive databases, ERP type systems, etc.. Not only do they have to maintain a retail presense, but these kinds of operations have found it benefits them to computerize their business. I would not at all be surprised if Walmart spends more on IT per sale than these DotComs (those with similar volume), because they have to automate and support each and every outlet, not just corporate HQ.
Ok, so the online retailer has to contend with shipping costs. So what? A retailer such as Walmart must ship to each and every outlet. This may, at first glance, appear necessarily cheaper because it is cheaper to ship 50 units to one location than ship 50 units to 50 different locations. However, it is not so simple in reality. Not only must the retailer contend with the significant overhead at each location, but they must keep inventories in tight check at each location. This is not simple at all. A minor miscalculation in demand can cost a great deal because you must keep stock at each location (these real time computer inventory systems help here...but these cost money as well).
First off, these payments are aggregated. It is not as if each individual transaction must have a corresponding tax check cut. Secondly, not all firms which ship are your "traditional mail order" firm. They find they have to have a presence (e.g., a sales force) in each state. These companies cope just fine...the costs to support taxes is less than penny per transaction (averaged) in the companies I know.
Likewise, these companies I know have to contend with the same issue, just like every damn mail order in the country. Cry me a river.
I know people in many different areas on both sides, and done some work in different companies as well. Your problem is that you are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing your limited experience as a tiny online startup to well established companies such as Walmart, yet lack of experience to know where their costs are. If you want to make a more fair comparison, compare your business to an equally sized brick and mortar of similar age.
The bottom line is that everything you and I mentioned above is totally irrelevant, none of it justifies government intervention. You wisely chose to avoid attempting to justify why your online retail operation should recieve preferential treatment while the retail operation from my example should not. If you provide an inferior service to the consumer which costs more by nature of your business model, why is it the governments obligation to intervene by artificially making your product more desirable than it would otherwise be? If you really can't provide good service to the consumer, if your costs are that high, then be a brick and mortar for christs' sake. The same goes for any business decision. If you choose to do business in the way you do business, then you should also have to live with the consequences. If, on the other hand, you are providing a significant benefit to the consumer, then your increased prices should be accepted by the consumer.
Ok first point, you are totally neglecting the additional costs which almost every retailer faces. High overhead (e.g., the store front, sales personel, training, support, maintance, cleaning, parking, liability on your lots, etc etc etc) I'm sorry to tell you this, but these things do not come cheaply. In fact, they are very expensive.
Compare this with online retailers, who are almost by definition driven primarily by computers. This reduces the need for hired help substantially. Not only that, but the dotcoms gets the benefit of locating where ever it wants. The DotCom can use affordable quality labor for their shipping operations, yet still target high rent areas. Furthermore, The dotcom can consolidate all of their shipping into one central location. Compare this with the likes of Wallmart, they have to distribute their wares to hundreds of retail locations, keep them in stock (can you say inventory issues?), etc.
DotComs should, in fact, be able to operate even more efficiently (for those limited services they provide) across the board. Almost all these other issues you and others mention could be addressed by a similarly scaled (a brick and mortar of the same scale has it no better, and many times worse) and well run DotCom. The only real nagging issue online retailers will continue to face is shipping.
Ahem. DotComs are not alone with this problem. Many companies which ship have had to contend with this issue before these DotCom were even a twinkle in some VCs eye. There are cdroms these companies buy which keep track of all the tax rates, they cope just fine. It would be a trivial matter to intergrate it within their CGIs and the like--the cost per transaction would be mere fractions of a penny. In addition, if this shipping commerce grows in popularity, there is nothing saying the federal government or some accounting standards board could not compile an official database of tax rates, to which everyone is held strictly accountable to (and nothing else, e.g., if it is out of date)...
What you are asking for is essentially a subsidy (yes, that's exactly what it is). Because the beloved online retailer can't bring the product to the consumer as cheaply, we're going to even things up with a tax disparity in their favor. In other words, the DotCom can operate 8% (or whatever tax rate) less efficiently so far as the consumer is concerned, and get away with it. On high dollar/low bulk items (e.g., computers, software, clothes, etc.) it is literally impossible for the brick and mortar to compete, because the government artifically boosts the online retailer.
Since you claim to be interested in "fairness", I ask you this. If I choose to locate my retail operation in say, Manhattan (or any mall in america for that matter), should I be given a tax benefit? If I locate my DotCom in Alaska, should I recieve a great tax benefit? And if to boot, by virtue of my location, I can't provide decent support, or help to the consumer, should I be given a further tax break? Obviously, the answer is no. The government should not try to intervene like this. Businesses should compete based on the efficiencies and services they bring to the table, not on the basis of which form of business the government seems to favor more at any given minute.
If the internet is the more efficient way to do whatever it does, it will, by definition, overcome those shipping costs, it would compete on price (though not necessarily in other departments). If the DotCom is able to compete based on the price savings they are able to generate for the consumer (not tax rates), I have no problem with that.
The reality today, however, is not anything resembling this. Most online retailers are illconcieved, operating almost entirely on lower prices (largely benefiting from not having to worry about taxes) and hype [and a few for better apparent selection]. Most online retailers even have sloppy and poorly designed sales websites. Their support is generally laughable. Their financial management is a joke. Their inventory controls are horrible...They are generally not all they are cracked up to be. There is no good reason for society to reward this lack of performance [even if it is inevitable] with an effective subsidy over their "brick and mortar" counterparts.