While that is hopelessly inaccurate, I will explain why you are wrong. When you work for your boss, you have a contract that states you get paid for service performed. You obtain that contract by going through an interview process, proving your skill base (either through previous contacts, or educational requirements, etc), and showing that you are capable of completing the job. When I choose whether or not to buy a game, and decide not to, the developers aren't entitled to my money.
On the other hand, when I choose to buy the game, I have entered into a contract for ownership or lease, depending on the game and the performance of the game must be as advertised. If not, I should be able to get my money back. In a purchase method (no monthly fees) game, if the demo/advertisements of the game do not match the actual game system requirements, I should be able to get my money back. If I sign up for a multi-period contract for a game license, and system requirements change due to an upgrade, I should be able to break my contract. I should not be able to get my money back for the periods I have already used, but I definately should not be held to continue that contract.
Similiarly, if I break my contract to do my job to my bosses satisfaction, and have claimed to be able to do so in advance of the work, I should not get paid for lying about what I could do. If I am hired for a specific job (build a house in x time), and do not build it to spec, I should not be paid, even if I build it to not spec and it is useable. Of course, if I build it to spec and complete my job, the contract has been completed and there is a legal obligation for me to be paid. Why arent games treated the same way? If I buy a tv and it breaks before the end of the warranty, I get a new tv under the terms of the warranty (or my money back). If my game breaks, through no fault of my own, I can't even trade it in for a new one.
You obviously have never been on a Ryanair flight. Security theatre is matching your passport to the one you booked your flight on. Then you get a boarding pass. At some point, they open up the plane, and everyone just gets on. No assigned seats, just take whatever is open. 1 bag per passenger, and if its too big they make you check it. Sure, they may charge for everything once you are on the flight, but since the flight itself tends to range from free (yeah, Ive gotten it before) to 10 Euro, all plus set taxes, a flight on ryanair has never cost me more than $40 US.
As for being upset about traveling to London, it is terrorism tnat would make me upset, not the security theatre, as you call it. To be fair, I wouldnt take my laptop with me overseas (at least not on my flight). I might ship it overseas if there was some strange reason that I needed that specific computing device, but if I was traveling for such a long period of time that I thought I needed my personal laptop, I would be more inclined to buy a new one.
The airlines are not surprised that passengers want to pay the minimum possible. Thats basic economics - if something isnt worth the cost, the consumer doesnt buy it. Airlines actually hurt their bottom line by charging itemized costs, even if they do not adjust the basic price. Hear me out on this one. If the basic price does not adjust, customers do. They decide to travel with less luggage. They bring empty water bottles through security and fill them afterwards. They find new methods of transportation when the cost of flight outweighs the benefits. If saving 4 hours domestically isnt worth the cost, people will drive. If time becomes less of a factor due to cost, we may see boat travel pick up for overseas. It works fine in Africa, and its a hell of a lot cheaper too.
Here is where I disagree - this does not apply to phone companies, ISP's, or Microsoft. People are attached to their phones at the hip, and many cannot live without them. Texting is a basic example of this. 20 cents to receive a message from spammers, or a bullshit requirement to use my phone like AIM with an unlimited texting plan (I can't just cancel the texting service, because my cell phone is for emergency uses, and texting may be required in certain cituations). ISP's are at most going to get a slap on the wrist for violating their own contractual agreements with customers. It has nothing to do with piracy, but rather with our legal systems gross misunderstanding of contract law and customers misunderstanding of their rights under contract law. I may be able to explain why I my ISP is obligated to refund my monthly payments under a legal basis, but I can't get a judge or jury to understand the basics of it without them all taking a class. The ISP of course, will not admit to owing me money. Microsoft is so set in business that it will be a full generation before any company of true merit will try to exclusively use other OS. In dealing with other companies however, they will still need office to get work done. If they don't, they will not be able to expand. This isnt a monopoly by microsoft, it is a consumer choice.
The music industry, on the other hand, has worked quite well for me. I don't buy cds unless I see the artist in concert and know that they are getting the proceeds. I use a music service to gain access to new stuff, so that I can hear new music (new to me counts) before I decide if the artist is worth seeing in concert. Since its XM radio, by the time I am tired of hearing a song, they switch it out for new stuff (don't listen to the top 40 crap stations, and you wont have to hear the crap you would never buy anyway). The music industry's model is flawed, in that the majority of people are no longer willing to pay as much as they are willing to charge. The minority who are, however, are making them enough money to continue their business model. This isn't going to change. You don't need access to music you arent willing to pay for. Music is not a right, if you can't afford it, get a better
It's illegal to secretly record people, especially in their own homes.
Not exactly. It is illegal to secretly record people in private. If you are in a public area, you have no expectation of privacy. If you see someone recording you, you can ask them to delete the footage, but they are not legally obligated to do so.
In private, however, it is quite illegal to do so, but will only carry the term of trespassing (at least for first time offendors). It is what the recording is used for that can create other crimes.
Then dont use your HDTV to play PS2 and N64 games, use your old tv. Just because you buy something doesnt mean you throw out your old collections.
As an owner of a 50' plasma, I can tell you that burn in is not a factor. Are you going to be pausing dvds/movies/games for hours at a time? If not, its not a factor. You seem to be confusing plasma with projection tv. My previous tv was an LCD HDTV. It was a giant step up from my cathode ray tv. Cable worked faster, PS2 worked better, PS3 looked better on it, and pixelation was a non-issue. Note that this was a $200 20 inch LCD HDTV, over a year ago, and today most that size still cost more. The newfound lag is probably because your N64 is 8 years old and your PS2 is used and 5 years old. Its not the tv at fault. FWIW, if an LCD HDTV was made to suck balls by playing PS2 on it, I don't think I would do anything else.
The only reason to get a tube tv today is if you are dirt poor (can't afford $200 for an LCD) or so old and decrepit that you cannot tell the difference between tube tv and 1080p.
As true as that may be, people still jump the turnstile in sweden. For some people, its because they are too poor to pay the ride fee. For others, they just think they wont get caught. Not the same thing as filesharing issues.
Granted, there are people who fileshare for the thrill of getting away with doing something they believe to be wrong. But others do so with the belief that it is part of bigger picture war with the music/movie labels. IMHO, this is partially the music/movie labels fault. They produce crappier and crappier items and charges high prices for them, while advertising to the point that people will consume these goods but only because there is no reasonable competition (as opposed to the content being of high enough quality to warrant a purchase). To be fair, my consumption has severely dropped over time, as I find alternatives to music and movies. I read books. I play video games. Once you buy a video game, you can play it forever. In order to get a fair price on music, you have to get a contract for service, so you are renting it, not owning it. With the exception of perhaps 2-3 movies per year, none are worth the $8 they cost in the cheap rack. Even on my 50inch plasma tv with theatre quality 5.1 surround speakers, the cost of renting a movie is questionable at best. Still, that doesnt justify downloading a crappy movie while it is still in theatres. Don't watch or listen to crap, and dont share crap that you wouldn't watch or listen to. Only then will the business model adjust and movies/music be worth buying.
All that being said, I completely disagree with filtering content on the Internet. The entire purpose of the internet is to share information. This includes filesharing. I will get marked troll, but it was lack of freedom of information that caused a bunch of crazies to leave Britain and start a new life in what has become the United States. My ISP should not do anything other than provide Internet access. Not email acces, not pay my bills access, but internet access. Anything that transfers information over a network of computers that I want to particpate in, they should provide. Thats that basis of being an ISP.
Not exactly. If the fine for dumping is less than the cost of not dumping, it is still unlikely that you would choose to dump. Consumer backlash from hearing that you were fined for illegal dumping means that consumers choose to purchase product from your competitors.
In the case of Sirius/XM paying fines, its not the same situation. The fines in question are based , as I said, on condition of merger for prior laws broken. The condition here is such that without the competition within satellite radio, consumers are hurt by the use of radio receivers and ground based signal repeaters. The thing about the FCC is that Sirius/XM cannot just donate to local politicians, as local politics dont really apply to national private issues. They cannot donate to the FCC to get their way, because the consumer backlash would drive FCC leadership out for not properly representing their constituents. Your example just doesn't apply here, due to the business issues, not political ones. If sirius/xm had a business model that ran on keeping making abortion illegal or subsidizing satellite radio for farmers, your point might hold water.
Fines are a cost of doing business. What financial model do you have that doesn't take risk vs reward into account? Fines for violating laws on a punitive basis defeat the purpose of having a free market. Local consumers will decide whether dumping in the river is a cause for not purchasing from a local company. They can choose to purchase from a company that chooses to dump in the river, or one that jumps through legislative hoops and increases the pricing of product. Obviously, if the options are dumping in the local river or not and cost is not a factor, then factor becomes whether or not consumers care. More obviously, larger companies have stricter regulation, and arent the ones dumping waste into local rivers (at least they dont get caught). If there is a valid, profitable market for something, it will exist, and competition will also exist. If not, then since no one wants it, there could still be a niche market. Not worth the price? Then the product isn't valid. If a product is necessary for consumers to survive, it will be subsidized by government (gas prices...how the hell is gas only $4 a gallon in the US anyway?). If not, it is simply a consumer demand, with risk vs reward played out by the consumer (tobacco), and will have appropriate competition and government interference (taxes, which just raise the cost to the consumer).
Let's go through your post, which you blindly throw up on message boards (I've seen it here multiple times, and its still misguided), from the POV of an actual company, with a real example: Apple. Consumers want the latest apple crap. You could throw the apple logo on a toaster, and sell a few million of em for 8x the cost of a traditional toaster (lets call it the fanboi toaster, and if the idea of an apple toaster offends you, replace it with any apple product you have actually purchased in the past but no longer use). But wait, not just any fanboi toaster - it comes with a 2 year contract with a national electricity supplier. I may just want the toaster, and not care about the fact that the fanboi toaster is compatible with itunes, but my friends will think Im not cool if I dont have one, so I pony up, even though there literally thousands of competing mp3 players and toasters that cost less and give me more. Apple has a choice: It can put 1,000,000 into R&D to build this "awesome" fanboi toaster, or it can buy every employee at HQ coffee for a year (replace coffee with any product that employees use and employers decide whether or not to provide. If the ROI of employee coffee isnt higher than the profits from the fanboi toaster, then the smart business decision is to have sleepy apple employees who come up with concepts like selling the iphone with a contract. Better yet, apple can donate some cash to politicians to make coffee either illegal or taxed to the point that coffee drinkers either reduce or remove consumption, on the false premise
Tate had insisted that the companies settle charges that they violated FCC rules before she would approve the deal. The companies agreed this week to pay $19.7 million to the U.S. Treasury for violations related to radio receivers and ground-based signal repeaters.
Oh well that's different! They agreed to pay their fines! We should give them a reward for being such good little boys.
And when I go downtown to pay my speeding ticket I expect nothing less than a thank-you card and a candybar.
What's WRONG with these people?
No, you idiot.
The fines are a condition of the approval of the merger. Without the necessity of FCC approval, these fines were never charged, as the companies weren't making money from the violations related to receivers. XM and sirius agreed to pay the fines as a merger condition. Maybe if I repeat myself a couple more times, you will catch on.
When you go to pay your speeding ticket, you are a consumer (as opposed to a producer), so you should not expect a reward. A speeding ticket is a punishment for improper consumption of government property for personal use (roads). When a producer breaks the law it affects all consumers of their product, and thus fines may further affect consumers of the product. When fines get so large that consumers are negatively affected, they often get reduced such that the producer learns the mistake that was made and consumers have a chance to react to the inevitable changes that are coming.
Wonderful observation, since this is an english class, and not a forum for discussion of ideas regarding the initial article. Oh wait...maybe your english teachers can explain to you what constitutes a valid argument. No? Wait, what do you mean we weren't having a discussion about the finer points of english grammar? I think I will just stop using mod points the next time I get them, since using them on anything other than modding you "dumbfuck troll" would be a waste of time, and that option isnt available.
Since you refuse to actually read my replies, and instead pick random sentences and find problems with things out of context, you seem to be willfully ignorant of the contradictions to your experience that I have correctly made. I can only assume you would recognize that as both unreasonable and illogical on your part, even though you assume that you have the ability to write.
When you buy a car or a soda, you can't change the recipe and release it onto the market. Nor can make copies of your car or soda without input costs. If you want to build a new car from parts, you can't take the wheels from my car and the engine from your next door neighbors car and the fuel tank from some guy in wisconsin and the odometer from some guy in brazil (at least without paying for all those things). When you add your mixers to your soda, you have to pay for those things too. Once you make a coke float, you still have to buy the coke and the ice cream to make another one to give to someone else. The company that makes the ice cream and the coke, the engine and the wheels, still benefit from the value they have created by selling you those physical items, and when you give them or sell them to a friend, you lose the ability to use those items without repurchasing them. Because of this point, when you copy proprietary software and give it to a friend, you hurt the business that created that software. They did not create the software so that anyone could use it, only users who financially reward them for their work. You can modify it however you want for personal use, but you cannot share those modifications, according to the EULA. By purchasing the software, you are given the option to opt out and not use the software, rather than agreeing to the EULA. By giving your software away, you are hurting everyone who works for the company, all the shareholders of the company, all the owners of the company, and increasing the price of the product for those who legally purchase a product that they determine is worth the cost, thus reducing competition to make competing software, as input costs also rise. Last I time I looked at economics, a dropping profit margin due tends to be a barrier to entry, reducing competition. You dont just hurt those who create software, but also those who use software. Input costs are costs to continue to update the software, to provide support for the users, to do research into what people want (if you want accurate results to provide for the masses, which is who you sell to, as opposed to the niche market, that writes their own software, it does in fact cost money. A lot of money, now that I bring it up), and to grow the business to retain the best and the brightest workers to continue to provide a product that end users perceive as quality. This completely annihilates your central point of giving away software, because hurt companies when you do, tangible product or not.
That would be a post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, which ironically shows your inability to reason. Not that you dont have the ability to reason, but that you choose not to use logic, and instead refuse to exercise that ability. The ability or choice to use paragraphs and quotes needs to stem from the logic that creates the viewpoint being expressed. Typically, the inability to reason creates the inability to write, but also the inability to use a computer, or drive a car, or wear big boy pants. Not using paragraphs has nothing to do with reason or ability to write. Personally, I stand by my statements, rather than quoting things that out of context can be misinterperated. For example, the GUI concept was simply a concept, Bill Gates determined how to mass produce, market, and create use of the GUI for the common user, rather than the computer programmer. That is called creating value, the basis upon which we pay for things. When people choose to purchase things, they determine that the price of the thing is worth the cost to them, hence nothing has been stolen. There are many illogical and ignorant people in the world, but these are two different classes of character. Illogical means by definition not ignorance, such as your above post, which ignores what was said and uses meaningless tripe to create a false point (such as the inability to write or the inability to reason being somehow connected). Ignorance means not having access to the information necessary to make a logical connection. By reading my original reply to you, clearly I understand how open source works. It doesnt provide the same benefit as proprietary software, which would be why people choose purchase proprietary software despite the existence of cheaper or free alternatives. Its not based on being illogical or ignorant. Whoever modded you troll used their points correctly. I dont think anyone can say that rms isnt both dumbfuck nuts and making the argument that proprietary software should go away because Bill Gates no longer run MSFT without that person having to exercise the illogical choice of not using reason (if they have the inability to reason , then who the hell cares what they are saying). I'd like to stay on topic, but if you are going to troll instead of making a valid response, I have to respond in kind to defend myself, rather than go through a logical discussion.
Dude. Its called one paragraph. Breaking the text up doesn't make a difference to your ability to read. If your screen is so small that you can't read my above post without losing your concentration/place, you should either stop reading things on your cell phone or take your ADD medication.
I will resist the urge to moderate and instead will respond. It never occurs to people to use linux and donate the cost of windows to charity just like I go to the grocery store and don't buy the store brand and donate the difference in cost of the good stuff to charity. Its like how I dont bike to work and give the gas savings to charity. The people who buy windows instead of using linux for free "because a portion goes to charity" are really doing so because they dont know how to use linux and find that the cost of windows is worth the money vs taking the time to learn how to use linux. The money that windows makes goes towards research and paying for the salaries of everyone who works at msft and growing and maintaining the business and creating a return for shareholders. At no point has anything been stolen. Today, there are multiple OS that you can choose from. You can also choose not to have a computer. You can choose how much money you want to make by creating value for others through your work. I may not be worth $50 Billion, but I have the opportunity to do so. If I take advanatage of that opportunity (assuming I have done so through legal means, such as Bill Gates has done), it would be shameful for anyone to claim how I should be using that money. Why on earth should you not take advantage of people's ignorance? You dont make your own clothes, or grow your own food, or generate your own electricity, so you have to buy those things if you want them. Why should your computer software, a non-necessity for survival, be any different? If you can't write your own software or understand the software that is free, and I can, I should be charging you for software that you can understand and want to use. Until you reach the point where the price I charge is so high that you either learn to use the free stuff or go without, I damn well should take advantage of you. Gates has given 20 B to the endowment, and is currenlty otherwise worth 40-50. This would indicate he has given somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of his net worth (after taxes) to a perpetual charity. When you give to charity, you give to any charitable organization that you believe in. When you start an endowment, you get to name it whatever the hell you want. You seem to think that if Bill Gates suddenly gave 20 Billion to an anonymously named endowment that people wouldnt figure out who had done it, and that by naming it after himself it somehow reduces the effectiveness of the endowment. As if someone who made his money by being an opportunist suddenly doesnt know how to leverage the money from that charity. The obviously nuts, but well meaning richard stallman is still obviously nuts. He believes that because Bill Gates is no longer running MS in name, that suddenly proprietary software is going away. When an OS comes along that is free, easy to use for me, and easy to understand for everyone who sees/uses my computer, then proprietary software will begin to see its downfall. As long as the free market claims that software has value, people will pay for it. As long as people see the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation as a viable charity, it will be an additional reason to purchase windows. But lets be fair, it isnt the benefit for which they choose not to learn linux.
Wow, what a troll. I really shouldnt bother to reply to you, but Im bored, so why the hell not. Ill ignore the part where you selectively respond, and respond to everything you posted. Government is for the benefit of those who our governed based on the constitution or equivalent giving the government to authority and responsibility to govern. With voluntary association and trade, it is the aggregate, and not you, who controls the free market. People want gas, they decide that the price is acceptable for the benefit they derive from it, or they find an alternative, or they reduce the usage of gas, specifically because the free market economy has provided that the price of gas is worth its cost. Certainly, in the short term, prices can change beyond the basis of reasonableness, but in the long term, people pay for gas exactly what it is worth due to competition (if there isnt competition today, new competition will arise and create price equity, specifically because we have government in place to protect the interests of those who are governed, who will eventually point out that the price of commodity is too high). The people who will send you to jail for not paying your taxes are the aggregate society, not the people who find that you arent committing your fair share for the privelage of living in the country that you live in. By being a citizen of wherever you live, you choose to pay taxes. If you arent paying your taxes and I catch you, I am happy to send your ass to jail, and so should every citizen of wherever you live (I can only assume it is in fantasyland, where the benefits of government exist without cost). You cant waive the benefits of government. You can choose to use or not use them, but you cannot refuse them. You can have your voice heard through the representatives that represent you, but as I have pointed out several times, it is the voice of the aggregate will that determines what our government does and does not do for us, not just you. I assume you live on land, that is attached to transportation systems. You have posted on slashdot, which means you have accepted the benefit of infrastructure to provide internet access, which requires government funding to be affordable for whoever your ISP happens to be (or if you steal it from your neighbor, from whoever his ISP happens to be). I assume you dont hunt and kill your own food, but rather you purchase it either from grocery stores or farmers markets or mooch of people who do use these things. If you want to waive the benefits of government, go live somewhere that doesnt have one, where you dont have rights as a citizen, and dont use the infrastucure that exists because of it. In the meantime, be fucking thankful that you have all the benefits that your government provides and happily pay your taxes. Maybe if you had the capacity to understand these admittedly simple concepts, you wouldnt be working at Mcdonalds. Idiot.
You clearly have no idea how government works! Government is for the benefit of those that are governed. Of course the aggregate makes choices and has a will, how the fuck do you think that voting works? Or, since you liken yourself to a slave (since I assume you dont go around beating people with sticks), how do you think our economy works? Gas isnt $4 a gallon because of government, but rather because of the aggregate will of supply and demand. No one is forced to pay taxes, rather we choose to do so for the benefits that the government, that collects and uses those taxes, creates for us.
What high school do you go to in the US that has 13 year olds?
I'm fairly certain the youngest in my high school were 15.
Since Kindergarten starts at age 6, and high school starts at grade 9, that would mean you could be 14 in high school, for the one month variant between the beginning of school and the October 1 deadline for hitting 15.
AP classes are not advanced topics, just advanced material. The reason that some AP classes are cheaper than at a real college is because they are given at a community college (think trade school for those not from the US). When I was in high school, I took college classes, and paid college prices, because I took them at a college.
It has gone up 14 percent from the 1960 benchmark, and we have a hell of a lot more people now. It is happening a lot more, and news has changed to the point that when it happens, society finds out about it much faster and in more detail.
You completely missed the point here. The haves vs the have nots is unrelated to luck by definition. The one who wins the lottery is lucky. The one who becomes CEO gets there through hard work and value added to society. When you have shareholders, and not your boss, determining whether or not you keep your job, you damn well better know what you are doing. In that case, you should be rewarded for it. Most people choose a monetary reward. That doesnt make them lucky, it means they know what the hell they are doing. The fact that you dont has no bearing on that. In fact, prior to that sentence, I pretty sure that I did not mention you at all.
Not exactly. People want to purchase a Ferrari. They generally don't steal one through P2P. Should you take one of their vehicles, someone else who was willing to purchase that vehicle will be prohibited from claiming that it was worth the price. Furthermore, the price of a Ferrari is negotiable. The price of media is not. Distributors say buy this product at this price, or dont use it. With a Ferrari, you at least get a test drive, and information about what the car is, and quite frankly, it is a purchase that will affect other purchases in your life. Not buying a movie or a song isnt necessarily a lost sale. Maybe a consumer hasnt heard of the movie, or hasnt heard the song. Maybe its played so much on the radio that buying it seems stupid at the time. Maybe they can download a higher quality version than is for sale, or maybe they can't transfer the purchased version to a purchased media player. In these cases, downloading the media isnt a lost sale. I would not buy something I can't use. If I cant transfer it to another media player, Im not buying it. I will do my research to make sure that something I want to purchase is something I want to purchase. If I download something and then decide it isnt worht the purchase price, I will not buy it. I will delete it from wherever I have it saved. Before I used the internet, I bought maybe 2-3 cds a year, at concerts I attended, because I knew that I wanted the media. I never bought movies because going to a theatre isnt worth the cost, so bringing it home isnt worht 4 times the cost. Since I started downloading, I have introduced to movies that arent in theatres, and have purchased them in multiple formats. Same for music that isnt on the radio. But if I dont feel that the cost is worth the purchase, I dont purchase. Bonus features arent worth the money unless Im a collector. My viewpoint as a consumer is will I use the media enough to warrant the purchase price. I even give the benefit of will the purchase price include the value of everyone I invite over to enjoy the media with me. Even the most moronic of media moguls has to admit that 95-100% of the time, this just isnt true. Change the business model where I can pay based on use and make it reasonable. I should be able to watch a movie whenever the hell I want for $1. I can do this buy renting a movie from the grocery store, and can create theatre conditions by investing in hardware. The media itself doesnt create my speakers, or my projector television, or my electricity to run these things, or my rent to pay for a place to keep everything, or my insurance to protect myself in case something happens to my items. My dvd/blu-ray/cd/cassette tapes arent worth the insurance premiums. I work for a living, and thus I dont have time to watch a movie enough times to pay for it. Or listen to a song enough times to pay for it. Often, Im in the mood for a specific genre, but not a specific song. Honestly, the proper business model is that of XM and sirius: to provide continuously updated content for an ongoin fee, so that I get something for my money, without the interferance of things I dont want. There are very limited exceptions to these economic and social rules. I will download movies I havent seen, and when I find one worth its market price, I will buy it. If not, I will get rid of it. But unlike a ferrari, society doesnt have the option of paying what we think media is worth (at least not on a large scale). This "illegal downloading" is simply civil disobediance. Society values a ferrari not because of the software running its gps and the dashboard showing the low mileage, but because of the hardware allowing the vehicle to perform the value added basis of driving fast with control, the sleek looks, and the ability to get laid by owning it (women like expensive cars, men like sex, therefore men will pay for it. Women still like the cars for the hardware, not the software. They also like the pretty color, but that isnt a purchase/"steal" factor). Dont get me wrong, I do not agree with outright theft. I just think that peo
CEO's earn their salaries because of the value they return to shareholders. This doesnt happen overnight. It takes years of climbing the corporate ladder to be considered for it. Time after time, one must return to the business more than is asked of them.
If a mother's sexual habits had anything to do with the child's abilities to earn money, then man hours would have anything to do with differential salaries. Hard work has everything to do with why the wealthy are wealthy, and why their children are wealthy. Poor people don't teach their children how to create wealth. But American education system gives them the ability to do so. Being able to follow the american dream is a matter of man hours, but it isnt a linear scale. The ability of your parents to generate wealth IS NOT an indicator of future performance. For fucks sake, spending time doing something does not determine learning and growth. It isnt a matter of where you grow up, or who your parents are. Genetics are a factor, but the biggest move is your work ethic and drive. Im not saying you can go from the slums to Bill Gates. But you cant go from Paris Hilton to Bill Gates either. Get your head out of your ass and stop trying to say that the fact that society does not value you is caused by your heritage. It is mathematically possible that uberwealthy have earned what they have. They get more per hour because what they provide to society is derived from the value they create. The guy who flips my burgers does not provide anywhere near as much a service as the guy the who controls my finances. The fact that I do both doesnt detract from the fact that I value the time I spend on my finances more than the time I spend cooking my food. If everyone only earned the mininum wage (which what would happen if one man hour was worth the same as another), there would be no incentive to get the education and learn the skills to do difficult or unwanted jobs. We would all work at the dmv/toll booth change maker/sperm donor/liquor store/fast food under management of someone who doesnt care if you even show up. Society needs these jobs, but only to keep people off welfare. We could pretty much automate these things, but we hire people to do it to lower our tax burdern. Dead people would have jobs, because one man hour would worth the same as another, if the things you claim were true. Take an economics class, it will be worth the money that you spend to understand why we pay for goods and services.
Slashdot Mirror
While that is hopelessly inaccurate, I will explain why you are wrong. When you work for your boss, you have a contract that states you get paid for service performed. You obtain that contract by going through an interview process, proving your skill base (either through previous contacts, or educational requirements, etc), and showing that you are capable of completing the job. When I choose whether or not to buy a game, and decide not to, the developers aren't entitled to my money.
On the other hand, when I choose to buy the game, I have entered into a contract for ownership or lease, depending on the game and the performance of the game must be as advertised. If not, I should be able to get my money back. In a purchase method (no monthly fees) game, if the demo/advertisements of the game do not match the actual game system requirements, I should be able to get my money back. If I sign up for a multi-period contract for a game license, and system requirements change due to an upgrade, I should be able to break my contract. I should not be able to get my money back for the periods I have already used, but I definately should not be held to continue that contract.
Similiarly, if I break my contract to do my job to my bosses satisfaction, and have claimed to be able to do so in advance of the work, I should not get paid for lying about what I could do. If I am hired for a specific job (build a house in x time), and do not build it to spec, I should not be paid, even if I build it to not spec and it is useable. Of course, if I build it to spec and complete my job, the contract has been completed and there is a legal obligation for me to be paid. Why arent games treated the same way? If I buy a tv and it breaks before the end of the warranty, I get a new tv under the terms of the warranty (or my money back). If my game breaks, through no fault of my own, I can't even trade it in for a new one.
You obviously have never been on a Ryanair flight. Security theatre is matching your passport to the one you booked your flight on. Then you get a boarding pass. At some point, they open up the plane, and everyone just gets on. No assigned seats, just take whatever is open. 1 bag per passenger, and if its too big they make you check it. Sure, they may charge for everything once you are on the flight, but since the flight itself tends to range from free (yeah, Ive gotten it before) to 10 Euro, all plus set taxes, a flight on ryanair has never cost me more than $40 US.
As for being upset about traveling to London, it is terrorism tnat would make me upset, not the security theatre, as you call it. To be fair, I wouldnt take my laptop with me overseas (at least not on my flight). I might ship it overseas if there was some strange reason that I needed that specific computing device, but if I was traveling for such a long period of time that I thought I needed my personal laptop, I would be more inclined to buy a new one.
The airlines are not surprised that passengers want to pay the minimum possible. Thats basic economics - if something isnt worth the cost, the consumer doesnt buy it. Airlines actually hurt their bottom line by charging itemized costs, even if they do not adjust the basic price. Hear me out on this one. If the basic price does not adjust, customers do. They decide to travel with less luggage. They bring empty water bottles through security and fill them afterwards. They find new methods of transportation when the cost of flight outweighs the benefits. If saving 4 hours domestically isnt worth the cost, people will drive. If time becomes less of a factor due to cost, we may see boat travel pick up for overseas. It works fine in Africa, and its a hell of a lot cheaper too.
Here is where I disagree - this does not apply to phone companies, ISP's, or Microsoft. People are attached to their phones at the hip, and many cannot live without them. Texting is a basic example of this. 20 cents to receive a message from spammers, or a bullshit requirement to use my phone like AIM with an unlimited texting plan (I can't just cancel the texting service, because my cell phone is for emergency uses, and texting may be required in certain cituations). ISP's are at most going to get a slap on the wrist for violating their own contractual agreements with customers. It has nothing to do with piracy, but rather with our legal systems gross misunderstanding of contract law and customers misunderstanding of their rights under contract law. I may be able to explain why I my ISP is obligated to refund my monthly payments under a legal basis, but I can't get a judge or jury to understand the basics of it without them all taking a class. The ISP of course, will not admit to owing me money. Microsoft is so set in business that it will be a full generation before any company of true merit will try to exclusively use other OS. In dealing with other companies however, they will still need office to get work done. If they don't, they will not be able to expand. This isnt a monopoly by microsoft, it is a consumer choice.
The music industry, on the other hand, has worked quite well for me. I don't buy cds unless I see the artist in concert and know that they are getting the proceeds. I use a music service to gain access to new stuff, so that I can hear new music (new to me counts) before I decide if the artist is worth seeing in concert. Since its XM radio, by the time I am tired of hearing a song, they switch it out for new stuff (don't listen to the top 40 crap stations, and you wont have to hear the crap you would never buy anyway). The music industry's model is flawed, in that the majority of people are no longer willing to pay as much as they are willing to charge. The minority who are, however, are making them enough money to continue their business model. This isn't going to change. You don't need access to music you arent willing to pay for. Music is not a right, if you can't afford it, get a better
It's illegal to secretly record people, especially in their own homes .
Not exactly. It is illegal to secretly record people in private. If you are in a public area, you have no expectation of privacy. If you see someone recording you, you can ask them to delete the footage, but they are not legally obligated to do so.
In private, however, it is quite illegal to do so, but will only carry the term of trespassing (at least for first time offendors). It is what the recording is used for that can create other crimes.
Then dont use your HDTV to play PS2 and N64 games, use your old tv. Just because you buy something doesnt mean you throw out your old collections.
As an owner of a 50' plasma, I can tell you that burn in is not a factor. Are you going to be pausing dvds/movies/games for hours at a time? If not, its not a factor. You seem to be confusing plasma with projection tv. My previous tv was an LCD HDTV. It was a giant step up from my cathode ray tv. Cable worked faster, PS2 worked better, PS3 looked better on it, and pixelation was a non-issue. Note that this was a $200 20 inch LCD HDTV, over a year ago, and today most that size still cost more. The newfound lag is probably because your N64 is 8 years old and your PS2 is used and 5 years old. Its not the tv at fault. FWIW, if an LCD HDTV was made to suck balls by playing PS2 on it, I don't think I would do anything else.
The only reason to get a tube tv today is if you are dirt poor (can't afford $200 for an LCD) or so old and decrepit that you cannot tell the difference between tube tv and 1080p.
As true as that may be, people still jump the turnstile in sweden. For some people, its because they are too poor to pay the ride fee. For others, they just think they wont get caught. Not the same thing as filesharing issues.
Granted, there are people who fileshare for the thrill of getting away with doing something they believe to be wrong. But others do so with the belief that it is part of bigger picture war with the music/movie labels. IMHO, this is partially the music/movie labels fault. They produce crappier and crappier items and charges high prices for them, while advertising to the point that people will consume these goods but only because there is no reasonable competition (as opposed to the content being of high enough quality to warrant a purchase). To be fair, my consumption has severely dropped over time, as I find alternatives to music and movies. I read books. I play video games. Once you buy a video game, you can play it forever. In order to get a fair price on music, you have to get a contract for service, so you are renting it, not owning it. With the exception of perhaps 2-3 movies per year, none are worth the $8 they cost in the cheap rack. Even on my 50inch plasma tv with theatre quality 5.1 surround speakers, the cost of renting a movie is questionable at best. Still, that doesnt justify downloading a crappy movie while it is still in theatres. Don't watch or listen to crap, and dont share crap that you wouldn't watch or listen to. Only then will the business model adjust and movies/music be worth buying.
All that being said, I completely disagree with filtering content on the Internet. The entire purpose of the internet is to share information. This includes filesharing. I will get marked troll, but it was lack of freedom of information that caused a bunch of crazies to leave Britain and start a new life in what has become the United States. My ISP should not do anything other than provide Internet access. Not email acces, not pay my bills access, but internet access. Anything that transfers information over a network of computers that I want to particpate in, they should provide. Thats that basis of being an ISP.
no idiot, in 6 years, if you are 0, you would be 6
e. Not enough information
I could be 12 and you could be 0, or I could be 18 and you could be 2, and so on.
the child siting beside you now could be anywhere from 0 to just before no longer child
Not exactly. If the fine for dumping is less than the cost of not dumping, it is still unlikely that you would choose to dump. Consumer backlash from hearing that you were fined for illegal dumping means that consumers choose to purchase product from your competitors.
In the case of Sirius/XM paying fines, its not the same situation. The fines in question are based , as I said, on condition of merger for prior laws broken. The condition here is such that without the competition within satellite radio, consumers are hurt by the use of radio receivers and ground based signal repeaters. The thing about the FCC is that Sirius/XM cannot just donate to local politicians, as local politics dont really apply to national private issues. They cannot donate to the FCC to get their way, because the consumer backlash would drive FCC leadership out for not properly representing their constituents. Your example just doesn't apply here, due to the business issues, not political ones. If sirius/xm had a business model that ran on keeping making abortion illegal or subsidizing satellite radio for farmers, your point might hold water.
Fines are a cost of doing business. What financial model do you have that doesn't take risk vs reward into account? Fines for violating laws on a punitive basis defeat the purpose of having a free market. Local consumers will decide whether dumping in the river is a cause for not purchasing from a local company. They can choose to purchase from a company that chooses to dump in the river, or one that jumps through legislative hoops and increases the pricing of product. Obviously, if the options are dumping in the local river or not and cost is not a factor, then factor becomes whether or not consumers care. More obviously, larger companies have stricter regulation, and arent the ones dumping waste into local rivers (at least they dont get caught). If there is a valid, profitable market for something, it will exist, and competition will also exist. If not, then since no one wants it, there could still be a niche market. Not worth the price? Then the product isn't valid. If a product is necessary for consumers to survive, it will be subsidized by government (gas prices...how the hell is gas only $4 a gallon in the US anyway?). If not, it is simply a consumer demand, with risk vs reward played out by the consumer (tobacco), and will have appropriate competition and government interference (taxes, which just raise the cost to the consumer).
Let's go through your post, which you blindly throw up on message boards (I've seen it here multiple times, and its still misguided), from the POV of an actual company, with a real example: Apple. Consumers want the latest apple crap. You could throw the apple logo on a toaster, and sell a few million of em for 8x the cost of a traditional toaster (lets call it the fanboi toaster, and if the idea of an apple toaster offends you, replace it with any apple product you have actually purchased in the past but no longer use). But wait, not just any fanboi toaster - it comes with a 2 year contract with a national electricity supplier. I may just want the toaster, and not care about the fact that the fanboi toaster is compatible with itunes, but my friends will think Im not cool if I dont have one, so I pony up, even though there literally thousands of competing mp3 players and toasters that cost less and give me more. Apple has a choice: It can put 1,000,000 into R&D to build this "awesome" fanboi toaster, or it can buy every employee at HQ coffee for a year (replace coffee with any product that employees use and employers decide whether or not to provide. If the ROI of employee coffee isnt higher than the profits from the fanboi toaster, then the smart business decision is to have sleepy apple employees who come up with concepts like selling the iphone with a contract. Better yet, apple can donate some cash to politicians to make coffee either illegal or taxed to the point that coffee drinkers either reduce or remove consumption, on the false premise
Tate had insisted that the companies settle charges that they violated FCC rules before she would approve the deal. The companies agreed this week to pay $19.7 million to the U.S. Treasury for violations related to radio receivers and ground-based signal repeaters.
Oh well that's different! They agreed to pay their fines! We should give them a reward for being such good little boys.
And when I go downtown to pay my speeding ticket I expect nothing less than a thank-you card and a candybar.
What's WRONG with these people?
No, you idiot.
The fines are a condition of the approval of the merger. Without the necessity of FCC approval, these fines were never charged, as the companies weren't making money from the violations related to receivers. XM and sirius agreed to pay the fines as a merger condition. Maybe if I repeat myself a couple more times, you will catch on.
When you go to pay your speeding ticket, you are a consumer (as opposed to a producer), so you should not expect a reward. A speeding ticket is a punishment for improper consumption of government property for personal use (roads). When a producer breaks the law it affects all consumers of their product, and thus fines may further affect consumers of the product. When fines get so large that consumers are negatively affected, they often get reduced such that the producer learns the mistake that was made and consumers have a chance to react to the inevitable changes that are coming.
I believe google will have protection from lawsuit, since Gmail is still in Beta...
Wonderful observation, since this is an english class, and not a forum for discussion of ideas regarding the initial article. Oh wait...maybe your english teachers can explain to you what constitutes a valid argument. No? Wait, what do you mean we weren't having a discussion about the finer points of english grammar? I think I will just stop using mod points the next time I get them, since using them on anything other than modding you "dumbfuck troll" would be a waste of time, and that option isnt available.
Since you refuse to actually read my replies, and instead pick random sentences and find problems with things out of context, you seem to be willfully ignorant of the contradictions to your experience that I have correctly made. I can only assume you would recognize that as both unreasonable and illogical on your part, even though you assume that you have the ability to write.
When you buy a car or a soda, you can't change the recipe and release it onto the market. Nor can make copies of your car or soda without input costs. If you want to build a new car from parts, you can't take the wheels from my car and the engine from your next door neighbors car and the fuel tank from some guy in wisconsin and the odometer from some guy in brazil (at least without paying for all those things). When you add your mixers to your soda, you have to pay for those things too. Once you make a coke float, you still have to buy the coke and the ice cream to make another one to give to someone else. The company that makes the ice cream and the coke, the engine and the wheels, still benefit from the value they have created by selling you those physical items, and when you give them or sell them to a friend, you lose the ability to use those items without repurchasing them. Because of this point, when you copy proprietary software and give it to a friend, you hurt the business that created that software. They did not create the software so that anyone could use it, only users who financially reward them for their work. You can modify it however you want for personal use, but you cannot share those modifications, according to the EULA. By purchasing the software, you are given the option to opt out and not use the software, rather than agreeing to the EULA. By giving your software away, you are hurting everyone who works for the company, all the shareholders of the company, all the owners of the company, and increasing the price of the product for those who legally purchase a product that they determine is worth the cost, thus reducing competition to make competing software, as input costs also rise. Last I time I looked at economics, a dropping profit margin due tends to be a barrier to entry, reducing competition. You dont just hurt those who create software, but also those who use software. Input costs are costs to continue to update the software, to provide support for the users, to do research into what people want (if you want accurate results to provide for the masses, which is who you sell to, as opposed to the niche market, that writes their own software, it does in fact cost money. A lot of money, now that I bring it up), and to grow the business to retain the best and the brightest workers to continue to provide a product that end users perceive as quality. This completely annihilates your central point of giving away software, because hurt companies when you do, tangible product or not.
That would be a post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, which ironically shows your inability to reason. Not that you dont have the ability to reason, but that you choose not to use logic, and instead refuse to exercise that ability. The ability or choice to use paragraphs and quotes needs to stem from the logic that creates the viewpoint being expressed. Typically, the inability to reason creates the inability to write, but also the inability to use a computer, or drive a car, or wear big boy pants. Not using paragraphs has nothing to do with reason or ability to write. Personally, I stand by my statements, rather than quoting things that out of context can be misinterperated. For example, the GUI concept was simply a concept, Bill Gates determined how to mass produce, market, and create use of the GUI for the common user, rather than the computer programmer. That is called creating value, the basis upon which we pay for things. When people choose to purchase things, they determine that the price of the thing is worth the cost to them, hence nothing has been stolen. There are many illogical and ignorant people in the world, but these are two different classes of character. Illogical means by definition not ignorance, such as your above post, which ignores what was said and uses meaningless tripe to create a false point (such as the inability to write or the inability to reason being somehow connected). Ignorance means not having access to the information necessary to make a logical connection. By reading my original reply to you, clearly I understand how open source works. It doesnt provide the same benefit as proprietary software, which would be why people choose purchase proprietary software despite the existence of cheaper or free alternatives. Its not based on being illogical or ignorant. Whoever modded you troll used their points correctly. I dont think anyone can say that rms isnt both dumbfuck nuts and making the argument that proprietary software should go away because Bill Gates no longer run MSFT without that person having to exercise the illogical choice of not using reason (if they have the inability to reason , then who the hell cares what they are saying). I'd like to stay on topic, but if you are going to troll instead of making a valid response, I have to respond in kind to defend myself, rather than go through a logical discussion.
Dude. Its called one paragraph. Breaking the text up doesn't make a difference to your ability to read. If your screen is so small that you can't read my above post without losing your concentration/place, you should either stop reading things on your cell phone or take your ADD medication.
I will resist the urge to moderate and instead will respond. It never occurs to people to use linux and donate the cost of windows to charity just like I go to the grocery store and don't buy the store brand and donate the difference in cost of the good stuff to charity. Its like how I dont bike to work and give the gas savings to charity. The people who buy windows instead of using linux for free "because a portion goes to charity" are really doing so because they dont know how to use linux and find that the cost of windows is worth the money vs taking the time to learn how to use linux. The money that windows makes goes towards research and paying for the salaries of everyone who works at msft and growing and maintaining the business and creating a return for shareholders. At no point has anything been stolen. Today, there are multiple OS that you can choose from. You can also choose not to have a computer. You can choose how much money you want to make by creating value for others through your work. I may not be worth $50 Billion, but I have the opportunity to do so. If I take advanatage of that opportunity (assuming I have done so through legal means, such as Bill Gates has done), it would be shameful for anyone to claim how I should be using that money. Why on earth should you not take advantage of people's ignorance? You dont make your own clothes, or grow your own food, or generate your own electricity, so you have to buy those things if you want them. Why should your computer software, a non-necessity for survival, be any different? If you can't write your own software or understand the software that is free, and I can, I should be charging you for software that you can understand and want to use. Until you reach the point where the price I charge is so high that you either learn to use the free stuff or go without, I damn well should take advantage of you. Gates has given 20 B to the endowment, and is currenlty otherwise worth 40-50. This would indicate he has given somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of his net worth (after taxes) to a perpetual charity. When you give to charity, you give to any charitable organization that you believe in. When you start an endowment, you get to name it whatever the hell you want. You seem to think that if Bill Gates suddenly gave 20 Billion to an anonymously named endowment that people wouldnt figure out who had done it, and that by naming it after himself it somehow reduces the effectiveness of the endowment. As if someone who made his money by being an opportunist suddenly doesnt know how to leverage the money from that charity. The obviously nuts, but well meaning richard stallman is still obviously nuts. He believes that because Bill Gates is no longer running MS in name, that suddenly proprietary software is going away. When an OS comes along that is free, easy to use for me, and easy to understand for everyone who sees/uses my computer, then proprietary software will begin to see its downfall. As long as the free market claims that software has value, people will pay for it. As long as people see the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation as a viable charity, it will be an additional reason to purchase windows. But lets be fair, it isnt the benefit for which they choose not to learn linux.
Girls like it when you buy them things. Or when you pretend to listen. And when you shower.
Wow, what a troll. I really shouldnt bother to reply to you, but Im bored, so why the hell not. Ill ignore the part where you selectively respond, and respond to everything you posted. Government is for the benefit of those who our governed based on the constitution or equivalent giving the government to authority and responsibility to govern. With voluntary association and trade, it is the aggregate, and not you, who controls the free market. People want gas, they decide that the price is acceptable for the benefit they derive from it, or they find an alternative, or they reduce the usage of gas, specifically because the free market economy has provided that the price of gas is worth its cost. Certainly, in the short term, prices can change beyond the basis of reasonableness, but in the long term, people pay for gas exactly what it is worth due to competition (if there isnt competition today, new competition will arise and create price equity, specifically because we have government in place to protect the interests of those who are governed, who will eventually point out that the price of commodity is too high). The people who will send you to jail for not paying your taxes are the aggregate society, not the people who find that you arent committing your fair share for the privelage of living in the country that you live in. By being a citizen of wherever you live, you choose to pay taxes. If you arent paying your taxes and I catch you, I am happy to send your ass to jail, and so should every citizen of wherever you live (I can only assume it is in fantasyland, where the benefits of government exist without cost). You cant waive the benefits of government. You can choose to use or not use them, but you cannot refuse them. You can have your voice heard through the representatives that represent you, but as I have pointed out several times, it is the voice of the aggregate will that determines what our government does and does not do for us, not just you. I assume you live on land, that is attached to transportation systems. You have posted on slashdot, which means you have accepted the benefit of infrastructure to provide internet access, which requires government funding to be affordable for whoever your ISP happens to be (or if you steal it from your neighbor, from whoever his ISP happens to be). I assume you dont hunt and kill your own food, but rather you purchase it either from grocery stores or farmers markets or mooch of people who do use these things. If you want to waive the benefits of government, go live somewhere that doesnt have one, where you dont have rights as a citizen, and dont use the infrastucure that exists because of it. In the meantime, be fucking thankful that you have all the benefits that your government provides and happily pay your taxes. Maybe if you had the capacity to understand these admittedly simple concepts, you wouldnt be working at Mcdonalds. Idiot.
I, for one, welcome our soon to be pig-man overlords.
You clearly have no idea how government works! Government is for the benefit of those that are governed. Of course the aggregate makes choices and has a will, how the fuck do you think that voting works? Or, since you liken yourself to a slave (since I assume you dont go around beating people with sticks), how do you think our economy works? Gas isnt $4 a gallon because of government, but rather because of the aggregate will of supply and demand. No one is forced to pay taxes, rather we choose to do so for the benefits that the government, that collects and uses those taxes, creates for us.
What high school do you go to in the US that has 13 year olds? I'm fairly certain the youngest in my high school were 15. Since Kindergarten starts at age 6, and high school starts at grade 9, that would mean you could be 14 in high school, for the one month variant between the beginning of school and the October 1 deadline for hitting 15. AP classes are not advanced topics, just advanced material. The reason that some AP classes are cheaper than at a real college is because they are given at a community college (think trade school for those not from the US). When I was in high school, I took college classes, and paid college prices, because I took them at a college.
It has gone up 14 percent from the 1960 benchmark, and we have a hell of a lot more people now. It is happening a lot more, and news has changed to the point that when it happens, society finds out about it much faster and in more detail.
You completely missed the point here. The haves vs the have nots is unrelated to luck by definition. The one who wins the lottery is lucky. The one who becomes CEO gets there through hard work and value added to society. When you have shareholders, and not your boss, determining whether or not you keep your job, you damn well better know what you are doing. In that case, you should be rewarded for it. Most people choose a monetary reward. That doesnt make them lucky, it means they know what the hell they are doing. The fact that you dont has no bearing on that. In fact, prior to that sentence, I pretty sure that I did not mention you at all.
Not exactly. People want to purchase a Ferrari. They generally don't steal one through P2P. Should you take one of their vehicles, someone else who was willing to purchase that vehicle will be prohibited from claiming that it was worth the price. Furthermore, the price of a Ferrari is negotiable. The price of media is not. Distributors say buy this product at this price, or dont use it. With a Ferrari, you at least get a test drive, and information about what the car is, and quite frankly, it is a purchase that will affect other purchases in your life. Not buying a movie or a song isnt necessarily a lost sale. Maybe a consumer hasnt heard of the movie, or hasnt heard the song. Maybe its played so much on the radio that buying it seems stupid at the time. Maybe they can download a higher quality version than is for sale, or maybe they can't transfer the purchased version to a purchased media player. In these cases, downloading the media isnt a lost sale. I would not buy something I can't use. If I cant transfer it to another media player, Im not buying it. I will do my research to make sure that something I want to purchase is something I want to purchase. If I download something and then decide it isnt worht the purchase price, I will not buy it. I will delete it from wherever I have it saved. Before I used the internet, I bought maybe 2-3 cds a year, at concerts I attended, because I knew that I wanted the media. I never bought movies because going to a theatre isnt worth the cost, so bringing it home isnt worht 4 times the cost. Since I started downloading, I have introduced to movies that arent in theatres, and have purchased them in multiple formats. Same for music that isnt on the radio. But if I dont feel that the cost is worth the purchase, I dont purchase. Bonus features arent worth the money unless Im a collector. My viewpoint as a consumer is will I use the media enough to warrant the purchase price. I even give the benefit of will the purchase price include the value of everyone I invite over to enjoy the media with me. Even the most moronic of media moguls has to admit that 95-100% of the time, this just isnt true. Change the business model where I can pay based on use and make it reasonable. I should be able to watch a movie whenever the hell I want for $1. I can do this buy renting a movie from the grocery store, and can create theatre conditions by investing in hardware. The media itself doesnt create my speakers, or my projector television, or my electricity to run these things, or my rent to pay for a place to keep everything, or my insurance to protect myself in case something happens to my items. My dvd/blu-ray/cd/cassette tapes arent worth the insurance premiums. I work for a living, and thus I dont have time to watch a movie enough times to pay for it. Or listen to a song enough times to pay for it. Often, Im in the mood for a specific genre, but not a specific song. Honestly, the proper business model is that of XM and sirius: to provide continuously updated content for an ongoin fee, so that I get something for my money, without the interferance of things I dont want. There are very limited exceptions to these economic and social rules. I will download movies I havent seen, and when I find one worth its market price, I will buy it. If not, I will get rid of it. But unlike a ferrari, society doesnt have the option of paying what we think media is worth (at least not on a large scale). This "illegal downloading" is simply civil disobediance. Society values a ferrari not because of the software running its gps and the dashboard showing the low mileage, but because of the hardware allowing the vehicle to perform the value added basis of driving fast with control, the sleek looks, and the ability to get laid by owning it (women like expensive cars, men like sex, therefore men will pay for it. Women still like the cars for the hardware, not the software. They also like the pretty color, but that isnt a purchase/"steal" factor). Dont get me wrong, I do not agree with outright theft. I just think that peo
CEO's earn their salaries because of the value they return to shareholders. This doesnt happen overnight. It takes years of climbing the corporate ladder to be considered for it. Time after time, one must return to the business more than is asked of them. If a mother's sexual habits had anything to do with the child's abilities to earn money, then man hours would have anything to do with differential salaries. Hard work has everything to do with why the wealthy are wealthy, and why their children are wealthy. Poor people don't teach their children how to create wealth. But American education system gives them the ability to do so. Being able to follow the american dream is a matter of man hours, but it isnt a linear scale. The ability of your parents to generate wealth IS NOT an indicator of future performance. For fucks sake, spending time doing something does not determine learning and growth. It isnt a matter of where you grow up, or who your parents are. Genetics are a factor, but the biggest move is your work ethic and drive. Im not saying you can go from the slums to Bill Gates. But you cant go from Paris Hilton to Bill Gates either. Get your head out of your ass and stop trying to say that the fact that society does not value you is caused by your heritage. It is mathematically possible that uberwealthy have earned what they have. They get more per hour because what they provide to society is derived from the value they create. The guy who flips my burgers does not provide anywhere near as much a service as the guy the who controls my finances. The fact that I do both doesnt detract from the fact that I value the time I spend on my finances more than the time I spend cooking my food. If everyone only earned the mininum wage (which what would happen if one man hour was worth the same as another), there would be no incentive to get the education and learn the skills to do difficult or unwanted jobs. We would all work at the dmv/toll booth change maker/sperm donor/liquor store/fast food under management of someone who doesnt care if you even show up. Society needs these jobs, but only to keep people off welfare. We could pretty much automate these things, but we hire people to do it to lower our tax burdern. Dead people would have jobs, because one man hour would worth the same as another, if the things you claim were true. Take an economics class, it will be worth the money that you spend to understand why we pay for goods and services.