I work in higher education and I'm active in the open educational resources movement. Yes, the commercial publishers are exploitative. It's true that academics go along with the "latest edition" scam, but at some institutions it's from professorial laziness and at some it's because they've had a textbook foisted on them from an administration that isn't aware of or doesn't care about the end cost to students.
The commercial publishers aren't run by stupid people. They know exactly to whom to send free copies to ensure that the real bite of their prices aren't felt by the ones making the decisions. That's why at this point, I think the main problem is awareness.
The difference is that there are already a lot of people who write books -- good books -- and bypass the publishing industry entirely to get them in the hands (or on the screens) of readers. Even more so for textbooks, there's no reason that academia can't come up with textbooks without help from vampiric commercial textbook publishers.
Indeed. Those who want to oppose this might do well to consider using the current rare positive momentum to take the offensive. Get some respected pro-freedom groups to come up jointly with suggested legislation that moves the ball a little in the other direction for a change and call it the "Internet Freedom Restoration Act" or something.
Or, as a famous European once remarked, the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. And anyone who doubts this should just listen to American talk radio for, oh, about five minutes.
That said, I've lived in a country with 310,000,000 people and I've lived in a country with 69,000 people. Both were republics, but only the second one, while still far from perfect, was an environment where political decision makers couldn't insulate themselves from the people on whose behalf they supposedly made choices. Overall it made me a big fan of eliminating as much political power as possible, but also in decentralizing whatever was deemed truly necessary.
Using this same logic, if your neighbour is brutally beating his kids you just think that's their problem and other people should mind their own business? Countries are just lines on a map. We're all human, and we should stand up for one another against abuses like this no matter where they occur.
Fair enough. I haven't read any of his books, so I was responding simply as a libertarian. I'm aware that while a majority of Ron Paul's positions are what I would call libertarian, not all are.
It's a common misconception that libertarians love corporations. Corporate welfare is off the table -- in fact the whole concept of limited liability for one's actions that is at the heart of the modern corporation is contrary to libertarianism. I don't know about Ron Paul's specific positions on this, but when people think that less government means more powerful corporations, it means they've forgotten that it's usually collaboration between corporate executives and government decision makers that allows the most malignant corporations to become so powerful in the first place.
There are more than two sides, and Gary Johnson, running as a Libertarian Party candidate, also opposes it. (He scored better than Obama or Ron Paul on the ACLU's civil liberties report card.) I expect the two people seeking the Green Party nomination aren't in favor of it either, but I don't remember their names.
Very true. It's important to remember that when it comes to commercial media, news or otherwise, their product is viewer attention and their customers are the advertisers.
Not lose much other than vital media attention. Rudy Guiliani found out in 2008 that this is a disaster when he skipped everything before Florida, and found that by then no one was taking him seriously anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes, but that's comparatively rare.
I work in higher education and I'm active in the open educational resources movement. Yes, the commercial publishers are exploitative. It's true that academics go along with the "latest edition" scam, but at some institutions it's from professorial laziness and at some it's because they've had a textbook foisted on them from an administration that isn't aware of or doesn't care about the end cost to students.
The commercial publishers aren't run by stupid people. They know exactly to whom to send free copies to ensure that the real bite of their prices aren't felt by the ones making the decisions. That's why at this point, I think the main problem is awareness.
The difference is that there are already a lot of people who write books -- good books -- and bypass the publishing industry entirely to get them in the hands (or on the screens) of readers. Even more so for textbooks, there's no reason that academia can't come up with textbooks without help from vampiric commercial textbook publishers.
Indeed. Those who want to oppose this might do well to consider using the current rare positive momentum to take the offensive. Get some respected pro-freedom groups to come up jointly with suggested legislation that moves the ball a little in the other direction for a change and call it the "Internet Freedom Restoration Act" or something.
Or, as a famous European once remarked, the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. And anyone who doubts this should just listen to American talk radio for, oh, about five minutes.
That said, I've lived in a country with 310,000,000 people and I've lived in a country with 69,000 people. Both were republics, but only the second one, while still far from perfect, was an environment where political decision makers couldn't insulate themselves from the people on whose behalf they supposedly made choices. Overall it made me a big fan of eliminating as much political power as possible, but also in decentralizing whatever was deemed truly necessary.
I love how the iPad haters sound just like the Republicans. Make up things to reinforce their point of view.
Exactly, because neither Apple enthusiasts nor members of other political parties ever do that.
I work for a Wniversity
Ha, dude, you're busted! You were trying to say "university" and it came out "Windows"! ;-)
In that case, did XP mean Xeroderma Pigmentosum because it couldn't withstand the light of day?
Using this same logic, if your neighbour is brutally beating his kids you just think that's their problem and other people should mind their own business? Countries are just lines on a map. We're all human, and we should stand up for one another against abuses like this no matter where they occur.
I don't think this is the answer you're looking for, since you don't like Porsche styling and they too are from Stuttgart.
That or Illinoisans, Indianians, Iowans, and Idahoans are doomed.
Hence election season.
Freedom.
Fuck, that's true. Fair enough. This is what I get for being active with open content rather than code.
But copyright abolition is a cure worse than the disease.
Only for those on the corporate side of the copyright-based industries. Everyone else would be better off, even most creators.
So? If you get rid of copyright, the GPL would have no purpose anyway. Like, in a good way.
You just described most Americans -- and the annual book is bought at the supermarket.
Well, close: there's a grant program. Seriously.
Fair enough. I haven't read any of his books, so I was responding simply as a libertarian. I'm aware that while a majority of Ron Paul's positions are what I would call libertarian, not all are.
If you're interviewing for a programming job, would you really want to work somewhere where that's a disqualifying answer?
It's a common misconception that libertarians love corporations. Corporate welfare is off the table -- in fact the whole concept of limited liability for one's actions that is at the heart of the modern corporation is contrary to libertarianism. I don't know about Ron Paul's specific positions on this, but when people think that less government means more powerful corporations, it means they've forgotten that it's usually collaboration between corporate executives and government decision makers that allows the most malignant corporations to become so powerful in the first place.
There are more than two sides, and Gary Johnson, running as a Libertarian Party candidate, also opposes it. (He scored better than Obama or Ron Paul on the ACLU's civil liberties report card.) I expect the two people seeking the Green Party nomination aren't in favor of it either, but I don't remember their names.
Yes, although it kind of says something when someone refers to "that supposedly crazy person running for president" and disambiguation is needed.
Very true. It's important to remember that when it comes to commercial media, news or otherwise, their product is viewer attention and their customers are the advertisers.
Not lose much other than vital media attention. Rudy Guiliani found out in 2008 that this is a disaster when he skipped everything before Florida, and found that by then no one was taking him seriously anymore.