Not even sound jurisprudence will get in the way of crony capitalism, the higher you get in the appeals process the more it appears to be a kangaroo court.
I think you mean workers that fail to adapt, as the technological changes occur too quickly, and causes a vicious boom/bust cycle of "general glut" in the economy.
market socialism would also remove the unemployment incumbency, when disruptive technology affects specific areas of economic activity, by being able to reallocate workers and effort to new markets. Because lets face it the technological singularity is near, and how would capitalism work when vast amounts of work becomes automated, and the labor force which purchases products is largely unemployed.
As the resouce cruch comes ever closer, the rich in this country need the monopolization of force, to keep them sheltered from the huddled masses, the ones that our lady liberty sought to provide refuge for.
With that logic, you couldn't have any strongly secured android or IOS phones! Smart phones are about having multiple uses, as opposed to several features, or just being able to make a phonecall.
Here is an excerpt from nokia in the TFA
James from Nokia here. One thing this piece overlooks is the web-browsing tech that comes as standard on our Asha models, including the Asha 305 mentioned here. Every time you access FB or Twitter or whatever else, the webpages are rendered in the cloud to keep data traffic very small and browsing fast. This of course does wonders for your phone bill (the Nokia Browser uses up to 85% less data than a competitor’s phone) and tells a little bit more about our strategy with Asha: making the Internet more accessible for people.
I would consider this as being smart, especially given the region and infrastructure available there.
Your missing an important point of labor theory of value. The price/value of the good is based upon the socially necessary labor time, as in the average amount of time it takes to create the product. If you can create in less than the socially necessary labor time, you can sell it at the same price and make more profit, and the other people may lose money on unsold goods once the price lowers.
And the payment should reflect the amount of labor or investment went into creating and performing the music, not as the means to live without having to work ever again, and not as a means to extract wealth from other creative types wanting to enjoy/learn from his work.
What is the difference between creative works and labor ? And by patenting it or some other benefit, does it prevent it from realizing its maximum usefulness?
Yes. thats what college textbooks and the college loans to pay for them, have done to the college students and people who cant afford it, thereby creating a class division of "haves" and "have not's"
The intellectual property realizes maximum utility It increases competition in the market place by removing protectionism It cant be used as economic/geographical/class warfare Intellectual property cannot be leveraged to help increase wealth inequality Wealth inequality causes inherent economic inefficiencies
Where wealth inequality is less efficient because: 1. The law of diminishing returns occurs, say for example the ROI on college education VS a traditional investment vehicle. 2. The utility per opportunity cost is lower, for example a Lamborghini vs several entry level sedans. 3. The total factor productivity of labor time falls, because what good is a bunch of factories, when nobody even knows how to read the instructions. 4. It increases levels of crime, stress, health problems, lack of trust, social malaise. 5. The amount of time performing work decreases, for example its hard to find time for school or work, when your sick or dumpster diving. 6. It increases the amount of non productive consumption, poor people spend money on things they need, wealthy on things they want.
The studio is getting millions of dollars for mass-producing content people wish to buy. His 'minimal work' assisted in reaching those earnings. You're saying you'd rather Warner Brothers just get more money rather than spreading that amongst the people who made it possible. The oddball thing is you're proposing a greater harm to society!
Those people pay the $25 regardless of whether or not that royalty is paid.
Some day you need to learn that hours on a time-card do not reflect value of the work.
I'm saying that warner brothers model is broken as well, and they should work on the charity/patron/client model. If his work isn't worth the amount he wants for it, then the "content distribution 501c3" will choose someone else, and if "content distrubtion 501c3" doesn't produce work I like (emo metal hiphop) I'll donate to someone else who does.
Slashdot Mirror
you dont have to be republican to vote for your corporate overlords
Not even sound jurisprudence will get in the way of crony capitalism, the higher you get in the appeals process the more it appears to be a kangaroo court.
Seriously? you mean thin tablets with rounded corners, is any less worse of an abuse than what samsung has done?
SmokeMobile - uses smoke signals instead of cell towers.
I think you mean workers that fail to adapt, as the technological changes occur too quickly, and causes a vicious boom/bust cycle of "general glut" in the economy.
market socialism would also remove the unemployment incumbency, when disruptive technology affects specific areas of economic activity, by being able to reallocate workers and effort to new markets. Because lets face it the technological singularity is near, and how would capitalism work when vast amounts of work becomes automated, and the labor force which purchases products is largely unemployed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment#New-market_engineering
As the resouce cruch comes ever closer, the rich in this country need the monopolization of force, to keep them sheltered from the huddled masses, the ones that our lady liberty sought to provide refuge for.
Except for the fact that it was a psyops plant by he CIA, the person in the video was not OBL but a look alike, do some research on the topic.
With that logic, you couldn't have any strongly secured android or IOS phones! Smart phones are about having multiple uses, as opposed to several features, or just being able to make a phonecall.
Here is an excerpt from nokia in the TFA
James from Nokia here. One thing this piece overlooks is the web-browsing tech that comes as standard on our Asha models, including the Asha 305 mentioned here. Every time you access FB or Twitter or whatever else, the webpages are rendered in the cloud to keep data traffic very small and browsing fast. This of course does wonders for your phone bill (the Nokia Browser uses up to 85% less data than a competitor’s phone) and tells a little bit more about our strategy with Asha: making the Internet more accessible for people.
I would consider this as being smart, especially given the region and infrastructure available there.
I guess it take alot of work considering computers aren't very good at creative bookkeeping.
Man someone should have told me that a long time ago, 8 billion is nothing to sneeze at.
Hopfully they find a way to create instant icecream
1/2 instant cold pack, 1/2 dehydratated icecream
Oh, I don't know
Maybe this means that the UK will have assange tried by Judge Dredd
I remember wanting to know what a small leaf tasted like, and subsequently gagging and puking from it, I'm lucky it wasn't buckyballs instead.
Your missing an important point of labor theory of value. The price/value of the good is based upon the socially necessary labor time, as in the average amount of time it takes to create the product. If you can create in less than the socially necessary labor time, you can sell it at the same price and make more profit, and the other people may lose money on unsold goods once the price lowers.
Ironically I've been to that KFC before.
And the payment should reflect the amount of labor or investment went into creating and performing the music, not as the means to live without having to work ever again, and not as a means to extract wealth from other creative types wanting to enjoy/learn from his work.
What is the difference between creative works and labor ? And by patenting it or some other benefit, does it prevent it from realizing its maximum usefulness?
Yes. thats what college textbooks and the college loans to pay for them, have done to the college students and people who cant afford it, thereby creating a class division of "haves" and "have not's"
"on a computer" is still overly broad, your not entitled to money, just because you had a good idea.
"we currently do this thing, so im going to patent doing it on a computer".
Posted to grandparent.
Whats better about it:
The intellectual property realizes maximum utility
It increases competition in the market place by removing protectionism
It cant be used as economic/geographical/class warfare
Intellectual property cannot be leveraged to help increase wealth inequality
Wealth inequality causes inherent economic inefficiencies
Where wealth inequality is less efficient because:
1. The law of diminishing returns occurs, say for example the ROI on college education VS a traditional investment vehicle.
2. The utility per opportunity cost is lower, for example a Lamborghini vs several entry level sedans.
3. The total factor productivity of labor time falls, because what good is a bunch of factories, when nobody even knows how to read the instructions.
4. It increases levels of crime, stress, health problems, lack of trust, social malaise.
5. The amount of time performing work decreases, for example its hard to find time for school or work, when your sick or dumpster diving.
6. It increases the amount of non productive consumption, poor people spend money on things they need, wealthy on things they want.
Intellectual property is in the interests of society, it stops big companies from using people's music on top-selling DVDs all around the world.
Except that they wouldn't be able to actually sell the content all around the world
The studio is getting millions of dollars for mass-producing content people wish to buy. His 'minimal work' assisted in reaching those earnings. You're saying you'd rather Warner Brothers just get more money rather than spreading that amongst the people who made it possible. The oddball thing is you're proposing a greater harm to society!
Those people pay the $25 regardless of whether or not that royalty is paid.
Some day you need to learn that hours on a time-card do not reflect value of the work.
I'm saying that warner brothers model is broken as well, and they should work on the charity/patron/client model. If his work isn't worth the amount he wants for it, then the "content distribution 501c3" will choose someone else, and if "content distrubtion 501c3" doesn't produce work I like (emo metal hiphop) I'll donate to someone else who does.