Why hire an electrician, barber, accountant, etc. if they're "unknown talent"?
If services in the real world actually worked the way you seem to think, no one would ever be able to break into any service industry. And yet they do: sometimes by putting together a portfolio to prove their ability, sometimes just by setting their prices lower than established names.
That's a pseudo-argument. You don't pay up front for any of those. And all those services are clearly defined, whereas creative arts aren't. No one would pay you up front to write a novel. Would you spend a year writing one, just to show that you're capable? Remember: you won't get paid for it. Ever. Maybe for your second novel, if you're lucky, but that's highly unlikely, and unless you're the next J.K. Rowling, you won't make enough from it to make it pay for the time invested in the first. Indeed, you shouldn't, as you say later.
As I said: "But [a consumer who waits for others to pay] is taking the risk that other people won't provide the rest of the funding, and thus the new content won't be produced. Whether he actually decides to pay will depend on how much he values having new content."
As I said: Wishful thinking. If a record costs $50000 to produce and I'm happy to invest $10 (why pay more?), I'll need 4999 other people to pay as well. My influence is negligible, and the best possible result is a return of my investment. I risk not getting something which I did not pay for by not paying, you say? Oh wow.
Yes, why indeed? You shouldn't!
When a mechanic is willing to fix your car for $300, you aren't obligated to give him $600 instead. He set the price, you met it, that's it. If he wanted $600, he could've asked for $600 in the first place -- just like an artist who wants more money can just ask for it. If he's willing to accept $300, then that's what he'll get, just like in any other industry.
Yes, and why even applaud a musician/actor/performer when I already paid to see them play? Have you ever been to a concert? A play?
Obviously, you know as little about the arts as you do about economy. You want stuff for free, and you dream up a silly "model" that will give you stuff for free. Unfortunately, it won't give you anything.
And you've thought about this for several years, right?
There's little incentive for paying in your model, and even less for taking a risk on unknown talent. Why pay, if the artist isn't capable of producing? Why pay, if others paying might be enough? Why pay, if others already have paid enough to make the artist produce? Consumers would risk as little as possible, as the best possible return would be to get what they paid for.
As I said: it's wishful thinking, and impressively poorly thought out.
You don't need to prove that cars replaced carriages, you need to prove that it's a relevant example as for how a new digital entertainment industry will establish itself if we abolish copyright laws.
If it is, the two will work through similar mechanisms. They don't. Stop being such a boneheaded idiot.
Hey, you were the one who brought cars and analogies into this. You haven't established how the car industry superseding the carriage industry relates to how abolishment of copyrights will lead to a new digital entertainment industry.
Are the economical mechanisms the same in each case? No? So your car breaks down in the middle of nowhere, example or analogy or whatever. It's just mindless drivel.
Yeah, but an analogy is like a car: it only takes you so far, and your wife will never stop bitching that you should have stopped and asked for directions way back, and the kids in the back seat start fighting and crying and give you a headache, and then the car breaks down in the middle of fucking NOWHERE, and then when it's YOUR job to go and get petrol/water/etc., you'll be glad that you can abandon the POS and get away from it all for a while.
You do realise that you're not arguing anything at all here, do you? The car industry relates to the abolishment of copyright because... ? No? Are you completely fucking retarded?
Yes, and when that "market" consists of people taking and distributing stuff for free, there is no exchange of money. Does your informed speculation take that into account? No, it doesn't. In a digital economy, peers exchange bits and bytes, torrent packages. The "service" you claim people are willing to perform, is seeding a torrent, not producing content. The production isn't part of the economy at all!
I'm not claiming it "won't" happen, I'm claiming you're dreaming up a magical market solution that lacks the necessary market functions to actually work. That makes it wishful thinking, not informed speculation.
Wow. Just wow. Following groupthink, for correctly pointing out that there's nothing but wishful thinking in a comment that's 5, "insightful". There's groupthink here, but it's not mine.
That's a pretty ignorant interpretation of their policies. The digital entertainment industry in its current form might depend on copyright, but abolishing copyright would result in a new digital entertainment industry that separates producing content (their job) from making copies (not their job).
I haven't noticed the scrolling bug in Iceweasel, but I've experienced it in Ubuntu's Firefox. Is Iceweasel better than Firefox, or am I just lucky? I've been quite happy with Iceweasel, even though I notice Chrome's javscript performance is noticeably better (and Konqueror's, which I'm using right now, is noticeably worse, but still generally acceptable)..
You still fail to show how I suggested smart people use broken stuff. On the contrary, I suggested Compiz isn't the best option if you want stuff that works. Better but less flashy options are readily available. So your statement that I've said "that people who will spend their time earning their living rather [than] responding to relentless error situations, are morons" is obviously false. The fact that you can't read is a clear sign that you're an idiot.
Additionally, I've never argued that OS choice is caused by or reflects the user's intelligence. On the contrary, I've suggested that the Mac fans' belief that the statement "I use a Mac" is insightful shows that they're idiots.
Note that "Mac fan" isn't the same as "Mac user". Most of your comment depends on pretending they are the same. That's poor logic, yet another sign that you're not very bright.
----
Personally, I don't care about OS choice. Use a Mac if it works for you, by all means. But I've used OS X on a Mac a couple of years, and I know it's not trouble free at all. I know that real trouble often is difficult to resolve, as the system is awfully complex beneath the shiny surface. I also know that real trouble is not unique, and I know that others with problems rarely get any help beyond the eternal "check and/or repair permissions" bullshit. So I know that the "it just works" claim is only true until it just doesn't, if at all. Which means it's not true.
To make it clear: you're not stupid because you use a Mac, and it's not stupid of you to use a Mac. In your case, with your needs, it might be the best choice. Just don't pretend it's a sign of intelligence. Most primates know it's best to use the right tool for the job.
OS X is more complicated than Linux, the complexities just happen to be hidden from the user.
But to answer you question: There is no insight in a statement saying "I switched to Mac". None. Thus, anyone who thinks such a statement is particularly profound, is pretty fucking dumb.
And re: Compiz randomly stopping working: it's alpha quality software. If you expect it to work perfectly, I'll just have to reiterate my statement: moron.
Wrong. Debian, Fedora, OpenBSD, etc., can all use the same libraries, and do. OpenBSD isn't Linux, though, so that's irrelevant. Developers target one set of libraries and stick to those. Basically, you have noe idea what you're talking about, and would be better off if you chose to shut up. So why spout a lot of idiotic drivel? You have nothing constructive, only re-hashed nonsense that's neither correct nor fixable.
No, that's an irrelevant objection. A government department wouldn't close down because of poor management, it would get a new management (ideally, although not always in reality). It would close down if it weren't needed, which can happen as a result of both poor and successful management.
Of course, the GP's point would still be invalid, as "the highway system with failing bridges" wouldn't occur if the state could just increase taxes to fix the problem. Obviously, there are limited budgets, and his reasoning rests on false assumptions.
If your reasoning were correct, the U.S. health care system would be the best and cheapest in the world, but it's not even as good as Cuba's. So basically, you're wrong. That's empirically proven.
The idea behind homeopathy is that "like cures like", so a homeopathic cocaine preparation would, from that assumption, actually be an anti-stimulant -- a depressant.
That is, of course, unless you believe it to be a stimulant.
Vogons -- slick? Officiousness and petty self interest only beneath the surface? You're confusing them with the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. But Microsoft would never have 'Share and Enjoy' as their official company slogan.
No, it was shit. A soap for geek kids so they get to ogle Summer Glau while their mothers enjoy seeing their own mirror image keeping The World's Most Important Person (their own sweet little child!) away from the killer robots from the future. The lack of explosions doesn't make it high brow, it only makes it cheaper to produce.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it amazing that more than two moderators think this comment should be modded up. Hint: everything parent says is wrong.
Actually, most of the carriage houses disappeared.
Why hire an electrician, barber, accountant, etc. if they're "unknown talent"?
If services in the real world actually worked the way you seem to think, no one would ever be able to break into any service industry. And yet they do: sometimes by putting together a portfolio to prove their ability, sometimes just by setting their prices lower than established names.
That's a pseudo-argument. You don't pay up front for any of those. And all those services are clearly defined, whereas creative arts aren't. No one would pay you up front to write a novel. Would you spend a year writing one, just to show that you're capable? Remember: you won't get paid for it. Ever. Maybe for your second novel, if you're lucky, but that's highly unlikely, and unless you're the next J.K. Rowling, you won't make enough from it to make it pay for the time invested in the first. Indeed, you shouldn't, as you say later.
As I said: "But [a consumer who waits for others to pay] is taking the risk that other people won't provide the rest of the funding, and thus the new content won't be produced. Whether he actually decides to pay will depend on how much he values having new content."
As I said: Wishful thinking. If a record costs $50000 to produce and I'm happy to invest $10 (why pay more?), I'll need 4999 other people to pay as well. My influence is negligible, and the best possible result is a return of my investment. I risk not getting something which I did not pay for by not paying, you say? Oh wow.
Yes, why indeed? You shouldn't!
When a mechanic is willing to fix your car for $300, you aren't obligated to give him $600 instead. He set the price, you met it, that's it. If he wanted $600, he could've asked for $600 in the first place -- just like an artist who wants more money can just ask for it. If he's willing to accept $300, then that's what he'll get, just like in any other industry.
Yes, and why even applaud a musician/actor/performer when I already paid to see them play? Have you ever been to a concert? A play?
Obviously, you know as little about the arts as you do about economy. You want stuff for free, and you dream up a silly "model" that will give you stuff for free. Unfortunately, it won't give you anything.
And you've thought about this for several years, right?
There's little incentive for paying in your model, and even less for taking a risk on unknown talent. Why pay, if the artist isn't capable of producing? Why pay, if others paying might be enough? Why pay, if others already have paid enough to make the artist produce? Consumers would risk as little as possible, as the best possible return would be to get what they paid for.
As I said: it's wishful thinking, and impressively poorly thought out.
You haven't clarified anything. Who is going to pay, and how will they be encouraged to pay?
You don't need to prove that cars replaced carriages, you need to prove that it's a relevant example as for how a new digital entertainment industry will establish itself if we abolish copyright laws.
If it is, the two will work through similar mechanisms. They don't. Stop being such a boneheaded idiot.
Hey, you were the one who brought cars and analogies into this. You haven't established how the car industry superseding the carriage industry relates to how abolishment of copyrights will lead to a new digital entertainment industry.
Are the economical mechanisms the same in each case? No? So your car breaks down in the middle of nowhere, example or analogy or whatever. It's just mindless drivel.
Yeah, but an analogy is like a car: it only takes you so far, and your wife will never stop bitching that you should have stopped and asked for directions way back, and the kids in the back seat start fighting and crying and give you a headache, and then the car breaks down in the middle of fucking NOWHERE, and then when it's YOUR job to go and get petrol/water/etc., you'll be glad that you can abandon the POS and get away from it all for a while.
Because?
You do realise that you're not arguing anything at all here, do you? The car industry relates to the abolishment of copyright because ... ? No? Are you completely fucking retarded?
Yes, and when that "market" consists of people taking and distributing stuff for free, there is no exchange of money. Does your informed speculation take that into account? No, it doesn't. In a digital economy, peers exchange bits and bytes, torrent packages. The "service" you claim people are willing to perform, is seeding a torrent, not producing content. The production isn't part of the economy at all!
I'm not claiming it "won't" happen, I'm claiming you're dreaming up a magical market solution that lacks the necessary market functions to actually work. That makes it wishful thinking, not informed speculation.
Wow. Just wow. Following groupthink, for correctly pointing out that there's nothing but wishful thinking in a comment that's 5, "insightful". There's groupthink here, but it's not mine.
That's a pretty ignorant interpretation of their policies. The digital entertainment industry in its current form might depend on copyright, but abolishing copyright would result in a new digital entertainment industry that separates producing content (their job) from making copies (not their job).
That's purely wishful thinking.
I haven't noticed the scrolling bug in Iceweasel, but I've experienced it in Ubuntu's Firefox. Is Iceweasel better than Firefox, or am I just lucky? I've been quite happy with Iceweasel, even though I notice Chrome's javscript performance is noticeably better (and Konqueror's, which I'm using right now, is noticeably worse, but still generally acceptable)..
Who made you king of software? Users may use whatever available software they choose to. You can fuck off.
You still fail to show how I suggested smart people use broken stuff. On the contrary, I suggested Compiz isn't the best option if you want stuff that works. Better but less flashy options are readily available. So your statement that I've said "that people who will spend their time earning their living rather [than] responding to relentless error situations, are morons" is obviously false. The fact that you can't read is a clear sign that you're an idiot.
Additionally, I've never argued that OS choice is caused by or reflects the user's intelligence. On the contrary, I've suggested that the Mac fans' belief that the statement "I use a Mac" is insightful shows that they're idiots.
Note that "Mac fan" isn't the same as "Mac user". Most of your comment depends on pretending they are the same. That's poor logic, yet another sign that you're not very bright.
----
Personally, I don't care about OS choice. Use a Mac if it works for you, by all means. But I've used OS X on a Mac a couple of years, and I know it's not trouble free at all. I know that real trouble often is difficult to resolve, as the system is awfully complex beneath the shiny surface. I also know that real trouble is not unique, and I know that others with problems rarely get any help beyond the eternal "check and/or repair permissions" bullshit. So I know that the "it just works" claim is only true until it just doesn't, if at all. Which means it's not true.
To make it clear: you're not stupid because you use a Mac, and it's not stupid of you to use a Mac. In your case, with your needs, it might be the best choice. Just don't pretend it's a sign of intelligence. Most primates know it's best to use the right tool for the job.
Exactly the opposite of what I said. Congratulations on proving me right.
OS X is more complicated than Linux, the complexities just happen to be hidden from the user.
But to answer you question: There is no insight in a statement saying "I switched to Mac". None. Thus, anyone who thinks such a statement is particularly profound, is pretty fucking dumb.
And re: Compiz randomly stopping working: it's alpha quality software. If you expect it to work perfectly, I'll just have to reiterate my statement: moron.
Wrong. Debian, Fedora, OpenBSD, etc., can all use the same libraries, and do. OpenBSD isn't Linux, though, so that's irrelevant. Developers target one set of libraries and stick to those. Basically, you have noe idea what you're talking about, and would be better off if you chose to shut up. So why spout a lot of idiotic drivel? You have nothing constructive, only re-hashed nonsense that's neither correct nor fixable.
It never ceases to amaze me that "I use a Mac" is an automatic +1, insightful. If anything, that's proof that Mac fans are morons.
No, that's an irrelevant objection. A government department wouldn't close down because of poor management, it would get a new management (ideally, although not always in reality). It would close down if it weren't needed, which can happen as a result of both poor and successful management.
Of course, the GP's point would still be invalid, as "the highway system with failing bridges" wouldn't occur if the state could just increase taxes to fix the problem. Obviously, there are limited budgets, and his reasoning rests on false assumptions.
That would only be true it government departments never close down, so obviously it isn't.
If your reasoning were correct, the U.S. health care system would be the best and cheapest in the world, but it's not even as good as Cuba's. So basically, you're wrong. That's empirically proven.
The idea behind homeopathy is that "like cures like", so a homeopathic cocaine preparation would, from that assumption, actually be an anti-stimulant -- a depressant.
That is, of course, unless you believe it to be a stimulant.
Vogons -- slick? Officiousness and petty self interest only beneath the surface? You're confusing them with the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. But Microsoft would never have 'Share and Enjoy' as their official company slogan.
No, it was shit. A soap for geek kids so they get to ogle Summer Glau while their mothers enjoy seeing their own mirror image keeping The World's Most Important Person (their own sweet little child!) away from the killer robots from the future. The lack of explosions doesn't make it high brow, it only makes it cheaper to produce.