Not at all.
We propose a proper valuation of digital goods. I'll skip right to the ending and spoil it for you: the value of digital goods is *very* close to zero. But why? Simple: supply and demand.
Why does supply and demand apply to every other product and service except digital goods? Because we've been forced to prop up inflated scarcity for years.
Sorry, you can't convince me that I should continue to fight natural economic laws. If the product is worth next to nothing, then you won't get rich selling that product. Wah. Sell something else. Produce something else. But stop crying me a river.
bzzzt. Wrong. You're assuming that the music is actually worth $12.
Just because a retailer sells a CD for $12 does not prove that it is worth $12.
Want proof? Ask someone who purchased a new vehicle.
Let me just say that while I found your comment interesting, I was *far* more intrigued by your signature and, consequently, forgot which nasty rebuttal I was going to flame you with...
So you can either recognize the bad parties and join the good parties against them, or you can sit on the sidelines and whine that the ocean is wet and you want it dried out.
No and no. I can (and will) continue to ignore parties and vote (and support) those candidates that can actually do some good. As long as you're duped into thinking that the Democratic party is your ticket to responsible and honest government and as long as we (collectively) dupe ourselves into thinking that a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote, then this system won't ever get fixed (if you think that the way it works right now is fine, then I'll ask when you'd consider it broken).
That sure looks like you are trying to say that the Democratic political party was good for us and our government.
The GOP is inexorably bad for government, since their primary goal is to end any part of the government that gets in the way of corporations turning people into machines, cattle, piggy banks, or ingredients.
I'll agree with you that the GOP is bad for government, I just won't agree that *any* party is good. I don't want any political party to represent me in government as they inevitably get in the way of useful governance.
This is it. The argument that we hear over and over is: "Waaah, we won't have any decent shows once MAFIAA et al go out of business!"
Baloney.
Smart people are not suddenly going to disappear. Creative people are not suddenly going to disappear. Funny people are not suddenly going to disappear.
Those people will just have more freedom once we get rid of the MAFIAA et al.
Too bad we let the MAFIAA et al become so tightly integrated with our government as that means we may have to get rid of our government in order to force these assholes to go out of business.
You're the reason we can't have nice things. Content providers are welcome to provide their own competing service and replace pieces or parts of this whole chain of services and software to deliver their content for a price.
This is what the consumers want and if the content providers were smart biz folks then they'd capitalize on this instead of letting other companies take away all their revenue while they continue to pursue obsolete business models and try to sue people into agreeing with them.
I'm a small business owner. When my customers demand that I deliver my services to them a different way, then I either decide that I don't need their business, or I accommodate them. Take a wild guess as to which way that usually goes.
Of course, I don't "own" America's culture and so maybe I don't have as many options. Options like telling my customers that they're going to get the services the same way I've always provided them (at a higher price) and that they can fuck off if they don't like it.
No reason except the fact that Credit Unions are not covered by the FDIC. Even that is not a big deal since there is a government agency that covers deposits in credit unions as well, but with one little snag: a lot of regulatory agencies that create rules dealing with business accounts created for customers require (as part of those rules) that those accounts be covered by the FDIC.
Stupid rules get in the way of a lot of good things (like My favorite bank).
I call that passive aggression. He had a point, you know, regarding logic and unfounded beliefs. Unfortunately, no one can actually "win" the argument as there is no way to prove one side or the other (you can't prove the existence of fairies and I can't disprove their existence either). I guess what it boils down to is that you also have decided your answer already and are sticking to it, just like him.
Why would anyone want Blu-Ray to die? I can understand the DRM concerns, but if Direct streaming takes over, you will have lost the right to own a copy.
What? Since when does having a disc mean that you "own" a copy? Last time I checked, every distributor out there wants to remind us that having a disc is merely a license to watch that content according to the EULA that I never signed.
Why do I keep finding myself arguing with people who support the PCH box? Anyway, from my perspective anyway, the PCH is not ready for regular consumer use. I've posted before about my issues with the box not playing iso files properly and having trouble streaming video over the LAN.
Basically, the PCH *can* be a network video player, but it is definitely buggy (YMMV, that's my experience).
The PCH is *not* like a receiver that handles multiple vid signals in and delivers one signal out. It is, quite simply, a small device that runs an embedded os and spits out an HD signal. That's pretty much it.
I wouldn't waste my money on another one (I've purchased two). Definitely go with either a pre-built silent pc set top box or one of the other recommended solutions that stick with a more traditional PC architecture. Believe me, in the end, you're going to want the extra oomph that comes from a pc, but you'll also want it to be quiet.
I'll disagree with your statement about puritan like values. I'm from Colorado Springs (can anyone say Focus on the Family?) and if there ever was a puritanical community, then this place should seem to fit the description. I've yet to discuss medical marijuana (legal here) with anyone in my community that was actually opposed to the legalization. In fact, most of the folks that I've discussed this issue with have agreed that marijuana should have been legalized a long time ago (and not just for medicinal purposes).
I think that, in opposition to your position, marijuana use is becoming more and more acceptable and with generational replacement I think that we'll see legalization of it in general within a few more generations.
Now, I could be completely wrong, but it seems awfully silly that we've had so much contention over such a (relatively) benign substance as this.
I find your angst to be refreshing. I generally agree with you, but you must admit that (since you took the time to comment) your curiosity was piqued enough that perhaps you should have just read the linked article.
Well...see above comment regarding the important bits, but I'll repeat it for you since you could not be bothered to RTFA.
Motorola built this phone called the Droid X. They then loaded software onto the phone. Lastly, they thought, "Hey, wait, we need a way to stop people from loading whatever OS they wish on their phone (that they *bought*)." So, they implemented a piece of firmware or semi-firmware that would monitor the bootloader and write gibberish to important bits of the phone's memory when the bootloader is tampered with (read: changed however the fuck the *owner* of the phone wished to change it).
Good point regarding our ability to deconstruct. You're absolutely correct that *some* of those constructs need to be pulled apart and examined. How do we go about creating replacements for something that doesn't belong? I don't know about you, but I'd start by dismantling.
If you look at religion, then you'll see a perfect example of a construct that needs to go away. I'm happy to agree with your assessment of its value in people being with people, but that's easy to do without dogma. What's more important right now, is to remove big religion's power in our society. How do we do that? We dismantle it piece by piece (or better) person by person. When we're done with that we can talk about introducing alternatives.
If you abolish software patents, it makes it very difficult for companies to realistically spend millions on development of new concepts and ideas when someone can then just take the ground breaking UI or process etc.
I've a newsflash for you: these aren't inventions and so they don't need patent protection. I don't believe this nonsense about companies spending millions on new concepts and ideas (for UI's or processes). I just don't.
Designing a new UI may be expensive, but it is simply sunk costs. If I develop a groundbreaking process for picking cotton, but I don't actually translate that process into a physical device, then it is simply an idea and nothing more.
I have lots and lots of "ideas". Sometimes, I see those ideas manifested physically by someone who has the wherewithal to make it happen. They get the benefit. Not me. I don't care if I had the idea first.
This notion that we need to protect intellectual property is ridiculous and is doing wonders for stifling innovation. I plan to go right on thinking whatever I want to think and dreaming about new ideas. I don't care if that means I'm infringing on some companies "intellectual property" and I'll be damned if any amount of legislation will ever change my mind.
I thought that this article was going to argue the plight of the US citizens living under bad IP laws. I, as a US citizen, have to live with terrible IP laws and I frankly envy the 4.3 billion other folks who don't have to suffer under this injustice.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all.
We propose a proper valuation of digital goods. I'll skip right to the ending and spoil it for you: the value of digital goods is *very* close to zero. But why? Simple: supply and demand.
Why does supply and demand apply to every other product and service except digital goods? Because we've been forced to prop up inflated scarcity for years.
Sorry, you can't convince me that I should continue to fight natural economic laws. If the product is worth next to nothing, then you won't get rich selling that product. Wah. Sell something else. Produce something else. But stop crying me a river.
This is the crux of it. When everyone is a criminal, we're not the ones who are wrong. The law is wrong.
bzzzt. Wrong. You're assuming that the music is actually worth $12.
Just because a retailer sells a CD for $12 does not prove that it is worth $12.
Want proof? Ask someone who purchased a new vehicle.
Let me just say that while I found your comment interesting, I was *far* more intrigued by your signature and, consequently, forgot which nasty rebuttal I was going to flame you with...
keep on dreamin'
So you can either recognize the bad parties and join the good parties against them, or you can sit on the sidelines and whine that the ocean is wet and you want it dried out.
No and no. I can (and will) continue to ignore parties and vote (and support) those candidates that can actually do some good. As long as you're duped into thinking that the Democratic party is your ticket to responsible and honest government and as long as we (collectively) dupe ourselves into thinking that a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote, then this system won't ever get fixed (if you think that the way it works right now is fine, then I'll ask when you'd consider it broken).
Democrats tried to pass real healthcare reform.
That sure looks like you are trying to say that the Democratic political party was good for us and our government.
The GOP is inexorably bad for government, since their primary goal is to end any part of the government that gets in the way of corporations turning people into machines, cattle, piggy banks, or ingredients.
I'll agree with you that the GOP is bad for government, I just won't agree that *any* party is good. I don't want any political party to represent me in government as they inevitably get in the way of useful governance.
Why should I care about what the "Democrats" did for me?
Anyone who even tries to say that political parties are good for our government is either totally ignorant, completely conned, or lying his ass off.
This is it. The argument that we hear over and over is: "Waaah, we won't have any decent shows once MAFIAA et al go out of business!"
Baloney.
Smart people are not suddenly going to disappear. Creative people are not suddenly going to disappear. Funny people are not suddenly going to disappear.
Those people will just have more freedom once we get rid of the MAFIAA et al.
Too bad we let the MAFIAA et al become so tightly integrated with our government as that means we may have to get rid of our government in order to force these assholes to go out of business.
You're the reason we can't have nice things. Content providers are welcome to provide their own competing service and replace pieces or parts of this whole chain of services and software to deliver their content for a price.
This is what the consumers want and if the content providers were smart biz folks then they'd capitalize on this instead of letting other companies take away all their revenue while they continue to pursue obsolete business models and try to sue people into agreeing with them.
I'm a small business owner. When my customers demand that I deliver my services to them a different way, then I either decide that I don't need their business, or I accommodate them. Take a wild guess as to which way that usually goes.
Of course, I don't "own" America's culture and so maybe I don't have as many options. Options like telling my customers that they're going to get the services the same way I've always provided them (at a higher price) and that they can fuck off if they don't like it.
No reason except the fact that Credit Unions are not covered by the FDIC. Even that is not a big deal since there is a government agency that covers deposits in credit unions as well, but with one little snag: a lot of regulatory agencies that create rules dealing with business accounts created for customers require (as part of those rules) that those accounts be covered by the FDIC.
Stupid rules get in the way of a lot of good things (like My favorite bank).
or refrain from social media altogether
Sounds like health class again.
I call that passive aggression. He had a point, you know, regarding logic and unfounded beliefs. Unfortunately, no one can actually "win" the argument as there is no way to prove one side or the other (you can't prove the existence of fairies and I can't disprove their existence either). I guess what it boils down to is that you also have decided your answer already and are sticking to it, just like him.
Why would anyone want Blu-Ray to die? I can understand the DRM concerns, but if Direct streaming takes over, you will have lost the right to own a copy.
What? Since when does having a disc mean that you "own" a copy? Last time I checked, every distributor out there wants to remind us that having a disc is merely a license to watch that content according to the EULA that I never signed.
Why do I keep finding myself arguing with people who support the PCH box? Anyway, from my perspective anyway, the PCH is not ready for regular consumer use. I've posted before about my issues with the box not playing iso files properly and having trouble streaming video over the LAN.
Basically, the PCH *can* be a network video player, but it is definitely buggy (YMMV, that's my experience).
The PCH is *not* like a receiver that handles multiple vid signals in and delivers one signal out. It is, quite simply, a small device that runs an embedded os and spits out an HD signal. That's pretty much it.
I wouldn't waste my money on another one (I've purchased two). Definitely go with either a pre-built silent pc set top box or one of the other recommended solutions that stick with a more traditional PC architecture. Believe me, in the end, you're going to want the extra oomph that comes from a pc, but you'll also want it to be quiet.
That's just my opinion.
ridiculous use of parentheses...one would think I'm a lisp coder...
I'll disagree with your statement about puritan like values. I'm from Colorado Springs (can anyone say Focus on the Family?) and if there ever was a puritanical community, then this place should seem to fit the description. I've yet to discuss medical marijuana (legal here) with anyone in my community that was actually opposed to the legalization. In fact, most of the folks that I've discussed this issue with have agreed that marijuana should have been legalized a long time ago (and not just for medicinal purposes).
I think that, in opposition to your position, marijuana use is becoming more and more acceptable and with generational replacement I think that we'll see legalization of it in general within a few more generations.
Now, I could be completely wrong, but it seems awfully silly that we've had so much contention over such a (relatively) benign substance as this.
Wow!
I find your angst to be refreshing. I generally agree with you, but you must admit that (since you took the time to comment) your curiosity was piqued enough that perhaps you should have just read the linked article.
In conclusion, stay classy (and angry).
Well...see above comment regarding the important bits, but I'll repeat it for you since you could not be bothered to RTFA.
Motorola built this phone called the Droid X. They then loaded software onto the phone. Lastly, they thought, "Hey, wait, we need a way to stop people from loading whatever OS they wish on their phone (that they *bought*)." So, they implemented a piece of firmware or semi-firmware that would monitor the bootloader and write gibberish to important bits of the phone's memory when the bootloader is tampered with (read: changed however the fuck the *owner* of the phone wished to change it).
What that means for you is: don't buy this phone.
I'm going to tell your founding fathers what you've been saying about them...
Good point regarding our ability to deconstruct. You're absolutely correct that *some* of those constructs need to be pulled apart and examined. How do we go about creating replacements for something that doesn't belong? I don't know about you, but I'd start by dismantling.
If you look at religion, then you'll see a perfect example of a construct that needs to go away. I'm happy to agree with your assessment of its value in people being with people, but that's easy to do without dogma. What's more important right now, is to remove big religion's power in our society. How do we do that? We dismantle it piece by piece (or better) person by person. When we're done with that we can talk about introducing alternatives.
Is that you Reverend Bradbury?
focus less on "who gets the patent". focus more on creating.
I've a newsflash for you: these aren't inventions and so they don't need patent protection. I don't believe this nonsense about companies spending millions on new concepts and ideas (for UI's or processes). I just don't.
Designing a new UI may be expensive, but it is simply sunk costs. If I develop a groundbreaking process for picking cotton, but I don't actually translate that process into a physical device, then it is simply an idea and nothing more.
I have lots and lots of "ideas". Sometimes, I see those ideas manifested physically by someone who has the wherewithal to make it happen. They get the benefit. Not me. I don't care if I had the idea first.
This notion that we need to protect intellectual property is ridiculous and is doing wonders for stifling innovation. I plan to go right on thinking whatever I want to think and dreaming about new ideas. I don't care if that means I'm infringing on some companies "intellectual property" and I'll be damned if any amount of legislation will ever change my mind.
I thought that this article was going to argue the plight of the US citizens living under bad IP laws. I, as a US citizen, have to live with terrible IP laws and I frankly envy the 4.3 billion other folks who don't have to suffer under this injustice.