I may be a complete idiot, but I am right about this and you are wrong. If RedHat, for example, sells $100,000 worth of Linux boxed sets, and they spent $40,000 on costs associated with producing those boxed sets, their profit margin is 60%. And if the boxed sets cost $105,000 to produce (including advertising, capital investments, etc.), then the profit margin is -5%.
THAT is the way profit margin is calculated by any business you can find. You are totally wrong in mistaking 'markup' for 'profit margin'. You can look this up on any financial website. The depth of your ignoranace of basic business economics is only matched by your astounding conceit.
Your numbers and analysis are absurd. Assuming you are right that the marginal cost of pressing a cd is $1, you are leaving out the cost of distribution, advertising, management, and whatever else it is record companies do. And they don't sell them to stores for $15. It's more like $9 or $10 at the most. Stores have to make a living, too.
But anyway, your math is wrong, even with your own bogus numbers. If I sell something for $15 and I spent $1 to create it, that is a 93% profit margin. NOT a 1500% profit margin. I''m left to wonder, do they teach economics in the schools you attended?
There is no record of Jon Katz going out and tracking down people who bought his book who lend it or give it to others for them to enjoy so he can "capture royalties"!
Your analogy makes no sense at all. Metallica isn't going after fans for "lending or giving away" CDs of their music. That would be stupid, since it is perfectly legal. They are going after people who make an exact copy of it. That is plainly illegal.
An equivalent analogy would be Katz going after people for letting thousands of people photocopying his books, or maybe distributing them as PDFs over the internet, instead of buying them. I suspect he would be as angry about that as Metallica.
All this begs the question, though, of why would anybody listen to Metallica or read a book by Katz? I'd rather gouge by eyes out with spoons.
Sorry, instead of Usury, I should have said Simony. Anyway, simony has happened many times in the history of the Church, but it has ALWAYS been contrary to Church theology, as it is specifically condemned in the New Testament.
I'm Catholic, and haven't ever been charged to receive communion. Charging for a Sacrament would be contrary to Church Canon Law, and Christian Theology in general since that would be Usury.
There is no evidence at all that those people vet the sites for content, other than excluding things with nudity, swearing, or whatever they consider obscene. It's much more likely to be an artifact of submissions.
If you'd actually read the article, you'd see that it is the parents who use the site that submit sites for approval. THEY are the ones with a "conservative bias". If you want it to be fair, go submit some leftist sites (that don't include gratuitous nudity).
For what it's worth, Marc Andreessen also recently gave $250,000 to the Democratic National Committee. That's a big chunk of change (unless you're Andreessen). No Conservative bias there. I don't have a link, but it was on WashingtonPost Online recently.
They use a whitelist scheme, and rely on parents to recommend sites for evaluation. Demographically, in America, if you have children you are considerably more likely to describe yourself as "conservative". But even further, I'd suppose than a "conservative" parent would be much more likely to use filtering software than a "leftist" parent. That equals more user submissions from conservatives. If more leftist parents were interested in filtering internet access for AOL kids, then there would be more submissions of leftist sites.
Yes, but it's becoming less so. An example: before the 60's and 70's there was a very serious lack of decent restaurants in America (outside of urban ethnic enclaves). And everybody drank the same damned coffee. But the past thirty years has seen an explosion of diverse tastes in those markets.
A lot of people say this about AOL/TW. But nobody ever gives an example of how they could possible control acces to all information. Do you really think they can acquire that sort of market share- and keep it? Will they make the information-disseminating mechanism propietary? (I doubt it.) Can you speculate at least a little bit and give us a realistic scenario? I'm genuinely curious.
You are so utterly full of beans. Just out of curiosity, Mr. OverBlown, what Timeless Concepts are these that have powered our society for centuries? Please list a few, I am dying to hear.
It may not happen, but not for the reasons you mention. There is a great deal of convenience in having things online. It would be extremely benficial to general research in the same way that Lexis/Nexis is vital to journalistic research. It could save incredible amounts of time. It's not just being able to read an entire text on a monitor (painful), but to be able to call up a few pages from an incredible assortment with a few keystrokes. It's like the ultimate encyclopedia.
Furthermore, the money and the lack of people working there "endorsing it" are not real obstacles. If the next President says "Wouldn't it be cool to have the Library of Congress online?" and the House appropriates a few million dollars, Fiat Biblio, it'll happen. The US is running a surplus of over a hundred billion dollars a year. Money is not all that scarce. And finally, it's nice that you can go to a library and get things, but many people have only small libraries nearby, with very limited collections. And an online library is available 24/7. The book is never "checked out," too. And there only has to be ONE online library, instead of a zillion local branches.
Wow, that has got to be the most egotistical slashdot post I have ever read...
If you think that one was egotistical and conceited, you'll be absolutely floored by these two guys from over the weekend, who posted in the RMS/eBook comments:
This 24-year old fellow, Roman Mir, claims here, and here to have read several thousand substantial books in his short life, while making time to learn several languages, work, have a girlfriend, and read Slashdot. That's several Moby Dicks a week, every week, since the age of six. And then this other fellow, Erchie, claims to, well, to be a 60-year old rollerblading mega-genius who has read much, much more than the first conceited exaggerator. But with all that reading, he still thinks the English celebrate Thanksgiving.
Those two guys are the most conceited and egotistical fellows on Slashdot.
Well, perhaps the Soviets were genuinely and realistically scared of the US's ability to design and deploy something like this ten, twenty years in the future if they really put their minds to it?
You mean the ABM treaty signed with the old Soviet Union? A) The Soviet Union no longer exists. B) They violated it from the first year they signed it. They continued to violate it. C)Any signatory has the power to leave the treaty with less than a year's prior notice. It's in the treaty. D) This is no obvious way, leaves you "screwed".
If you think that the world is "evolving" into a peaceful happy and warm fuzzy place where we all live in harmony like a nice suburban neighborhood, then you have been smoking way too much wacky-weed. Put the pot down and listen: the world will always be full of bad guys! It's enough trouble to make sure your own country doesn't become a bad guy. THEN you have to make sure the truly evil don't prevail. What's to keep another Hitler, Stalin, or Mao from taking power? Where would we be if Hitler had had ICBM's? It's obvious that a country has to prepare for this.
Star Wars was hardly at the height of popularity in 1983, when Reagan announced the program. And he never called it "Star Wars" - only a bunch of lazy journalists latched onto that name. The idea, of course, did not come from the movie, but instead from scientists.
Saying somebody is "biased" means nothing. It just means somebody has formed an opinion. There is no evidence at all that Zico is a troll. He just seems like somebody who is sincere in his unconventional (for Slashdot) beliefs. Zico is typically well-reasoned. He is a healthy counterbalance to the pro-linux zealotry and anti-MS FUD that fills up Slashdot. To repeat: it is a GOOD THING when intelligent people disagree. That's what Slashdot is supposed to be about.
He has 150,000 shares of lnux. Even if the price drops to $5 (hehe) he's still got $3/4 million. Not super-rich, but not exactly scroungin' for change.
Slashdot Mirror
THAT is the way profit margin is calculated by any business you can find. You are totally wrong in mistaking 'markup' for 'profit margin'. You can look this up on any financial website. The depth of your ignoranace of basic business economics is only matched by your astounding conceit.
But anyway, your math is wrong, even with your own bogus numbers. If I sell something for $15 and I spent $1 to create it, that is a 93% profit margin. NOT a 1500% profit margin. I''m left to wonder, do they teach economics in the schools you attended?
Your analogy makes no sense at all. Metallica isn't going after fans for "lending or giving away" CDs of their music. That would be stupid, since it is perfectly legal. They are going after people who make an exact copy of it. That is plainly illegal.
An equivalent analogy would be Katz going after people for letting thousands of people photocopying his books, or maybe distributing them as PDFs over the internet, instead of buying them. I suspect he would be as angry about that as Metallica.
All this begs the question, though, of why would anybody listen to Metallica or read a book by Katz? I'd rather gouge by eyes out with spoons.
Sorry, instead of Usury, I should have said Simony. Anyway, simony has happened many times in the history of the Church, but it has ALWAYS been contrary to Church theology, as it is specifically condemned in the New Testament.
You've got to be kidding. Are you really that stupid?
I am continuously amazed at how many dumb, gullible people there are in the world. Sigh.
I'm Catholic, and haven't ever been charged to receive communion. Charging for a Sacrament would be contrary to Church Canon Law, and Christian Theology in general since that would be Usury.
There is no evidence at all that those people vet the sites for content, other than excluding things with nudity, swearing, or whatever they consider obscene. It's much more likely to be an artifact of submissions.
If you'd actually read the article, you'd see that it is the parents who use the site that submit sites for approval. THEY are the ones with a "conservative bias". If you want it to be fair, go submit some leftist sites (that don't include gratuitous nudity).
For what it's worth, Marc Andreessen also recently gave $250,000 to the Democratic National Committee. That's a big chunk of change (unless you're Andreessen). No Conservative bias there. I don't have a link, but it was on WashingtonPost Online recently.
They use a whitelist scheme, and rely on parents to recommend sites for evaluation. Demographically, in America, if you have children you are considerably more likely to describe yourself as "conservative". But even further, I'd suppose than a "conservative" parent would be much more likely to use filtering software than a "leftist" parent. That equals more user submissions from conservatives. If more leftist parents were interested in filtering internet access for AOL kids, then there would be more submissions of leftist sites.
Did anybody notice Mr. Bean wrote the article? Go back and check.
I wish I had a rock to throw at every person who has said "Information wants to be free."
It's not like there was much to see there, aside from a few cat butts.
Yes, but it's becoming less so. An example: before the 60's and 70's there was a very serious lack of decent restaurants in America (outside of urban ethnic enclaves). And everybody drank the same damned coffee. But the past thirty years has seen an explosion of diverse tastes in those markets.
A lot of people say this about AOL/TW. But nobody ever gives an example of how they could possible control acces to all information. Do you really think they can acquire that sort of market share- and keep it? Will they make the information-disseminating mechanism propietary? (I doubt it.) Can you speculate at least a little bit and give us a realistic scenario? I'm genuinely curious.
It may not happen, but not for the reasons you mention. There is a great deal of convenience in having things online. It would be extremely benficial to general research in the same way that Lexis/Nexis is vital to journalistic research. It could save incredible amounts of time. It's not just being able to read an entire text on a monitor (painful), but to be able to call up a few pages from an incredible assortment with a few keystrokes. It's like the ultimate encyclopedia.
Furthermore, the money and the lack of people working there "endorsing it" are not real obstacles. If the next President says "Wouldn't it be cool to have the Library of Congress online?" and the House appropriates a few million dollars, Fiat Biblio, it'll happen. The US is running a surplus of over a hundred billion dollars a year. Money is not all that scarce. And finally, it's nice that you can go to a library and get things, but many people have only small libraries nearby, with very limited collections. And an online library is available 24/7. The book is never "checked out," too. And there only has to be ONE online library, instead of a zillion local branches.
Cross the with HURD and you get ten years of demonic penguin sightings, but no actual demonic penguin.
If you think that one was egotistical and conceited, you'll be absolutely floored by these two guys from over the weekend, who posted in the RMS/eBook comments:
This 24-year old fellow, Roman Mir, claims here, and here to have read several thousand substantial books in his short life, while making time to learn several languages, work, have a girlfriend, and read Slashdot. That's several Moby Dicks a week, every week, since the age of six. And then this other fellow, Erchie, claims to, well, to be a 60-year old rollerblading mega-genius who has read much, much more than the first conceited exaggerator. But with all that reading, he still thinks the English celebrate Thanksgiving.
Those two guys are the most conceited and egotistical fellows on Slashdot.
Well, perhaps the Soviets were genuinely and realistically scared of the US's ability to design and deploy something like this ten, twenty years in the future if they really put their minds to it?
You mean the ABM treaty signed with the old Soviet Union?
A) The Soviet Union no longer exists.
B) They violated it from the first year they signed it. They continued to violate it.
C)Any signatory has the power to leave the treaty with less than a year's prior notice. It's in the treaty.
D) This is no obvious way, leaves you "screwed".
If you think that the world is "evolving" into a peaceful happy and warm fuzzy place where we all live in harmony like a nice suburban neighborhood, then you have been smoking way too much wacky-weed. Put the pot down and listen: the world will always be full of bad guys! It's enough trouble to make sure your own country doesn't become a bad guy. THEN you have to make sure the truly evil don't prevail. What's to keep another Hitler, Stalin, or Mao from taking power? Where would we be if Hitler had had ICBM's? It's obvious that a country has to prepare for this.
Star Wars was hardly at the height of popularity in 1983, when Reagan announced the program. And he never called it "Star Wars" - only a bunch of lazy journalists latched onto that name. The idea, of course, did not come from the movie, but instead from scientists.
Saying somebody is "biased" means nothing. It just means somebody has formed an opinion. There is no evidence at all that Zico is a troll. He just seems like somebody who is sincere in his unconventional (for Slashdot) beliefs. Zico is typically well-reasoned. He is a healthy counterbalance to the pro-linux zealotry and anti-MS FUD that fills up Slashdot. To repeat: it is a GOOD THING when intelligent people disagree. That's what Slashdot is supposed to be about.
He has 150,000 shares of lnux. Even if the price drops to $5 (hehe) he's still got $3/4 million. Not super-rich, but not exactly scroungin' for change.
Damn well better bee, since I'm not vested until next January. 'Bout shit my pants this month.