Plus, of course, the idea that you could "sue" if blocked depends on a legal consensus that common carriers have to, you know, carry you. If two-tiered internet is OK, then why shouldn't an ISP be allowed to block those who won't pay up?
We really need to get back, or get to, the idea of ISPs as common carriers, disallowed from discriminating among packets based on content or, worse, on payor.
So the punishment was to do exactly what they were supposed to do. Exactly how is that justice? Or, for that matter, punishment? How does it discourage them from doing the exact same thing over and over again, knowing that sometimes, they'll get away with it and that when they don't, they lose nothing over what they would have paid anyway?
And that's not even counting that this was a settlement, most likely for far less than they actually owed.
Really? Do you ride in cars at all? Because then you're just as culpable. We could make cars much, much safer, but they would then be much, much more expensive... perhaps so expensive that no one could afford them, or at least a very few.
Everyone is making this trade-off all the time. It's harsh to see it laid out so explicitly, but it's actually there all the time.
Math is easy to grade when it's taught badly. Just like English or history or... Well, like any subject. I'll agree that, the way we teach math and the priorities we set, a lot of it is pointless. But that,s not a reason for teaching less; it's a reason for teaching better.
You're 100% correct. In my experience, every 12 year old has both the background and maturity to decide at what profession he/she will most happily pursue for the next 70 years of his/her life. No need to be exposed to anything that he/she hasn't already seen.
if the market accepts that his show is worthwhile, he'll make his time and money back.
I cry foul. You can't extol the market in one breath then defend a market-distorting structure (i.e., state-sponsored monopoly, i.e., copyright) in the other. "The market" prices things on the margins -- what it makes to create the last good created, not all of them. For digital works, the marginal cost is functionally zero. Therefore zero is the "correct" (that is, market-driven) price. Charging more than zero requires state intervention into the market -- the creation of artificial scarcity. That is what copyright does; and it is a legitimate point of debate as to whether it achieves the social ends sought at the best allocation of resources.
ASCAP is (almost) correct. While copyleft doesn't undermine copyright, it does undermine the copyright cartel. If artists begin to license worthwhile, popular, and (monetarily) successful works under copyleft -- if artists succeed while granting people more rights than they, strictly, have to -- then consumers might begin to wonder why more artists -- and big companies -- don't do that. Using copyleft could become a competitive advantage. And then how will Big Music justify restricting users?
If the sheep wake up, the whole industry -- as currently organized -- falls apart. And that's what ASCAP is worried about.
... but I'm genuinely interested: What exactly does a publisher of e-books "publish"?
I'm serious. You've written the book, you've put it in whatever form you decided on. I understand that you need some vehicle to distribute it -- isn't that what Apple and Amazon are doing? So what is your publisher doing? What value does he/she/it add?
I definitely feel better off if robbers are caught and convicted, even if they didn't rob me.
You don't just feel better off. You are better off. Even though it would offend the sensibilities of the Fox/WSJ crowd, public policing is in fact way more efficient than private policing. Public fire fighting is more efficient than private fire fighting. There are things that the government does better than private enterprise, because there are such things as public goods.
This is an unpopular viewpoint. That does not make it false.
that whole "we've sent things to Mars" myth that the Conspiracy is trying to force on you. I think the whole thing was shot on a soundstage in Southern California... I'm pretty sure I can see the support wires.
To say they can't means the market isn't growing, which shows your lack of udnerstanding
Um, no, I think the lack is on your part. Even a 100% monopoly can gain sales, but they can't increase market share -- that is, the fraction of the market they reach. If the number of searches doubled, and Bing doubles and Google doubled (pretending they're the only two engines), then their market share remains the same, 10% and 90% respectively.
Wow. I hope I am making the mistake of responding to a troll, because if you genuinely believe what you wrote, you are a sad sad person. People with dyslexia aren't "slow" and they certainly aren't what you wanted to imply, which is stupid. They have a neurological condition to affects their ability to visually process information -- a condition which, in fact, they can overcome by training themselves to compensate. I teach, and I have taught dyslexics as well as non-dyslexics. You know which group was in fact smarter on average? Neither... because it's not about "smart".
The reason ignorant people think dyslexics are "slow" is that the ignorant people have one model of learning and when someone fails to follow it, they conclude that person is flawed. But in fact, when given the freedom to adapt their learning styles to their unique demands, dyslexics (and many other supposedly "slow" students) prove themselves as capable, mentally, as so-called normal people. In fact one thing educators have learned -- which apparently hasn't filtered down to your level yet -- is that there is a nearly infinite variety of learning styles and that none of them is "right".
As for the GPP, I understand why the prof might recommend that his students not take notes. I think it's misguided but his experience leads him to that conclusion and who am I to gainsay it? But to forbid students from attempting to learn in the style they've developed -- a style, by the way, which seems in no way to detract from anyone choosing to do it the prof's way -- is simply arrogant and asinine. Indeed, it's about as dumb as an obsession with "covering material" rather than, say, comprehension of same.
And by the way, your "insight"
You're upset because you learn one way and would rather have instructors doing that, ensuring that only a minority do well... Wait a second, that's just what you said! Holy shit, the street goes both ways! You're right in that everyone learns different. Why couldn't you have fully applied that thought to your statements?
is so transparently bogus it's hardly worth mentioning. The parent post was not attempting to inflict a particular learning style on anyone; it was questioning why the original prof saw fit to do so. My taking notes in no way forces you to take notes -- but the prof banning notes most certainly imposes his preferred learning style on me. Despite that wonderful rhetorical trick you think you pulled, there is simply no equivalence in the two stands.
It's not just about making money. (I know -- the horror!) It's also about control and access. Why should any one company, even Google, get sole and exclusive rights to works in the public domain?
How about get rid of private autos in the city entirely and improve the mass transit? I don't know how/if this would work for Chicago. But it's the best way forward in Manhattan, I can tell you.
My own "pet theory" for this was that they would never be detected because although they do exist, they perturb the measurement device to the same degree that they do everything else
In what way does it make sense to say "they exist", then? If they by definition cannot be measured, then they can't interact with the Universe in any way. From a scientific viewpoint, then, they don't exist.
I'm pretty sure that the problem here is that theory predicts there should be some measurable effect and so far, there isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
No, for Murdoch, that would be literally unthinkable... :)
Plus, of course, the idea that you could "sue" if blocked depends on a legal consensus that common carriers have to, you know, carry you. If two-tiered internet is OK, then why shouldn't an ISP be allowed to block those who won't pay up?
We really need to get back, or get to, the idea of ISPs as common carriers, disallowed from discriminating among packets based on content or, worse, on payor.
Some aspects can even be patented. Fortunately this is not a common practice.
... yet.
So the punishment was to do exactly what they were supposed to do. Exactly how is that justice? Or, for that matter, punishment? How does it discourage them from doing the exact same thing over and over again, knowing that sometimes, they'll get away with it and that when they don't, they lose nothing over what they would have paid anyway?
And that's not even counting that this was a settlement, most likely for far less than they actually owed.
Really? Do you ride in cars at all? Because then you're just as culpable. We could make cars much, much safer, but they would then be much, much more expensive... perhaps so expensive that no one could afford them, or at least a very few.
Everyone is making this trade-off all the time. It's harsh to see it laid out so explicitly, but it's actually there all the time.
Math is easy to grade when it's taught badly. Just like English or history or ... Well, like any subject.
I'll agree that, the way we teach math and the priorities we set, a lot of it is pointless. But that,s not a reason for teaching less; it's a reason for teaching better.
You're 100% correct. In my experience, every 12 year old has both the background and maturity to decide at what profession he/she will most happily pursue for the next 70 years of his/her life. No need to be exposed to anything that he/she hasn't already seen.
... it's just SkyNet looking after its retirement holdings.
Actually, I've never seen anything justifying such a separation. Old Walt could be pretty ruthless, too.
I cry foul. You can't extol the market in one breath then defend a market-distorting structure (i.e., state-sponsored monopoly, i.e., copyright) in the other. "The market" prices things on the margins -- what it makes to create the last good created, not all of them. For digital works, the marginal cost is functionally zero. Therefore zero is the "correct" (that is, market-driven) price. Charging more than zero requires state intervention into the market -- the creation of artificial scarcity. That is what copyright does; and it is a legitimate point of debate as to whether it achieves the social ends sought at the best allocation of resources.
I want a pony. Should the vast mechanism of the state be deployed to secure me a pony? Just because I want one?
I don't think it counts as "not-normal use" to, you know, hold the phone as you use it...
ASCAP is (almost) correct. While copyleft doesn't undermine copyright, it does undermine the copyright cartel. If artists begin to license worthwhile, popular, and (monetarily) successful works under copyleft -- if artists succeed while granting people more rights than they, strictly, have to -- then consumers might begin to wonder why more artists -- and big companies -- don't do that. Using copyleft could become a competitive advantage. And then how will Big Music justify restricting users?
If the sheep wake up, the whole industry -- as currently organized -- falls apart. And that's what ASCAP is worried about.
Thanks. That's what I was looking for.
... but I'm genuinely interested: What exactly does a publisher of e-books "publish"?
I'm serious. You've written the book, you've put it in whatever form you decided on. I understand that you need some vehicle to distribute it -- isn't that what Apple and Amazon are doing? So what is your publisher doing? What value does he/she/it add?
You don't just feel better off. You are better off. Even though it would offend the sensibilities of the Fox/WSJ crowd, public policing is in fact way more efficient than private policing. Public fire fighting is more efficient than private fire fighting. There are things that the government does better than private enterprise, because there are such things as public goods.
This is an unpopular viewpoint. That does not make it false.
So this is all about presidential term limits? Color me confused.
and should be run out of the facilities department, just like plumbing or electrical.
that whole "we've sent things to Mars" myth that the Conspiracy is trying to force on you. I think the whole thing was shot on a soundstage in Southern California ... I'm pretty sure I can see the support wires.
Um, no, I think the lack is on your part. Even a 100% monopoly can gain sales, but they can't increase market share -- that is, the fraction of the market they reach. If the number of searches doubled, and Bing doubles and Google doubled (pretending they're the only two engines), then their market share remains the same, 10% and 90% respectively.
But only one leads to the Playtronics factory where the MacGuffinn is held...
Wow. I hope I am making the mistake of responding to a troll, because if you genuinely believe what you wrote, you are a sad sad person. People with dyslexia aren't "slow" and they certainly aren't what you wanted to imply, which is stupid. They have a neurological condition to affects their ability to visually process information -- a condition which, in fact, they can overcome by training themselves to compensate. I teach, and I have taught dyslexics as well as non-dyslexics. You know which group was in fact smarter on average? Neither ... because it's not about "smart".
The reason ignorant people think dyslexics are "slow" is that the ignorant people have one model of learning and when someone fails to follow it, they conclude that person is flawed. But in fact, when given the freedom to adapt their learning styles to their unique demands, dyslexics (and many other supposedly "slow" students) prove themselves as capable, mentally, as so-called normal people. In fact one thing educators have learned -- which apparently hasn't filtered down to your level yet -- is that there is a nearly infinite variety of learning styles and that none of them is "right".
As for the GPP, I understand why the prof might recommend that his students not take notes. I think it's misguided but his experience leads him to that conclusion and who am I to gainsay it? But to forbid students from attempting to learn in the style they've developed -- a style, by the way, which seems in no way to detract from anyone choosing to do it the prof's way -- is simply arrogant and asinine. Indeed, it's about as dumb as an obsession with "covering material" rather than, say, comprehension of same.
And by the way, your "insight"
is so transparently bogus it's hardly worth mentioning. The parent post was not attempting to inflict a particular learning style on anyone; it was questioning why the original prof saw fit to do so. My taking notes in no way forces you to take notes -- but the prof banning notes most certainly imposes his preferred learning style on me. Despite that wonderful rhetorical trick you think you pulled, there is simply no equivalence in the two stands.
It's not just about making money. (I know -- the horror!) It's also about control and access. Why should any one company, even Google, get sole and exclusive rights to works in the public domain?
How about get rid of private autos in the city entirely and improve the mass transit? I don't know how/if this would work for Chicago. But it's the best way forward in Manhattan, I can tell you.
In what way does it make sense to say "they exist", then? If they by definition cannot be measured, then they can't interact with the Universe in any way. From a scientific viewpoint, then, they don't exist.
I'm pretty sure that the problem here is that theory predicts there should be some measurable effect and so far, there isn't.