"Industry and trade associations estimate that counterfeiting and piracy now cost the U.S. economy as much as $250 billion a year and a total of 750,000 American jobs."
Where is this money going?!? Are pirates burning the money or something? I cannot understand how this money disappears.
To me it would seem that this actually introduces money to the economy. This guy hacks consoles for a fee, thus creating "money." Since there is a monetary transaction, this is good for the economy, at least in the short run. But why are people paying this student for his services? To save money that they would have otherwise spent on games!
What's happening to that money that they have saved? That must be the money that the pirates are burning, since it isn't going back into the economy, that is, if we are to believe the "Industry and trade associations." In reality, that money is either being spent or saved. If these console hacker customers are spending the money, then the economy benefits in the short run, and, indirectly, the long run. If it is saved, it should still benefit the economy in the long run, as it makes more money available for loans, which would then be used to make business more efficient, allowing for job creation, or just spent outright on a house or car or something.
So how is this piracy costing the economy jobs? I just donâ(TM)t get it. I get that this is costing the âoeindustry and trade associationsâ money, and thus costing money to all those who are along the supply lines of the video games, but really, this money is just being spent elsewhere, not disappearing.
Now donâ(TM)t get me wrong. I think that this guy deserves to be punished. He broke the law and should be punished. I do not agree with piracy and understand the harm that it does to the creative process. Less money for video game makers means worse games, etc. I just hate this specific argument.
"Also, assuming the companies paying "increasingly ridiculous" salaries are reasonably sane, they will only pay those salaries if it will help them increase their revenue or reduce their costs at least as much as the cost of the salary, so there's a limit to how much they are willing to pay."
In the short term, you are 100% correct. However, if the company deems that it needs new employees, and the only way that they can afford the new employees is to raise prices slightly, then they are going to raise prices slightly. Then, after everyone else does the same, when they need to hire new employees, they have to raise prices a little more, then a little more, then a little more. These small increases in prices, and then wages, add up. This just causes inflation without necessarily increasing the purchasing power of the workers. This is where the "increasingly ridiculous" salaries come from, and the reason that your limit is only valid in the short term.
The thing to remember is that just because you are smart enough to know that there aren't extra nutrients in organic food doesn't mean that everyone is. Also, just because the people that sell you your organic food don't tell you that it is more nutritious, doesn't mean that others aren't telling people that their organic food IS more nutritious.
Many people all over the place, either directly or indirectly, insinuate that organic food has more nutrients. Yesterday they were discussing organic food on Wisconsin Public Radio and both the guest and the host alluded to the nutritional benefits of eating organic. This is thought pollution of even the most intellectual crowd. Now, I'm not going to argue against organic food, because it does have many benefits, however it is important to know exactly what those benefits are.
Walmart doesn't censor music based on morals. It was almost entirely a loss prevention move. CDs without offensive language draw the type of people that are unlikely to steal. Those that are likely to steal are unlikely to buy censored music.
They sold it as an idealist move, but it was all about the bottom line. They would do the same to movies, but the money for a movie missing all of the cursing/sex/violence just isn't there. Therefore, when forced to choose between sales with theft or no sales at all, they opt for the choice that gives the most money. That's why it seems like they have "bizarre moralizing policies." It all comes down to money and what they can convince others to do.
Ok, let's assume that Microsoft does indeed corner the market in order to "take control over the entire supply chain." What happens?
First, suppliers are forced out of business (with Microsoft) because the higher prices that Microsoft charges in this scenario inhibit any sort of profit. These suppliers either die or move to PC gaming (assuming Microsoft doesn't control that). With less competition, the developers are left with less initiative to innovate, therefore games start to suck. Fewer people are willing to pay for new games because they suck, which leads to lower profits, more buyouts & mergers of developers, less competition, and overall crappier product.
At this point, consumers will be looking for something else. Queue up new competition. Microsoft is forced to lower what it charges in order to stop developers from leaving to the new console or attract them back if they have already left.
If you don't believe in the likelihood of this happening, take a look back at the US auto industry in the 70's. Before the Japanese auto invasion, US automakers were putting out a lot of crap. Since they were so dominant, inefficiencies abounded and product suffered. All it took was a little bit of real competition and they were forced to change their ways.
If you still don't believe me, look back at Nintendo circa the N64. After their dominance in the early 90's, they restricted the range of developers. Innovative games were stifled if they didn't fit in with Nintendo's ideals. The developers went to the Playstation, and it took Nintendo two more consoles before they finally regained the market share that they had lost.
Finally, it is extremely unlikely that this happens in the first place. There are currently 3 major consoles. Two of those would have to fail before your scenario is even likely. On top of that there are hundreds of independent developers that put out PC games, which would be in direct competition with the Xbox.
This way they are with family that has agreed to take them in. They are improving their fortunes rather than living in (or outside of) a homeless shelter. If they weren't improving their fortune, they wouldn't do it.
The problem occurs when more people attempt to drive on the highway than space (with slack) allows for. The slack is eliminated by the sheer number of people on the freeway. Then your said magnification occurs. The way to reduce this is to reduce the number of people on the road, which is where the "jerk" driving comes into play. Then again, as stated previously, the accidents that they cause certainly slow traffic anyway.
So we should completely give up trying to fix one problem because we have other problems?
Both the relative lack of efficiency and the problem of contamination need to be solved in order for this to be a viable solution. If they solve the contamination issue, it may make it more difficult to increase efficiency, but if they solve the efficiency problem, they may have more difficulty solving the contamination problem. Since they both have to be solved, and, in all likelihood, each problem is just as likely to cause difficulties with the other, why does it matter which is solved first?
That said, I'm highly skeptical of this whole technology, and will continue to be skeptical until they show real evidence that they are capable of doing what they say they can do. In theory, I can design a plane that can fly faster than anything the military has now. In fact, the model airplane I've designed flies faster than any model military plane. Give ME money.
You're discounting everyone who is neither rich nor has had their job replaced by a robot. Take, for instance, the automotive industry. The advances that have taken place simply because machines have taken over for people at many points in the production process are immense. Cars are better engineered because the engineers can make technological advances far more quickly with computers than without. The vehicles are far more efficient because the parts are machined by a computer rather than a person, and are therefore considerably more accurate. Vehicles are considerably cheaper than they would be otherwise because they can be made much more quickly, allowing supply to meet demand (and, too often, exceed demand) at a much lower price point.
Now, you're absolutely right when you say that it's a bad thing that automotive workers will be fired and replaced, in the short run. But the advancements made in the automotive industry allow many people everywhere else to be far more efficient. The people who benefit from this newfound efficiency will go on to spend or invest which in turn creates new jobs.
There is evidence to support this theory. Just a few short decades ago, if someone didn't go to college, it was no big deal, but rather, it was a big deal if someone did. Heck, you could even get a decent job without completing high school. Now however, just completing high school is simply not enough. More than half of all high school graduates are now attending college because that's what they have to do to get a job. Is this a bad thing? Absolutely not. It creates jobs for professors and allows for the advancement of society as a whole.
Granted, my belief in the evolving economy requires that the economy evolves slowly. If there was a sudden dramatic shift towards machinery and artificial intelligence, it would completely destroy anything that currently resembles an economy. Everyone would lose their jobs to computers, and not even the rich would benefit because their money would be worthless as they wouldnâ(TM)t have to pay their new machine slaves anything. At this point, the only reasonable solution would seem to be Communism.
Don't you just hate how Microsoft always tries to manipulate the system to give an unfair advantage to one of their products based on the popularity of another? I can't believe they're at it again. I thought they'd stop after the whole IE/Windows debacle that they have gone through, and to a certain extent are still going through.
I'm glad that you understand that it's not just Microsoft. It seems that the parent really had an issue with Microsoft, since that's the only company that he cited. I'm not saying that Microsoft isn't evil. In fact, I'm fairly certain that they are. But that doesn't somehow make them worse than other businesses. Any for profit entity is motivated by primarily by greed. Any other motivations can almost always be traced back to greed of some sort.
In fact you could say that people in general work the same way. Either so they can put it on their resume or so they can feel good about themselves. Why are followers of Abrahamic religions "good"? So they can go to heaven.
Acting like it is some revelation that Microsoft's "embracing" of the open source community was something other than self serving is silly. Acting like you were in on some secret when you figured that Microsoft had an ulterior motive is downright absurd.
I'm guessing that the guy with 3 pairs of sunglasses over his regular glasses must have been a slashdotter. Where else would you find such ingenuity (and such nerdiness)?
I guess my question is, can Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft stop selling games through Gamestop, EB & the like? Yeah, it wouldn't stop them from selling the used games, but how well is their store going to do if they don't have any NEW merchandise in the shop? I'd venture to guess that a relatively significant portion of sales from these companies is indeed new merchandise and without those sales, the companies would have trouble staying open.
Yes, because everyone carries all of those at the same time. Most people just leave their GPS in the car and only have their camera with them when they are planning to use it.
Even now though, if you look at the stereotypical anti-geek, the teenage girl, they will often have their phone, mp3 player and camera on them at all times. It is not unreasonable for someone to own all 4 of these devices individually, especially if they value having battery life on their phone.
Personally, I'm not really worried. Because of the AO rating, obscene games are commercially not viable, but they are not completely banned. Even the most gruesomely violent games aren't censored, and only in extremely rare cases are overtly sexually games completely banned from being sold. I have some issues with this, but I can handle it.
The point where it would cross into being a problem for me is if they banned the ownership of sexual video games, which I don't believe has happened in most of the free world. So long as the development of the video game doesn't negatively affect other people (as is the case with the creation of child porn), I don't believe that the government should have any right to restrict that game's ownership.
Another important consideration right now is the economy. With a declining economy, people are cutting back on luxury items, which a GPS certainly is. Also, a GPS unit is relatively durable, so if I bought one last year, I have no need to buy one again this year. Combine these two, and it's easy to see a significant decline in sales, even without considering smart phones.
Now, like the Swiss Army knife, the smart phone's capabilities are not near what a standalone tool does. You want a camera that gets more than 2 megapixels? Sorry, the iPhone doesn't do that. You want an mp3 player with amazing sound quality and a long battery life? Looks like you'll have to purchase a standalone. With the economy the way it is, however, people are willing to pass on having really good products and are taking the lower quality versions in the cost-saving "bundle" of the smart phone. As consumer confidence grows, I think the increase in sales of said standalone products will increase at a rate greater than the growth of the rest of the economy.
If the energy use in making the urea industrially is greater than the energy gain from extracting the hydrogen from urea, then you're back at square one. I can't verify that this is the case necessarily, but it is one thing to consider.
I guess the important part of your argument is "to anyone else who happens to be looking at the same area."
Because the screen shows constantly changing random words, it would be difficult for someone approaching your screen to figure out exactly which point on the screen you were looking at. Plus, if you moved your eyes at all, the unauthorized viewer would have to figure out which new point on the screen to watch. Because of this, it would be extremely difficult (although not impossible) for anyone to figure out exactly what you were reading unless they were standing right over your shoulder.
Overall, though, it would probably make more sense, and be cheaper, to avoid working on your private material where other people can see your screen.
The two situations are completely different, though, in that alcohol is an easy to make recreational drug whereas that is not the necessarily the case with acetaminophen based painkillers. The comment was meant to be tongue in cheek, and if you want me to take it seriously, the short, extremely simple arguments that I make are quite easy to tear apart.
Man, I was seriously just thinking about how great/stupid it would be to make a game out of asteroids last night. Seriously, the game had no story line, so you could be as creative as you wanted, but the movie would likely have NOTHING to do with the game other than the title and a few really crappy circumstances to call for a ship blowing up asteroids.
Well, the same can be said for alcohol, let's ban that. Wait, we tried? And failed? Damn.
We should probably ban water, too, then. After all, if you're holding your wee for a Wii, too much water has proven deadly.
Truth be told, in moderation, most things are fine. If you're too stupid to follow the directions given by your doctor/pharmacy, you deserve a little bit of liver damage. Since the liver is your only organ that regenerates, you probably won't even die.
Slashdot Mirror
"Industry and trade associations estimate that counterfeiting and piracy now cost the U.S. economy as much as $250 billion a year and a total of 750,000 American jobs."
Where is this money going?!? Are pirates burning the money or something? I cannot understand how this money disappears.
To me it would seem that this actually introduces money to the economy. This guy hacks consoles for a fee, thus creating "money." Since there is a monetary transaction, this is good for the economy, at least in the short run. But why are people paying this student for his services? To save money that they would have otherwise spent on games!
What's happening to that money that they have saved? That must be the money that the pirates are burning, since it isn't going back into the economy, that is, if we are to believe the "Industry and trade associations." In reality, that money is either being spent or saved. If these console hacker customers are spending the money, then the economy benefits in the short run, and, indirectly, the long run. If it is saved, it should still benefit the economy in the long run, as it makes more money available for loans, which would then be used to make business more efficient, allowing for job creation, or just spent outright on a house or car or something.
So how is this piracy costing the economy jobs? I just donâ(TM)t get it. I get that this is costing the âoeindustry and trade associationsâ money, and thus costing money to all those who are along the supply lines of the video games, but really, this money is just being spent elsewhere, not disappearing.
Now donâ(TM)t get me wrong. I think that this guy deserves to be punished. He broke the law and should be punished. I do not agree with piracy and understand the harm that it does to the creative process. Less money for video game makers means worse games, etc. I just hate this specific argument.
"Also, assuming the companies paying "increasingly ridiculous" salaries are reasonably sane, they will only pay those salaries if it will help them increase their revenue or reduce their costs at least as much as the cost of the salary, so there's a limit to how much they are willing to pay."
In the short term, you are 100% correct. However, if the company deems that it needs new employees, and the only way that they can afford the new employees is to raise prices slightly, then they are going to raise prices slightly. Then, after everyone else does the same, when they need to hire new employees, they have to raise prices a little more, then a little more, then a little more. These small increases in prices, and then wages, add up. This just causes inflation without necessarily increasing the purchasing power of the workers. This is where the "increasingly ridiculous" salaries come from, and the reason that your limit is only valid in the short term.
The thing to remember is that just because you are smart enough to know that there aren't extra nutrients in organic food doesn't mean that everyone is. Also, just because the people that sell you your organic food don't tell you that it is more nutritious, doesn't mean that others aren't telling people that their organic food IS more nutritious.
Many people all over the place, either directly or indirectly, insinuate that organic food has more nutrients. Yesterday they were discussing organic food on Wisconsin Public Radio and both the guest and the host alluded to the nutritional benefits of eating organic. This is thought pollution of even the most intellectual crowd. Now, I'm not going to argue against organic food, because it does have many benefits, however it is important to know exactly what those benefits are.
Walmart doesn't censor music based on morals. It was almost entirely a loss prevention move. CDs without offensive language draw the type of people that are unlikely to steal. Those that are likely to steal are unlikely to buy censored music.
They sold it as an idealist move, but it was all about the bottom line. They would do the same to movies, but the money for a movie missing all of the cursing/sex/violence just isn't there. Therefore, when forced to choose between sales with theft or no sales at all, they opt for the choice that gives the most money. That's why it seems like they have "bizarre moralizing policies." It all comes down to money and what they can convince others to do.
Ok, let's assume that Microsoft does indeed corner the market in order to "take control over the entire supply chain." What happens?
First, suppliers are forced out of business (with Microsoft) because the higher prices that Microsoft charges in this scenario inhibit any sort of profit. These suppliers either die or move to PC gaming (assuming Microsoft doesn't control that). With less competition, the developers are left with less initiative to innovate, therefore games start to suck. Fewer people are willing to pay for new games because they suck, which leads to lower profits, more buyouts & mergers of developers, less competition, and overall crappier product.
At this point, consumers will be looking for something else. Queue up new competition. Microsoft is forced to lower what it charges in order to stop developers from leaving to the new console or attract them back if they have already left.
If you don't believe in the likelihood of this happening, take a look back at the US auto industry in the 70's. Before the Japanese auto invasion, US automakers were putting out a lot of crap. Since they were so dominant, inefficiencies abounded and product suffered. All it took was a little bit of real competition and they were forced to change their ways.
If you still don't believe me, look back at Nintendo circa the N64. After their dominance in the early 90's, they restricted the range of developers. Innovative games were stifled if they didn't fit in with Nintendo's ideals. The developers went to the Playstation, and it took Nintendo two more consoles before they finally regained the market share that they had lost.
Finally, it is extremely unlikely that this happens in the first place. There are currently 3 major consoles. Two of those would have to fail before your scenario is even likely. On top of that there are hundreds of independent developers that put out PC games, which would be in direct competition with the Xbox.
This way they are with family that has agreed to take them in. They are improving their fortunes rather than living in (or outside of) a homeless shelter. If they weren't improving their fortune, they wouldn't do it.
Well, except for the insane ones.
The problem occurs when more people attempt to drive on the highway than space (with slack) allows for. The slack is eliminated by the sheer number of people on the freeway. Then your said magnification occurs. The way to reduce this is to reduce the number of people on the road, which is where the "jerk" driving comes into play. Then again, as stated previously, the accidents that they cause certainly slow traffic anyway.
So we should completely give up trying to fix one problem because we have other problems?
Both the relative lack of efficiency and the problem of contamination need to be solved in order for this to be a viable solution. If they solve the contamination issue, it may make it more difficult to increase efficiency, but if they solve the efficiency problem, they may have more difficulty solving the contamination problem. Since they both have to be solved, and, in all likelihood, each problem is just as likely to cause difficulties with the other, why does it matter which is solved first?
That said, I'm highly skeptical of this whole technology, and will continue to be skeptical until they show real evidence that they are capable of doing what they say they can do. In theory, I can design a plane that can fly faster than anything the military has now. In fact, the model airplane I've designed flies faster than any model military plane. Give ME money.
You're discounting everyone who is neither rich nor has had their job replaced by a robot. Take, for instance, the automotive industry. The advances that have taken place simply because machines have taken over for people at many points in the production process are immense. Cars are better engineered because the engineers can make technological advances far more quickly with computers than without. The vehicles are far more efficient because the parts are machined by a computer rather than a person, and are therefore considerably more accurate. Vehicles are considerably cheaper than they would be otherwise because they can be made much more quickly, allowing supply to meet demand (and, too often, exceed demand) at a much lower price point.
Now, you're absolutely right when you say that it's a bad thing that automotive workers will be fired and replaced, in the short run. But the advancements made in the automotive industry allow many people everywhere else to be far more efficient. The people who benefit from this newfound efficiency will go on to spend or invest which in turn creates new jobs.
There is evidence to support this theory. Just a few short decades ago, if someone didn't go to college, it was no big deal, but rather, it was a big deal if someone did. Heck, you could even get a decent job without completing high school. Now however, just completing high school is simply not enough. More than half of all high school graduates are now attending college because that's what they have to do to get a job. Is this a bad thing? Absolutely not. It creates jobs for professors and allows for the advancement of society as a whole.
Granted, my belief in the evolving economy requires that the economy evolves slowly. If there was a sudden dramatic shift towards machinery and artificial intelligence, it would completely destroy anything that currently resembles an economy. Everyone would lose their jobs to computers, and not even the rich would benefit because their money would be worthless as they wouldnâ(TM)t have to pay their new machine slaves anything. At this point, the only reasonable solution would seem to be Communism.
Don't you just hate how Microsoft always tries to manipulate the system to give an unfair advantage to one of their products based on the popularity of another? I can't believe they're at it again. I thought they'd stop after the whole IE/Windows debacle that they have gone through, and to a certain extent are still going through.
Oh wait.
I'm glad that you understand that it's not just Microsoft. It seems that the parent really had an issue with Microsoft, since that's the only company that he cited. I'm not saying that Microsoft isn't evil. In fact, I'm fairly certain that they are. But that doesn't somehow make them worse than other businesses. Any for profit entity is motivated by primarily by greed. Any other motivations can almost always be traced back to greed of some sort.
In fact you could say that people in general work the same way. Either so they can put it on their resume or so they can feel good about themselves. Why are followers of Abrahamic religions "good"? So they can go to heaven.
Acting like it is some revelation that Microsoft's "embracing" of the open source community was something other than self serving is silly. Acting like you were in on some secret when you figured that Microsoft had an ulterior motive is downright absurd.
I'm guessing that the guy with 3 pairs of sunglasses over his regular glasses must have been a slashdotter. Where else would you find such ingenuity (and such nerdiness)?
Whoever you are, I salute you, my friend.
I guess my question is, can Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft stop selling games through Gamestop, EB & the like? Yeah, it wouldn't stop them from selling the used games, but how well is their store going to do if they don't have any NEW merchandise in the shop? I'd venture to guess that a relatively significant portion of sales from these companies is indeed new merchandise and without those sales, the companies would have trouble staying open.
Yes, because everyone carries all of those at the same time. Most people just leave their GPS in the car and only have their camera with them when they are planning to use it.
Even now though, if you look at the stereotypical anti-geek, the teenage girl, they will often have their phone, mp3 player and camera on them at all times. It is not unreasonable for someone to own all 4 of these devices individually, especially if they value having battery life on their phone.
to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
Personally, I'm not really worried. Because of the AO rating, obscene games are commercially not viable, but they are not completely banned. Even the most gruesomely violent games aren't censored, and only in extremely rare cases are overtly sexually games completely banned from being sold. I have some issues with this, but I can handle it.
The point where it would cross into being a problem for me is if they banned the ownership of sexual video games, which I don't believe has happened in most of the free world. So long as the development of the video game doesn't negatively affect other people (as is the case with the creation of child porn), I don't believe that the government should have any right to restrict that game's ownership.
Another important consideration right now is the economy. With a declining economy, people are cutting back on luxury items, which a GPS certainly is. Also, a GPS unit is relatively durable, so if I bought one last year, I have no need to buy one again this year. Combine these two, and it's easy to see a significant decline in sales, even without considering smart phones.
Now, like the Swiss Army knife, the smart phone's capabilities are not near what a standalone tool does. You want a camera that gets more than 2 megapixels? Sorry, the iPhone doesn't do that. You want an mp3 player with amazing sound quality and a long battery life? Looks like you'll have to purchase a standalone. With the economy the way it is, however, people are willing to pass on having really good products and are taking the lower quality versions in the cost-saving "bundle" of the smart phone. As consumer confidence grows, I think the increase in sales of said standalone products will increase at a rate greater than the growth of the rest of the economy.
If the energy use in making the urea industrially is greater than the energy gain from extracting the hydrogen from urea, then you're back at square one. I can't verify that this is the case necessarily, but it is one thing to consider.
Wow, you must have a really high opinion of the remaining 5% if you're willing to wade through that much crap.
I guess the important part of your argument is "to anyone else who happens to be looking at the same area."
Because the screen shows constantly changing random words, it would be difficult for someone approaching your screen to figure out exactly which point on the screen you were looking at. Plus, if you moved your eyes at all, the unauthorized viewer would have to figure out which new point on the screen to watch. Because of this, it would be extremely difficult (although not impossible) for anyone to figure out exactly what you were reading unless they were standing right over your shoulder.
Overall, though, it would probably make more sense, and be cheaper, to avoid working on your private material where other people can see your screen.
Well, they failed when they banned it outright.
The two situations are completely different, though, in that alcohol is an easy to make recreational drug whereas that is not the necessarily the case with acetaminophen based painkillers. The comment was meant to be tongue in cheek, and if you want me to take it seriously, the short, extremely simple arguments that I make are quite easy to tear apart.
Man, I was seriously just thinking about how great/stupid it would be to make a game out of asteroids last night. Seriously, the game had no story line, so you could be as creative as you wanted, but the movie would likely have NOTHING to do with the game other than the title and a few really crappy circumstances to call for a ship blowing up asteroids.
Well, the same can be said for alcohol, let's ban that. Wait, we tried? And failed? Damn.
We should probably ban water, too, then. After all, if you're holding your wee for a Wii, too much water has proven deadly.
Truth be told, in moderation, most things are fine. If you're too stupid to follow the directions given by your doctor/pharmacy, you deserve a little bit of liver damage. Since the liver is your only organ that regenerates, you probably won't even die.
But we're all better now.
I know, I know, that's dissociative identity disorder, but you still laughed. Maybe.
Try taking away the parents.