you've created a fifth - with the required coordination, communication, and hand-off burden
On the other hand, you allow people to specialize more instead of needing them to do things they aren't specialized for because their company can't maintain competitiveness if hiring another person.
You've also reduced the income of the people with jobs by 20%
Far less than 20%. Modern societies already spend a great deal of money dealing with people who don't have jobs.
and for a lot of people, that's the difference between "we can afford heat this week," and "break out the blankets."
Most of those people are that way exactly because they don't have a solid job. Either that, or they live in a country that maintain stupidly minimum wages.
Or is there a fixed number of jobs in the world, and they're passed down like heirlooms?
No, there is a variable amount of jobs in the world, that depend on consumers being wealthy and willing to spend.
Because as far as I can see, investing money in the stock market - which gives other businesses capital to grow - is *exactly* how jobs are created in the real world.
That is where your insight fails to hit the target. You are so close, but yet completely wrong. Jobs are created because
* Someone wants something and is able to pay for it. * Someone else is willing and able to provide it.
From that, investment and production comes naturally as long as you don't have too much interference. Trying to create supply without demand always fails in the long run. And that is why lowering taxes on the rich is bad.
Coincidently, supply side economics isn't solely a capitalistic idea. And it worked just as badly under communism.
Yes, because the worst pain you can feel is in your wallet, you drooling fuckwad.
If you think that I was talking about the loss of money, then you are a drooling fuckwad.
Being deceived, about love no less, is what causes pain. It is just as huge a violation as rape.
So when it comes down to it, and you deduce the similar emotional pains from each side of the equation, you are left with the physical part of the rape vs the money part of the scam. Unless you are extremely severely raped, I doubt the physical part of the rape is worth $200,000.
First of all - what the fuck is wrong with you that you compare this to rape?
Agreed. In some ways it is worse than rape. Emotionally pains from getting scammed or raped are both huge. However, rape doesn't leave monetary hurts behind.
You can solve TSP for 1 million cities if you're willing to wait a few billion years, but the fact that you're waiting a few billion years makes it infeasible.
Are you sure there is enough energy in the whole universe to compute 2^1000000+ instructions? Even if time is not an issue, the laws of thermodynamics may very well be.
My idea is that copyright is supposed to serve society's interests. For that it should aim to maximize the incentive to produce works.
Two things. First of all, your aim contradicts your idea. Specifically, your aim places the act of producing above people actually experiencing what is produced.
Secondly, your implementation contradicts your aim/idea.
For society, the value of a piece of art is the combined value received by all those experiencing that piece of art. (plus possible extra network effect value).
Copyright by definition tries to restrict the number of people experiencing any specific piece of arts, and as such is quite counterproductive. The only one real societal argument for copyright at all, is that it has the possibility to increase the value of each piece of art is experienced even though fewer people experience it (quality over quantity).
Claiming that copyright is good because it increases quantity is therefore in direct contradiction to any idea of maximizing societal benefit. If you want to maintain a pro-copyright position, quality should be your stance. Anything else is just too easily argued against.
The only times banks gave out loans to people with little chance of paying them off was when they were pressured by the government via the CRA
It would be nice if you actually had any statistics to back that up. When I search around, I seem to be getting results indicating that CRA loans are faring better than non CRA loans.
Of course, not completely unexpected, as banks would tend to be far more strict conservative when giving "forced" loans in areas perceived as risky.
What do you think would happen if suddenly texts of laws meant what the general public thought they meant (mostly nothing at all) ?
You get the exact situation we have now, where law texts aren't keeping pace with actual changes in language, making them near unreadable to anyone but a trained lawyer. So your point is null and void.
You mean like voting yourselves freebie entitlements with no money to pay for itand not voting the taxes to fund it?
A good direct democratic system will not allow for that. There are several ways to prevent it, the simplest being to require all government spending bills to be percentages of the total income of the government. If you vote to increase the spending percentage of one area, all other areas gets reduced.
Our country is a republic because tyranny of the majority has more problems.
It isn't like your republic run government has been doing any better. The only reason it is in a better shape than California is because it can print its own money. If it couldn't it would be even worse of.
As for the tyranny of the majority. That is just a made up philosophical deception. The tyranny of the majority has never proven to be any worse than the tyranny of the minority.
Yup. Security works by whitelisting, not blacklisting. Antivirus is like having a list of all the users who aren't allowed to sign onto the system, and allowing everyone else to sign on.
For real program access security you should use sandboxing, virtualization and program access levels.
What seems daft to me is charging a VICTIM with a crime when all they are doing is defending themselves. This is the situation in far too many places around the world.
Which is why I fully support the right of pedestrians to use automatic weapons against any car driving above the speed limit.
Also, don't forget about the right of RIAA/MPAA to form assassination squads to chase down copyright violators. Seriously, they need to be allowed to defend their property
More than 50% of the children in my country will grow up in poverty. That's 50% will grow up beneath the poverty line
Not being able to keep a buffer is not a matter of poverty or not. It is a matter of foresight and discipline. In fact, if you live in poverty, a buffer is even more important than if you are rich, because the margins of error is smaller.
Except that copyright doesn't encourage content creation.
Seriously, how anyone can think that copyright actually encourages content creation is beyond me. The whole point of copyright is to make sure that you don't have to constantly create new works, but instead can rely on your existing productions to provide income.
Look in the Crimecode (Brottsbalken) chapter 23, paragraph 6. There are also some more specific laws where some people are required to report certain crimes.
Of course, none of them probably applies to this specific case. But claiming that there are no such laws whatsoever is wrong.
However I have a hard time plopping down $1000+ for a gaming PC when games on a $300 xbox or playstation look only marginally worse.
However I have a hard time spending $300 on an xbox/playstation when I can buy a $100 graphic card for my PC and get graphics that looks marginally better than any console.
If I wanted to play a game, and that game is selling for $60 but instead I pirate that game, I have DEPRIVED (HARMED) the developer of that game.
But you also had $60 remaining which you spent to buy another game benefiting another developer instead. It all came out to plus minus zero for the developers combined. Although I guess according to your "logic", the second developer DEPRIVED (HARMED) the first developer by producing a game that you bought instead of the other game.
Oh, and I almost forgot. You got to play two games instead of one.
Free riders are a problem. Learn some economics before you start with the "hurts no one" crap.
It simply doesn't coincide with the incredible amounts of historical evidence to the contrary. Free riding has been vital to the progress of human kind. In fact, each and every generation is free riding on the last.
Would we see a decline in the number and quality of "artists" producing new works?
Probably. Would having the whole population having free access to all the art ever produced be worth it?
But I disagree. The person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product", and doesn't buy it, has taken a very clear moral stance. On the other hand, the person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product" - and steals it - that person has some explaining to do.
What is the moral difference between buying a new game for $60 and pirating two other new games, or waiting three years and buying them all for $20 each? Most people have a relatively fixed budget for entertainment, and the only things that changes that budget is their economic wellbeing. Trying to make it into a moral debate only succeeds if you assume that pirates don't buy any entertainment. And while you can find pirates who don't buy anything, they aren't the majority. Statistics shows that the average pirate buys more of the entertainment that he pirates than the average person does. Not completely surprising, as fixed entertainment budgets is funneled into things of interest.
But then again. Your whole "value" argument is based on economic pseudo theory. A theory where everyone makes profits on arbitrage and value enhancing, and no other motivations or actions exist. The amusing thing is that the theory requires you to have endpoints (consumers) that you can sell the final goods to, but doesn't actually allow for the behavior of those consumers. That is why it sounds so twisted and wrong when you try to apply it to people instead of businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
This is where things started to go seriously wrong. The external power generators could not be connected to the power plant (the plugs did not fit).
I think everyone can relate to that in one way or another.
you've created a fifth - with the required coordination, communication, and hand-off burden
On the other hand, you allow people to specialize more instead of needing them to do things they aren't specialized for because their company can't maintain competitiveness if hiring another person.
You've also reduced the income of the people with jobs by 20%
Far less than 20%. Modern societies already spend a great deal of money dealing with people who don't have jobs.
and for a lot of people, that's the difference between "we can afford heat this week," and "break out the blankets."
Most of those people are that way exactly because they don't have a solid job. Either that, or they live in a country that maintain stupidly minimum wages.
Or is there a fixed number of jobs in the world, and they're passed down like heirlooms?
No, there is a variable amount of jobs in the world, that depend on consumers being wealthy and willing to spend.
Because as far as I can see, investing money in the stock market - which gives other businesses capital to grow - is *exactly* how jobs are created in the real world.
That is where your insight fails to hit the target. You are so close, but yet completely wrong. Jobs are created because
* Someone wants something and is able to pay for it.
* Someone else is willing and able to provide it.
From that, investment and production comes naturally as long as you don't have too much interference. Trying to create supply without demand always fails in the long run. And that is why lowering taxes on the rich is bad.
Coincidently, supply side economics isn't solely a capitalistic idea. And it worked just as badly under communism.
Yes, because the worst pain you can feel is in your wallet, you drooling fuckwad.
If you think that I was talking about the loss of money, then you are a drooling fuckwad.
Being deceived, about love no less, is what causes pain. It is just as huge a violation as rape.
So when it comes down to it, and you deduce the similar emotional pains from each side of the equation, you are left with the physical part of the rape vs the money part of the scam. Unless you are extremely severely raped, I doubt the physical part of the rape is worth $200,000.
Unless you count babies,
Abortion
medical bills from particularly violent rapes
Any sane country don't have rape victims paying medical bills.
or psychiatric bills from the trauma of rape...
And you think there isn't trauma from being swindled out of a large sum of money?
Why didn't he check that she was a real person. Would have cost less than 200k.
Darwinism at work folks. Move along, nothing to see here.
This is why I fully blame the victims of serial murderers. If you are stupid enough to get killed by a serial killer, it is Darwinism at work.
First of all - what the fuck is wrong with you that you compare this to rape?
Agreed. In some ways it is worse than rape. Emotionally pains from getting scammed or raped are both huge. However, rape doesn't leave monetary hurts behind.
You can solve TSP for 1 million cities if you're willing to wait a few billion years, but the fact that you're waiting a few billion years makes it infeasible.
Are you sure there is enough energy in the whole universe to compute 2^1000000+ instructions? Even if time is not an issue, the laws of thermodynamics may very well be.
My idea is that copyright is supposed to serve society's interests. For that it should aim to maximize the incentive to produce works.
Two things. First of all, your aim contradicts your idea. Specifically, your aim places the act of producing above people actually experiencing what is produced.
Secondly, your implementation contradicts your aim/idea.
For society, the value of a piece of art is the combined value received by all those experiencing that piece of art. (plus possible extra network effect value).
Copyright by definition tries to restrict the number of people experiencing any specific piece of arts, and as such is quite counterproductive. The only one real societal argument for copyright at all, is that it has the possibility to increase the value of each piece of art is experienced even though fewer people experience it (quality over quantity).
Claiming that copyright is good because it increases quantity is therefore in direct contradiction to any idea of maximizing societal benefit. If you want to maintain a pro-copyright position, quality should be your stance. Anything else is just too easily argued against.
Nah, those don't work either. Sooner or later we always end up back at the same place.
Sure, but I prefer the later alternative, rather than the now alternative.
The only times banks gave out loans to people with little chance of paying them off was when they were pressured by the government via the CRA
It would be nice if you actually had any statistics to back that up. When I search around, I seem to be getting results indicating that CRA loans are faring better than non CRA loans.
Of course, not completely unexpected, as banks would tend to be far more strict conservative when giving "forced" loans in areas perceived as risky.
What do you think would happen if suddenly texts of laws meant what the general public thought they meant (mostly nothing at all) ?
You get the exact situation we have now, where law texts aren't keeping pace with actual changes in language, making them near unreadable to anyone but a trained lawyer. So your point is null and void.
NAT works.
Nightmare address truncation works?Seriously, the only ones who say that are bastard operators from hell.
Random user PC that is used to browse the web does not need a real IP, all incoming ports would be blocked by a firewall anyway
I support my case.
And yes, the US Constitution protects against the tyranny of the majority
Too bad it doesn't protect the majority from the tyranny of the minority which is a far more common problem.
You mean like voting yourselves freebie entitlements with no money to pay for itand not voting the taxes to fund it?
A good direct democratic system will not allow for that. There are several ways to prevent it, the simplest being to require all government spending bills to be percentages of the total income of the government. If you vote to increase the spending percentage of one area, all other areas gets reduced.
Our country is a republic because tyranny of the majority has more problems.
It isn't like your republic run government has been doing any better. The only reason it is in a better shape than California is because it can print its own money. If it couldn't it would be even worse of.
As for the tyranny of the majority. That is just a made up philosophical deception. The tyranny of the majority has never proven to be any worse than the tyranny of the minority.
Yup. Security works by whitelisting, not blacklisting. Antivirus is like having a list of all the users who aren't allowed to sign onto the system, and allowing everyone else to sign on.
For real program access security you should use sandboxing, virtualization and program access levels.
What seems daft to me is charging a VICTIM with a crime when all they are doing is defending themselves. This is the situation in far too many places around the world.
Which is why I fully support the right of pedestrians to use automatic weapons against any car driving above the speed limit.
Also, don't forget about the right of RIAA/MPAA to form assassination squads to chase down copyright violators. Seriously, they need to be allowed to defend their property
More than 50% of the children in my country will grow up in poverty. That's 50% will grow up beneath the poverty line
Not being able to keep a buffer is not a matter of poverty or not. It is a matter of foresight and discipline. In fact, if you live in poverty, a buffer is even more important than if you are rich, because the margins of error is smaller.
Elect authoritarian wing governments out of fear of minorities,
Corrected to point out that left-right isn't the issue here.
Except that copyright doesn't encourage content creation.
Seriously, how anyone can think that copyright actually encourages content creation is beyond me. The whole point of copyright is to make sure that you don't have to constantly create new works, but instead can rely on your existing productions to provide income.
None whatsoever.
Look in the Crimecode (Brottsbalken) chapter 23, paragraph 6. There are also some more specific laws where some people are required to report certain crimes.
Of course, none of them probably applies to this specific case. But claiming that there are no such laws whatsoever is wrong.
However I have a hard time plopping down $1000+ for a gaming PC when games on a $300 xbox or playstation look only marginally worse.
However I have a hard time spending $300 on an xbox/playstation when I can buy a $100 graphic card for my PC and get graphics that looks marginally better than any console.
If I wanted to play a game, and that game is selling for $60 but instead I pirate that game, I have DEPRIVED (HARMED) the developer of that game.
But you also had $60 remaining which you spent to buy another game benefiting another developer instead. It all came out to plus minus zero for the developers combined. Although I guess according to your "logic", the second developer DEPRIVED (HARMED) the first developer by producing a game that you bought instead of the other game.
Oh, and I almost forgot. You got to play two games instead of one.
Free riders are a problem. Learn some economics before you start with the "hurts no one" crap.
It simply doesn't coincide with the incredible amounts of historical evidence to the contrary. Free riding has been vital to the progress of human kind. In fact, each and every generation is free riding on the last.
Would we see a decline in the number and quality of "artists" producing new works?
Probably. Would having the whole population having free access to all the art ever produced be worth it?
But I disagree. The person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product", and doesn't buy it, has taken a very clear moral stance. On the other hand, the person who says "I don't see sufficient value in that product" - and steals it - that person has some explaining to do.
What is the moral difference between buying a new game for $60 and pirating two other new games, or waiting three years and buying them all for $20 each? Most people have a relatively fixed budget for entertainment, and the only things that changes that budget is their economic wellbeing. Trying to make it into a moral debate only succeeds if you assume that pirates don't buy any entertainment. And while you can find pirates who don't buy anything, they aren't the majority. Statistics shows that the average pirate buys more of the entertainment that he pirates than the average person does. Not completely surprising, as fixed entertainment budgets is funneled into things of interest.
But then again. Your whole "value" argument is based on economic pseudo theory. A theory where everyone makes profits on arbitrage and value enhancing, and no other motivations or actions exist. The amusing thing is that the theory requires you to have endpoints (consumers) that you can sell the final goods to, but doesn't actually allow for the behavior of those consumers. That is why it sounds so twisted and wrong when you try to apply it to people instead of businesses.