Re:Burn out at work is not always work related!
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Funny, one of my first properties was a trailer. No one in my park was trash. I paid the trailer off in a year and saved enough to buy a cheap condo for cash. The condo did not compare with the quality of life in the trailer.
In fact, I'm reconsidering trailer living because of the housing bubble. I would probably save $20,000/year, and get almost $200,000 freed in over-inflated equity.
Don't knock it. Trailer > Apartment IMHO.
Re:Burn out at work is not always work related!
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 1
Some employers take advantage because they know their employees need them due to debt.
Most employers WANT happy employees. Those that don't rarely survive.
If you have a stressful job, it should compensate you well. If it doesn't, I doubt the company will survive long that way.
Ah, but money in this case has two defining factors:
1. Is it liquid cash available to you, debt free? 2. Do you have any debt burdens that will reduce your income in the future?
I believe having debt is a key element in job burn out, as it is a key element that scares people into thinking they need their current job.
Even saving just 10% of your gross income should reduce your stress levels a thousand-fold. And give your wife even more reasons to have sex with you:)
I'm no Republican. But I think Bush has done more for the welfare state that Clinton has, especially with the recent support to bail out New Orleans (a welfare state created disaster). Don't bring Republican vs. Democrat politics into this, both parties are at fault for the lost of morality in this country. I don't want to enforce my morals on you in any way using any law. I just want you to stop taking from me to finance your agenda, conservative or liberal. Theft is still wrong.
I was laughing today about some news article that says our country's initiative to ask for donations to fund the War on Iraq only netted $600 total. I'm not sure how true this is, but it was funny.
I wonder if we cut Federal and State taxes to bare minimums and asked for private donations to support many of these "needed programs" how much people would donate. Not much, likely. Which means the programs aren't deemed necessary.
Re:Burn out at work is not always work related!
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
When did I say you don't need a job? I just mentioned you can SWITCH jobs.
I'm 31. I can live stress-free on $10 per hour. But I like toys so I work harder. When I get close to feeling stressed, I cut back on work, which means cuts back on toys. But if you buy toys on credit, expect there to be no easy way to cut back on the stress that will likely follow.
Re:Burn out at work is not always work related!
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 1
Yes, its just that easy.
Live at home and save every dime over living expenses. Even earning $10 per hour as a teenager/early 20's can net you a very nice nest egg for later in life.
But all the kids/youth I know have iPods, new cars, nice rental apartments downtown, 3 nights-out-a-week, DVDs and home theaters. And they wonder why they're stressed at work.
Haha. In a free market, you can't "create" new money via inflation as our government do. If a company found a way to market a product that everyone needed, it would be nearly impossible for the money to all go to one company/industry/product.
I don't really see it being possible for one company to harness any new product or service forever. Competition always drives people to chase after big ticket items.
I wish that was the answer, but I don't have kids yet for expressly this reason. Property taxes are my reason for not having kids -- I don't believe I could afford to raise them in an environment they need while I'm still paying to nanny over other peoples' kids.:)
I'm no conservative, but I am religious. I just don't mix my religion with my politics, ever. I also believe that grades 7-12 are mostly worthless when you can mix a mentorship program in industry as well as specific education related to a career goal.
I "stopped learning" around 8th grade although I did finish high school. I started my first business in 7th grade that continues to this day, and if it wasn't for the mentorship I received from my earliest employers, I'd be 10 years behind.
Burn out at work is not always work related!
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I have to say that this article makes me feel crazier than I normally do.
With so many people out of work, it seems almost like biting the hand that feeds you to complain about your work conditions and expect your employer to care. Your employer's role is to provide work for you. Your job is to do that work. The employer should "care" in order to make you the most efficient you can be, but it is not their job to make sure you don't have other life ills that may cause you to take on more than you can handle. All my employees who have burned out in the past were replaced by people who accepted more pressure, more time constraints, and more deadlines without burning out. Those who burned out with me had burned out in the past and continue to burn out to this day. There are many reasons why they've burned out, and few of them had anything to do with the job.
Job burnout has more to do with the lack of appreciation and reward an employee receives for his or her efforts than an increased work load. NO. Job burnout has more to do with the fact that the employee sacrifices himself for a crappy job, why? Maybe because he's in terrible debt! Get your finances in order, and you can walk away from ANY bad job. Never tell me you NEED your job because of financial struggle. Maybe his girlfriend is a manic depressive freak who constantly pulls him away from his other responsibilities. Maybe he's got a habit that he can't kick, or he's got some baggage that makes him want to succeed no matter what. You made your bed, sleep in it.
Those suffering from job burnout feel no sense of accomplishment from and no control over their work lives. So walk away. Start your own company. SAVE. The Chinese are saving up to 40% of their income. The Americans are now saving 1%, 30% of all mortgages lately are interest-only. Why are you stressed: job or real life?
Today to get ahead and save for a reasonable retirement, workers often must hop from company to company to get a promotion. Ahhh! The average employee puts almost 15% of his income away in Social Security that he knows he will never see! How about if he put 15% of his income into his own house, savings account, vacation, or whatever? How much happier would he be? Do NOT say that employers are responsible for YOUR retirement. What are we teaching our next generation? That is it someone else's responsibility to take care of us in our old age.
Everyone is expendable, thanks to many employers' short-term, economic goals. I've run 7 businesses in the 15 years I've been in business. ALL of them had long-term goals, but I also realized that a LOT of my employees would be short term as they learned from me and found someone willing to pay the more. The wonderful free market allows people to do this. Those I invested the most in I had the most reason to pay better and give better fringe benefits to. Those who left because someone was willing to pay more than me found themselves in a better position. Those that complained I wasn't paying enough were not worth more to me, and not worth more to anyone else either it seemed.
The job conflicted with my values. I was mentally and physically exhausted and suffered from chronic stomach problems. Oh, I didn't realize this guy was forced to keep this job. Did his employer put a gun to his head? Did he have absolutely no other options to get a job? Did he really LIKE the pain it caused him?
Not dealing with a burned-out employee can undermine your organization's health and lead to a burnout epidemic. In the free market this is called "bankruptcy" and rarely has to do with employee's health. When all your employees are getting burned out, it is likely that the business was failing in many other areas.
It is very important to realize that there are MANY reasons why people burn out in work, in relationships, in friendships, in life in general. To blame employers for this VERY complex situation is ridiculous, and I believe t
The problem is that when we "ram" a product down a consumer's throat, we have to initiate some force to do it. Only government is legally allowed to use force, so when government gets involved, you can be sure that the unions will get involved as well. And when the unions get involved, you can be sure that what is in the best interest of THEIR customers (the teachers in this case) will be the outcome.
Isn't it funny that our own government, that can do no wrong, has the biggest percentage of union workers -- who don't trust their bosses to do what is right?
Some may say that it was a waste of time and money, but a great deal of practical good was done by the space program.
At what cost? Did the extra cost create better value for the speed of delivery of these new products?
Transistor radios and tiny televisions predated NASA's "inventions" by a decade.
The world's first telecommunications satellite (Telstar) was launched in 1962 by a private company, not our government.
Motorola's radio technology was a key factor behind the cellular phone, not anything NASA had produced.
I'm not sure I back the theory that NASA was responsible for some of mankind's greatest products. In fact, I just watched them spend $1.5 billion dollars of tax payer money NOT fixing a problem they promised to fix that killed half a dozen people. $1.5 billion per taxpayer is only about $20 per household, so I'm sure no one cares. $1.5 billion dollars spent by private citizens in private businesses would likely have given more inventors reason to invent items that people need and want.
I've noticed that the global trend seems to be that the number of offspring produced by a couple is inversely proportional to their income.
I concur. When you look at how much we're relieved of responsibility when it comes to child-rearing, you can probably understand why. In the past, people were much more fearful of getting pregnant before they could support a child. Today, we have so many welfare doles available, it amazes me that we don't have MORE children.
OTOH, the global trend is that we don't spend ENOUGH money supporting the poor and the irresponsible, so we should tax more and spend more helping those who can't help themselves...thereby creating even more people in that situation.
I agree with that, but I see so many reasons we can't get there, and many of my reasons revolve around government regulations, not true market cost concerns!
In the end, I believe that we should be supporting private competition like the X-Prize rather than trying to shove information down the throat of kids who don't really care what they're learning in school, especially at taxpayer's expense.
1) Fusion doesn't require any radioactive materials. Oops. You're right.
The technology is very exciting, but it will take a tremendous breakthrough for it to be practical. I agree! I used to dream when I was younger of "cheap cheap energy" and how much society would be affected. The problem with cheap fusion for me is the easy creation of gold from lead, which would ruin my desire to convert to a hard metal currency system:):) I do believe fusion is possible, but I don't believe the market is ready to invest private dollars to find it. When oil is truly hard to come by, and when coal is rare, and when wood is rare, only then will we find fusion cheaply. But when will that be?
Great point. It is a problem I've repeated often in the past, thinking back. How do I get out of that habit, though?
Copyright infringement seems like such a antiquated law now that information is so freely available. Why does it stick around when a more proper venue for information should be performances that can't be copied easily? Live bands can never be captured well if their performances are tangible. I've openly recorded shows I've been allowed to (using great equipment, too) and just can't listen to a lot of those shows.
Thanks for the slap on the wrist regarding my use of "theft" I'll make note for future posts.
Great post. Good thinking! Is it possible the RIAA and MPAA are the ones behind all the ratings-related laws preventing retailers from selling hot items to kids? No tinfoil hat here, I'm just wondering how much regulation in sales comes from the industry itself?
I'm going to guess that this will be a failure, just like all "for the public good" projects seem to be. By failure I mean: way more expensive/lower quality/slower than if created by open competition rather than public funding. I'm also guessing that this is not "for the public good" but for the good of some certain individuals. Let's read the article to find out.
Exploration and development of the Moon, both for science and for resources which may better our life on Earth;
Getting back to the Moon sounds great, but I'm not sure what we'll find there. I really feel like the bad guy in Contact when I say this, but there is no reason that science shouldn't find a way to pay for itself. Research and development is important, but all research and no development seems like a complete waste if there isn't an endgame. Sorry, but one country saying "I win! I win! nyah-nyah" isn't enough for me to vote to spend billions on.
The exploration and settlement of Mars, to establish humankind as a multi-planet, spacefaring race;
Settlement of Mars will not create a spacefaring race. Competition will bring those costs down once there is a REASON to settle Mars. I say unlock the regulations and allow multiple businesses to find a reason to get there. If it doesn't have a profit incentive for any reason, there is no reason to go there. When they day comes that a profit incentive is found, I bet we'll see many people trying.
The research and development of Nuclear Fusion, for spaceflight applications and clean alternative energy on Earth;
Why do we need space for this? Realistically, fusion is being sought after by many organizations. The dilemma is that radioactive materials are so closely regulated and guarded, there isn't a lot of room for private individuals and companies to see better solutions.
Promoting research and awareness of the threats posed by Earth-crossing asteroids, as well as their potential resources.
This is one place I can see Constitutional grounds for government to spend money. Defense. As for their resources, I don't see any way that public funds will be able to utilize these resources in the best way possible. Unless Haliburton (who Clinton also supported) can mine those asteroids, right?
If you are interested in ordering a hardcopy of our complete curriculum, or require custom materials developed for your classroom, send an e-mail to: sales@spacenow.ca
A-ha! There's the catch. Classroom textbooks. Profitable. Changed annually. Mandated by law. So this is about making humanity better, right?
I honestly HATE seeing more and more "for the public good" websites that go up, and then find out these organizations have something to sell to a government-funded monopoly. Unless they're offering these curricula for free?
I'm not a parent. I get flamed and labeled troll when I attempt to offer parental advice, so I won't. Let me just say it is my belief that: parenting is a priviledge and not a right, people should not procreate until they can afford their offspring and the responsibilities procreation requires, and our government enables the idea of single parenthood in far more people than can likely bear the added responsibilities created by not marrying before rearing a child.
What we need to learn is the concept of respecting the rights of the copyright holder.
I disagree. Copyright has become an incredible form of tyranny. I prefer that we combat copyright by creating more public domain music, movies, and writings. I offer my writings in print for for a fee, but I also give it away free in PDF form. I ask people who read my PDFs to give me money, but I don't require it. The day that copyright goes away is the day that information is created to attract a specific audience rather than the one-size-fits-all garbage I see every day. Yet I still don't believe in open piracy and the destruction of copyright through the "armed revolution" of piracy.
As an AnCap, I'm anti-copyright completely, so I do tend to agree with you (in the non-existant utopian free market sense). As a writer and "arteest" I would want compensation for my art, but not through extortion or legal challenges. I believe information wants to be free, and now with such a connected world, it will be free. The RIAA should drop their pants, bend over, and accept the changes that are occuring.
OTOH, I can understand why they're holding on so tight. It WILL be fun watching them sink.
File sharing is theft, IMHO. But I do believe that the current market for music and movies is dying and that the RIAA and MPAA need to find ways to convert P2P into a new motivation tool for artists and consumers. I don't have a good solution, and I don't think lowering prices will really decrease P2P that much. I know that I buy more music and movies because of P2P, but I don't actually pirate music or movies, just trailers and samples.
On the other hand, what if the RIAA (and MPAA) required that every consumer of a CD or DVD signed a contract saying "I agree that I am borrowing this medium for $9.99, and that any data contained on this medium is priviledged and I am not able to disclose or copy the data to any individual, network, corporation, or entity under penalty of law" and you had to sign the contract in order to get the CD or DVD? Would that be acceptable? Is this an option where the **AA organizations only allow specific companies to push their product?
When I buy a CD or DVD, I understand that I am buying a license to listen/view/use the data in the privacy of my home for just myself and my family. I know I don't own the music or the movie, just the physical medium that the data is carried on. That's fine. If I want to own a song or movie, I'm sure I'd be happy to pay whatever it costs to create it so that I can distribute it.
FYI, I don't agree with the RIAA or MPAA tactics or system. I do believe information wants to be free, and I am more than willing to switch to a "direct to the artist" payment system.
I own multiple retail businesses, and when a child steals from me, I guess I "extort" the parent by saying "pay up or I'm calling the cops." In fact, I've CALLED the cops a few times to arrest the kid, and the parent pays up, in front of the cops, and I've never been arrested for extortion.
I see. It still doesn't mandate open software or free software.
I can't think of many hardware devices that force specific software anymore, although the ones that do are REALLY specific hardware devices. My brother owns a recording studio that uses very proprietary programs -- if a Peruvian government has its own recording studio, will they be limited to using OSS software? Eek, scary. How about large-scale accounting programs used by the State? Is there an inexpensive way for the State to transfer to an free software format in the short run, or will this just be more pork money for favored companies who can provide for this "free" transition?
And who is the local sanctioning authority? Another scary law, IMHO.
While I feel this court ruling is fair, the opinions in the article are a bit off...
In my opinion, the RIAA should not be allowed to target young minors with lawsuits, especially since most cannot afford to purchase music as it is, let alone have a credit / debit card to use legal services.
So if a child steals from a store that they go to without a parent, it should be OK because the minor can't afford to purchase the item?
more reasonable approach would be first send a warning to their parents about what is going on, since in many cases the parents don't understand what's going on.
And when the parents are unaware of their child, it is bad parenting. Sometimes a warning isn't enough.
I agree that the RIAA's suit was unfounded, in this case. I also believe the RIAA has lost their battles and will only be wasting time and money on additional lawsuits (that will cost them, in the long run, far more than they will 'save' or 'gain' in judgements).
I'm not even sure that the RIAA can afford so many lawsuits. Sure, they're a multi-billion dollar "co-op" organization "defending" artists, but each lawsuit costs them something. Even with in-house legal staff, there are still filing fees, follow-up costs, and the like. I'm assuming their return-on-investment is calculated by how many people they assume will stop pirating their music out of fear of lawsuits? So they're assuming that they'll be seeing a return from people buying more albums because they are afraid to pirate because the RIAA sues pirates? Confusing.
The reality, though, is that they likely won't stop suing, and if they even win 1 out of 10 cases, it will likely cause them to fail even more.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops! Forgot some links regarding why a trailer is a wise living arrangement:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/93.cfm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north358.html
Funny, one of my first properties was a trailer. No one in my park was trash. I paid the trailer off in a year and saved enough to buy a cheap condo for cash. The condo did not compare with the quality of life in the trailer.
In fact, I'm reconsidering trailer living because of the housing bubble. I would probably save $20,000/year, and get almost $200,000 freed in over-inflated equity.
Don't knock it. Trailer > Apartment IMHO.
Some employers take advantage because they know their employees need them due to debt.
Most employers WANT happy employees. Those that don't rarely survive.
If you have a stressful job, it should compensate you well. If it doesn't, I doubt the company will survive long that way.
Ah, but money in this case has two defining factors:
:)
1. Is it liquid cash available to you, debt free?
2. Do you have any debt burdens that will reduce your income in the future?
I believe having debt is a key element in job burn out, as it is a key element that scares people into thinking they need their current job.
Even saving just 10% of your gross income should reduce your stress levels a thousand-fold. And give your wife even more reasons to have sex with you
I'm no Republican. But I think Bush has done more for the welfare state that Clinton has, especially with the recent support to bail out New Orleans (a welfare state created disaster). Don't bring Republican vs. Democrat politics into this, both parties are at fault for the lost of morality in this country. I don't want to enforce my morals on you in any way using any law. I just want you to stop taking from me to finance your agenda, conservative or liberal. Theft is still wrong.
I was laughing today about some news article that says our country's initiative to ask for donations to fund the War on Iraq only netted $600 total. I'm not sure how true this is, but it was funny.
I wonder if we cut Federal and State taxes to bare minimums and asked for private donations to support many of these "needed programs" how much people would donate. Not much, likely. Which means the programs aren't deemed necessary.
When did I say you don't need a job? I just mentioned you can SWITCH jobs.
I'm 31. I can live stress-free on $10 per hour. But I like toys so I work harder. When I get close to feeling stressed, I cut back on work, which means cuts back on toys. But if you buy toys on credit, expect there to be no easy way to cut back on the stress that will likely follow.
Yes, its just that easy.
Live at home and save every dime over living expenses. Even earning $10 per hour as a teenager/early 20's can net you a very nice nest egg for later in life.
But all the kids/youth I know have iPods, new cars, nice rental apartments downtown, 3 nights-out-a-week, DVDs and home theaters. And they wonder why they're stressed at work.
Haha. In a free market, you can't "create" new money via inflation as our government do. If a company found a way to market a product that everyone needed, it would be nearly impossible for the money to all go to one company/industry/product.
I don't really see it being possible for one company to harness any new product or service forever. Competition always drives people to chase after big ticket items.
I wish that was the answer, but I don't have kids yet for expressly this reason. Property taxes are my reason for not having kids -- I don't believe I could afford to raise them in an environment they need while I'm still paying to nanny over other peoples' kids. :)
I'm no conservative, but I am religious. I just don't mix my religion with my politics, ever. I also believe that grades 7-12 are mostly worthless when you can mix a mentorship program in industry as well as specific education related to a career goal.
I "stopped learning" around 8th grade although I did finish high school. I started my first business in 7th grade that continues to this day, and if it wasn't for the mentorship I received from my earliest employers, I'd be 10 years behind.
I have to say that this article makes me feel crazier than I normally do.
With so many people out of work, it seems almost like biting the hand that feeds you to complain about your work conditions and expect your employer to care. Your employer's role is to provide work for you. Your job is to do that work. The employer should "care" in order to make you the most efficient you can be, but it is not their job to make sure you don't have other life ills that may cause you to take on more than you can handle. All my employees who have burned out in the past were replaced by people who accepted more pressure, more time constraints, and more deadlines without burning out. Those who burned out with me had burned out in the past and continue to burn out to this day. There are many reasons why they've burned out, and few of them had anything to do with the job.
Job burnout has more to do with the lack of appreciation and reward an employee receives for his or her efforts than an increased work load. NO. Job burnout has more to do with the fact that the employee sacrifices himself for a crappy job, why? Maybe because he's in terrible debt! Get your finances in order, and you can walk away from ANY bad job. Never tell me you NEED your job because of financial struggle. Maybe his girlfriend is a manic depressive freak who constantly pulls him away from his other responsibilities. Maybe he's got a habit that he can't kick, or he's got some baggage that makes him want to succeed no matter what. You made your bed, sleep in it.
Those suffering from job burnout feel no sense of accomplishment from and no control over their work lives. So walk away. Start your own company. SAVE. The Chinese are saving up to 40% of their income. The Americans are now saving 1%, 30% of all mortgages lately are interest-only. Why are you stressed: job or real life?
Today to get ahead and save for a reasonable retirement, workers often must hop from company to company to get a promotion. Ahhh! The average employee puts almost 15% of his income away in Social Security that he knows he will never see! How about if he put 15% of his income into his own house, savings account, vacation, or whatever? How much happier would he be? Do NOT say that employers are responsible for YOUR retirement. What are we teaching our next generation? That is it someone else's responsibility to take care of us in our old age.
Everyone is expendable, thanks to many employers' short-term, economic goals. I've run 7 businesses in the 15 years I've been in business. ALL of them had long-term goals, but I also realized that a LOT of my employees would be short term as they learned from me and found someone willing to pay the more. The wonderful free market allows people to do this. Those I invested the most in I had the most reason to pay better and give better fringe benefits to. Those who left because someone was willing to pay more than me found themselves in a better position. Those that complained I wasn't paying enough were not worth more to me, and not worth more to anyone else either it seemed.
The job conflicted with my values. I was mentally and physically exhausted and suffered from chronic stomach problems. Oh, I didn't realize this guy was forced to keep this job. Did his employer put a gun to his head? Did he have absolutely no other options to get a job? Did he really LIKE the pain it caused him?
Not dealing with a burned-out employee can undermine your organization's health and lead to a burnout epidemic. In the free market this is called "bankruptcy" and rarely has to do with employee's health. When all your employees are getting burned out, it is likely that the business was failing in many other areas.
It is very important to realize that there are MANY reasons why people burn out in work, in relationships, in friendships, in life in general. To blame employers for this VERY complex situation is ridiculous, and I believe t
The problem is that when we "ram" a product down a consumer's throat, we have to initiate some force to do it. Only government is legally allowed to use force, so when government gets involved, you can be sure that the unions will get involved as well. And when the unions get involved, you can be sure that what is in the best interest of THEIR customers (the teachers in this case) will be the outcome.
Isn't it funny that our own government, that can do no wrong, has the biggest percentage of union workers -- who don't trust their bosses to do what is right?
Some may say that it was a waste of time and money, but a great deal of practical good was done by the space program.
At what cost? Did the extra cost create better value for the speed of delivery of these new products?
Transistor radios and tiny televisions predated NASA's "inventions" by a decade.
The world's first telecommunications satellite (Telstar) was launched in 1962 by a private company, not our government.
Motorola's radio technology was a key factor behind the cellular phone, not anything NASA had produced.
I'm not sure I back the theory that NASA was responsible for some of mankind's greatest products. In fact, I just watched them spend $1.5 billion dollars of tax payer money NOT fixing a problem they promised to fix that killed half a dozen people. $1.5 billion per taxpayer is only about $20 per household, so I'm sure no one cares. $1.5 billion dollars spent by private citizens in private businesses would likely have given more inventors reason to invent items that people need and want.
I've noticed that the global trend seems to be that the number of offspring produced by a couple is inversely proportional to their income.
I concur. When you look at how much we're relieved of responsibility when it comes to child-rearing, you can probably understand why. In the past, people were much more fearful of getting pregnant before they could support a child. Today, we have so many welfare doles available, it amazes me that we don't have MORE children.
OTOH, the global trend is that we don't spend ENOUGH money supporting the poor and the irresponsible, so we should tax more and spend more helping those who can't help themselves...thereby creating even more people in that situation.
I agree with that, but I see so many reasons we can't get there, and many of my reasons revolve around government regulations, not true market cost concerns!
In the end, I believe that we should be supporting private competition like the X-Prize rather than trying to shove information down the throat of kids who don't really care what they're learning in school, especially at taxpayer's expense.
1) Fusion doesn't require any radioactive materials. Oops. You're right.
:) :) I do believe fusion is possible, but I don't believe the market is ready to invest private dollars to find it. When oil is truly hard to come by, and when coal is rare, and when wood is rare, only then will we find fusion cheaply. But when will that be?
The technology is very exciting, but it will take a tremendous breakthrough for it to be practical. I agree! I used to dream when I was younger of "cheap cheap energy" and how much society would be affected. The problem with cheap fusion for me is the easy creation of gold from lead, which would ruin my desire to convert to a hard metal currency system
Great point. It is a problem I've repeated often in the past, thinking back. How do I get out of that habit, though?
Copyright infringement seems like such a antiquated law now that information is so freely available. Why does it stick around when a more proper venue for information should be performances that can't be copied easily? Live bands can never be captured well if their performances are tangible. I've openly recorded shows I've been allowed to (using great equipment, too) and just can't listen to a lot of those shows.
Thanks for the slap on the wrist regarding my use of "theft" I'll make note for future posts.
Great post. Good thinking! Is it possible the RIAA and MPAA are the ones behind all the ratings-related laws preventing retailers from selling hot items to kids? No tinfoil hat here, I'm just wondering how much regulation in sales comes from the industry itself?
I'm going to guess that this will be a failure, just like all "for the public good" projects seem to be. By failure I mean: way more expensive/lower quality/slower than if created by open competition rather than public funding. I'm also guessing that this is not "for the public good" but for the good of some certain individuals. Let's read the article to find out.
Exploration and development of the Moon, both for science and for resources which may better our life on Earth;
Getting back to the Moon sounds great, but I'm not sure what we'll find there. I really feel like the bad guy in Contact when I say this, but there is no reason that science shouldn't find a way to pay for itself. Research and development is important, but all research and no development seems like a complete waste if there isn't an endgame. Sorry, but one country saying "I win! I win! nyah-nyah" isn't enough for me to vote to spend billions on.
The exploration and settlement of Mars, to establish humankind as a multi-planet, spacefaring race;
Settlement of Mars will not create a spacefaring race. Competition will bring those costs down once there is a REASON to settle Mars. I say unlock the regulations and allow multiple businesses to find a reason to get there. If it doesn't have a profit incentive for any reason, there is no reason to go there. When they day comes that a profit incentive is found, I bet we'll see many people trying.
The research and development of Nuclear Fusion, for spaceflight applications and clean alternative energy on Earth;
Why do we need space for this? Realistically, fusion is being sought after by many organizations. The dilemma is that radioactive materials are so closely regulated and guarded, there isn't a lot of room for private individuals and companies to see better solutions.
Promoting research and awareness of the threats posed by Earth-crossing asteroids, as well as their potential resources.
This is one place I can see Constitutional grounds for government to spend money. Defense. As for their resources, I don't see any way that public funds will be able to utilize these resources in the best way possible. Unless Haliburton (who Clinton also supported) can mine those asteroids, right?
If you are interested in ordering a hardcopy of our complete curriculum, or require custom materials developed for your classroom, send an e-mail to: sales@spacenow.ca
A-ha! There's the catch. Classroom textbooks. Profitable. Changed annually. Mandated by law. So this is about making humanity better, right?
I honestly HATE seeing more and more "for the public good" websites that go up, and then find out these organizations have something to sell to a government-funded monopoly. Unless they're offering these curricula for free?
I'm not a parent. I get flamed and labeled troll when I attempt to offer parental advice, so I won't. Let me just say it is my belief that: parenting is a priviledge and not a right, people should not procreate until they can afford their offspring and the responsibilities procreation requires, and our government enables the idea of single parenthood in far more people than can likely bear the added responsibilities created by not marrying before rearing a child.
What we need to learn is the concept of respecting the rights of the copyright holder.
I disagree. Copyright has become an incredible form of tyranny. I prefer that we combat copyright by creating more public domain music, movies, and writings. I offer my writings in print for for a fee, but I also give it away free in PDF form. I ask people who read my PDFs to give me money, but I don't require it. The day that copyright goes away is the day that information is created to attract a specific audience rather than the one-size-fits-all garbage I see every day. Yet I still don't believe in open piracy and the destruction of copyright through the "armed revolution" of piracy.
As an AnCap, I'm anti-copyright completely, so I do tend to agree with you (in the non-existant utopian free market sense). As a writer and "arteest" I would want compensation for my art, but not through extortion or legal challenges. I believe information wants to be free, and now with such a connected world, it will be free. The RIAA should drop their pants, bend over, and accept the changes that are occuring.
OTOH, I can understand why they're holding on so tight. It WILL be fun watching them sink.
File sharing is theft, IMHO. But I do believe that the current market for music and movies is dying and that the RIAA and MPAA need to find ways to convert P2P into a new motivation tool for artists and consumers. I don't have a good solution, and I don't think lowering prices will really decrease P2P that much. I know that I buy more music and movies because of P2P, but I don't actually pirate music or movies, just trailers and samples.
On the other hand, what if the RIAA (and MPAA) required that every consumer of a CD or DVD signed a contract saying "I agree that I am borrowing this medium for $9.99, and that any data contained on this medium is priviledged and I am not able to disclose or copy the data to any individual, network, corporation, or entity under penalty of law" and you had to sign the contract in order to get the CD or DVD? Would that be acceptable? Is this an option where the **AA organizations only allow specific companies to push their product?
When I buy a CD or DVD, I understand that I am buying a license to listen/view/use the data in the privacy of my home for just myself and my family. I know I don't own the music or the movie, just the physical medium that the data is carried on. That's fine. If I want to own a song or movie, I'm sure I'd be happy to pay whatever it costs to create it so that I can distribute it.
FYI, I don't agree with the RIAA or MPAA tactics or system. I do believe information wants to be free, and I am more than willing to switch to a "direct to the artist" payment system.
I own multiple retail businesses, and when a child steals from me, I guess I "extort" the parent by saying "pay up or I'm calling the cops." In fact, I've CALLED the cops a few times to arrest the kid, and the parent pays up, in front of the cops, and I've never been arrested for extortion.
I see. It still doesn't mandate open software or free software.
I can't think of many hardware devices that force specific software anymore, although the ones that do are REALLY specific hardware devices. My brother owns a recording studio that uses very proprietary programs -- if a Peruvian government has its own recording studio, will they be limited to using OSS software? Eek, scary. How about large-scale accounting programs used by the State? Is there an inexpensive way for the State to transfer to an free software format in the short run, or will this just be more pork money for favored companies who can provide for this "free" transition?
And who is the local sanctioning authority? Another scary law, IMHO.
While I feel this court ruling is fair, the opinions in the article are a bit off...
In my opinion, the RIAA should not be allowed to target young minors with lawsuits, especially since most cannot afford to purchase music as it is, let alone have a credit / debit card to use legal services.
So if a child steals from a store that they go to without a parent, it should be OK because the minor can't afford to purchase the item?
more reasonable approach would be first send a warning to their parents about what is going on, since in many cases the parents don't understand what's going on.
And when the parents are unaware of their child, it is bad parenting. Sometimes a warning isn't enough.
I agree that the RIAA's suit was unfounded, in this case. I also believe the RIAA has lost their battles and will only be wasting time and money on additional lawsuits (that will cost them, in the long run, far more than they will 'save' or 'gain' in judgements).
I'm not even sure that the RIAA can afford so many lawsuits. Sure, they're a multi-billion dollar "co-op" organization "defending" artists, but each lawsuit costs them something. Even with in-house legal staff, there are still filing fees, follow-up costs, and the like. I'm assuming their return-on-investment is calculated by how many people they assume will stop pirating their music out of fear of lawsuits? So they're assuming that they'll be seeing a return from people buying more albums because they are afraid to pirate because the RIAA sues pirates? Confusing.
The reality, though, is that they likely won't stop suing, and if they even win 1 out of 10 cases, it will likely cause them to fail even more.
So I say, sue away, RIAA.