I'm an anti-copyright advocate. I hate the idea of intellectual property laws.
That being said, I find it amusing that Mr. Engle is getting raked over the coals. Honestly, this artist thinks that government laws are there to protect him. It's possible that he was a supporter of copyright laws. If so, I'm glad this is happening.
I feel pity for him, but not a lot. When you think laws are written to help the small and weak, you become part of the problem. Copyright was written to protect the large and poweful. Small and weak designers should repudiate copyright and release their works into the public domain -- all their works. By creating a path of proof that the art was released to the public domain, they can protect themselves from this mess.
By releasing their OLD prior work freely, they can build a reputation for gaining new customers, to get hired for NEW work. It isn't the final product that you're paid for, it is the path to the final product. Once a job is designed, it has no value except in a portfolio.
Copyright laws that harm the small fish who support the laws are doing exactly as the law intended: the control non-powerful people and organizations and to protect powerful people and organizations.
Just another example of why I prefer a non-State world. We don't need laws to protect ourselves.
I'm a consultant. People hire me to ask me questions about areas I am an expert in.
A few months ago, someone called me to ask about a product made by an obscure printer manufacturer, Mutoh. They had problems with some of their hardware and support. They asked me "What else is out there that you recommend?" Since I have expertise in this area, I told them I had some options for them. They hired me, and I offered them good advice.
I was a middle man between Customer A and a competitor to Mutoh (in their case, Mimaki). Should I be sued for Trademark infringement?
Google is a middle man between customers looking for information, and people offering answers to those questions. Mimaki has not paid me to dole out information, but in the case of a relatively free market, many "consultants" are actually commissioned by manufacturers to push their products. This isn't uncommon. If someone goes to an electronics store asking about an HP printer, the salesman MIGHT turn and offer an Epson because of a SPIF or other incentive to sell Epson over HP. It's the customer's responsibility to ask "Are you getting anything additional if I buy an Epson over an HP?"
Google isn't selling anyone's trademarked name, they're allowing two third parties to meet over what party A is looking for and party C might have information over to offer party A in their decision-making process.
If anything, this may actually HELP companies who have competitors buying their trademarked names as keyboards on Google AdWords. It offers reputation to the original company, and they can stake out a claim by promoting it.
Anyone who is afraid of their competition is only afraid because their competition is doing something better, cheaper or faster. Trying to shut down Google AdWords for letting 2 third parties interact over a keyword is going to make your market SMALLER, not bigger.
I'm not so sure. I "invented" a fair-use P2P system idea a few years ago. It goes like this:
I publish that I am going to talk about how information from a Metallica song might be encoded into MP3 format. I'll say "For example, at audio point 3 minutes, 6 seconds, 18 ms, third sector" (or whatever), the portion of the song would be encoded as (insert bytes of section here).
Now, I share that bit with whoever wants to read about it. Maybe I'll share 10 such segments to explain how that song is encoded.
It's not MY problem that 500 other "P2P bloggers" are discussing how other parts of the song are encoded., is it?
I quoted the song, per fair use, to teach people how MP3's are encoded. I transfer that exact verbiage above to anyone "reading."
Don't forget that many books are never sold -- returned to publisher or destroyed. There's a huge risk to publishing a book in large quantities, and that risk is a large part of the price of the book you buy at full retail.
Honestly, violating the oath of office is the only proper way to find someone guilty of treason. Common citizens don't take oaths of loyalty, public servants/slaves do. We need to hold ALL public servants to their oaths, by punishing them to the fullest extent of the law that they supposedly uphold and delegate authority over.
Google intends, and I agree with them, for wireless data access to be much cheaper, much faster, and much more readily available in the next 2-3 years.
Having offline maps is a huge storage consumer. Storage takes space, it takes up energy, and it requires updating. If everyone had to have 4GB of maps stored offline, times tens of millions of customers -- it's a great waste of space.
Google believe in client-server interfaces, as I do, because that IS the future. All we need is for data to get cheaper and more readily available. I travel internationally, constantly, and have 3G access practically everywhere. The BIGGEST problem for Google today is NOT bandwidth but battery. This is the Next Big Thing that Apple, Google, Dell, Sony, and practically every other mobile device manufacturer is chasing: huge battery life increases. Whoever gets there first will destroy the rest. One Ring to Rule Them All.
Sidenote/Off-topic In the States, I pay about $120 a month for decent 3G access through my Cradlepoint using 2 3G cards for access from 2 providers (yes, I need backup access). In Europe, plusgsm works fine. In Asia, there are a variety of throw-away SIM cards available with decent enough data access in the major cities. So for $250 a month, I am covered internationally and don't need to carry around all the data that I can access quite simply online. I love my G1, and I can't wait for a better, larger-screened model (hint: Apple Newton-like).
For those who think that $250/month for 3G-ish access is ridiculous, consider this: I try to be available for work 12 hours per day, which is 3600 hours per year. I'm paying about 83 cents an hour to be available online. Toss that tiny number against what I charge per hour, and you can see it is a wise investment.
As the CEO of a small IT company in the US (mostly Midwest-focused), I'd say we hire more out of experience than education. We're consultants, though, but we have helped hire full timers for our customers who want someone there manning the stations all the time.
For those in college now, GO INTERN. It doesn't matter how much you make, but how much you can mark up that portfolio. If you're graduating and can't find work, then WORK SOMEWHERE. I can't begin to tell you how many people I've interviewed who are 5-6 months out of college but aren't working anywhere, even Starbucks. The lack of showing responsibility by not doing something is a turn-off.
For us, business is way up. Clients are keeping their hardware longer, which means more maintenance work. They're getting more focused on information security (external and internal), as well as keeping what they have in tip-top shape. We're turning away work.
Here's a big part of being a successful IT employee: be mobile. Fully, if possible. Try not to sign any long term leases, and DO NOT BUY property even if mom and dad or the grandfolk offer to get you something. I took on work in LA in 2008 because they couldn't find a decent consultant locally, even paying for my flights and hotel stays. If you're mobile, your chance of getting work goes way up. Once you move, stay mobile-capable if other jobs pop up. Don't just look close to home or close to school, look everywhere.
One area that is seeing rapid growth is in health care clinics (not big hospitals). I think we field a few calls a month from possible clients who have to maintain a large infrastructure and are sick of high priced consultants. That's when we usually try to place full timers rather than work a contract out in an environment that really needs full time management of IT.
I personally would stay out of software development if you don't have any real portfolio of work done, but in terms of maintenance, the job market looks pretty reasonable in the 4 markets I monitor. It's just a matter of that dreaded experience that most college graduates have none of. It would be very hard for me to hire someone on degree alone. My last 3 hires didn't even graduate college, but are phenomenal at showing up on time, doing their job right, and giving our clients 150% of themselves when needed.
Re:This will actually reverse the cost of health c
on
My Genome, My Self?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Dude, you're full of shit. $35/visit, eh? Ya. So assuming the doctor's day is full of patients (no gaps) and each "visit" is 30 minutes the doctor makes $70/hr. Now you add in business taxes and he makes ~$50/hr, maybe less. Then you factor in office space and... oh fuck he's losing money and we haven't even factored in equipment, supplies, other staff (let's face it if his day is full of patients he's going to need at least one receptionist), etc, etc, etc.
Google: Cash Only Doctors. It's a fact. Most doctor visits do not last long. A decent doctor can see 8 patients in an hour for the basic checkup, cold, or other minor ache or pain. I also pay an annual fee that covers joining the clinic.
Some cash-only doctors actually get tips, too. No joke. I know of 2 AAPS doctors that earn more than their annual billing. Most doctors who accept insurance earn far LESS than their annual billing because of the insurance haggling, red tape, and administrative costs.
Now as to saving for your own medical care. That's nice and all but unrealistic. For one everyone has high medical costs when they are old. But only say a quarter of the population is going to have a real need for major medical treatment before they are old. And guess what... Those who are unfortunate to need such medical treatment are likely to be needing well over $100,000 in services. The average *FAMILY'S* income in the US is what $45,000/yr. I'll let you do the math on that one.
Again, you can blame this on insurance and public health programs that drive the cost of medical services up, combined with Congress colluding with the AMA to keep the number of doctors graduating down. It's like education: when government started subsidizing school loans, the cost skyrocketed. Get government out of health care, and education, and the costs will DIVE.
If someone has a great need for medical treatment that is expensive, they use INSURANCE. I tried to find an insurance policy with a $100,000 deductible, but they don't exist. I pay, for EXCELLENT emergency treatment, about 20% of the cost of a typical smoker my age. Why? Because of my high deductible. I buy generics when I need any medication.
The more we create third parties, the more prices go up. It's a simple financial fact.
Re:This will actually reverse the cost of health c
on
My Genome, My Self?
·
· Score: 0
Here's the catch: your treatment cost you thousands, because other people who have insurance through State sponsored means, or State enforced means, or other catches, caused the rates to go WAY UP. Congress limits medical degrees in America. Your government makes health care expensive.
And then you pass it on to people who aren't predisposed to expensive health problems. It's sad that you have a condition. I have two medical conditions that I work on without insurance, even though other people spend 4-5 figures a year on them (total between the two). I spend about $500 a year. It's doable. Doctors don't want to charge as much as they do, but they do because of the regulation of industry, because of the limitation on how many doctors can practice (thank you, AMA the lobbyist), and because insurance doesn't work due to overregulation.
Your medical condition costs you thousands a year. If your household, between you and your significant other, earns $70,000 a year, you're paying about 10% of your income to paying for your own health care needs. Those costs are HIGHER because people with insurance push them higher. That's how it is. Before the HMO Act of 1973, people afforded health care WITHOUT insurance much of the time. Look at the statistics.
Rotting teeth can be solved by not shoving fructose into children's mouths and teaching them proper hygiene. Or, just toss it at the insurance company and SOMEONE ELSE WILL PAY for your laziness.
Kids born with diabetes are about 5% of the number of kids with diabetes who get it from overeating crap and overdrinking fructose. Look at the facts. Again, the cost of treatment rises because of insurance, not because it doesn't exist. Insurance again is a scam.
I'm 35. I've lived with a few health conditions all my life, from massive TMJ issues to kidney stones to a variety of other illnesses that I have worked through. I am self employed. I have significant savings in my HSA, more than 15% of my income a year goes there to prepare for the future.
If I have to pay for the public care of others, I want detailed documentation on what they're spending their money on. If they're frittering away their savings or not busting their back working an extra job, why should I cover them? It's ridiculous.
This will actually reverse the cost of health care
on
My Genome, My Self?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Health insurance is a scam pushed on the masses through Federal tax loopholes. You don't need health insurance for MOST of your health care needs. I have health insurance for BIG stuff, hence me HUGE deductible (5 figures). I pay very little for health care, going to a cash-only doctor who asks for an up front fee annually for unlimited visits and some basic yearly lab tests. He doesn't even take insurance, Medicare, or credit cards. He's also available for house calls.
Genetic testing for predispositions will likely give people options to fight the parts of those possible diseases that nurture (lifestyle) causes, instead of just pure nature (genetics). As more people are prediagnosed, it is wise for insurers to drop them. Here's the thing, though: if insurers drop too many peoole, doctors will have to find ways to treat them, or the doctors will be out of work.
The number of doctors leaving the world of insurance and Medicare are growing. It's a good thing. They can treat you cheaply ($35 per visit, cash on the barrel), and can spend time with you helping you make choices to work towards a healthier life. It's not about taking drugs, sometimes, it's about fighting the diseases before they're serious. MANY diabetics could have prevented the disease had they known they had a predisposition. Not all, I understand, but many (see: fat diabetics). The same is true of other diseases.
As more people lose health insurance and find options for cheaper health care (it is out there, really), genetic testing will make it easier for us to work with our doctors to find ways to avoid the tragedies. We're not healthy people, because we rely on health insurance rather than preliminary lifestyle adjustments before we get sick.
Wash your hands after touching sick people. Cut back on excessive drinking and smoking. Wear a condom. Don't eat too many sugars or starches. Do some exercise. It's not so hard.
The big late-age diseases, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, are great to diagnose risks early. Then you can SAVE YOUR MONEY when you're young to prepare for the care you'll need when you're old. Don't pass it off to insurers, save for it yourself.
Or are you too busy buying the latest video games or blowing it on a weekend of drinking that you won't remember in 6 months?
Placing an embargo on Iran on consumer and business goods, to me, is an act of war. For those Obama-lovers out there (and understand I detest Bush just as much), it's important to focus that Clinton, a Democrat, provided for this act of war.
It's no wonder that Iran's leaders proclaim injustices by the West -- we do them, and we do them fairly openly.
Regardless of whether or not HP did it or was complicit in the act of selling to Iranian businesses, I'll continue to buy HP products and continue to recommend them. When the State does something contrary to freedom, it is up to freedom lovers to work around it. Kudos to HP, and whoever else was involved in the "smuggling" of these goods, for providing a non-lethal product to those who wanted them.
Is it only our government's job to sell weapons of mass destruction to the various parties of war in the Middle East? Does the American government have any Constitutional priviledge to tell individuals and businesses elsewhere in the world what they can and can't buy? I don't think so.
It's ridiculous that our government, on behalf of the voters, can tell another country and people in another country what business items they can purchase and use. Considering how much HP pays in payroll on behalf of US citizens, I'm even more shocked that the U.S. government has wasted more tax dollars investigating what is obviously nothing but their desire to strongarm Iranian citizens to get mad at their government for not being able to buy decent printers, when it fact it just gives those citizens more reason to point the finger at the U.S. citizens who want nothing to do with their government's insane actions.
Let Iranians buy what they want to buy from whoever wants to sell it to them. That's call an open and free market. To embargo PRINTERS is ridiculous, and an obvious act of war.
Your friendly neighborhood anarcho-capitalist chiming in again.
I understand that people think that education is a right. I don't see it that way, but it's where we are today. If people want to socialize education, so be it. My problem is in the grading system.
If you were allowed to grade the work you do at the office, what would you give yourself? This is the problem with teachers also being graders. When you socialize learning, you never want to strive for the perfect straight A class, or the complete disaster total failure class. Ending up with a C average means you can moan for more money and staff and administration next year.
I would accept socialize teaching if we had completely private and competitive grading systems. Think of the ACT and the SAT, but on a per-class basis. Let teachers know what is required for each tier in terms of learning, and then let the teachers hammer that home.
With private, competitive grading systems, different future work industries might look for different scores or even different grading systems. The student can pay for the ones they need, and take those tests. The educators can focus on "educating," and the cost of grading isn't passed on to the taxpayer. Some students may just want a "Social Equivalency" exam, and most private graders would offer similar ones. Other higher level students might need specific exams, to get an interview, for example.
When you socialize learning AND grading, of course you're going to eventually dumb down the system. That's how these things work.
As a capitalist, and an incubator, I've spent tens of thousands of dollars (per project) on market analyses. For me, finding if a particular good or service, even a niche or very specific on, is desired in a given area is expensive. It's often the MOST expensive thing I do before starting a business.
I've always harbored the idea that Google's grasp of data, even just raw data, is their most important resource. As they make this information available, the market will prosper. I've been able to use Google Trends (national, not local) to profit from the so-called "long-tail" and enter a business market I might otherwise not have.
When Google starts making trend data available based on region, it will be a huge boon for guys like me -- the risk takers. I'd love to know if a certain term is growing in popularity in given regions, or even in given regions at certain times (say "Where can I get vegan food?" in Chicago after 10pm but before 4am). I'd love to know if it's from a desktop or mobile, or even a Mac versus PC. By digging deeper into a customer-base's desire, Google trending can offer me a profitable business, but it can also offer the customer base more competition (or even a product that isn't readily available in their market).
The flu trending is just an eyewash to push Google's strength in raw data retention over time. That's their reason for doing it. Will it help people? Certainly. But to those anti-capitalists, this is exactly where capitalism reaches those in need, but still can provide a profit for the charitable person or company.
I've always wished that voting totals also included the amount of registered voters who decided not to vote. To me, this number is just as important as how many voted for the winner or the losers.
I belong to a different team, the team that repudiates the prejudice act called voting.
I've produced a few bands' records, and asked them to repudiate copyright on their tracks. 2 of them have, and they've skyrocketed the amount of fans that come to shows (in the thousands, on their last tour), and the amount of personalized merchandise they sell. Anything easily duplicated is called "advertising" or "marketing." You don't charge others to receive a show flyer (which could take a few hours to design, plus hours to print and many hours to distribute), so why charge for music?
I repudiated copyright on all my writings over a decade ago. My blogs let others take the content I created, and republish it as their own if they want. The two e-books I've written also are freely distributed, with a request for $20 in the final chapter if the books help them.
My business newsletter used to cost over $1000 per year, but now it is free, and I tell others to photocopy it or email the PDF out to others. It generates traffic for my websites, and it also builds reputation to my expanding customer base.
I see no reason for copyright any longer. For items that are costlier to create (TV shows, movies), product placement is a fine way to profit from the distribution of the product. Subscriptions also can work, just like a chapter-by-chapter written blook that continues as people fund the author's writing.
Those who hold onto the statist idea of intellectual property will be left behind. They'll find their market swamped by amateurs with the same amount of talent, and with more drive to distribute their creations as artists always have.
I like this idea, and I recommend others consider going that route when they create content that is easily duplicated. To support it, there are always ways to create value added items (t-shirts, in-person signings or shows, etc).
Real democracy is not about electing officials with unlimited power. Democracy means the people have the power, hence we don't need representative government. Let everyone vote on every single thing that government wants done, and require that 51% of ELIGIBLE VOTERS vote yes for it to pass. That way, staying home is the equivalent of voting no, rather than not being counted at all.
The FCC has been the culprit in resisting the growth of communications in the U.S. Because they are so slow to react to what consumers demand, we're sitting around STILL using bandwidth for antiquated technologies such as broadcast television and radio.
For over a decade, research into software-based radios has continued at an amazing pace. Frequency hopping, which allows the software radios to discover the best frequency to utilize at a given moment, allows the transmission tower and transceiving device to negotiate noise, power needs and transmission speeds almost real time.
I find it crazy that people think we still need to designate frequencies for everything. One-way transmissions (radio, TV) use a ton of space that is seeing demand drop, significantly.
Can you imagine the amount of bandwidth that would be available if the FCC would just step back and let the consumer-producer market find the most efficient solution for wireless data needs? I believe we have a decent amount of proof that unlicensed bandwidth works well: WiFi, cordless phones, and a myriad of other technologies that work well together, but haven't had the chance to be pushed to the limit due to the limited amount of unlicensed bandwidth.
Google is right in wanting there to be a relatively open source process for utilizing available frequencies. I foresee an amazing leap in connectivity, a huge drop is pricing, and a roll out of services across the country that would leapfrog the U.S. to the head of the game again. If only the FCC would step back from their role of monopoly-regulator and possibly only be the organization that lays down the law against individuals or companies who are corrupting the open bandwidth with frequency noise or other clutter. As an anarcho-capitalist, I of course abhor the idea of the FCC doing anything, but I would accept them if they just monitored for those introducing chaos into the unlicensed spectrum if it was opened to an even larger set of frequencies.
Video broadcasts, audio broadcasts, two way communications and more could all share this open spectrum beautifully, with less power usage and more speed available based on the needs of each device at any given moment.
...it's also a sign that the RIAA knows it is outdated and is only grasping at the few straws remaining.
If you're thinking of starting a business venture, there are two words for you: supply and demand.
No amount of laws or regulations can overcome supply and demand in the long run. The RIAA relied on preferential laws and regulations to maintain their control over distribution. Recorded music has a near-infinite supply in terms of distribution online. Hence the price of it should fall to nearly zero (yes, some people who see value in compensating the artist will never believe the price should be zero).
The RIAA is screwed, no matter how you look at it. Most monopolistic corporation unions who rely on legislation and not on supply and demand are just as screwed.
That would NOT be a good idea. The reason is simple, businesses almost NEVER do pure research. Its hard to turn the results directly into money, and (rightfully) that is all a business is there for. Taxpayer funded programs do the pure research, then businesses take the result and do the research needed to turn that into a product. Take the Fed out of research and a lot of innovation will come to a grinding halt.
When the Federal government gets involved in a market, it often takes over the market inefficiently. See: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Federal research grants have co-opted the Universities, for sure (add in government accreditation and there's even more monopolistic powers). It's not correct to say that private institutions DON'T fund research, the reality is that decades of Federal intervention in research have made it difficult to compete with public dollars, public regulators, public mandates and public approval systems that defeat the heavy investments made by private institutions.
The majority of the income from that site is from Google AdSense. The contributions are merely a nice touch from those I've helped. The site produces close to 4 figures a month in income (high 3 figures).
I earn 6 figures annually from all sources of income. My blogs and informational sites earn a low 5 figures, but more than enough to compensate me for the time I spend. In 2007 I earned approximately $96 per hour for the time I spent managing my sites. Not too shabby, but it takes a lot of knowledge and dedication to get there. I wouldn't recommend it to most people who can't sit down and say "I am going to do this for 3 years before I give up."
My best earning websites are sites dedicated to one particular product's issues and helping people resolve them When the Samsung T809 phone was released, I immediately created a site about it. That site's return was enormous as the phone was very popular, fielding thousands of non-spam comments in the year I maintained it. It still earns a few bucks a week from people who still use the phone or buy them used. That's the wonder of the web: if you build something, even without maintenance it can still generate income for years to come. For example, I am still hit #6 on google for Samsung t809 searches, and I haven't updated that site in well over a year.
SEO combined with good and unique information is key to earning income online. My SEO for my notebookhingecrack site spectacular, earning me #1 hits on Google for many common search terms. I've also helped thousands of frustrated consumers, so I feel the income I've earned is more than paid back in the assistance I've given.
On the other hand, as an outsider to your religion I have to admit that it sounds just as crazy as Creationism. Every other word is capitalized (Kingdom, Scripture, Covenant, He, Him...). There were an awful lot of FULLY-CAPITALIZED words. It reads like a more erudite Time Cube.
Thanks for calling me out on this, I was going to put a PS at the end of my original post apologizing for the use of capital letters. As I have been invited to discuss my views with a variety of congregations around the country, and as I write for a modern Christian audience primarily, I tend to habitually capitalize words relating to God. It's not a deference thing by me at all, I have no problem spelling god this way, or says his kingdom. It just tends to make those specific words more appropriate for my typical audience.
I never use backspace or edit what I type, it just flows, so the habit of typing certain words in certain contexts comes naturally as well. Difficult habit to break, and I've been meaning to for quite some time.
A funny sidenote: one of my close previously atheist friends was a big fan of the time cube comedy, and he actually came to appreciate my faith views solely do to the logic of how I sell the idea of Jesus over what the typical mainstream Evangelical does (fear, hell, fire, torture, torment, eternity, satan, and a bunch of other things that are not Scripturally sound when researched).
Thanks, again, for pointing it out. It frustrates me, too.
Does the 10% of the time you spend blogging bring in 10% of your after-tax income? If not, why not? Or, if it doesn't, why bother?
I most definitely do NOT spend 10% of my time blogging. I'd venture I spend close to 2 hours a week blogging, which is under 2% of my wake-hours. My most popular blogs income-wise are not typical blogs. One such blog is notebook hinge crack which accounts for nearly 30% of the income from my blogs. That entire site only took about 2 hours of time to develop, but I do a lot of side work helping people who find me through that site. I like to blog, the income is a side-benefit, but if I focused on it full time, I'm sure I could replace 80% of my income working on my sites better.
I also volunteer about 8 hours a week of my time to helping others find other sources of income. In the past year I've helped about 20 people add 25% or so to their incomes doing side jobs outside of their main income market. If you know how to look for niches, there's always a ton of money to be made. If money matter to me (it doesn't), I'd probably work a lot harder on my own income, but it's not what makes me happy. Money is just a way for me to save up time today to redeem for time tomorrow. Thanks to Murray Rothbard for that idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an anti-copyright advocate. I hate the idea of intellectual property laws.
That being said, I find it amusing that Mr. Engle is getting raked over the coals. Honestly, this artist thinks that government laws are there to protect him. It's possible that he was a supporter of copyright laws. If so, I'm glad this is happening.
I feel pity for him, but not a lot. When you think laws are written to help the small and weak, you become part of the problem. Copyright was written to protect the large and poweful. Small and weak designers should repudiate copyright and release their works into the public domain -- all their works. By creating a path of proof that the art was released to the public domain, they can protect themselves from this mess.
By releasing their OLD prior work freely, they can build a reputation for gaining new customers, to get hired for NEW work. It isn't the final product that you're paid for, it is the path to the final product. Once a job is designed, it has no value except in a portfolio.
Copyright laws that harm the small fish who support the laws are doing exactly as the law intended: the control non-powerful people and organizations and to protect powerful people and organizations.
Just another example of why I prefer a non-State world. We don't need laws to protect ourselves.
I'm a consultant. People hire me to ask me questions about areas I am an expert in.
A few months ago, someone called me to ask about a product made by an obscure printer manufacturer, Mutoh. They had problems with some of their hardware and support. They asked me "What else is out there that you recommend?" Since I have expertise in this area, I told them I had some options for them. They hired me, and I offered them good advice.
I was a middle man between Customer A and a competitor to Mutoh (in their case, Mimaki). Should I be sued for Trademark infringement?
Google is a middle man between customers looking for information, and people offering answers to those questions. Mimaki has not paid me to dole out information, but in the case of a relatively free market, many "consultants" are actually commissioned by manufacturers to push their products. This isn't uncommon. If someone goes to an electronics store asking about an HP printer, the salesman MIGHT turn and offer an Epson because of a SPIF or other incentive to sell Epson over HP. It's the customer's responsibility to ask "Are you getting anything additional if I buy an Epson over an HP?"
Google isn't selling anyone's trademarked name, they're allowing two third parties to meet over what party A is looking for and party C might have information over to offer party A in their decision-making process.
If anything, this may actually HELP companies who have competitors buying their trademarked names as keyboards on Google AdWords. It offers reputation to the original company, and they can stake out a claim by promoting it.
Anyone who is afraid of their competition is only afraid because their competition is doing something better, cheaper or faster. Trying to shut down Google AdWords for letting 2 third parties interact over a keyword is going to make your market SMALLER, not bigger.
What a bunch of morons.
I'm not so sure. I "invented" a fair-use P2P system idea a few years ago. It goes like this:
I publish that I am going to talk about how information from a Metallica song might be encoded into MP3 format. I'll say "For example, at audio point 3 minutes, 6 seconds, 18 ms, third sector" (or whatever), the portion of the song would be encoded as (insert bytes of section here).
Now, I share that bit with whoever wants to read about it. Maybe I'll share 10 such segments to explain how that song is encoded.
It's not MY problem that 500 other "P2P bloggers" are discussing how other parts of the song are encoded., is it?
I quoted the song, per fair use, to teach people how MP3's are encoded. I transfer that exact verbiage above to anyone "reading."
Wish I had modpoints.
Now Das Efx is stuck in my head.
Don't forget that many books are never sold -- returned to publisher or destroyed. There's a huge risk to publishing a book in large quantities, and that risk is a large part of the price of the book you buy at full retail.
I made the same call: Judges Mark A Ciavarella, Jr and Michael T. Conahan should be legally put to death.
Honestly, violating the oath of office is the only proper way to find someone guilty of treason. Common citizens don't take oaths of loyalty, public servants/slaves do. We need to hold ALL public servants to their oaths, by punishing them to the fullest extent of the law that they supposedly uphold and delegate authority over.
Google intends, and I agree with them, for wireless data access to be much cheaper, much faster, and much more readily available in the next 2-3 years.
Having offline maps is a huge storage consumer. Storage takes space, it takes up energy, and it requires updating. If everyone had to have 4GB of maps stored offline, times tens of millions of customers -- it's a great waste of space.
Google believe in client-server interfaces, as I do, because that IS the future. All we need is for data to get cheaper and more readily available. I travel internationally, constantly, and have 3G access practically everywhere. The BIGGEST problem for Google today is NOT bandwidth but battery. This is the Next Big Thing that Apple, Google, Dell, Sony, and practically every other mobile device manufacturer is chasing: huge battery life increases. Whoever gets there first will destroy the rest. One Ring to Rule Them All.
Sidenote/Off-topic
In the States, I pay about $120 a month for decent 3G access through my Cradlepoint using 2 3G cards for access from 2 providers (yes, I need backup access). In Europe, plusgsm works fine. In Asia, there are a variety of throw-away SIM cards available with decent enough data access in the major cities. So for $250 a month, I am covered internationally and don't need to carry around all the data that I can access quite simply online. I love my G1, and I can't wait for a better, larger-screened model (hint: Apple Newton-like).
For those who think that $250/month for 3G-ish access is ridiculous, consider this: I try to be available for work 12 hours per day, which is 3600 hours per year. I'm paying about 83 cents an hour to be available online. Toss that tiny number against what I charge per hour, and you can see it is a wise investment.
As the CEO of a small IT company in the US (mostly Midwest-focused), I'd say we hire more out of experience than education. We're consultants, though, but we have helped hire full timers for our customers who want someone there manning the stations all the time.
For those in college now, GO INTERN. It doesn't matter how much you make, but how much you can mark up that portfolio. If you're graduating and can't find work, then WORK SOMEWHERE. I can't begin to tell you how many people I've interviewed who are 5-6 months out of college but aren't working anywhere, even Starbucks. The lack of showing responsibility by not doing something is a turn-off.
For us, business is way up. Clients are keeping their hardware longer, which means more maintenance work. They're getting more focused on information security (external and internal), as well as keeping what they have in tip-top shape. We're turning away work.
Here's a big part of being a successful IT employee: be mobile. Fully, if possible. Try not to sign any long term leases, and DO NOT BUY property even if mom and dad or the grandfolk offer to get you something. I took on work in LA in 2008 because they couldn't find a decent consultant locally, even paying for my flights and hotel stays. If you're mobile, your chance of getting work goes way up. Once you move, stay mobile-capable if other jobs pop up. Don't just look close to home or close to school, look everywhere.
One area that is seeing rapid growth is in health care clinics (not big hospitals). I think we field a few calls a month from possible clients who have to maintain a large infrastructure and are sick of high priced consultants. That's when we usually try to place full timers rather than work a contract out in an environment that really needs full time management of IT.
I personally would stay out of software development if you don't have any real portfolio of work done, but in terms of maintenance, the job market looks pretty reasonable in the 4 markets I monitor. It's just a matter of that dreaded experience that most college graduates have none of. It would be very hard for me to hire someone on degree alone. My last 3 hires didn't even graduate college, but are phenomenal at showing up on time, doing their job right, and giving our clients 150% of themselves when needed.
Dude, you're full of shit. $35/visit, eh? Ya. So assuming the doctor's day is full of patients (no gaps) and each "visit" is 30 minutes the doctor makes $70/hr. Now you add in business taxes and he makes ~$50/hr, maybe less. Then you factor in office space and ... oh fuck he's losing money and we haven't even factored in equipment, supplies, other staff (let's face it if his day is full of patients he's going to need at least one receptionist), etc, etc, etc.
Google: Cash Only Doctors. It's a fact. Most doctor visits do not last long. A decent doctor can see 8 patients in an hour for the basic checkup, cold, or other minor ache or pain. I also pay an annual fee that covers joining the clinic.
Some cash-only doctors actually get tips, too. No joke. I know of 2 AAPS doctors that earn more than their annual billing. Most doctors who accept insurance earn far LESS than their annual billing because of the insurance haggling, red tape, and administrative costs.
Now as to saving for your own medical care. That's nice and all but unrealistic. For one everyone has high medical costs when they are old. But only say a quarter of the population is going to have a real need for major medical treatment before they are old. And guess what... Those who are unfortunate to need such medical treatment are likely to be needing well over $100,000 in services. The average *FAMILY'S* income in the US is what $45,000/yr. I'll let you do the math on that one.
Again, you can blame this on insurance and public health programs that drive the cost of medical services up, combined with Congress colluding with the AMA to keep the number of doctors graduating down. It's like education: when government started subsidizing school loans, the cost skyrocketed. Get government out of health care, and education, and the costs will DIVE.
If someone has a great need for medical treatment that is expensive, they use INSURANCE. I tried to find an insurance policy with a $100,000 deductible, but they don't exist. I pay, for EXCELLENT emergency treatment, about 20% of the cost of a typical smoker my age. Why? Because of my high deductible. I buy generics when I need any medication.
The more we create third parties, the more prices go up. It's a simple financial fact.
Here's the catch: your treatment cost you thousands, because other people who have insurance through State sponsored means, or State enforced means, or other catches, caused the rates to go WAY UP. Congress limits medical degrees in America. Your government makes health care expensive.
And then you pass it on to people who aren't predisposed to expensive health problems. It's sad that you have a condition. I have two medical conditions that I work on without insurance, even though other people spend 4-5 figures a year on them (total between the two). I spend about $500 a year. It's doable. Doctors don't want to charge as much as they do, but they do because of the regulation of industry, because of the limitation on how many doctors can practice (thank you, AMA the lobbyist), and because insurance doesn't work due to overregulation.
Your medical condition costs you thousands a year. If your household, between you and your significant other, earns $70,000 a year, you're paying about 10% of your income to paying for your own health care needs. Those costs are HIGHER because people with insurance push them higher. That's how it is. Before the HMO Act of 1973, people afforded health care WITHOUT insurance much of the time. Look at the statistics.
Rotting teeth can be solved by not shoving fructose into children's mouths and teaching them proper hygiene. Or, just toss it at the insurance company and SOMEONE ELSE WILL PAY for your laziness.
Kids born with diabetes are about 5% of the number of kids with diabetes who get it from overeating crap and overdrinking fructose. Look at the facts. Again, the cost of treatment rises because of insurance, not because it doesn't exist. Insurance again is a scam.
I'm 35. I've lived with a few health conditions all my life, from massive TMJ issues to kidney stones to a variety of other illnesses that I have worked through. I am self employed. I have significant savings in my HSA, more than 15% of my income a year goes there to prepare for the future.
If I have to pay for the public care of others, I want detailed documentation on what they're spending their money on. If they're frittering away their savings or not busting their back working an extra job, why should I cover them? It's ridiculous.
Health insurance is a scam pushed on the masses through Federal tax loopholes. You don't need health insurance for MOST of your health care needs. I have health insurance for BIG stuff, hence me HUGE deductible (5 figures). I pay very little for health care, going to a cash-only doctor who asks for an up front fee annually for unlimited visits and some basic yearly lab tests. He doesn't even take insurance, Medicare, or credit cards. He's also available for house calls.
Genetic testing for predispositions will likely give people options to fight the parts of those possible diseases that nurture (lifestyle) causes, instead of just pure nature (genetics). As more people are prediagnosed, it is wise for insurers to drop them. Here's the thing, though: if insurers drop too many peoole, doctors will have to find ways to treat them, or the doctors will be out of work.
The number of doctors leaving the world of insurance and Medicare are growing. It's a good thing. They can treat you cheaply ($35 per visit, cash on the barrel), and can spend time with you helping you make choices to work towards a healthier life. It's not about taking drugs, sometimes, it's about fighting the diseases before they're serious. MANY diabetics could have prevented the disease had they known they had a predisposition. Not all, I understand, but many (see: fat diabetics). The same is true of other diseases.
As more people lose health insurance and find options for cheaper health care (it is out there, really), genetic testing will make it easier for us to work with our doctors to find ways to avoid the tragedies. We're not healthy people, because we rely on health insurance rather than preliminary lifestyle adjustments before we get sick.
Wash your hands after touching sick people. Cut back on excessive drinking and smoking. Wear a condom. Don't eat too many sugars or starches. Do some exercise. It's not so hard.
The big late-age diseases, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, are great to diagnose risks early. Then you can SAVE YOUR MONEY when you're young to prepare for the care you'll need when you're old. Don't pass it off to insurers, save for it yourself.
Or are you too busy buying the latest video games or blowing it on a weekend of drinking that you won't remember in 6 months?
Placing an embargo on Iran on consumer and business goods, to me, is an act of war. For those Obama-lovers out there (and understand I detest Bush just as much), it's important to focus that Clinton, a Democrat, provided for this act of war.
It's no wonder that Iran's leaders proclaim injustices by the West -- we do them, and we do them fairly openly.
Regardless of whether or not HP did it or was complicit in the act of selling to Iranian businesses, I'll continue to buy HP products and continue to recommend them. When the State does something contrary to freedom, it is up to freedom lovers to work around it. Kudos to HP, and whoever else was involved in the "smuggling" of these goods, for providing a non-lethal product to those who wanted them.
Is it only our government's job to sell weapons of mass destruction to the various parties of war in the Middle East? Does the American government have any Constitutional priviledge to tell individuals and businesses elsewhere in the world what they can and can't buy? I don't think so.
It's ridiculous that our government, on behalf of the voters, can tell another country and people in another country what business items they can purchase and use. Considering how much HP pays in payroll on behalf of US citizens, I'm even more shocked that the U.S. government has wasted more tax dollars investigating what is obviously nothing but their desire to strongarm Iranian citizens to get mad at their government for not being able to buy decent printers, when it fact it just gives those citizens more reason to point the finger at the U.S. citizens who want nothing to do with their government's insane actions.
Let Iranians buy what they want to buy from whoever wants to sell it to them. That's call an open and free market. To embargo PRINTERS is ridiculous, and an obvious act of war.
Your friendly neighborhood anarcho-capitalist chiming in again.
I understand that people think that education is a right. I don't see it that way, but it's where we are today. If people want to socialize education, so be it. My problem is in the grading system.
If you were allowed to grade the work you do at the office, what would you give yourself? This is the problem with teachers also being graders. When you socialize learning, you never want to strive for the perfect straight A class, or the complete disaster total failure class. Ending up with a C average means you can moan for more money and staff and administration next year.
I would accept socialize teaching if we had completely private and competitive grading systems. Think of the ACT and the SAT, but on a per-class basis. Let teachers know what is required for each tier in terms of learning, and then let the teachers hammer that home.
With private, competitive grading systems, different future work industries might look for different scores or even different grading systems. The student can pay for the ones they need, and take those tests. The educators can focus on "educating," and the cost of grading isn't passed on to the taxpayer. Some students may just want a "Social Equivalency" exam, and most private graders would offer similar ones. Other higher level students might need specific exams, to get an interview, for example.
When you socialize learning AND grading, of course you're going to eventually dumb down the system. That's how these things work.
As a capitalist, and an incubator, I've spent tens of thousands of dollars (per project) on market analyses. For me, finding if a particular good or service, even a niche or very specific on, is desired in a given area is expensive. It's often the MOST expensive thing I do before starting a business.
I've always harbored the idea that Google's grasp of data, even just raw data, is their most important resource. As they make this information available, the market will prosper. I've been able to use Google Trends (national, not local) to profit from the so-called "long-tail" and enter a business market I might otherwise not have.
When Google starts making trend data available based on region, it will be a huge boon for guys like me -- the risk takers. I'd love to know if a certain term is growing in popularity in given regions, or even in given regions at certain times (say "Where can I get vegan food?" in Chicago after 10pm but before 4am). I'd love to know if it's from a desktop or mobile, or even a Mac versus PC. By digging deeper into a customer-base's desire, Google trending can offer me a profitable business, but it can also offer the customer base more competition (or even a product that isn't readily available in their market).
The flu trending is just an eyewash to push Google's strength in raw data retention over time. That's their reason for doing it. Will it help people? Certainly. But to those anti-capitalists, this is exactly where capitalism reaches those in need, but still can provide a profit for the charitable person or company.
When did it go gay?
I've always wished that voting totals also included the amount of registered voters who decided not to vote. To me, this number is just as important as how many voted for the winner or the losers.
I belong to a different team, the team that repudiates the prejudice act called voting.
I've produced a few bands' records, and asked them to repudiate copyright on their tracks. 2 of them have, and they've skyrocketed the amount of fans that come to shows (in the thousands, on their last tour), and the amount of personalized merchandise they sell. Anything easily duplicated is called "advertising" or "marketing." You don't charge others to receive a show flyer (which could take a few hours to design, plus hours to print and many hours to distribute), so why charge for music?
I repudiated copyright on all my writings over a decade ago. My blogs let others take the content I created, and republish it as their own if they want. The two e-books I've written also are freely distributed, with a request for $20 in the final chapter if the books help them.
My business newsletter used to cost over $1000 per year, but now it is free, and I tell others to photocopy it or email the PDF out to others. It generates traffic for my websites, and it also builds reputation to my expanding customer base.
I see no reason for copyright any longer. For items that are costlier to create (TV shows, movies), product placement is a fine way to profit from the distribution of the product. Subscriptions also can work, just like a chapter-by-chapter written blook that continues as people fund the author's writing.
Those who hold onto the statist idea of intellectual property will be left behind. They'll find their market swamped by amateurs with the same amount of talent, and with more drive to distribute their creations as artists always have.
I like this idea, and I recommend others consider going that route when they create content that is easily duplicated. To support it, there are always ways to create value added items (t-shirts, in-person signings or shows, etc).
Real democracy is not about electing officials with unlimited power. Democracy means the people have the power, hence we don't need representative government. Let everyone vote on every single thing that government wants done, and require that 51% of ELIGIBLE VOTERS vote yes for it to pass. That way, staying home is the equivalent of voting no, rather than not being counted at all.
Then again, I want to end suffrage rights entirely.
The FCC has been the culprit in resisting the growth of communications in the U.S. Because they are so slow to react to what consumers demand, we're sitting around STILL using bandwidth for antiquated technologies such as broadcast television and radio.
For over a decade, research into software-based radios has continued at an amazing pace. Frequency hopping, which allows the software radios to discover the best frequency to utilize at a given moment, allows the transmission tower and transceiving device to negotiate noise, power needs and transmission speeds almost real time.
I find it crazy that people think we still need to designate frequencies for everything. One-way transmissions (radio, TV) use a ton of space that is seeing demand drop, significantly.
Can you imagine the amount of bandwidth that would be available if the FCC would just step back and let the consumer-producer market find the most efficient solution for wireless data needs? I believe we have a decent amount of proof that unlicensed bandwidth works well: WiFi, cordless phones, and a myriad of other technologies that work well together, but haven't had the chance to be pushed to the limit due to the limited amount of unlicensed bandwidth.
Google is right in wanting there to be a relatively open source process for utilizing available frequencies. I foresee an amazing leap in connectivity, a huge drop is pricing, and a roll out of services across the country that would leapfrog the U.S. to the head of the game again. If only the FCC would step back from their role of monopoly-regulator and possibly only be the organization that lays down the law against individuals or companies who are corrupting the open bandwidth with frequency noise or other clutter. As an anarcho-capitalist, I of course abhor the idea of the FCC doing anything, but I would accept them if they just monitored for those introducing chaos into the unlicensed spectrum if it was opened to an even larger set of frequencies.
Video broadcasts, audio broadcasts, two way communications and more could all share this open spectrum beautifully, with less power usage and more speed available based on the needs of each device at any given moment.
...it's also a sign that the RIAA knows it is outdated and is only grasping at the few straws remaining.
If you're thinking of starting a business venture, there are two words for you: supply and demand.
No amount of laws or regulations can overcome supply and demand in the long run. The RIAA relied on preferential laws and regulations to maintain their control over distribution. Recorded music has a near-infinite supply in terms of distribution online. Hence the price of it should fall to nearly zero (yes, some people who see value in compensating the artist will never believe the price should be zero).
The RIAA is screwed, no matter how you look at it. Most monopolistic corporation unions who rely on legislation and not on supply and demand are just as screwed.
That would NOT be a good idea. The reason is simple, businesses almost NEVER do pure research. Its hard to turn the results directly into money, and (rightfully) that is all a business is there for. Taxpayer funded programs do the pure research, then businesses take the result and do the research needed to turn that into a product. Take the Fed out of research and a lot of innovation will come to a grinding halt.
When the Federal government gets involved in a market, it often takes over the market inefficiently. See: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Federal research grants have co-opted the Universities, for sure (add in government accreditation and there's even more monopolistic powers). It's not correct to say that private institutions DON'T fund research, the reality is that decades of Federal intervention in research have made it difficult to compete with public dollars, public regulators, public mandates and public approval systems that defeat the heavy investments made by private institutions.
For example:
Wisconsin private funding of stem cell research better than public funding
25 charities in US fund $1.2 billion in private research
Private funding resources
There are thousands of organizations that fund research privately. Competing with taxpayer-funded research is difficult, though, but not impossible.
is a one line answer: "Get the Federal government out of all science research, funding, grants and accreditation of science schools."
Then maybe I'd bother reading it.
The majority of the income from that site is from Google AdSense. The contributions are merely a nice touch from those I've helped. The site produces close to 4 figures a month in income (high 3 figures).
I earn 6 figures annually from all sources of income. My blogs and informational sites earn a low 5 figures, but more than enough to compensate me for the time I spend. In 2007 I earned approximately $96 per hour for the time I spent managing my sites. Not too shabby, but it takes a lot of knowledge and dedication to get there. I wouldn't recommend it to most people who can't sit down and say "I am going to do this for 3 years before I give up."
My best earning websites are sites dedicated to one particular product's issues and helping people resolve them When the Samsung T809 phone was released, I immediately created a site about it. That site's return was enormous as the phone was very popular, fielding thousands of non-spam comments in the year I maintained it. It still earns a few bucks a week from people who still use the phone or buy them used. That's the wonder of the web: if you build something, even without maintenance it can still generate income for years to come. For example, I am still hit #6 on google for Samsung t809 searches, and I haven't updated that site in well over a year.
SEO combined with good and unique information is key to earning income online. My SEO for my notebookhingecrack site spectacular, earning me #1 hits on Google for many common search terms. I've also helped thousands of frustrated consumers, so I feel the income I've earned is more than paid back in the assistance I've given.
On the other hand, as an outsider to your religion I have to admit that it sounds just as crazy as Creationism. Every other word is capitalized (Kingdom, Scripture, Covenant, He, Him...). There were an awful lot of FULLY-CAPITALIZED words. It reads like a more erudite Time Cube.
Thanks for calling me out on this, I was going to put a PS at the end of my original post apologizing for the use of capital letters. As I have been invited to discuss my views with a variety of congregations around the country, and as I write for a modern Christian audience primarily, I tend to habitually capitalize words relating to God. It's not a deference thing by me at all, I have no problem spelling god this way, or says his kingdom. It just tends to make those specific words more appropriate for my typical audience.
I never use backspace or edit what I type, it just flows, so the habit of typing certain words in certain contexts comes naturally as well. Difficult habit to break, and I've been meaning to for quite some time.
A funny sidenote: one of my close previously atheist friends was a big fan of the time cube comedy, and he actually came to appreciate my faith views solely do to the logic of how I sell the idea of Jesus over what the typical mainstream Evangelical does (fear, hell, fire, torture, torment, eternity, satan, and a bunch of other things that are not Scripturally sound when researched).
Thanks, again, for pointing it out. It frustrates me, too.
Does the 10% of the time you spend blogging bring in 10% of your after-tax income? If not, why not?
Or, if it doesn't, why bother?
I most definitely do NOT spend 10% of my time blogging. I'd venture I spend close to 2 hours a week blogging, which is under 2% of my wake-hours. My most popular blogs income-wise are not typical blogs. One such blog is notebook hinge crack which accounts for nearly 30% of the income from my blogs. That entire site only took about 2 hours of time to develop, but I do a lot of side work helping people who find me through that site. I like to blog, the income is a side-benefit, but if I focused on it full time, I'm sure I could replace 80% of my income working on my sites better.
I also volunteer about 8 hours a week of my time to helping others find other sources of income. In the past year I've helped about 20 people add 25% or so to their incomes doing side jobs outside of their main income market. If you know how to look for niches, there's always a ton of money to be made. If money matter to me (it doesn't), I'd probably work a lot harder on my own income, but it's not what makes me happy. Money is just a way for me to save up time today to redeem for time tomorrow. Thanks to Murray Rothbard for that idea.