Since web content is often hard to define as simply a "page," it would make more sense to charge X amount of money for each bit you download, regardless of what it is. With an efficient cache system on your computer (which has yet to exist), you would not have to pay more than once for your bits. BUT, there would have to be some kind of stipulation that we DO NOT pay for any advertisements that are downloaded.
Also, we have to choose one or the other: charge for content, or charge for access. You can't do both. No one should be willing to pay an ISP every month and then pay for the content on top of it. Cable doesn't work like that. The phone doesn't work like that. You pay only for access to begin with... you don't pay usage fees on top of that. Well, there are premium services on top that you can pay for, like HBO or long distance. But you don't pay a monthly fee for local calls and then pay again every time you talk to someone. (I'm sure examples of this to the contrary can be made, but it doesn't change the fact that it SHOULDN'T be that way.)
If they want to charge (which is fair, I believe), they have to do it efficiently and ONLY ONCE.
Implementation could be relatively simple I guess, although not necessarily very private. ISPs I'm sure could monitor your bandwidth and charge accordingly, in place of a flat access fee. You may end up wishing you still had a $20 flat fee.
How the money would be distributed to the authors seems extremely difficult.
As I understand it, these CDs potentially won't play on CD-ROM equipment, whether it's in a computer or ultra-expensive stereo gear. Who owns ultra-expensive stereo gear? People with money. People with sufficient amounts of money typically have power. What can people with power do? Influence others - like record company execs. This whole thing seems so stupid. If George Lucas goes home with his new Michael Jackson CD and can't play the damn thing on his $100,000 THX Ultra-certified home theater system, you think he's gonna say "Oh well." Hell no! He's gonna be making some calls over to Sony music (or whoever) asking "Why the hell can't I play your stupid CD on the best equipment money can buy?!"
Nevermind computers... this scenario is why I cannot comprehend why record companies would risk implementing such a stupid and inferior copy prevention scheme.
...is an answer to virtually all energy problems. I'm potentially starting a completely off-topic and/or flame-inducing thread here, but man, this is something that should be discussed.
It would probably make most people downright mad to know the potential uses of industrial hemp and why it's illegal. Obviously the main reason (and the one you'll hear from any government source) is that it's marijuana, and we all know how "bad" pot is for our health. I'm going to try really hard though to stay away from the legalization of marijuana, because it is a separate issue from industrial hemp.
For starters, most people are unaware of that last statement, so I'll repeat it: INDUSTRIAL HEMP IS NOT MARIJUANA. It contains very low levels of THC, so low that you may as well smoke paper (except plain white paper is potentially toxic... we'll get to that later). Now, they are from the same family of plants, cannabis, but they are indeed different plants. Therefore, it is entirely possible to grow industrial hemp without producing marijuana. Most people (and senators/representatives) don't seem to realize that, or are concerned that THC-producing hemp could be grown in or around industrial hemp. The validity of that argument is up for grabs.
But let's get to the point here, which is energy. What can hemp do? Here's a quick synopsis:
ANYTHING MADE FROM WOOD OR OIL CAN BE MADE FROM HEMP
Hemp biomass can be converted into gasoline more efficiently than fossil fuels (coal, oil) and without sulfur or acid rain as byproducts. Hemp fiberboard is stronger than wood, hemp houses are as strong as cement houses and better insulated. Plastic, rayon, and cellophane made from hemp are biodegradeable. Paper uses nearly half the world's timber. Hemp produces FOUR TIMES the amount of paper per acre as trees, and grows in all climates of the US. Hemp paper lasts about 1500 years. Cotton requires more pesticides than any other agricultural product. Hemp grows without pesticides and herbicides, and is much stronger than cotton cloth.
We're only touching the tip of the iceberg here. The point is that people simply don't realize what hemp can do, because the government's blackballing job has been so effective. I'm hoping to at least enlighten a few/. readers, and hopefully spurring them to check out some websites that I'll list below and spread the word.
Here's the short version of why hemp is illegal:
-Major corporations such as DuPont, Monsanto, Dow, ExxonMobil, Lilly, etc. stand to lose MILLIONS, if not billions, of dollars if hemp were allowed to be used to its potential.
-It is simply TOO EASY TO GROW. Sounds absurd, right? It is. Hemp grows in virtually any environment with virtually no need for chemicals. In short, any Tom, Dick or Harry could become a hemp farmer. The government does not like not having absolute control over what is grown. Tobacco seeds, for instance, are carefully controlled AND TAXED by the US government. They would have a very, very tough time trying to control and tax hemp growers.
I'm really tempted to dive into the THC-friendly portion of this debate.:) But I don't want to drone on or piss anyone off.
Whether or not you support legal use of marijuana should have no effect on your support of legal hemp cultivation. Please keep that in mind. They are completely separate issues.
Please continue your learning at this most excellent website:
http://www.jackherer.com/
It has a definite slant towards pro-marijuna and hemp. But even if you think the website is biased, you can't deny the pure volume of bullshit that we're fed about the marijuana/hemp issue.
Hemp SHOULD BE one of the main alternative energies of the future.
With revenues of only $22,956 million a year, they're a tenth the size of Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart or GM. The top 3 on the list.
True, but there's a huge diffence between Microsoft and GM, ExxonMobil, or Wal-Mart: Those companies have to spend massive amounts of money to make money. Microsoft has virtually no production costs at all compared to those three. If you compare the percentage of revenue that is pure profit, you'll see that Microsoft is probably the richest company in the world.
I think this is kinda retarded, too. Every time I see OS X, I think to myself "Oh Es Eks" but when I say it aloud, I convert it to "Ten". It takes a few seconds of processing time.:)
I was going to let Apple have their fun insisting it was "Ten" but as soon as they slapped the 10.1 on the end of it, all bets were off. That's retarded. It's now "Oh Es Eks version Ten point One" regardless of what the reading-impaired insist it's called.
Besides, the "Eks" really separates it from its numbered brethren of the past. Doesn't Apple want a big distinction?
So, like, these maps are old enough to be deprecated by plate tectonics?
Eh, probably not.:) By outdated, I mean their street data. Obviously street data is not really their most foremost purpose, but they are highly accurate for the streets they do show. But since the USGS has roughly 80,000+ maps to deal with, they don't get updated all that often.
I can attest for sure, as a cartographer, that ALL map companies do in fact still produce inaccuracies, and quite intentionally. If you actually went to the trouble of comparing street maps to an orthorectified image (a.k.a., terraserver.com) of the same area, you would see that the map practically looks made up. Map companies, if they went to the trouble of checking, could easily tell if one of their maps had been copied. By the way, if you're looking for accurate maps to copy, USGS topo maps are far more accurate than any other maps available. They are made from the aforementioned orthophotos. And they are all in the public domain. They're not always up to date, however.
There is a huge difference between music/software (or other various intellectual properties) and tangible things like cars and clothes that people are comparing them to - you can't miraculously copy the car or clothing article for pennies. You obviously can copy words, sound, or programs and keep a copy for yourself before you sell the original. This seems like a very obvious difference that people are just glazing over in the name of consumer rights.
Now, the record, publishing, and software industries are all greedy bastards... there's no doubt about that. But to say that they have no more reason to be upset about the reselling or the nature of ownership of their products than Ford or Chevy is a little shortsighted, to say the least.
Again, this is a completely separate issue from those industries being *reasonable* about their business practices and demands on consumers. But it's important to note the differences between products.
When I think about this issue, all the stuff about what is or isn't possible with various licensing goes right over my head. To me, it seems that Microsoft could make very short work of the entire Linux movement simply with its name recognition. All they would have to do is release MS Linux. The details of the distribution are inconsequential; people would buy it simply because they've heard so much "good" about Linux, and now Microsoft has a version. People don't know much or care much about what the OS really is or does, they just want it to work. And they also happen to be very familiar and comfortable, for better or for worse, with the Microsoft name. So MS Linux could become instantly popular, and Microsoft could kill Red Hat's and everyone else's market share and do who know what with the funding for Linux projects. Only things MS wants to get done would get done. No, Microsoft couldn't stop individuals from doing whatever they wanted, but it would be completely irrelevant to any market that MS controls. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying. I hope so. Because this scenario seems very easy, though perhaps not likely. But who knows what the hell MS execs are thinking behind closed doors.
Slashdot Mirror
Christ... and I thought the opening scene from Ace Ventura was excessive. Turns out the thinly-veiled UPS spoof is business as usual for the REAL UPS.
It ceratinly was a lot more funny when Jim Carrey did it than when you find out that's the real McCoy.
Since web content is often hard to define as simply a "page," it would make more sense to charge X amount of money for each bit you download, regardless of what it is. With an efficient cache system on your computer (which has yet to exist), you would not have to pay more than once for your bits. BUT, there would have to be some kind of stipulation that we DO NOT pay for any advertisements that are downloaded.
Also, we have to choose one or the other: charge for content, or charge for access. You can't do both. No one should be willing to pay an ISP every month and then pay for the content on top of it. Cable doesn't work like that. The phone doesn't work like that. You pay only for access to begin with... you don't pay usage fees on top of that. Well, there are premium services on top that you can pay for, like HBO or long distance. But you don't pay a monthly fee for local calls and then pay again every time you talk to someone. (I'm sure examples of this to the contrary can be made, but it doesn't change the fact that it SHOULDN'T be that way.)
If they want to charge (which is fair, I believe), they have to do it efficiently and ONLY ONCE.
Implementation could be relatively simple I guess, although not necessarily very private. ISPs I'm sure could monitor your bandwidth and charge accordingly, in place of a flat access fee. You may end up wishing you still had a $20 flat fee.
How the money would be distributed to the authors seems extremely difficult.
As I understand it, these CDs potentially won't play on CD-ROM equipment, whether it's in a computer or ultra-expensive stereo gear. Who owns ultra-expensive stereo gear? People with money. People with sufficient amounts of money typically have power. What can people with power do? Influence others - like record company execs. This whole thing seems so stupid. If George Lucas goes home with his new Michael Jackson CD and can't play the damn thing on his $100,000 THX Ultra-certified home theater system, you think he's gonna say "Oh well." Hell no! He's gonna be making some calls over to Sony music (or whoever) asking "Why the hell can't I play your stupid CD on the best equipment money can buy?!"
Nevermind computers... this scenario is why I cannot comprehend why record companies would risk implementing such a stupid and inferior copy prevention scheme.
...is an answer to virtually all energy problems. I'm potentially starting a completely off-topic and/or flame-inducing thread here, but man, this is something that should be discussed.
/. readers, and hopefully spurring them to check out some websites that I'll list below and spread the word.
:) But I don't want to drone on or piss anyone off.
It would probably make most people downright mad to know the potential uses of industrial hemp and why it's illegal. Obviously the main reason (and the one you'll hear from any government source) is that it's marijuana, and we all know how "bad" pot is for our health. I'm going to try really hard though to stay away from the legalization of marijuana, because it is a separate issue from industrial hemp.
For starters, most people are unaware of that last statement, so I'll repeat it: INDUSTRIAL HEMP IS NOT MARIJUANA. It contains very low levels of THC, so low that you may as well smoke paper (except plain white paper is potentially toxic... we'll get to that later). Now, they are from the same family of plants, cannabis, but they are indeed different plants. Therefore, it is entirely possible to grow industrial hemp without producing marijuana. Most people (and senators/representatives) don't seem to realize that, or are concerned that THC-producing hemp could be grown in or around industrial hemp. The validity of that argument is up for grabs.
But let's get to the point here, which is energy. What can hemp do? Here's a quick synopsis:
ANYTHING MADE FROM WOOD OR OIL CAN BE MADE FROM HEMP
Hemp biomass can be converted into gasoline more efficiently than fossil fuels (coal, oil) and without sulfur or acid rain as byproducts. Hemp fiberboard is stronger than wood, hemp houses are as strong as cement houses and better insulated. Plastic, rayon, and cellophane made from hemp are biodegradeable. Paper uses nearly half the world's timber. Hemp produces FOUR TIMES the amount of paper per acre as trees, and grows in all climates of the US. Hemp paper lasts about 1500 years. Cotton requires more pesticides than any other agricultural product. Hemp grows without pesticides and herbicides, and is much stronger than cotton cloth.
We're only touching the tip of the iceberg here. The point is that people simply don't realize what hemp can do, because the government's blackballing job has been so effective. I'm hoping to at least enlighten a few
Here's the short version of why hemp is illegal:
-Major corporations such as DuPont, Monsanto, Dow, ExxonMobil, Lilly, etc. stand to lose MILLIONS, if not billions, of dollars if hemp were allowed to be used to its potential.
-It is simply TOO EASY TO GROW. Sounds absurd, right? It is. Hemp grows in virtually any environment with virtually no need for chemicals. In short, any Tom, Dick or Harry could become a hemp farmer. The government does not like not having absolute control over what is grown. Tobacco seeds, for instance, are carefully controlled AND TAXED by the US government. They would have a very, very tough time trying to control and tax hemp growers.
I'm really tempted to dive into the THC-friendly portion of this debate.
Whether or not you support legal use of marijuana should have no effect on your support of legal hemp cultivation. Please keep that in mind. They are completely separate issues.
Please continue your learning at this most excellent website:
http://www.jackherer.com/
It has a definite slant towards pro-marijuna and hemp. But even if you think the website is biased, you can't deny the pure volume of bullshit that we're fed about the marijuana/hemp issue.
Hemp SHOULD BE one of the main alternative energies of the future.
With revenues of only $22,956 million a year, they're a tenth the size of Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart or GM. The top 3 on the list.
True, but there's a huge diffence between Microsoft and GM, ExxonMobil, or Wal-Mart: Those companies have to spend massive amounts of money to make money. Microsoft has virtually no production costs at all compared to those three. If you compare the percentage of revenue that is pure profit, you'll see that Microsoft is probably the richest company in the world.
I think this is kinda retarded, too. Every time I see OS X, I think to myself "Oh Es Eks" but when I say it aloud, I convert it to "Ten". It takes a few seconds of processing time. :)
I was going to let Apple have their fun insisting it was "Ten" but as soon as they slapped the 10.1 on the end of it, all bets were off. That's retarded. It's now "Oh Es Eks version Ten point One" regardless of what the reading-impaired insist it's called.
Besides, the "Eks" really separates it from its numbered brethren of the past. Doesn't Apple want a big distinction?
Eh, probably not. :) By outdated, I mean their street data. Obviously street data is not really their most foremost purpose, but they are highly accurate for the streets they do show. But since the USGS has roughly 80,000+ maps to deal with, they don't get updated all that often.
I can attest for sure, as a cartographer, that ALL map companies do in fact still produce inaccuracies, and quite intentionally. If you actually went to the trouble of comparing street maps to an orthorectified image (a.k.a., terraserver.com) of the same area, you would see that the map practically looks made up. Map companies, if they went to the trouble of checking, could easily tell if one of their maps had been copied. By the way, if you're looking for accurate maps to copy, USGS topo maps are far more accurate than any other maps available. They are made from the aforementioned orthophotos. And they are all in the public domain. They're not always up to date, however.
There is a huge difference between music/software (or other various intellectual properties) and tangible things like cars and clothes that people are comparing them to - you can't miraculously copy the car or clothing article for pennies. You obviously can copy words, sound, or programs and keep a copy for yourself before you sell the original. This seems like a very obvious difference that people are just glazing over in the name of consumer rights.
Now, the record, publishing, and software industries are all greedy bastards... there's no doubt about that. But to say that they have no more reason to be upset about the reselling or the nature of ownership of their products than Ford or Chevy is a little shortsighted, to say the least.
Again, this is a completely separate issue from those industries being *reasonable* about their business practices and demands on consumers. But it's important to note the differences between products.
When I think about this issue, all the stuff about what is or isn't possible with various licensing goes right over my head. To me, it seems that Microsoft could make very short work of the entire Linux movement simply with its name recognition. All they would have to do is release MS Linux. The details of the distribution are inconsequential; people would buy it simply because they've heard so much "good" about Linux, and now Microsoft has a version. People don't know much or care much about what the OS really is or does, they just want it to work. And they also happen to be very familiar and comfortable, for better or for worse, with the Microsoft name. So MS Linux could become instantly popular, and Microsoft could kill Red Hat's and everyone else's market share and do who know what with the funding for Linux projects. Only things MS wants to get done would get done. No, Microsoft couldn't stop individuals from doing whatever they wanted, but it would be completely irrelevant to any market that MS controls. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying. I hope so. Because this scenario seems very easy, though perhaps not likely. But who knows what the hell MS execs are thinking behind closed doors.
Regardless, it is painful to watch any Porsche tarnished. At least it was realistic; most cars are magically repaired in the next frame.