There's a hell of a lot of government in North Korea, why aren't they rich?
Seriously, this somehow got a +5 insightful? REALLY? Are all Slashdot moderators mouth-breathing whiny 9 year old Fox-news viewing children?
To help the low-IQ libertarian fuckwits out a little bit, not only does the above post sound like something Bill O'Reilly might say (one must never sound like Bill O'Reilly), the logic error here is one of a transitive property: Just because all wealth comes from government, doesn't mean everyone gets rich. You still need step B between A (government) and C (profit).
Slashdot really has to do something to fix moderator bias.
What is it with people that take advantage of the high social development afforded by higher tax rates only to run off to a low tax rate area when they become rich?
We really need to make sure people understand that ALL wealth comes from government. Government makes sure your employees are educated instead of brain-dead religious morons, that roads/trains/airports exist to deliver your products to customers, that the banks holding your money don't have disappearing bank accounts, and on and on.
None of this would have been possible without a government paid for by taxes.
The richer you are, the more dependent you are on government, as a larger portion of your wealth came about because government made it possible for you to be wealthy. You can't be rich in a libertarian paradise like Ireland or Somalia. Does anyone even know any rich Irishman? Do they even exist?
It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves. They have no idea the kind of infrastructure and work government put in to get that one dollar to travel into their hands in the first place. No, the wealthy didn't magically conjure up that dollar into their pockets.
RIAA and the MPAA are middle men. Middle men don't add value: They don't produce the product, and they don't use it. They're worthless. Fuck them.
You say that, but you really like what they do. You're actually much happier with content because of the RIAA & MPAA.
You see, art isn't a democracy. You, like most people, are only interested in the.0001% of the population with talent. What the RIAA & MPAA does is they edit out the other 99.9999% of junk content, so you don't have to. Without middle-men, you'd be swamped in a sea of amateur productions, which you hate.
This happens in all art forms. Most art is really, really bad, and has no appeal to critics or even the general public. And, bad artists SHOULD be stopped, and should be discouraged from doing art ever again. Maybe they can instead get a job as a police officer or something, which is perfectly fine.
Right now nobody actually needs the middle-men - anyone can make a movie or song on your own. Instead, artists actually choose to go through them to gain validation of their art, which they use to gain more funding for their creativity.
So, you, like everyone else,end up supporting a middle-man system designed to edit out bad art. And if it's not going to be the RIAA or MPAA, it's going to be something else, maybe a website or some other central editorial authority. Everyone wants to be that central editorial authority, and someone eventually will be.
When you pirate, you're basically trying to eliminate an existing central editorial authority, but who's to say your editorial decision-making is better than RIAA or MPAA? Are you trained in the arts? Do you really think everyone should be encouraged to produce art? Of course not.
In the end, the fact is, you appreciate the editorial authority of the RIAA or MPAA, because, their editing decisions are what you're really interested in.
Lots of Slashdotters think branding is a number's formula. It's not.
It's an art.
I'd love to see them try and quantify Kate Moss. It's why Vogue charges $150 CPM, and Facebook $0.01 CPM.
Conde Nast gets $4 billion/yr from about 5 million readers. Facebook needs 800 million people to get that much.
Social media really is useless as an advertising medium. Tech nerds should stay FAR away from the media world. Don't get into the art world if you don't understand art.
Branding would be about the only kind of advertising you do there unless FB gets into phones, gadgets, etc.
Actually, branding is the LAST thing you'd do on Facebook. Place your ad on FB, and your brand would be seen as Spam, instead of as something valuable.
Why would any advertiser place their brands ad next to your friend from high-school throwing up, when they can place it next to a Kate Moss cover story in Vogue?
Facebook has no revenue potential as a media company. The idiots that believe in Facebook are clueless wall-street tech nerds, not savvy media professionals. Social media sucks to build brands with.
Why would any advertiser place their ads on Facebook next to a picture of their friend from high-school throwing up, when they can place their ad in traditional print media next to a picture of Kate Moss in Vogue or on TV next to Leighton Meester in Gossip Girl?
This is the fundamental problem with social-media: it's value as media is very, very low. The only possible ads that may possibly work with social media are transactional local ads, NOT national advertisers with brand names to protect.
Of course, most people aren't media professionals, and will buy into the hype and think Facebook has miraculous untold trillions to make from advertisements, causing this IPO to skyrocket.. but wait a few years, when advertisers start to pull out as they all try and fail in their attempts to market through Facebook.
Seriously, Facebook is the equivalent to the comments section on YouTube or any other mildly retarded site that relies on public input. Why would any intelligent advertiser place their ad in media created by average people, instead of by professional producers?
Anyone can reach billions of people for cheap. (ever try email marketing?) The problem is reaching the billions of people in a positive way for your brand. Do it wrong, and it becomes brand-destroying SPAM.
I like Facebook and all, it's just that I don't think they'll be able to compete against the REAL advertising industry. They need to do something else to monetize, like sell Facebook credits or photo hosting or other media..
We socialists want MORE done by government, not less. We're always fighting the Tea Party types that say government should be a minimal thing. We prefer a big government.
I'll never understand why the Tea Party types want government to be smaller. People that hate government should not be allowed to participate in government.
btw the same thing happened in the 90's, when every person figured out how to gamble using their own money in the stock market, through things ilke ETrade and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a hell of a lot of government in North Korea, why aren't they rich?
Seriously, this somehow got a +5 insightful? REALLY? Are all Slashdot moderators mouth-breathing whiny 9 year old Fox-news viewing children?
To help the low-IQ libertarian fuckwits out a little bit, not only does the above post sound like something Bill O'Reilly might say (one must never sound like Bill O'Reilly), the logic error here is one of a transitive property: Just because all wealth comes from government, doesn't mean everyone gets rich. You still need step B between A (government) and C (profit).
Slashdot really has to do something to fix moderator bias.
What is it with people that take advantage of the high social development afforded by higher tax rates only to run off to a low tax rate area when they become rich?
We really need to make sure people understand that ALL wealth comes from government. Government makes sure your employees are educated instead of brain-dead religious morons, that roads/trains/airports exist to deliver your products to customers, that the banks holding your money don't have disappearing bank accounts, and on and on.
None of this would have been possible without a government paid for by taxes.
The richer you are, the more dependent you are on government, as a larger portion of your wealth came about because government made it possible for you to be wealthy. You can't be rich in a libertarian paradise like Ireland or Somalia. Does anyone even know any rich Irishman? Do they even exist?
It seems people become libertarian AFTER they become rich, as they have the mistaken belief that they somehow made their wealth themselves. They have no idea the kind of infrastructure and work government put in to get that one dollar to travel into their hands in the first place. No, the wealthy didn't magically conjure up that dollar into their pockets.
The entire problem of your argument is that it rests upon the idea that art needs financing.
Actually, art does need financing. Self financed art is always of very low quality.
If you ever surveyed the art world, you would know this already.
Public school is probably the best place to start learning that not everyone likes you and rarely (if ever) do things go your way.
Probably one of the most important reasons to put a person in public school.
I'm just amused that there are still dorks that use VI & EMACS.
Uh, huh. And this in this IDE you will be able to code fluently from second 0?
Why do you think people will be able to code fluently from second 0 in this IDE?
VI and emacs are free.
No, they're not free. There is a cost associated with them - the time to learn the commands.
Do you think VI or Emacs is more expensive than Visual Studio?
RIAA and the MPAA are middle men. Middle men don't add value: They don't produce the product, and they don't use it. They're worthless. Fuck them.
You say that, but you really like what they do. You're actually much happier with content because of the RIAA & MPAA.
You see, art isn't a democracy. You, like most people, are only interested in the .0001% of the population with talent. What the RIAA & MPAA does is they edit out the other 99.9999% of junk content, so you don't have to. Without middle-men, you'd be swamped in a sea of amateur productions, which you hate.
This happens in all art forms. Most art is really, really bad, and has no appeal to critics or even the general public. And, bad artists SHOULD be stopped, and should be discouraged from doing art ever again. Maybe they can instead get a job as a police officer or something, which is perfectly fine.
Right now nobody actually needs the middle-men - anyone can make a movie or song on your own. Instead, artists actually choose to go through them to gain validation of their art, which they use to gain more funding for their creativity.
So, you, like everyone else,end up supporting a middle-man system designed to edit out bad art. And if it's not going to be the RIAA or MPAA, it's going to be something else, maybe a website or some other central editorial authority. Everyone wants to be that central editorial authority, and someone eventually will be.
When you pirate, you're basically trying to eliminate an existing central editorial authority, but who's to say your editorial decision-making is better than RIAA or MPAA? Are you trained in the arts? Do you really think everyone should be encouraged to produce art? Of course not.
In the end, the fact is, you appreciate the editorial authority of the RIAA or MPAA, because, their editing decisions are what you're really interested in.
Indeed. Content is king, how pretty the page is is secondary.
No, content isn't king. How pretty a web page is king.
It is why Facebook won over Myspace, because Facebook had a cleaner site than Myspace's user-made CSS, even though both have crap content.
No, all fundamental discoveries are made by government. Commercial entities have never invented anything.
That is because profit is incompatible with social benefit.
We need to encourage more funding from government through taxation of corporation. Let's give government more control over corporations.
Seriously, the general public should be banned from owning stock in publicly traded companies.
Just don't even let them.
If they want to get rich, they should be limited to owning shares of corporations they started.
Limit the public's ownership options to safer investment choices, such as mutual funds and what not.
No, it's still government property.
The public doesn't own government property. Government is its own independent entity. Government property is strictly governments.
The public is merely the board of directors for government that gives direction on how government may proceed.
Kids in college these days weren't even alive when the original Linux was announced.
MIND. BLOWN.
I looked through that site. Didn't see anything useful there, just a bunch of linux distributions.
Lots of Slashdotters think branding is a number's formula. It's not.
It's an art.
I'd love to see them try and quantify Kate Moss. It's why Vogue charges $150 CPM, and Facebook $0.01 CPM.
Conde Nast gets $4 billion/yr from about 5 million readers. Facebook needs 800 million people to get that much.
Social media really is useless as an advertising medium. Tech nerds should stay FAR away from the media world. Don't get into the art world if you don't understand art.
Branding would be about the only kind of advertising you do there unless FB gets into phones, gadgets, etc.
Actually, branding is the LAST thing you'd do on Facebook. Place your ad on FB, and your brand would be seen as Spam, instead of as something valuable.
Why would any advertiser place their brands ad next to your friend from high-school throwing up, when they can place it next to a Kate Moss cover story in Vogue?
So, that's how branding works.
People still print ads? On paper?
Is there any other media outlet that Kate Moss would appear in?
Facebook has no revenue potential as a media company. The idiots that believe in Facebook are clueless wall-street tech nerds, not savvy media professionals. Social media sucks to build brands with.
Why would any advertiser place their ads on Facebook next to a picture of their friend from high-school throwing up, when they can place their ad in traditional print media next to a picture of Kate Moss in Vogue or on TV next to Leighton Meester in Gossip Girl?
This is the fundamental problem with social-media: it's value as media is very, very low. The only possible ads that may possibly work with social media are transactional local ads, NOT national advertisers with brand names to protect.
Of course, most people aren't media professionals, and will buy into the hype and think Facebook has miraculous untold trillions to make from advertisements, causing this IPO to skyrocket.. but wait a few years, when advertisers start to pull out as they all try and fail in their attempts to market through Facebook.
Seriously, Facebook is the equivalent to the comments section on YouTube or any other mildly retarded site that relies on public input. Why would any intelligent advertiser place their ad in media created by average people, instead of by professional producers?
Anyone can reach billions of people for cheap. (ever try email marketing?) The problem is reaching the billions of people in a positive way for your brand. Do it wrong, and it becomes brand-destroying SPAM.
I like Facebook and all, it's just that I don't think they'll be able to compete against the REAL advertising industry. They need to do something else to monetize, like sell Facebook credits or photo hosting or other media..
Great, so everything works out in the end!
And yet the few abusers always end up managing to be evicted one way or another.
It works for the screwer.
If my interests screws your interests, that still works great for me.
That's the problem.
We socialists want MORE done by government, not less. We're always fighting the Tea Party types that say government should be a minimal thing. We prefer a big government.
I'll never understand why the Tea Party types want government to be smaller. People that hate government should not be allowed to participate in government.
Or, go the other way and install them permanently for life?
That way they don't have to worry about reelection and kissing corporate interest ass.
You know, I'll never get why Tea Partiers feel replacing career politicians with AMATEUR politicians would be a good thing?
btw the same thing happened in the 90's, when every person figured out how to gamble using their own money in the stock market, through things ilke ETrade and so on.