It doesn't matter if the browser can natively do everything. It just matters whether or not it can do everything you need it to do in a particular case. Most SWFs are well within that range.
You could have used different words, but you would still make be making an argument based upon certain parties benefiting from positive externalities without bearing a cost. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and we both do it every day in regards to technology older than 20 years, and technology that is not patentable.
Except the metric system has a decimal base, and all the disadvantages it entails (5 is pretty much a useless divisor). The consistency is quite advantageous, but there are much better bases, at least if you don't limit yourself to our particular numeral system.
I'm not sure that it applies. Being abnormally intelligent isn't really harmful to the group, and there is no benefit to the group to everyone having average intelligence. What I'm saying occurs is that if an individual is exceptionally intelligent, they may not "fit in" or "relate" as well as their peers. That could result in decreased social standing and difficulty finding a mate, decreasing their chances of successfully reproducing.
For starters, the genetics of intelligence have a large number of factors, and interactions between those genes is probably not all that simple. Secondly, some intelligence factors may not be expressed in all environments. If the limiting factor is diet, than those genes may have little value, or even be a disadvantage. Finally, humans are social creatures, and excessive deviance from the norm may be strongly selected against for reproduction, even if it is advantageous for the individual's survival.
as far as operation of an organisation (any, be it private, profitable, utility) there is no functional difference between maximizing profit and maximizing cost efficiency (because as you would no doubt be aware, profit=revenue less expenses).
That is only true if the revenue stays the same. Of course, what we are debating here is specifically a revenue model. CSIRO's research practices won't change much, other than perhaps avoiding non-patentable research, which is likely to decrease the social welfare their research results in. If you really want to reduce CSIRO's tax burden, completely disband it.
if a government owned utility improves its operational efficiency, then it can "make a profit", but for a utility profit is really just a cash asset, so it offers the opportunity to reduce prices for consumers, or reduce funding required from government (does this sound like what CSIRO is doing yet?).
The problem is that you aren't seeing the big picture. It doesn't reduce what consumers pay. It actually increases the overhead. What it does is move the cost, so the direct funding is lower, but the total cost to consumers is greater. It's not particularly surprising, because that's what patents did initially. They were largely used as a way of collecting taxes without it being a visible tax, which would be an unpopular move. So, they would grant a party that gave the king money letters patent, stating that they had a monopoly on such and such market. However, this was really, really stupid, and it got so out of control that the statute of monopolies was passed, which limited the grant of monopolies to new inventions.
I'm all for increasing operational efficiency, but this isn't actually more efficient. The US could help the post office if they had mailmen rob banks every now and then, but that's clearly an idiotic policy, andd nobody would dare claim it efficient.
No, using the word "freeloading" or "free riding" is a huge red flag that you don't have a competent argument. Mark Lemly has an excellent paper in which he attacks the kind of criticism you use.
I'm saying that running utilities 'like a business' is idiotic. Who owns it doesn't matter, because the problem is that it's not an economically efficient way of running them. Utilities run like businesses aim to maximize profit. Utilities run like utilities aim to provide the best service at the lowest cost Utilities are not run like businesses, and are not run like businesses for a reason. Likewise, government research facilities should not be run like businesses.
perhaps not, but it would be a hell of a lot more efficient and productive if it were
No, it wouldn't. Governments have to focus on what is best for citizens, not what is best for the treasury department. Running government your way would eliminate policies that aren't profitable to the government, even if they provide a major benefit to the public. Here's a newflash for you: that would eliminate CSIRO entirely. CSIRO is not profitable. Licensing patents has reduced their costs, but not in a huge way. If CSIRO were part of a business, it would be eliminated.
if you had invented anything you would understand. consumers with no appreciation for patents and copyright are just as greedy as leeching corporate rip offs.,blockquote>
There's your first mistake. Copyright and patents are about the public, not inventor or authors. I am a part time author, but I don't have the vanity to think that I deserve a legal monopoly. I actually didn't obtain this viewpoint until AFTER I had started to take up writing more seriously.
why are you a patent abolitionist rather than a patent reformist? eliminating patents altogether will merely ground investment in innovation to a grinding halt and people with ideas will simply keep them to themselves out of fear of being ripped off and having no legal recourse to protect their investment.
No, legal monopolies are a backwards tool that has no purpose in modern economics. And no, it won't drive innovation to a grinding halt, it will accelerate progress. The idea behind copyright and patents is noble (at least the 'promote the progress' one), but the mechanism doesn't work, and it is fundamentally flawed.
The price in a market depends upon a number of factors. You are correct that in many cases, the price has very little relationship to the costs involved. However, that tends to most often be the case in markets that are not competitive, such as cellular providers charging ridiculous prices for text messages. At the retail level, there also tends to be differences in margins, such as use of loss leaders, but that's more of an issue of where the money is made.
However, if there's anything we can count on, it's that if you make a company bear a direct cost, that cost and more will be added to the price.
the aussie taxpayer isn't taxed on wifi devices, they are making money from wifi technology. where did you get the impression there was a wifi tax?
AFAIK, Australian citizens are still having to pay the same fees. If you have data that Australian companies don't have to pay CSIRO or that sales in Australia are exempt from that royalty, please provide it. Otherwise, the cost is passed on to companies, and shit rolls downhill, so consumers are still paying for it.
if CSIRO was privatised, according to you patenting would be ok, but the aussie taxpayer would then get no benefit from its licensing, the profit would go offshore, and consumers would still get slugged the same. how the hell do you figure it would be better for the aussie taxpayer if CSIRO gave away its patent?
I'm not saying CSIRO should be privatized. I'm sayng they shouldn't have sought a patent in the first place. Personally, I'm a patent abolitionist, but I find the idea of government agencies, whether they be American, Australian, or any other nationality, getting patents, even more offensive than the backwards practice of patent already is in the first place.
my point was that if private companies can make money for shareholders, then government agencies can make money for taxpayers
The government isn't intended to be just a business that has citizens as shareholders.
Taxpayers are paying for it twice here as well. They paid whatever it cost to do the initial research as taxpayers, and they are paying the four cents or whatever for each wifi device. The only thing that makes this 'okay' in any way is that some of the money is going back into research. However, this is an indirect tax, making it much less efficient and reliable than directly funding, since it requires a slew of lawyers and other administration to enforce, as well as the overhead of patent applications (this includes prior art searches, payment to patent lawyers for filing the application, the application fee, and it even puts more strain on the patent office, which in many cases have extensive backlogs as it is.). It also means that research is going to be focused upon areas which are patentable and profitable, which is the stuff that private R&D is going to bring us anyway under the current system.
funny, it has worked just fine for the CSIRO for years. got any examples of the failure you speak of?
Yes, privately held for profit electrical companies were a very bad idea. The same goes for water companies and other utilities. Telecoms are pretty much the most awful businesses that are still around, and are in an area that really should be either run by municipalities or a membership corporation. These are all areas where being run like a conventional business is idiotic.
actually, company shareholder would have greater prosperity, at greater cost to the public
How the hell do you figure there would be a greater cost to the public to not be taxed on wifi devices?
if your point was that profitable companies do R&D in the public interest moreso than a government R&D organisation, its a lost cause. if you were being sarcastic, i don't get it.
No, my point was that government funded R&D should be completely free and open. I'm not saying that private companies doing research and getting patents is good, but rather, that government agencies doing research and getting patents is bad.
The reason to have something run by the government is because the profit based incentives of a business do not work in that area. Like you pointed out, private, for-profit utilities do a poor job. I see no good reason to run a government research organization like you would a private research organization. The sensible way to handle this would be to do the research and make it freely available. The funding would come from taxpayers, and if this research is truly fruitful, the public would have greater prosperity, and greater capabilities of funding further research. It also means that agencies like CSIRO can make research decisions based upon what is best for the public to research, as opposed to partially or wholly avoiding research that isn't patentable.
I'm not saying that CSIRO shouldn't have done the research. I'm saying that government funded research shouldn't result in patents or copyright. It's double dipping, taking two forms of government subsidy.
Going through lawsuits are expensive, and carry big risks, which is why settling out of court is so common. The lawsuits are the threat to get the other party to accept licensing.
The production of karaoke CDs would fall under mechanical royalties and be paid by the record label to the publishers, and the karaoke bars would pay performance rights to the relevant PRS (ASCAP, BMI, or in Canada, SOCAN).
The performance rights for a master recording should go to the karaoke record label if anybody, but I would think that the sales of karaoke CDs and whatnot include implicit licenses for public performance anyway.
However, there is an incredibly strong fair use argument for such behavior, as in, pretty much the strongest fair use argument ever. If it doesn't get laughed out of court, then it is undeniably time for a bloody revolution.
It's not the size of the annoyance, but that the annoyance is without a particularly good reason.
You know, if something that small will seriously make you pissed off, I might suggest that you consider not using computers at all. Or at the very least, only using computers that belong to other people so that you don't have to shoulder any of the burden that might come with having to administrate or maintain it.
It's quite the opposite, really. I generally hate using other people's computers, particularly when I don't have the power to administrate it. If it is MY computer, I can usually make it get out of my way and let me do what I want. If it's someone else's computer, it gets in my way to a certain extent and I have to exert extra effort to compensate for my lack of control. This restrictions shifts the computer from being "my computer" to "not my computer," at least a little bit.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter if the browser can natively do everything. It just matters whether or not it can do everything you need it to do in a particular case. Most SWFs are well within that range.
Efficient is relative. Flash isn't native code anyway.
You could have used different words, but you would still make be making an argument based upon certain parties benefiting from positive externalities without bearing a cost. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and we both do it every day in regards to technology older than 20 years, and technology that is not patentable.
Except the metric system has a decimal base, and all the disadvantages it entails (5 is pretty much a useless divisor). The consistency is quite advantageous, but there are much better bases, at least if you don't limit yourself to our particular numeral system.
I'm not sure that it applies. Being abnormally intelligent isn't really harmful to the group, and there is no benefit to the group to everyone having average intelligence. What I'm saying occurs is that if an individual is exceptionally intelligent, they may not "fit in" or "relate" as well as their peers. That could result in decreased social standing and difficulty finding a mate, decreasing their chances of successfully reproducing.
For starters, the genetics of intelligence have a large number of factors, and interactions between those genes is probably not all that simple. Secondly, some intelligence factors may not be expressed in all environments. If the limiting factor is diet, than those genes may have little value, or even be a disadvantage. Finally, humans are social creatures, and excessive deviance from the norm may be strongly selected against for reproduction, even if it is advantageous for the individual's survival.
That is only true if the revenue stays the same. Of course, what we are debating here is specifically a revenue model. CSIRO's research practices won't change much, other than perhaps avoiding non-patentable research, which is likely to decrease the social welfare their research results in. If you really want to reduce CSIRO's tax burden, completely disband it.
The problem is that you aren't seeing the big picture. It doesn't reduce what consumers pay. It actually increases the overhead. What it does is move the cost, so the direct funding is lower, but the total cost to consumers is greater. It's not particularly surprising, because that's what patents did initially. They were largely used as a way of collecting taxes without it being a visible tax, which would be an unpopular move. So, they would grant a party that gave the king money letters patent, stating that they had a monopoly on such and such market. However, this was really, really stupid, and it got so out of control that the statute of monopolies was passed, which limited the grant of monopolies to new inventions.
I'm all for increasing operational efficiency, but this isn't actually more efficient. The US could help the post office if they had mailmen rob banks every now and then, but that's clearly an idiotic policy, andd nobody would dare claim it efficient.
No, using the word "freeloading" or "free riding" is a huge red flag that you don't have a competent argument. Mark Lemly has an excellent paper in which he attacks the kind of criticism you use.
I'm saying that running utilities 'like a business' is idiotic. Who owns it doesn't matter, because the problem is that it's not an economically efficient way of running them. Utilities run like businesses aim to maximize profit. Utilities run like utilities aim to provide the best service at the lowest cost Utilities are not run like businesses, and are not run like businesses for a reason. Likewise, government research facilities should not be run like businesses.
No, it wouldn't. Governments have to focus on what is best for citizens, not what is best for the treasury department. Running government your way would eliminate policies that aren't profitable to the government, even if they provide a major benefit to the public. Here's a newflash for you: that would eliminate CSIRO entirely. CSIRO is not profitable. Licensing patents has reduced their costs, but not in a huge way. If CSIRO were part of a business, it would be eliminated.
No, legal monopolies are a backwards tool that has no purpose in modern economics. And no, it won't drive innovation to a grinding halt, it will accelerate progress. The idea behind copyright and patents is noble (at least the 'promote the progress' one), but the mechanism doesn't work, and it is fundamentally flawed.
"Freeloading" and "free-riding" are almost always baseless arguments.
The price in a market depends upon a number of factors. You are correct that in many cases, the price has very little relationship to the costs involved. However, that tends to most often be the case in markets that are not competitive, such as cellular providers charging ridiculous prices for text messages. At the retail level, there also tends to be differences in margins, such as use of loss leaders, but that's more of an issue of where the money is made.
However, if there's anything we can count on, it's that if you make a company bear a direct cost, that cost and more will be added to the price.
AFAIK, Australian citizens are still having to pay the same fees. If you have data that Australian companies don't have to pay CSIRO or that sales in Australia are exempt from that royalty, please provide it. Otherwise, the cost is passed on to companies, and shit rolls downhill, so consumers are still paying for it.
I'm not saying CSIRO should be privatized. I'm sayng they shouldn't have sought a patent in the first place. Personally, I'm a patent abolitionist, but I find the idea of government agencies, whether they be American, Australian, or any other nationality, getting patents, even more offensive than the backwards practice of patent already is in the first place.
The government isn't intended to be just a business that has citizens as shareholders.
Taxpayers are paying for it twice here as well. They paid whatever it cost to do the initial research as taxpayers, and they are paying the four cents or whatever for each wifi device. The only thing that makes this 'okay' in any way is that some of the money is going back into research. However, this is an indirect tax, making it much less efficient and reliable than directly funding, since it requires a slew of lawyers and other administration to enforce, as well as the overhead of patent applications (this includes prior art searches, payment to patent lawyers for filing the application, the application fee, and it even puts more strain on the patent office, which in many cases have extensive backlogs as it is.). It also means that research is going to be focused upon areas which are patentable and profitable, which is the stuff that private R&D is going to bring us anyway under the current system.
Yes, privately held for profit electrical companies were a very bad idea. The same goes for water companies and other utilities. Telecoms are pretty much the most awful businesses that are still around, and are in an area that really should be either run by municipalities or a membership corporation. These are all areas where being run like a conventional business is idiotic.
How the hell do you figure there would be a greater cost to the public to not be taxed on wifi devices?
No, my point was that government funded R&D should be completely free and open. I'm not saying that private companies doing research and getting patents is good, but rather, that government agencies doing research and getting patents is bad.
No, because it costs the train station every time they run a train. CSIRO bears no costs when a third party makes a WiFi device.
The reason to have something run by the government is because the profit based incentives of a business do not work in that area. Like you pointed out, private, for-profit utilities do a poor job. I see no good reason to run a government research organization like you would a private research organization. The sensible way to handle this would be to do the research and make it freely available. The funding would come from taxpayers, and if this research is truly fruitful, the public would have greater prosperity, and greater capabilities of funding further research. It also means that agencies like CSIRO can make research decisions based upon what is best for the public to research, as opposed to partially or wholly avoiding research that isn't patentable.
I'm not saying that CSIRO shouldn't have done the research. I'm saying that government funded research shouldn't result in patents or copyright. It's double dipping, taking two forms of government subsidy.
Going through lawsuits are expensive, and carry big risks, which is why settling out of court is so common. The lawsuits are the threat to get the other party to accept licensing.
Perhaps government agencies should leave "business" to businesses.
Google problably is, though.
It also has a bias towards people stupid enough to sit and answer a poll.
The production of karaoke CDs would fall under mechanical royalties and be paid by the record label to the publishers, and the karaoke bars would pay performance rights to the relevant PRS (ASCAP, BMI, or in Canada, SOCAN). The performance rights for a master recording should go to the karaoke record label if anybody, but I would think that the sales of karaoke CDs and whatnot include implicit licenses for public performance anyway.
However, there is an incredibly strong fair use argument for such behavior, as in, pretty much the strongest fair use argument ever. If it doesn't get laughed out of court, then it is undeniably time for a bloody revolution.
It's quite the opposite, really. I generally hate using other people's computers, particularly when I don't have the power to administrate it. If it is MY computer, I can usually make it get out of my way and let me do what I want. If it's someone else's computer, it gets in my way to a certain extent and I have to exert extra effort to compensate for my lack of control. This restrictions shifts the computer from being "my computer" to "not my computer," at least a little bit.