The average US citizen probably has 20, possibly now even 30, votes in their lifetime.
A vote is only thrown away when you don't vote.
Vote against your principles only if you think voting for your principles would result in some catastrophic intrusion in your life, but I don't think Bush vs Gore was such an event, nor do I think Bush vs Kerry is also such an event.
You're already paying X. You can afford X. Insurance companies take an action that reduces accidents, loss of life, and injuries.
*why* should they lower it? What reason is there? You haven't done anything to make the world a better place, after all.
I have one. Competition. But that's not the answer you're looking for. If you're paying X to Insurance A, Insurance company B can offer you Y because with the new laws in effect they can afford to do so. So Insurance A can either let Insurance B steal their customers, or lower their rates accordingly.
Of course the world is imperfect, but still, that is the force which forces prices down. Capitalism says, "I made the world a better place, so the money I make in return is justified." Altruism says, "I made the world a better place," and cynicism says, "I'm paying exactly the same now as I was three months ago, the world is a safer place, but I should be paying less."
Realistically government serves to perpetuate government. It is only tolerated by us because a side effect of our government is that our quality of life is improved. The same reasons why we allow for banks that take our money and services paid for by our taxes.
So as long as the side effects are improved quality of life, I would argue that everything is working fine. If our quality of life didn't improve, we may as well overthrow our government, right?
They do one thing that increases the survivability of minors, decreases the accidents on the road, and made driving safer for everyone, so profit on it.
If they had invented a device to do so, they'd make money off it too. They just passed laws, however, that improved the quality of life of *everyone* on the road, and their families. Why shouldn't they profit off it?
You're treating the iPod as an mp3 player, when it can also be seen as a data storage and retrieval device.
Calendars, notes, audio, alerts, and text.
Can you not imagine instances where it would be powerfully used? A German major downloads all his lab material onto the iPod, and listens to it on the walk home. A communications major downloads a handful of speeches and presentations, and listens to it on her way home. Anyone downloading their school's various activity calendars on the iPod, as well as an alert 2 days and the day of on really important ones?
A physics major uploading the Feynman Lectures and listening to it when he's bored. Yes, people do buy and read/listen to Feynman.
A music major will of course also load up on classics, contemporary pieces, and stuff.
A literature major might listen to some works on tape, after or before reading in paper... And those in a hurry won't read on books, I figure.
The iPod opens up a possibility of on demand and continual exposure. This is wearable computing, and while it might be underwhelming to you, I would suggest you hold judgment. It may be a bad idea, but I suspect it won't be. It may be a very, very, good idea.
You're assuming GIMP works 'out of the package'. I haven't had a great amount of luck with complex programs in the GNU world. It's taken a bit of fiddling to get X11 up, OpenOffice, and LaTex. Why would GIMP be any easier?
Are you being willfully dumb here? We're comparing it to the likes of Photoshop... see this. If you can download and make it yourself, it still isn't free. Imagine you earn $60k a year. That makes your time something like $35 an hour!
I'm not arguing for arbitrary pricing models, I'm only defending 'demand-side pricing', where the original poster was asking why supply side pricing wasn't more ethical/correct.
If you're any kind of 'professional', then $600-$1,000 software is a steal.
I've spent $100 on movie making software and $50 on DVD authoring programs, and their power-price ratio is outstanding.
Imagine if you're making $60k a year off Photoshop and Illustrator. $2,000 for the software is chump change. Same for Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Motion, Shake, and any really powerful authoring software.
Photoshop is $600, where Photoshop Elements is $60. If you need the $600, you will gladly pay it, especially when the alternative is $40 for GIMP and $100 for Paintshop Pro or something.
I think there is a fundamental problem with supply side pricing in the modern factory driven environment. How do you predict how many copies you're going to sell, and thus manufacture?
If you can produce 3 million copies at $2 each and sell at $3 to make back all your money and then some, vs 3,000 copies at $4 each but need to sell at $999 to make back all your money, what do you do?
Realistically you expect to sell less, and charge slightly more, like $2,000, because it only costs you $12,000 to manufacture, vs $6 million to manufacture. Supply side is a great idea, but only if you can perfectly predict how much demand there will be. Of course there are exceptions, but realistically demand-side pricing seems to work slightly better on the average.
This said from someone who's produced several hundred DVDs and sold at $20 or so each, rather than several thousand at $6 each.
It just chafes that they talk about choice and competition and then ignore Mac users. I mean what they really want then is to draw away PC using iPod owners away from iTunes. It's a valid business tactic, but very aggravating when I want my $0.49 download.
So you see the difference? From the getgo Apple catered to Mac users, and if Windows users tried hard enough they could use an iPod. Real, on the other hand, hasn't done enough to allow Mac users onto their network no matter how hard I try, short of buying a PC.
I also kind of doubt they can capture 95% of the market by ignoring Mac users. Maybe in a few years, but I think right now we are still a significant majority in both iPod ownership and music downloads.
It's been done, but for some reason 95% of the population never consider it. I wouldn't know if that same percentage afflicts antarctic physicists and their bureaucrats!
No, of course not. If they could, they would be computer scientists, or hackers. Instead they are physicists.
Re:Yes but what about the ants?
on
Solder in Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Dunno, seems kinda fundamentally useful to know. Theory is one thing, observation is another.
I mean, would you have predicted that outcome in space? If no, then there is value, because that unexpected answer is basis for all sorts of future developments to build upon that answer.
If yes, then please tell us what else we can do with this discovery?
True. There are more local effects we can control though.
Smog, via auto pollution. Less auto pollution, less smog, less smog, less asthma. Smog is also correlated to temperature as well!
Temperature, ie the heat island effect, determined by local building codes and policies. Besides being cooler and more comfortable, higher temperatures precipitate more release of VOC
Higher temperature also means increase in cooling load, which translates to increase in local energy usage... Which means more pollution at local energy providers. Generally lower energy usage translates to lower pollution at power plants.
So all of those things can be done, locally, to improve air quality, reduce asthma, reduce allergies, and improve the quality of life for everyone, if people cared to do so. We don't need to think about long term environmental change, which we can't yet predict or affect, and we don't need to think global. There are things we can do locally, temporally and spatially, that will improve everyone's quality of life, and are important reasons to be environmental without retreating to the rubric of 'global warming' or 'save the earth'. All it takes is personal self interest, ie 'save myself' and 'local comfort'.
Hmm, maybe. But we can tell what things trigger my asthma, and we can try to see cause and effect relationships...
Increased rainfall mean increased spring bloom means increased pollen count, so any atmospheric effect that toes the line in amount of rain is better than one that increases the volume of rain.
Likewise increased winds means increased airborne particulates, so any effect that toes the line rather than increase local wind/storm activity...
Increased rainfall also mean increased vegetation, which leads directly to increased rodent population and wild animals that feed off rodents, and an increased in dander, fur, hair, dust mites, and similar things, etc...
So we can't judge 'better or worse' for a total, but we can measure what effects improve the quality of life of individuals affected.
Capitalism needn't be so amoral or selfish. Indeed isn't one perspective of capitalism that of service?
The happier my customers are with my efforts, the more money I get. The amount of money I receive then can be used as a metric to determine how well I serve my customers and how pleased they are.
So while it may be that some corporations only see business as usual as profit taking, some corporations I think see business as actually serving customers, and in doing so a side effect is wealth. Think of restaurants that love their customers, or stores that love their shoppers. There are businesses out there that seem to have some kind of positive karma.
Isn't the whole point of the switch ad buying a Mac? Yes, the network engineer did say that... but that's exactly the same reason I did it; I wanted the software, so I bought a Mac. That's how it works. Maybe it's not so clearcut that you buy the OS or buy the hardware, since you are getting both. I guess I won't be able to convince you that Real is being hypocritical where Apple isn't, since you see both as the same.
I suppose I just want my $0.49 downloads, and you want your yearly $129 OS releases.
Real has used the DMCA in 1999 to threaten Streambox because they reverse engineered RA compatibility into their product.
How is that different than Apple using the DMCA in 2004 to threaten Real because they reverse engineered Fairplay compatibility into their product?
Real lives by the sword and dies by the sword. If they want to disallow others to reverse engineer the RA format, why is it wrong for Apple to disallow Real to reverse engineer the Fairplay format. Of course I think it's stupid and Real should be allowed to, but hey, I'm not the one who voted for the DMCA.
Second point: Your analogy is flawed.
Lexmark makes printers that are Mac and PC compatible. Bob reverse engineer's and sells ink, but it's only PC compatible. Bob argues that his sales should be allowed because it's about giving Lexmark's consumers choices, while he denies half of Lexmark's users the ability to use his product.
Half of the customers therefore demonize Bob for ignoring them.
I honestly do want to see competition and alternatives. I don't begrudge Real their try. However as a Mac user, Real is not doing me any favors by ignoring my platform, and my argument has nothing to do with whatever all other Mac users think. I think Real is just being bitten by the same monster (DMCA) they themselves have used. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Slashdot Mirror
lol yeah. I was only doing the math for President :)
The average US citizen probably has 20, possibly now even 30, votes in their lifetime.
A vote is only thrown away when you don't vote.
Vote against your principles only if you think voting for your principles would result in some catastrophic intrusion in your life, but I don't think Bush vs Gore was such an event, nor do I think Bush vs Kerry is also such an event.
Why is my answer relevant?
But here's my take.
You're already paying X. You can afford X. Insurance companies take an action that reduces accidents, loss of life, and injuries.
*why* should they lower it? What reason is there? You haven't done anything to make the world a better place, after all.
I have one. Competition. But that's not the answer you're looking for. If you're paying X to Insurance A, Insurance company B can offer you Y because with the new laws in effect they can afford to do so. So Insurance A can either let Insurance B steal their customers, or lower their rates accordingly.
Of course the world is imperfect, but still, that is the force which forces prices down. Capitalism says, "I made the world a better place, so the money I make in return is justified." Altruism says, "I made the world a better place," and cynicism says, "I'm paying exactly the same now as I was three months ago, the world is a safer place, but I should be paying less."
We've got different ideas of government :)
Ideally government serves the people.
Realistically government serves to perpetuate government. It is only tolerated by us because a side effect of our government is that our quality of life is improved. The same reasons why we allow for banks that take our money and services paid for by our taxes.
So as long as the side effects are improved quality of life, I would argue that everything is working fine. If our quality of life didn't improve, we may as well overthrow our government, right?
I'd call that reasonable.
They do one thing that increases the survivability of minors, decreases the accidents on the road, and made driving safer for everyone, so profit on it.
If they had invented a device to do so, they'd make money off it too. They just passed laws, however, that improved the quality of life of *everyone* on the road, and their families. Why shouldn't they profit off it?
Maybe it's lack of developer attention, too?
I mean, GIMP from Fink is one thing. GIMP from a disk image is 'normal' for Mac OS, just like GIMP from an installer is 'normal' for Windows.
I haven't tried MacGIMP, but I suspect what they've done is make a disk image such that GIMP is a drag and drop install.
You're treating the iPod as an mp3 player, when it can also be seen as a data storage and retrieval device.
Calendars, notes, audio, alerts, and text.
Can you not imagine instances where it would be powerfully used? A German major downloads all his lab material onto the iPod, and listens to it on the walk home. A communications major downloads a handful of speeches and presentations, and listens to it on her way home. Anyone downloading their school's various activity calendars on the iPod, as well as an alert 2 days and the day of on really important ones?
A physics major uploading the Feynman Lectures and listening to it when he's bored. Yes, people do buy and read/listen to Feynman.
A music major will of course also load up on classics, contemporary pieces, and stuff.
A literature major might listen to some works on tape, after or before reading in paper... And those in a hurry won't read on books, I figure.
The iPod opens up a possibility of on demand and continual exposure. This is wearable computing, and while it might be underwhelming to you, I would suggest you hold judgment. It may be a bad idea, but I suspect it won't be. It may be a very, very, good idea.
You're assuming GIMP works 'out of the package'. I haven't had a great amount of luck with complex programs in the GNU world. It's taken a bit of fiddling to get X11 up, OpenOffice, and LaTex. Why would GIMP be any easier?
Are you being willfully dumb here? We're comparing it to the likes of Photoshop... see this. If you can download and make it yourself, it still isn't free. Imagine you earn $60k a year. That makes your time something like $35 an hour!
I'm not arguing for arbitrary pricing models, I'm only defending 'demand-side pricing', where the original poster was asking why supply side pricing wasn't more ethical/correct.
If you're any kind of 'professional', then $600-$1,000 software is a steal.
I've spent $100 on movie making software and $50 on DVD authoring programs, and their power-price ratio is outstanding.
Imagine if you're making $60k a year off Photoshop and Illustrator. $2,000 for the software is chump change. Same for Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Motion, Shake, and any really powerful authoring software.
Photoshop is $600, where Photoshop Elements is $60. If you need the $600, you will gladly pay it, especially when the alternative is $40 for GIMP and $100 for Paintshop Pro or something.
Consumers have PE for $60, and that's perfect.
Supply side pricing...
I think there is a fundamental problem with supply side pricing in the modern factory driven environment. How do you predict how many copies you're going to sell, and thus manufacture?
If you can produce 3 million copies at $2 each and sell at $3 to make back all your money and then some, vs 3,000 copies at $4 each but need to sell at $999 to make back all your money, what do you do?
Realistically you expect to sell less, and charge slightly more, like $2,000, because it only costs you $12,000 to manufacture, vs $6 million to manufacture. Supply side is a great idea, but only if you can perfectly predict how much demand there will be. Of course there are exceptions, but realistically demand-side pricing seems to work slightly better on the average.
This said from someone who's produced several hundred DVDs and sold at $20 or so each, rather than several thousand at $6 each.
It just chafes that they talk about choice and competition and then ignore Mac users. I mean what they really want then is to draw away PC using iPod owners away from iTunes. It's a valid business tactic, but very aggravating when I want my $0.49 download.
So you see the difference? From the getgo Apple catered to Mac users, and if Windows users tried hard enough they could use an iPod. Real, on the other hand, hasn't done enough to allow Mac users onto their network no matter how hard I try, short of buying a PC.
I also kind of doubt they can capture 95% of the market by ignoring Mac users. Maybe in a few years, but I think right now we are still a significant majority in both iPod ownership and music downloads.
It's been done, but for some reason 95% of the population never consider it. I wouldn't know if that same percentage afflicts antarctic physicists and their bureaucrats!
No, of course not. If they could, they would be computer scientists, or hackers. Instead they are physicists.
Dunno, seems kinda fundamentally useful to know. Theory is one thing, observation is another.
I mean, would you have predicted that outcome in space? If no, then there is value, because that unexpected answer is basis for all sorts of future developments to build upon that answer.
If yes, then please tell us what else we can do with this discovery?
True. There are more local effects we can control though.
Smog, via auto pollution. Less auto pollution, less smog, less smog, less asthma. Smog is also correlated to temperature as well!
Temperature, ie the heat island effect, determined by local building codes and policies. Besides being cooler and more comfortable, higher temperatures precipitate more release of VOC
Higher temperature also means increase in cooling load, which translates to increase in local energy usage... Which means more pollution at local energy providers. Generally lower energy usage translates to lower pollution at power plants.
So all of those things can be done, locally, to improve air quality, reduce asthma, reduce allergies, and improve the quality of life for everyone, if people cared to do so. We don't need to think about long term environmental change, which we can't yet predict or affect, and we don't need to think global. There are things we can do locally, temporally and spatially, that will improve everyone's quality of life, and are important reasons to be environmental without retreating to the rubric of 'global warming' or 'save the earth'. All it takes is personal self interest, ie 'save myself' and 'local comfort'.
Hmm, maybe. But we can tell what things trigger my asthma, and we can try to see cause and effect relationships...
Increased rainfall mean increased spring bloom means increased pollen count, so any atmospheric effect that toes the line in amount of rain is better than one that increases the volume of rain.
Likewise increased winds means increased airborne particulates, so any effect that toes the line rather than increase local wind/storm activity...
Increased rainfall also mean increased vegetation, which leads directly to increased rodent population and wild animals that feed off rodents, and an increased in dander, fur, hair, dust mites, and similar things, etc...
So we can't judge 'better or worse' for a total, but we can measure what effects improve the quality of life of individuals affected.
Capitalism needn't be so amoral or selfish. Indeed isn't one perspective of capitalism that of service?
The happier my customers are with my efforts, the more money I get. The amount of money I receive then can be used as a metric to determine how well I serve my customers and how pleased they are.
So while it may be that some corporations only see business as usual as profit taking, some corporations I think see business as actually serving customers, and in doing so a side effect is wealth. Think of restaurants that love their customers, or stores that love their shoppers. There are businesses out there that seem to have some kind of positive karma.
You can't force developers to bow to your choice.
:)
Of course we can. It's a free market isn't it? Let's see how successful Real is without Mac support, mindshare, and goodwill
Isn't the whole point of the switch ad buying a Mac? Yes, the network engineer did say that... but that's exactly the same reason I did it; I wanted the software, so I bought a Mac. That's how it works. Maybe it's not so clearcut that you buy the OS or buy the hardware, since you are getting both. I guess I won't be able to convince you that Real is being hypocritical where Apple isn't, since you see both as the same.
I suppose I just want my $0.49 downloads, and you want your yearly $129 OS releases.
Real has used the DMCA in 1999 to threaten Streambox because they reverse engineered RA compatibility into their product.
How is that different than Apple using the DMCA in 2004 to threaten Real because they reverse engineered Fairplay compatibility into their product?
Real lives by the sword and dies by the sword. If they want to disallow others to reverse engineer the RA format, why is it wrong for Apple to disallow Real to reverse engineer the Fairplay format. Of course I think it's stupid and Real should be allowed to, but hey, I'm not the one who voted for the DMCA.
Second point: Your analogy is flawed.
Lexmark makes printers that are Mac and PC compatible.
Bob reverse engineer's and sells ink, but it's only PC compatible.
Bob argues that his sales should be allowed because it's about giving Lexmark's consumers choices, while he denies half of Lexmark's users the ability to use his product.
Half of the customers therefore demonize Bob for ignoring them.
Do you believe it, that Real's music store is Mac incompatible?
So all these 'Apple fanboys' can't join in on the party.
So much for choice and competition. Where's my $0.49 download?
I care because I can't get my $0.49 download damnit :P
That and I disapprove of their using RE while simultaneously using the DMCA to forbid RE of their RA format in the streambox event of 1999.
Oh, like this?
I honestly do want to see competition and alternatives. I don't begrudge Real their try. However as a Mac user, Real is not doing me any favors by ignoring my platform, and my argument has nothing to do with whatever all other Mac users think. I think Real is just being bitten by the same monster (DMCA) they themselves have used. Live by the sword, die by the sword.