Hmmm, you make a good deal of sense. However, my point was that, if we don't have the power to change (or create) something, then how can we destroy that thing? That is, we have to power to create a glass, so, yes, we can break it. But we don't have anywhere near the power required to create something as large and intricate as the Earth's ecosystem, so while we might effect small change on a local level, we don't have the ability to change the entire thing to a point where it is no longer viable.
Think of it this way: you knock the glass off the table. Do you have the ability to reassemble it? Of course you do, you can scrape up all the pieces, melt them down, and create a new glass from the old shards. Now, if the Earth's environment was damaged to the point that the whole thing was out of whack and a mass extinction were to occur, could we turn back the tide on that? Doubtful.
I guess my point really boils down to this: I don't see the Earth as being nearly as fragile as environmentalists do. It, and its lifeforms, have survived wild tempature changes, magnetic pole reversals, impacts from monster asteroids, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes, cosmic radiation, oxygen, and evil Lord Xenu killing billions of thetans (actually, I just made that last part up). I find it difficult to believe that there's anything mankind can do (with present technology*) that would do anything other than make life difficult at the local level.
* Being a fan of the Honorverse, I've wondered if it's actually possible to crack a planet in two with kinetic energy weapons. Anyone know the math on that?
"It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma."
So he's saying that the output of the sun is one part of the global warming phenomenon, and that human-caused pollution is another. I partially agree with this, though I think the sun has a bigger part of it than he might.
But then he says:
"By failing to see that the Earth regulates its climate and composition, we have blundered into trying to do it ourselves, acting as if we were in charge. By doing this, we condemn ourselves to the worst form of slavery. If we chose to be the stewards of the Earth, then we are responsible for keeping the atmosphere, the ocean and the land surface right for life. A task we would soon find impossible - and something before we treated Gaia so badly, she had freely done for us." (emphasis added)
Wait, if it's "impossible" for us to regulate the environment, doesn't it logically follow it is equally impossible for us to change it?? He seems to be saying "We've destroyed it, but we don't have the power to fix it." That's completely inconsistent.
There once was a young man name Sam, Who spent his whole day sending spam.
But at night he went drinking,
And this led him to thinking, That maybe he would end up being damned!
Gotta love slashdot. A comment making a "Straight Story" connection (posted as logged in with a 5-digit UID gets +5, Interesting'ed), while a slightly different comment making a "Straight Story" connection (posted as AC) gets -1, Offtopic'ed. Go go gadget hive mind.
And I'm sure the fact that the +5 Interesting post was from an editor had nothing to do with it.
10% profit is huge when the market is supposedly bad because of the war in Iraq, Katrina and the unstability of Afghanistan.
Well, considering their margin is pretty much always 10%, I don't see what the problem is. Do you expect a producer of a good to squeeze their profit margin when their costs rise? They tried that in California with energy and it nearly bankrupted the entire system. A producer has to pass on the costs of doing business to its customers, or it will go out of business.
In any event, most of your comment makes clear that you really don't care about facts, you've already made up your mind that oil company executives are evil. Since you've made a subjective judgement based entirely on emotion, there's no sense debating you on this subject.
What about the meaning of "LLC"? Limited Liability Company
Like I said, "Corporations shield their owners from bankruptcy and civil courts (to an extent)." And note it's Limitied Liability Company, not Zero Liability Company.
Did anything actually happen after California's energy crisis?
You mean other than Enron going out of business, along with many of its competitors? And considering the fact that the energy crisis was created when idiot politicians decided to lift the limits off the price of wholesale energy, but kept the reins on the price of retail energy, it's not wonder the whole thing blew up. That crisis had more to do with socialist tampering with market than anything else.
What about the billions of profit gas company are reporting for last year after increasing gas prices because of "shortage"?
What about 'em? First, read this. Then consider the following breakdown of profit margin of companies mentioned in that article: * Altria, maker of Marlboro Cigarrettes...22c per $ * Merck...25.3c per $ * Exxon Mobile...9.8c per $
If you think a company with profit margins that slim isn't competing heavily to get as many customers as possible, you have no understanding of market economics. Also, keep in mind that the profit margin at the pump is even tighter. Typically, gas station owners will make between one and two cents per gallon. At today's prices, that's a profit margin of about half a percent.
You can look up others here. Just plug in the company's ticker symbol, click on "Financial Results", and look at the net profit margin. Some other interesting ones: * Wal-Mart...3.5 * Coca-Cola...22.8 * Google...24.7 * Yahoo...32.8(!!!)
So Google makes two and a half times as much as Exxon-Mobile on every dollar earned, and Yahoo makes a staggering three times as much (ten times as much as Wal-Mart, the pinacle of retail evil). Yeah, those evil oil companies, gotta watch out for them.
Dude, the whole function of the corporation as we know it is designed as such to shield individuals from direct legal action. That's why they're so popular.
Dude, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Corporations shield their owners from bankruptcy and civil courts (to an extent). They do not shield the officers of those corporations from criminal charges. Just ask Enron Chief Accountant Richard Causey, who's serving seven years in jail for his role in the corporation's implosion. His old bosses, Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, are about to get their day in court in the next few months, too. If they can find an impartial jury, that is (if they're smart, they'll try to plead out, but if they were smart they wouldn't have cooked the books in the first place...but that's another story).
I don't know where this myth of corporations protecting people who out-and-out break laws came from, but it's not in the least bit grounded in reality. The cases where corporate executives get away with murder, figuratively and literrally, have more to do with state corruption than the legal fiction behind the "corporate veil". The infamous Union-Carbide tragedy was as much an exemplar of the corruption in certain parts of the Indian government as it was the amorality of company officials.
Heres' a question for you, would the private sector ever have abolished slavery and have spent the money enforcing the abolition
Probably not. But then, protecting the rights of its citizens is one of the "legitimate purposes" to which Mr. Reagan referred.
Government has its place, don't get me wrong. Just don't subscribe to it supernatural powers or a higher sense of morality than exist in other parts of society. After all, the people in it are only human.
Oh, and as for the private sector not contributing anything of "lasting value" to humanity, when was the last time a government agency had a direct hand in developing a new medical treatment? Compare that with the thousands of life saving drugs developed over the years by private pharmaceutical companies. I think you owe all of those researchers and doctors an apology.
Patents should apply to technology that requires years of research and/or lots of money and/or lots of people to develop (i.e. when there is definite financial risk to a company doing the R&D but unable to recover if the patent isn't awarded).
This statement is completely at odds with your next one:
What right does someone with a high priced team of shysters have over winning a patent over a thousand other shmoes that wake up one day with the same idea but without the resources to make the patent happen.
If something must take years of research and represent a significant financial risk to a (presumably) large corporation, that alone would prevent small inventors from ever filing for a patent. So while you decry the system that makes it difficult for the "little guy" to file for patents, you previously suggested a system that would make it even more so.
Also, why not insist that if the innovation has merit to benefit mankind, then the patent will only be awarded if it becomes public domain.
Because then no one would have any incentive to develop those things. Do you know how much it costs to develop a new drug? If there was no hope of recovering those costs, no company or individual would ever be able to afford to do so.
Multinational corporations would not be allowed unless they provide something that can't be made locally
What's your definition of "locally", though? Is it OK to buy Hondas in Detroit, even though plenty of other cars are made there? What about buying Fords in Marysville, OH, where Honda has one of their largest manufacturing plants? In the case of Marsville and Honda vs. Ford, which one is "local"?
For that matter, what's your definition of "made"? What if your local township had a company that makes widgets, but they only make them in green. You, for some reason, hate green, so you'd rather buy one in blue. But the only company that makes blue widgets is based two counties over. Is it ok for you to buy that blue widget, since you can't buy one "locally"? But you can buy widgets, so maybe you should just suck it up and spend your money on the local guy.
Any time you place artificial restrictions on the market, all you're doing is removing choice from the picture for all actors. You're telling the producer "You have no choice, you can't sell that here", and you're telling the consumer "You have no choice, you can't buy that here". Do you really want someone putting a gun to your head* and telling you what you can, and can't, buy? How does that help anyone?
* By definition, anytime the State enforces something, they have a gun to your head, in that if you don't do as they say they have the power to deprive you of life, liberty, or property. No one else has that power, not even multinational corporations. When they want to deprive you of property, they have to sue you first, in which case it's really the State doing it.
Re:a friend of mine in high school
on
The Patent Epidemic
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That's why publishing your invention is so important to keeping knowledge in the public space.
I'm really curious about this. I'll explain more in a minute, but I have an idea but I don't want to pay thousands of dollars to get it patented. I do, however, want to start production in the next few months, and want to make sure my idea is protected, at least in the US (I'm not that concerned with overseas markets, if this one takes off maybe I will be for my next one). How does it work to publish your idea, and still have protection from competitors stealing it?
I performed a preliminary patent search, and it looks like this thing is not currently patented. A product search on Froogle, Amazon, The Sharper Image, and Wal-Mart turned up nothing like it, and price quotes from suppliers in India and China (thanks to AliBaba.com) mean the item would have a production cost of about $1.50 per unit, in denominations of at least 10,000. Based on similar products, the retail value should be $20 each, easily.
So, long story short, I've got something that could make me rich, but don't have the foggiest notion what to do first, short of getting ripped off by an "invention search firm". Any suggestions?
"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-- George Washington
to:
"The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing."
-- Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964
There isn't as much difference between those statements as you seem to imply. Consider the very next sentance in Reagan's speech: "Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector. "
Also consider his famous line, "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." There's a reason why Reagan is considered the father of the modern conservative movement, and it's not because he was pro-government.
It works on a small scale: the family. In other societies, on the extended family.
Most families are either a benevelolent dictatorship, or an oligarchy. Either one or both parents make all the important decisions about everything. Even teenagers are, at best, second class citizens with limited voting rights, who can be vetoed by either parent.
Most extended families are patrician dictatorships. Just look at the Mafia as one of the more extreme examples.
Now, there have been some communes that were set up as communistic ideals. But their success is either short term, or limited to a very small scale. Communism just isn't something that works beyond the scope of, at best, a small village.
and healthcare insurance is expensive for those who cannot get it through their employer
Not always true. My private health insurance (for myself and three kids) costs $211 per month. The insurance offered through my employer would be closer to $700 per month. (The private plan has a $3000/6000 deductible, so it's close to being a catastrophic plan, but well child care and prescriptions are hella cheap, about the same as the group plan.) Ask your insurance guy, he can probably find something that'll beat whatever your employer is offering unless you work for a Fortune 100 company, or a government agency.
Today I woke up and started preparing for work as usual. Brushed my teeth, shaved, took a shower.
And we're supposed to believe this guy is a computer engineer?? Piffle, any real geek would be too busy drawing up new patent applications to bother with something as trivial as hygene.
Cable was originally supposed to be that way. Eventually, however, the cable networks realised that they could have it both ways and further increase their revenue, so they added commercials to their broadcasting just like the broadcast networks were doing.
If a cable company came along and promised no commercials during the running of any of the shows it carries, and charged competitive rates for monthly service, it would go out of business. I don't have the numbers handy since I'm going off what an acquaintenance told me about cable operations (he works for Time Warner as a sales manager, so I'm inclined to believe his numbers are accurate). But he said it takes anywhere from six to 12 months for a new customer to become profitable. In other words, it's not until you've had service for one whole year before the cable company makes a penny in profit off you. If they had no commercials, how much longer do you think it would take? What kind of business model would support that kind of ROI? What stockholder with a brain is gonna wait X years for a return, when the company down the street is promising bigger returns sooner?
Or, prove me wrong and go start your own cable company, sans commercials.
And before it gets brought up, TiVo is not a cable company, and their revenue stream is not dependent on commercial advertising. So their success, or even the success of cable companies offering their own brand of DVR, isn't quite the same. After all, those cable operators selling/leasing DVRs are still happily selling time to advertisers, too.
And HBO is not a valid comparison, either. Out of 168 hours of programming in any given week, how much of that time is spent on original programming? Maybe three or four? Compare that with broadcast and basic cable networks, who have to come up with anywhere from double to ten times that amount.
So, let me get this straight: you don't want commercials during the show, you don't want one advertiser to sponsor the whole thing and not have any commercials, and you don't want product placements. Do you want all television to be subscription only, then? Cause someone has to pay to make these things, they're not cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
sex from gullible girls that we so richly deserve
Isn't that what MySpace is for?
Your comment makes my Brujah angry. Rawwwrr.
Pfff. What wouldn't?
Hmmm, you make a good deal of sense. However, my point was that, if we don't have the power to change (or create) something, then how can we destroy that thing? That is, we have to power to create a glass, so, yes, we can break it. But we don't have anywhere near the power required to create something as large and intricate as the Earth's ecosystem, so while we might effect small change on a local level, we don't have the ability to change the entire thing to a point where it is no longer viable.
Think of it this way: you knock the glass off the table. Do you have the ability to reassemble it? Of course you do, you can scrape up all the pieces, melt them down, and create a new glass from the old shards. Now, if the Earth's environment was damaged to the point that the whole thing was out of whack and a mass extinction were to occur, could we turn back the tide on that? Doubtful.
I guess my point really boils down to this: I don't see the Earth as being nearly as fragile as environmentalists do. It, and its lifeforms, have survived wild tempature changes, magnetic pole reversals, impacts from monster asteroids, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes, cosmic radiation, oxygen, and evil Lord Xenu killing billions of thetans (actually, I just made that last part up). I find it difficult to believe that there's anything mankind can do (with present technology*) that would do anything other than make life difficult at the local level.
* Being a fan of the Honorverse, I've wondered if it's actually possible to crack a planet in two with kinetic energy weapons. Anyone know the math on that?
This is interesting:
"It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma."
So he's saying that the output of the sun is one part of the global warming phenomenon, and that human-caused pollution is another. I partially agree with this, though I think the sun has a bigger part of it than he might.
But then he says:
"By failing to see that the Earth regulates its climate and composition, we have blundered into trying to do it ourselves, acting as if we were in charge. By doing this, we condemn ourselves to the worst form of slavery. If we chose to be the stewards of the Earth, then we are responsible for keeping the atmosphere, the ocean and the land surface right for life. A task we would soon find impossible - and something before we treated Gaia so badly, she had freely done for us." (emphasis added)
Wait, if it's "impossible" for us to regulate the environment, doesn't it logically follow it is equally impossible for us to change it?? He seems to be saying "We've destroyed it, but we don't have the power to fix it." That's completely inconsistent.
Could anyone suggest a better rhyme for spam?
There once was a young man name Sam,
Who spent his whole day sending spam.
But at night he went drinking,
And this led him to thinking,
That maybe he would end up being damned!
0110110101? Not to worry, then, that session of Congress won't begin until 2661!
(For those outside the US, each session of Congress lasts two years. The first one was in 1789. We're currently in the 109th Congress.)
Gotta love slashdot. A comment making a "Straight Story" connection (posted as logged in with a 5-digit UID gets +5, Interesting'ed), while a slightly different comment making a "Straight Story" connection (posted as AC) gets -1, Offtopic'ed. Go go gadget hive mind.
And I'm sure the fact that the +5 Interesting post was from an editor had nothing to do with it.
10% profit is huge when the market is supposedly bad because of the war in Iraq, Katrina and the unstability of Afghanistan.
Well, considering their margin is pretty much always 10%, I don't see what the problem is. Do you expect a producer of a good to squeeze their profit margin when their costs rise? They tried that in California with energy and it nearly bankrupted the entire system. A producer has to pass on the costs of doing business to its customers, or it will go out of business.
In any event, most of your comment makes clear that you really don't care about facts, you've already made up your mind that oil company executives are evil. Since you've made a subjective judgement based entirely on emotion, there's no sense debating you on this subject.
What do they propose calling the first such warp ship, the StarShip (SS) Space Minnow?
"Come on lovey, it's only a three hour trip to Mars, what could possibly go wrong??"
What about the meaning of "LLC"? Limited Liability Company
Like I said, "Corporations shield their owners from bankruptcy and civil courts (to an extent)." And note it's Limitied Liability Company, not Zero Liability Company.
Did anything actually happen after California's energy crisis?
You mean other than Enron going out of business, along with many of its competitors? And considering the fact that the energy crisis was created when idiot politicians decided to lift the limits off the price of wholesale energy, but kept the reins on the price of retail energy, it's not wonder the whole thing blew up. That crisis had more to do with socialist tampering with market than anything else.
What about the billions of profit gas company are reporting for last year after increasing gas prices because of "shortage"?
What about 'em? First, read this. Then consider the following breakdown of profit margin of companies mentioned in that article:
* Altria, maker of Marlboro Cigarrettes...22c per $
* Merck...25.3c per $
* Exxon Mobile...9.8c per $
If you think a company with profit margins that slim isn't competing heavily to get as many customers as possible, you have no understanding of market economics. Also, keep in mind that the profit margin at the pump is even tighter. Typically, gas station owners will make between one and two cents per gallon. At today's prices, that's a profit margin of about half a percent.
You can look up others here. Just plug in the company's ticker symbol, click on "Financial Results", and look at the net profit margin. Some other interesting ones:
* Wal-Mart...3.5
* Coca-Cola...22.8
* Google...24.7
* Yahoo...32.8(!!!)
So Google makes two and a half times as much as Exxon-Mobile on every dollar earned, and Yahoo makes a staggering three times as much (ten times as much as Wal-Mart, the pinacle of retail evil). Yeah, those evil oil companies, gotta watch out for them.
Dude, the whole function of the corporation as we know it is designed as such to shield individuals from direct legal action. That's why they're so popular.
Dude, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Corporations shield their owners from bankruptcy and civil courts (to an extent). They do not shield the officers of those corporations from criminal charges. Just ask Enron Chief Accountant Richard Causey, who's serving seven years in jail for his role in the corporation's implosion. His old bosses, Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, are about to get their day in court in the next few months, too. If they can find an impartial jury, that is (if they're smart, they'll try to plead out, but if they were smart they wouldn't have cooked the books in the first place...but that's another story).
I don't know where this myth of corporations protecting people who out-and-out break laws came from, but it's not in the least bit grounded in reality. The cases where corporate executives get away with murder, figuratively and literrally, have more to do with state corruption than the legal fiction behind the "corporate veil". The infamous Union-Carbide tragedy was as much an exemplar of the corruption in certain parts of the Indian government as it was the amorality of company officials.
Zealots hate agnosticism even more. They can't stand being ignored, or kindly smiled upon...
Strictly speaking, zealots hate anyone who disagrees with them about equally.
Heres' a question for you, would the private sector ever have abolished slavery and have spent the money enforcing the abolition
Probably not. But then, protecting the rights of its citizens is one of the "legitimate purposes" to which Mr. Reagan referred.
Government has its place, don't get me wrong. Just don't subscribe to it supernatural powers or a higher sense of morality than exist in other parts of society. After all, the people in it are only human.
Oh, and as for the private sector not contributing anything of "lasting value" to humanity, when was the last time a government agency had a direct hand in developing a new medical treatment? Compare that with the thousands of life saving drugs developed over the years by private pharmaceutical companies. I think you owe all of those researchers and doctors an apology.
Patents should apply to technology that requires years of research and/or lots of money and/or lots of people to develop (i.e. when there is definite financial risk to a company doing the R&D but unable to recover if the patent isn't awarded).
This statement is completely at odds with your next one:
What right does someone with a high priced team of shysters have over winning a patent over a thousand other shmoes that wake up one day with the same idea but without the resources to make the patent happen.
If something must take years of research and represent a significant financial risk to a (presumably) large corporation, that alone would prevent small inventors from ever filing for a patent. So while you decry the system that makes it difficult for the "little guy" to file for patents, you previously suggested a system that would make it even more so.
Also, why not insist that if the innovation has merit to benefit mankind, then the patent will only be awarded if it becomes public domain.
Because then no one would have any incentive to develop those things. Do you know how much it costs to develop a new drug? If there was no hope of recovering those costs, no company or individual would ever be able to afford to do so.
Multinational corporations would not be allowed unless they provide something that can't be made locally
What's your definition of "locally", though? Is it OK to buy Hondas in Detroit, even though plenty of other cars are made there? What about buying Fords in Marysville, OH, where Honda has one of their largest manufacturing plants? In the case of Marsville and Honda vs. Ford, which one is "local"?
For that matter, what's your definition of "made"? What if your local township had a company that makes widgets, but they only make them in green. You, for some reason, hate green, so you'd rather buy one in blue. But the only company that makes blue widgets is based two counties over. Is it ok for you to buy that blue widget, since you can't buy one "locally"? But you can buy widgets, so maybe you should just suck it up and spend your money on the local guy.
Any time you place artificial restrictions on the market, all you're doing is removing choice from the picture for all actors. You're telling the producer "You have no choice, you can't sell that here", and you're telling the consumer "You have no choice, you can't buy that here". Do you really want someone putting a gun to your head* and telling you what you can, and can't, buy? How does that help anyone?
* By definition, anytime the State enforces something, they have a gun to your head, in that if you don't do as they say they have the power to deprive you of life, liberty, or property. No one else has that power, not even multinational corporations. When they want to deprive you of property, they have to sue you first, in which case it's really the State doing it.
That's why publishing your invention is so important to keeping knowledge in the public space.
I'm really curious about this. I'll explain more in a minute, but I have an idea but I don't want to pay thousands of dollars to get it patented. I do, however, want to start production in the next few months, and want to make sure my idea is protected, at least in the US (I'm not that concerned with overseas markets, if this one takes off maybe I will be for my next one). How does it work to publish your idea, and still have protection from competitors stealing it?
I performed a preliminary patent search, and it looks like this thing is not currently patented. A product search on Froogle, Amazon, The Sharper Image, and Wal-Mart turned up nothing like it, and price quotes from suppliers in India and China (thanks to AliBaba.com) mean the item would have a production cost of about $1.50 per unit, in denominations of at least 10,000. Based on similar products, the retail value should be $20 each, easily.
So, long story short, I've got something that could make me rich, but don't have the foggiest notion what to do first, short of getting ripped off by an "invention search firm". Any suggestions?
Check out this progression:
"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-- George Washington
to:
"The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing."
-- Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964
There isn't as much difference between those statements as you seem to imply. Consider the very next sentance in Reagan's speech:
"Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector. "
Also consider his famous line, "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." There's a reason why Reagan is considered the father of the modern conservative movement, and it's not because he was pro-government.
It works on a small scale: the family. In other societies, on the extended family.
Most families are either a benevelolent dictatorship, or an oligarchy. Either one or both parents make all the important decisions about everything. Even teenagers are, at best, second class citizens with limited voting rights, who can be vetoed by either parent.
Most extended families are patrician dictatorships. Just look at the Mafia as one of the more extreme examples.
Now, there have been some communes that were set up as communistic ideals. But their success is either short term, or limited to a very small scale. Communism just isn't something that works beyond the scope of, at best, a small village.
Maybe we should worry about giant lobstermen.
Only the ones trying to practice medicine. They're all quacks.
How many times did people dismiss the need to improve the levees above New Orleans?
"One too many" is my guess.
and healthcare insurance is expensive for those who cannot get it through their employer
Not always true. My private health insurance (for myself and three kids) costs $211 per month. The insurance offered through my employer would be closer to $700 per month. (The private plan has a $3000/6000 deductible, so it's close to being a catastrophic plan, but well child care and prescriptions are hella cheap, about the same as the group plan.) Ask your insurance guy, he can probably find something that'll beat whatever your employer is offering unless you work for a Fortune 100 company, or a government agency.
Today I woke up and started preparing for work as usual. Brushed my teeth, shaved, took a shower.
And we're supposed to believe this guy is a computer engineer?? Piffle, any real geek would be too busy drawing up new patent applications to bother with something as trivial as hygene.
Cable was originally supposed to be that way. Eventually, however, the cable networks realised that they could have it both ways and further increase their revenue, so they added commercials to their broadcasting just like the broadcast networks were doing.
If a cable company came along and promised no commercials during the running of any of the shows it carries, and charged competitive rates for monthly service, it would go out of business. I don't have the numbers handy since I'm going off what an acquaintenance told me about cable operations (he works for Time Warner as a sales manager, so I'm inclined to believe his numbers are accurate). But he said it takes anywhere from six to 12 months for a new customer to become profitable. In other words, it's not until you've had service for one whole year before the cable company makes a penny in profit off you. If they had no commercials, how much longer do you think it would take? What kind of business model would support that kind of ROI? What stockholder with a brain is gonna wait X years for a return, when the company down the street is promising bigger returns sooner?
Or, prove me wrong and go start your own cable company, sans commercials.
And before it gets brought up, TiVo is not a cable company, and their revenue stream is not dependent on commercial advertising. So their success, or even the success of cable companies offering their own brand of DVR, isn't quite the same. After all, those cable operators selling/leasing DVRs are still happily selling time to advertisers, too.
And HBO is not a valid comparison, either. Out of 168 hours of programming in any given week, how much of that time is spent on original programming? Maybe three or four? Compare that with broadcast and basic cable networks, who have to come up with anywhere from double to ten times that amount.
So, let me get this straight: you don't want commercials during the show, you don't want one advertiser to sponsor the whole thing and not have any commercials, and you don't want product placements. Do you want all television to be subscription only, then? Cause someone has to pay to make these things, they're not cheap.
Take my favorite chracter, Jade.
Ya know, usually when a person says a character is their favorite, they at least know the name of that character....