The addition of "Under God" does transform the otherwise secular pledge of allegiance into a prayer. Why should it be allowed when other forms of prayer are clearly unconstitutional?
How is it a prayer? You are pledging allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands, not to God (exactly why the Jehova's Witnesses refuse to recite the Pledge). Prayers are directed to God--the Pledge is a declaration in front of those present.
I fail to see where there is anything prayer-like about the Pledge.
I'm guessing you live in NYC or Los Angeles. Try being the kid who refused to praise god at Columbine High* in Littleton, CO
It's fun watching idiots make fools of themselves like you just did: I GREW UP IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF LITTLETON COLORADO, just miles from Columbine. Believe me, if someone simply didn't say the Pledge no-one would care. If they try to draw attention to themselves ANYWHERE, they'll probably draw negative attention, be it in Littleton or New York City.
Or the kid who "hates Jesus Christ"* (because he chooses not to praise the same god) in a small school on the Bible belt.
Is there any reason to ANNOUNCE that you HATE him? If I hate Mohammad, that's my deal. If I make a point of going to Saudia Arabia and announcing that fact then it's probably in my best interest--out of my own self-interest and out of respect of those present--to just keep my beliefs to myselves. They are as entitled to their believes as I am to mine.
It's not so much that the word "god" is offensive, it is the implication of schools inadvertantly forcing children to at least pretend to believe.
Please tell me how schools force children to pretend to believe something if they don't have to 1) Say the "under God" part or, 2) don't even have to say the Pledge. How hard is it for those that have a problem with the Pledge just to stand respecfully while the rest recite it? You aren't standing in respect for the flag, you are standing out of respect for the others belief's. No-one would probably even notice--and that's perfect. Unless you WANT to be noticed? In which case you shouldn't complain about the reactions you are apparently looking for.
You know what? I'm Protestant. I currently live in Mexico and my wife is Catholic. We go to Catholic church. Most of it is compatible with my beliefs but certain things that I don't believe I just stand respectfully while the rest of the congretation prays to the Virgin Mary--something I do not do. But that doesn't mean I have to sit down and draw attention to myself. That benefits absolutely no-one and, in fact, would be disrepectful on my part.
There was always something so creepy about "pledging allegience to a flag". Why would a flag get my allegience?
Read the rest of the sentence... "And to the republic for which it stands." You are pledging allegiance to the flag because it stands for the republic.
That and the old tradition (perhaps you feel it is obsolete?) of carrying the flag into battle and if the flagbearer gets killed, someone else immediately picks up the flag and carries it on.
Too many people take things too literally and actually got caught up in that first line, to the point of ignoring the rest ("and to the republic for which it stands",
Uhm... That would seem to be YOU, otherwise your question would be silly.
Prayer before a Senate or House session is not mandatory, therefore it doesn't violate the Constitution as mandatory school prayer does.
First, we're not talking about mandatory school prayer.
Second, saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school is OPTIONAL and has been for some time (since 1942, if I remember correctly).
The point here is that these three judges apparently believe it should be unconstitutional to say the words "under God" because it means that those that object either have to participate or "protest" (by maintaining silence). In other words, some dufus has the balls to take this to court, but doesn't have the balls to just maintain silence? Or how about saying the Pledge and just not moving your mouth as everyone says "under God"--that way you aren't even really protesting and your conscience is clear.
As CNN has already said, this is dead on arrival. It will be overturned by either the full 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. As it should be. The word "God" does not automatically imply a government endorsement of any religion, and the 1st Ammendment does NOT guarantee that atheists will never hear the word God. Not even within the government. The 1st Ammendment simply means the country will never be officially "Catholic" or "Protestant," and it will never be illegal to be Muslim.
There would be no need for any of those 25 telecom companies to go broke if they were run properly -- there's plenty of customers and plenty of demand.
Nah...
Maybe for a few more years, but long-term outlook for telecom companies is dismal. VoIP was a buzz word for awhile but sort of disappeared as the dot com bubble burst. But that's temporary. VoIP will eventually spell the end of traditional "long distance companies." At best these companies will stop providing "LD service" and just provide Internet backbone service--because that service is capable of doing what it does now AND handling our voice calls.
I don't pretend to know exactly how it will shake out... But in 10-15 years, max, we will each have access to a data "port." That port will be our Internet access, cable/content access, and our telephone service. It will be a flat monthly rate (possible exception for PPV), and international long distance will be free.
In an economy and market where I can send a 100MB to virtually anywhere in the world for free, the time for paying some mumber of cents per minute to call that same place in the world is limited.
Ironic I feel this poorly about the profession when I am studying to be a CPA . ..
Since I "studied" accounting as part of my "core" classes at the University, I've been of the firmest conviction that the Accounting professional exists solely for the purpose of sustaining its existence.
Back when I took my first accounting class I came to the conclusion that accounting was a profession that exists principally to maintain its own existince. There is no other logical reason for the BS that accountants "have" to do.
First of all, accounting should be able to "account" for money. Perhaps it can, but they've made it (intentionally?) so complex that only other accountants can understand the accounting. That makes it hard for everyone else to hold the company accountable which is what the accountants were supposedly there to do to start with.
The complexity of accounting serves to perpetuate the need to hire accountants. If accounting was a simple as it could be there'd be no need for a team of accountants, much less CPA exams and the whole accounting industry.
The compexity of accounting also allows for all the scandals we are seeing to happen. The reason why companies (or CEOs/CFOs) can get away with this stuff to the point of bankrupting otherwise functional companies is because the accounting is so complex that no-one can untangle it.
Since I took those Accounting courses, I've always felt one thing was inevitable: Computers would and will replace accountants. I always thought it would happen simply because computers can do it faster and more accurately and, thus, cheaper. Accounting doesn't require intelligence, it's repetitive number crunching which computers do better than humans.
But as it turns out, accounting has existed for two reasons: 1) To maintain the existance of the accounting industry. 2) To allow corporate officers to steal money and hide it as long as possible. That being the case it is no wonder accountants haven't been replaced by computers--the computers wouldn't help the officers steal money.
In the end, the industry that is being destroyed here is the accounting industry. Enron, WorldCom... The scandal is that the accountants haven't kept the companies accountable.
Do we need more government regulation? No. Do we need more oversight of the "accounting industry?" Not really.
We need to replace the accounting industry with computers, pure and simple. Those computers, for public corporations, should provide daily or even hourly updates of the financial status of the corporation both to the government and to the public. That's all the oversight that is needed.
I haven't listened to radio since, oh, about 1991, I think. That's when I started taking my DiscMan to the office and listening to my CDs with headphones rather than punching the "background music" on the speaker phone.
Since then, I listen to non-stop music, no commercials. And with P2P, I don't even have to go to the store for the CD anymore.
The only thing radio is good for is occasionally being entertained by talk radio and/or for traffic/weather reports when you are stuck in traffic.
During the last presidential election, neither Bush nor Gore nor Ralph Nader made any effort to campaign or advertise in my home state of North Dakota. Why not? Who would waste time or money on three electoral votes? Still, I voted Democrat and our state went Bush almost 70-30.
It's not that the 3 electoral votes are worthless, it's just that Bush knew ahead of time he had a 70/30 lead and there was no way the state was going to Gore, and Gore knew the same thing. So why bother? It's not for a lack of electoral votes--you just happen to live in a soundly Republican state that Republicans can count on and Democrats write off.
That notwithstanding the Florida Republican attempts to end the recount early.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, numerous full recounts of Florida votes have shown that Bush would have won even if all votes were recounted. That may offend you, but with or without the USSC Bush would have won Florida.
Oh, and let's not forget that if we were operating on the basis of the people's vote, Al Gore would be president.
Check the CONSTITUTION about the rules of the game. Presidents aren't chosen on a vote by vote basis but by electoral votes. Both Bush and Gore knew the rules going in so it's silly to complain about the rules when they don't work in your favor.
That said, check out this site. Check out how much of the country voted for Bush. Bush won 78% of the counties in the country totaling 81% of the area of the United States. Those counties make up 53% of the population. Bush won 29 states.
Your candidate may have won by a few in the popular vote, but our Constitution was designed SPECIFICALLY so a popular candidate from a heavily populated state wouldn't win every time. This is a GOOD thing. And, on balance, if the two candidates are statistically tied on popular vote but one candidate wins 58% of the states, 81% of the area of the United States, and 78% of the countries, which candidate is really representative of the entire COUNTRY rather than just small pockets of it?
Look at the map in the link above. It's quite satisfying for Republicans and probably quite annoying for Gore supports who keep telling themselves that they should have won.
If the residents of a district would get off their asses, feed their minds, and vote their hearts, our Congressmen would be singing a very different tune.
I agree with you on that 100%.
Nobody seems to notice that the government, having spent 1.3 trillion dollars over the next ten years on a tax cut, is ALREADY asking Congress to let it borrow more money
Hello, they didn't SPEND 1.3 trillion dollars on a tax cut. It's not their money to start with. It's mine. They have money to spend because they take it from me. To say that they are "spending" money by taking less of it from me is somewhere between deceptive and slimey.
I'd rather have a tax cut and be allowed to keep my money--that way if/when they really DO need more money, they'll have to THINK about it and make a good case for it... because there is political fall-out when you raise tax rates. It is pretty easy to keep spending money that people are already paying.
Reducing taxes is always a good thing. If necessary, they can be raised again--and perhaps should be in order to pay off a debt generated the previous year. But that requires that Congress make their case to the PEOPLE. That's accountability and is ALWAYS a good thing.
So pay attention, be outraged, and for the love of God, don't move to North Dakota. Nobody will notice what you think.
On the flip side, you can do just about anything you want in North Dakota and no-one will even notice let alone care. So, on balance, you might actually come out ahead. Sometimes going "unnoticed" is a blessing.
I was on vacation last week and couldn't follow-up on this. I will now.
In the 1.5 years spent on that project was any time spent pseudo-coding or plotting out what the program should do and how it should do it? If so, that would fall under "thinking" of the program, "becoming inspired" etc.
Very, very little was spent on anything but coding. I am one that tends to code, not do lots of hypothetical drawings, etc.
Even if I were, that's planning the program and, for some, an integral part of the work. It's not "becoming inspired."
I, myself, would love to see programmers go on tour.
Weird.
I probably would pay a programmer some money to come fix up a little program for me. But he or she'd have to come to my house, to my city to do it.
They're called consultants and they do exist.
And that you should never get time off (like how programmers can get vacation time from work).
In your example, an independent consultant would be a better comparison to a musician. And independent consultants, even though they don't have any boss, get notoriously little vacation time. And certainly not paid.
I know, because I am one.
Because if the musicians stop touring the income stops too. And where is the time to write new songs?
I am a consultant. That's where I make most of my money. In between "gigs", I write programs that I hope will make me more money--even if they don't make me much money, they at least are one more example of my capabilities to hopefully get me more gigs.
Yes, finding time to write new songs (or programs) is tough.
Musicians often have a hard time getting health insurance.
I'm a consultant and I don't have health insurance, and haven't had it for 6 years.
It's got cultural value as something computer users can share and discuss, but it has no economic value.
That might be true for entertainment programs, etc. but for programs that solve a business problem there is real economic value to the program.
From now on all of your programs should be available to everyone for free. We will only pay you to fix problems.
Yeah, good solution. So everyone will make software intentionally broken so they can be paid to fix it.
To make this match the 'on tour' philosophy a little better you have to come to my city to do it. You can fix it once, and everyone in this city (who shows up) can get the fix for a cost. Then you have to go to the next town to fix it for them. And so on and so on. That's the only way you should get to make money from programming. If you break a finger and can't program that's just too bad.
That's broken logic.
The value produced by the programmer is the program itself. If it is broken and doesn't work then I agree that program is worth zero and the programmer should be paid zero for it. Writing a perfect program will require no fixes and the programmer, under your scheme, will earn zero for a perfect work.
The value porudced by the musician is not the recorded music itself, but the performance of that music. Writing a "perfect" set of music will inspire many to come to the concerts and under your scheme, the performer will earn plenty of money in the concerts.
I see where you are trying to go, but you haven't grasped the fact that the fundamental workings of the music and software market are not the same even though, from a superficial point of view, they look similar.
So let me get this straight. Musicians should spend months (note the plural there) working hard on music for you to enjoy for free unless they happen to play a show in your town and you happen to be able to make it?
No, I'm not saying that they SHOULD. But if they decide they want to work hard on music and I like it, that's the way they'll earn money.
I personally enjoy playing the piano. I have friends that actually play gigs at bars, etc. Neither they nor I make any money, but we still enjoy playing music.
On the other hand, if the recording is worth keeping around, maybe it has some value to you.
Yes, it has value, but not economic.
And maybe you could let the artist know that by helping them pay the rent, or have food, or pay medical bills.
No, but since I've listened to their advertisement I'll be sure to pay 20 bucks to see them when they tour through my city.
But I think we've been through that already.
To circle back around to programming, that would mean my proper channel for telling you that your program is not worth my money is to not use your program whatsoever.
I think we're drifting here.
I'm a programmer because I enjoy it and because it still pays the rent. I make a living doing it because I can. If, 10 years from now, I can no longer make a living programming because the jobs have been outsourced to India or because AI has made programming so simple that even a manger can do it, well, it'll be a bummer and I'll have to find some other way to earn a living.
But I won't make silly arguments that jobs shouldn't be allowed to be shipped to India nor that businesses should forego using cheap AI programs so that I can continue to earn a living doing what I've always done. That's not the way it works.
The fact is that the current business model for musicians has changed. Lucky for you (musicians) that you still have a potential revenue stream from live performances, merchandise, endorsements, etc. Be thankful for that. If/when programming jobs go away completely, I don't expect any alternative revenue streams for obsoleted programmers--and I don't expect anyone to care.
Any amounts paid for sales tax are deducted from their gross income - which is what the government taxes on. Sales tax is an expense. Gross - expenses = profit.
WTF? What state or country do you live in? Sales tax is NOT a business expense. At least not in Colorado. I own my own business so I know what I'm talking about.
Businesses that sell to the public are REQUIRED to COLLECT sales tax on behalf of the state government. Sales taxes are NOT earnings for the company, it is money you COLLECT for the state from the purchaser, period. It never belonged to you. You never earned it.
In Colorado the Sales Tax Return that you file quarterly includes a line where the state actually allows you to retain something like 3% of the sales tax you collected as a "service fee." This is essentially your "commission" for having collected the money for the state.
In the United States the "sales tax" is paid by the person purchasing the product. That's why for a sale to be "tax exempt" the PURCHASER must provide a valid tax exemption (their sales tax certificate if they're going to resell the product).
You may have to include it in your company's accounting since it is money that has entered your company's bank account, and you may consider it a "cost" because you have to pay it. But the fact is that's only because you are acting as the middleman and COLLECTING the money. The actual tax is paid by the purchaser.
Sales tax is not a COST for a business, it is a COST for the purchaser. Period.
Shall I take the application you spent months upon and use it without compensating you? I mean, it's just a series of magnetic ones and zeros, surely no more tangible than the audio waves I recorded. It's really a rather close analogy, something I'm sure of because I've done both.
I grappled with that issue for some time, trying to figure out exactly why it was that in my mind I have no problem with music being free but don't say the same for software. I've come to the conclusion it comes back to WHERE the money should be made and the amount of effort in producing it.
1. Generally speaking--and not intending to demean a musicians' effort--it takes much more time to produce any sizeable program than to produce music. Sure the musician may have been "thinking" of the music for years, becoming inspired, etc. but in the end it's just some number of hours in the recording/editing studio. Programming a decent sized program can be matters of months. One of my projects was actually 1.5 years.
2. In software, if it is to generate money, sales, subscription, or maintenance is the only way to do it. I don't charge maintenance because I feel that gives me an incentive to write bad programs that require support. I don't charge a subscription any more than *I'D* be willing to rent software. So I sell it. Musicians, on the other hand, should make their money doing live performances. I don't think anyone would pay a programmer for live performances.
3. The idea of selling music recordings is based on the premise that you will record the music in a month (or whatever) and earn royalties or income from it ad infinitum. You do the recording, you're done and watch the money come in. With programming, if you're not constantly improving your product (i.e. spending more development time on it), your product will quickly fall off the radar screen.
Those are the differences. At a high level you can say that music and software is the same. But in a REAL analysis, the markets are very different and you cannot expect the dynamics of one to apply to the other.
I'm saying that no one will be able to be a fulltime musician if they aren't supported by payments of some sort.
They will be compensated. When they do concerts. If they want to earn more money, they'll have to work harder and do more concerts. What they won't be able to do is record some music and sit on their butts waiting for royalty payments. That's a thing of the past.
As I said before, it should be my choice, not the consumer's, to choose whether I get compensation from those who choose to use my product.
That's a fair view, but in reality your right to choose whether you get compensation is contrained by the free market. Call it piracy, call it civil disobedience, call it market forces... the free market is in the process of assinging the value of zero to recorded music. I have seen exactly the OPPOSITE trend in the price of concerts.
Fighting the free market, like fighting technology, is a losing battle. You can try to fight it--you WILL lose. Or you can accept the reality we live in and accept the fact that music is now free and you should focus on concerts for earning money from your music.
None of the instruments I own were free. Some cost thousands of dollars. I've recorded music, and, not in one case, was doing the recording free. At the cheapest it cost me inexpensive recording equipment and tapes, and the most expensive it cost me the price of a recording engineer, equipment rental, and time. I've made a CD. That was far from free.
I'm a programmer. My computer cost thousands. I've written software that took months of development time. None of this means that I'm automatically entitled to some amount of money. It's entirely possible that my work will not be sufficiently valued by the public to pay me money for my investment and time.
And you're telling me that I shouldn't want to charge for you to listen to the music that cost me time, effort, and money?
No, it's natural to WANT to charge for it. I'd LIKE to charge a thousand bucks per copy of the programs I write. But there is a big difference between what I want and what the public is willing to do.
Look, I've done a *lot* of free concerts, and that's fine with me. I play music because I love to play music, not because it makes me a profit.
Well, which is it? Do you play music because you love to do it, or because you're looking for money?
If anything, you need to accept that your music will be distributed freely and CHARGE to play concerts. It sounds to me you've got the business plan reversed.
Nonetheless, I also don't believe I *owe* you anything, and that seems to be what you believe, at least in a general form.
Obviously you owe me absolutely nothing; but I don't owe you anything, either, if I'm just listening to audio waves you've recorded.
Musicians shouldgive you their music for free, because you're not willing to pay.
I'll happily pay to see them live in concert. That is a cultural event that will NOT be made obsolete by technology. And that's where musicians that want to make money need to be focusing.
Ain't gonna happen. If they can't be profitable as musicians (and I'm not saying rich, I'm saying profitable), then they won't make music for you.
I disagree. Most of the musicians I know have never made a cent off their music, and yet produce.
If you're saying N'Sync and Britney Spears will go away, you have a point. And I don't really care.
I have a right to be compensated.
That's BS. You have no such right. Is that in the Constitution? "The right to be compensated." Nope.
The free market makes no guarantees about compensation. You are free to spend time on something you think will be profitable with the hope of earning money. The free market has the right to slap you in the face and say, "I'm not paying for that!" End of story.
The natural price is zero? Sorry, I think you need to step out from behind the crack pipe. The natural price (the price which the market sees as a fair price for the value gained by the purchase) can not be zero, that would mean that the music is worthless,
From an economic standpoint it is very possible that the bits representing music are worthless. That doesn't mean people don't enjoy music, that doesn't mean it doesn't have cultural value--but it's economic value may very well be zero.
then there will be no more music to aquire, with nomore professional musicians.
Define "professional musicians." Is that people that make a living full-time playing music, or people that produce quality music?
There was plenty of quality music before people earned obnoxious amounts of money to do it. In fact, it could be argued that there was MORE good music before it became a high-dollar business.
No, leeching is taking stuff without giving. By consuming tons of data quickly I am making the most of the broadband connection that was promoted as being ABLE to provide tons of data quickly, and I'm paying the amount I agreed to pay. This is not leeching.
For me, the value of having the always on connection far outweighs the high speed.
Get a dial-up connection and camp online. Right now my broadband is down here in Mexico (and has been for 4 weeks!). That's why I have a backup dial-up account. Now I just connect and camp online. The speed sucks, but I'm certainly not complaining about "always on." When I occasionally get disconnected, I just redial automatically.
but I would be absolutely delighted to have the option of a lower-cost class of service that had a lower maximum transfer rate.
That would be something else.
But have you seen any discussion of a plan like this being implemented? No... All we see is plans to keep charging low-use customers the same $50/month and hit "high-end users" with additional per GB charges.
That's downright unethical and, if/when it happens, I wouldn't be surprised to see a legal challenge. You can't have it both ways.
And herein lies the problem. I've read numerous times where people in this forum have railed against the RIAA, stating "If they made it cheap and downloadable, I'd buy it!"
Yeah, but that was years ago. RIAA should have reduced their prices long ago. At the very least when Napster hit the scene. Instead they sued Napster into oblivion, increased their prices, and watched more P2Ps pop up. Now they want to drop prices and hope people will come back? No, it doesn't work that way.
If you could have sold 486 technology to IBM in 1980 you could have made billions of dollars. Now, you can't sell 486 technology to anyone, period. In 1980 you were in a good bargaining position, today that bargaining position is gone.
Likewise, the RIAA was in a monopoly position for decades. They were in a good bargaining position, still, in 1990 and could have reduced prices to fend off the "need" for users to go to P2P to get their music. Now, P2P is everywhere and they can't control it--and now they want to make a counter-offer? It doesn't work that way... They are no longer in a position to negotiate.
I will no longer pay for music, period. Only if I happen to be at the mall and happen to remember a CD I want and happen to know that there are at LEAST 3 tracks that I want. That last criteria (minimum 3 good tracks) is usually the deal-breaker.
Fact is, many people (including me) have been exposed to free music. Not only is it free, it can be obtained in a heartbeat and without having to identify yourself or give up personal information or a credit card number.
Even if the price is 1 penny per song I am not going to leave P2P to go to some corporate website to give them my name, address, phone number, credit card number, and email address to get my music. P2P is safer, more convenient, and faster.
This is a move in the right direction. The RIAA is understanding that 1) online music distribution is not going away. 2) customers don't want encrypted, rights-limited products. 3) that customers may want a single song from a CD.
That said, 99 cents is too much. Back around 1987 that is what I used to pay for a 45rpm single. Now all they're giving me is access to bytes and want to charge the same amount? I don't think so.
Plus even if it's not too expensive, I'm not going to hassle with paying 99 cents for a track which requires that I register, give up a credit card, personal information, etc. when I can just pick it up in minutes free, no hassle, no personal information, done.
As I've also said before, the natural price of music is now zero. The free market has decided that. This is is showing that the free market is forcing the RIAA to move towards that price. They're not going to give away music because that'll be the end of their business--but going from a $20 CD to a $9.99 downloadable album or a $0.99 track is the RIAA realizing that the natural price is lower than what they've been charging.
Of course, they still haven't realized that the natural price is zero. But it's a matter of time.
Look at any system used by numerous people and you'll see about the same distribution. Take the US interstate highway system, for example: I'd lay money that 1% of the drivers thereon account for more than 16% of the traffic. How about campgrounds? 1% of the population accounts for a whopping 90% of campground usage. Their complaint is statistically meaningless.
You got that right. Their "complaint" is not important. Virtually no businesses are able to obtain the exact same profit level on every single sale. There will be sales that are more profitable than others, but the idea is that the pricing is such that, as a whole, you make money.
As you said, the entire population subsidizes the highway system used heavily by a small minority.
Consumers that carry large balances on their credit card give banks the money so that I can charge everything, pay it off, and pay absolutely nothing.
Many people have insurance and they end up paying for my mistake if I crash and cause lots of damage and medical bills. My premiums certainly didn't cover it.
It is also incredible to see companies trying to ration the use of their own product. It's counterproductive. The whole point of broadband is to be able to consume tons of data quickly. When they start limiting that they are reducing the value of their product and also limiting the things that can be done with Internet--and not just P2P. Videoconferencing, VoIP, gaming, streaming radio... These are things that 99% of the people still don't do, and WON'T do if they are limited on their bandwidth.
As has been said, it's a monopoly. They can charge, so they will. They want millions of users using their broadband at dial-up levels, but charging them $50/month instead of $9/month that dial-up costs.
But the new technology is 10 years from market - with maybe a 1% chance of actually getting to market.
Actually, according to CNN,
"If IBM decides to manufacture millipede-based storage cards -- it has no current plans to do so -- the storage could begin replacing the current silicon-based flash memory cards in handheld computers and mobile phones by the end of 2005, Vettiger predicted.".
That blows me away. They supposedly have a techology that by 2005 could provide GBs of storage space for PDAs, laptops, and MP3 players. Your WATCH could be a PDA or an MP3 player. It presumably requires very little energy so you'd be able to listen to music (or whatever) for days, probably.
... And they're not planning to market it? WTF? Clue-by-four time.
When one hanging chad can kill a day's work, you tend to check for such things. But I imagine the percentage of people with that experience is getting lower by the day.
I never had to work with punch cards; I "came in" just as they were going out...
That said, I always have checked for chads on my voting cards as well. I don't think there is anything geeky about it, it's just logical. Just like making sure you fully fill-in the bubbles in a "scan-tron" test, obviously you make sure the chads are fully gone.
Those that mis-voted in FL have no-one to blame but themselves, even though the "in" thing is to blame anyone and everyone else rather than take responsibility.
Technically speaking, SOME AmEx cards are credit cards.
Technically, any card that you use to pay for something that doesn't come directly out of your account (i.e. debit) are credit cards. Even AMEX.
Even though AMEX "forces" you to pay in full each month, they've extended credit on your behalf from the time you made the purchase until the time your payment is due.
Then there will be no creative work. When the buyers leave, so do the sellers.
As has been said before, people will be creative even if they aren't paid to do so. Perhaps SOME people will stop producing creative work, but creative work will not disappear. It could also be said that those that still create will be those that do it for the passion they have to create, not because of the dollar signs.
They'll probably have an (inadequate) day job (or not) *and* abandon the field.
And why is that my problem any more than it is their problem if I leave my field and don't find an adequate job?
All so the warezzzz d00dz can have it for free.
It has nothing to do with "warez doodz" and everything to do with distribution costs which, as they approach or are equal to zero, the public is less inclined to pay a unit cost for them.
You: There are few, if any, professionally written completed novels of fanfiction written for free. Even if there were, it is UNFAIR to expect people to produce professional works of literature AND hold down full time jobs just so we can have it free.
Me: That's the free market. No-one ever said it was fair.
You: No, that's not the free market. If you don't want the book, fine. If you want the book, PAY FOR IT.
You missed the point.
You said that it is "unfair to expect people to produce professional works of literature AND hold down full time jobs." I replied that no-one ever said that the free-market was fair to any given individual.
It is entirely possible that society is now saying that authors and/or musicians may not be assigned a value high enough that their creative work alone will be sufficient to give them the standard of living that they want. That may obligate such creative persons to either work harder, have a "day job," or abandon the field.
Even if there were, it is UNFAIR to expect people to produce professional works of literature AND hold down full time jobs just so we can have it free.
That's the free market. No-one ever said it was fair.
I'm a musician, and to be 100% frank, I don't want to have to work at Burger King to have to continue doing so.
I'm a dedicated slashdot reader, and to be 100% frank, I don't want to have to work at Burger King to continue doing so.
In other words, just because you want to do something--even full time--doesn't mean that anyone else is willing to pay you to do it.
Making music is a job.
But it's a job that others are willing to do for free.
It's obviously just a hobby to you, but to the people I know, it is a career, and if you work a career, you should get paid.
This isn't communist Russia. You don't get paid just because it's your carreer or if you work. You get paid if someone wants to buy what you're selling.
Making music is a 24 hour job.
Nah... I'm not a full-time musician. I play for fun and don't record. I have friends that are "amateur" musicians, they play for fun, record CDs, and play gigs.
Making music isn't a 24-hour job. It can be done while having a real job (doesn't have to be Burger King unless you like making hamburgers).
On the other hand, if you mean recording a CD and selling it that certainly ISN'T a 24-hour job. It's the time necessary to compose the song and record it. Done. That, in great part, is why society is no longer going to be willing to pay for the music itself when it can be downloaded at no cost to anybody.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it a prayer? You are pledging allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands, not to God (exactly why the Jehova's Witnesses refuse to recite the Pledge). Prayers are directed to God--the Pledge is a declaration in front of those present.
I fail to see where there is anything prayer-like about the Pledge.
It's fun watching idiots make fools of themselves like you just did: I GREW UP IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF LITTLETON COLORADO, just miles from Columbine. Believe me, if someone simply didn't say the Pledge no-one would care. If they try to draw attention to themselves ANYWHERE, they'll probably draw negative attention, be it in Littleton or New York City.
Or the kid who "hates Jesus Christ"* (because he chooses not to praise the same god) in a small school on the Bible belt.
Is there any reason to ANNOUNCE that you HATE him? If I hate Mohammad, that's my deal. If I make a point of going to Saudia Arabia and announcing that fact then it's probably in my best interest--out of my own self-interest and out of respect of those present--to just keep my beliefs to myselves. They are as entitled to their believes as I am to mine.
It's not so much that the word "god" is offensive, it is the implication of schools inadvertantly forcing children to at least pretend to believe.
Please tell me how schools force children to pretend to believe something if they don't have to 1) Say the "under God" part or, 2) don't even have to say the Pledge. How hard is it for those that have a problem with the Pledge just to stand respecfully while the rest recite it? You aren't standing in respect for the flag, you are standing out of respect for the others belief's. No-one would probably even notice--and that's perfect. Unless you WANT to be noticed? In which case you shouldn't complain about the reactions you are apparently looking for.
You know what? I'm Protestant. I currently live in Mexico and my wife is Catholic. We go to Catholic church. Most of it is compatible with my beliefs but certain things that I don't believe I just stand respectfully while the rest of the congretation prays to the Virgin Mary--something I do not do. But that doesn't mean I have to sit down and draw attention to myself. That benefits absolutely no-one and, in fact, would be disrepectful on my part.
There was always something so creepy about "pledging allegience to a flag". Why would a flag get my allegience?
Read the rest of the sentence... "And to the republic for which it stands." You are pledging allegiance to the flag because it stands for the republic.
That and the old tradition (perhaps you feel it is obsolete?) of carrying the flag into battle and if the flagbearer gets killed, someone else immediately picks up the flag and carries it on.
Too many people take things too literally and actually got caught up in that first line, to the point of ignoring the rest ("and to the republic for which it stands",
Uhm... That would seem to be YOU, otherwise your question would be silly.
First, we're not talking about mandatory school prayer.
Second, saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school is OPTIONAL and has been for some time (since 1942, if I remember correctly).
The point here is that these three judges apparently believe it should be unconstitutional to say the words "under God" because it means that those that object either have to participate or "protest" (by maintaining silence). In other words, some dufus has the balls to take this to court, but doesn't have the balls to just maintain silence? Or how about saying the Pledge and just not moving your mouth as everyone says "under God"--that way you aren't even really protesting and your conscience is clear.
As CNN has already said, this is dead on arrival. It will be overturned by either the full 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. As it should be. The word "God" does not automatically imply a government endorsement of any religion, and the 1st Ammendment does NOT guarantee that atheists will never hear the word God. Not even within the government. The 1st Ammendment simply means the country will never be officially "Catholic" or "Protestant," and it will never be illegal to be Muslim.
I agree with you... Right now. But, again, give it 10-15 years and no-one is going to be laughing, especially at MCI and AT&T.
Nah...
Maybe for a few more years, but long-term outlook for telecom companies is dismal. VoIP was a buzz word for awhile but sort of disappeared as the dot com bubble burst. But that's temporary. VoIP will eventually spell the end of traditional "long distance companies." At best these companies will stop providing "LD service" and just provide Internet backbone service--because that service is capable of doing what it does now AND handling our voice calls.
I don't pretend to know exactly how it will shake out... But in 10-15 years, max, we will each have access to a data "port." That port will be our Internet access, cable/content access, and our telephone service. It will be a flat monthly rate (possible exception for PPV), and international long distance will be free.
In an economy and market where I can send a 100MB to virtually anywhere in the world for free, the time for paying some mumber of cents per minute to call that same place in the world is limited.
Since I "studied" accounting as part of my "core" classes at the University, I've been of the firmest conviction that the Accounting professional exists solely for the purpose of sustaining its existence. Back when I took my first accounting class I came to the conclusion that accounting was a profession that exists principally to maintain its own existince. There is no other logical reason for the BS that accountants "have" to do.
First of all, accounting should be able to "account" for money. Perhaps it can, but they've made it (intentionally?) so complex that only other accountants can understand the accounting. That makes it hard for everyone else to hold the company accountable which is what the accountants were supposedly there to do to start with.
The complexity of accounting serves to perpetuate the need to hire accountants. If accounting was a simple as it could be there'd be no need for a team of accountants, much less CPA exams and the whole accounting industry.
The compexity of accounting also allows for all the scandals we are seeing to happen. The reason why companies (or CEOs/CFOs) can get away with this stuff to the point of bankrupting otherwise functional companies is because the accounting is so complex that no-one can untangle it.
Since I took those Accounting courses, I've always felt one thing was inevitable: Computers would and will replace accountants. I always thought it would happen simply because computers can do it faster and more accurately and, thus, cheaper. Accounting doesn't require intelligence, it's repetitive number crunching which computers do better than humans.
But as it turns out, accounting has existed for two reasons: 1) To maintain the existance of the accounting industry. 2) To allow corporate officers to steal money and hide it as long as possible. That being the case it is no wonder accountants haven't been replaced by computers--the computers wouldn't help the officers steal money.
In the end, the industry that is being destroyed here is the accounting industry. Enron, WorldCom... The scandal is that the accountants haven't kept the companies accountable.
Do we need more government regulation? No. Do we need more oversight of the "accounting industry?" Not really.
We need to replace the accounting industry with computers, pure and simple. Those computers, for public corporations, should provide daily or even hourly updates of the financial status of the corporation both to the government and to the public. That's all the oversight that is needed.
Since then, I listen to non-stop music, no commercials. And with P2P, I don't even have to go to the store for the CD anymore.
The only thing radio is good for is occasionally being entertained by talk radio and/or for traffic/weather reports when you are stuck in traffic.
It's not that the 3 electoral votes are worthless, it's just that Bush knew ahead of time he had a 70/30 lead and there was no way the state was going to Gore, and Gore knew the same thing. So why bother? It's not for a lack of electoral votes--you just happen to live in a soundly Republican state that Republicans can count on and Democrats write off.
That notwithstanding the Florida Republican attempts to end the recount early.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, numerous full recounts of Florida votes have shown that Bush would have won even if all votes were recounted. That may offend you, but with or without the USSC Bush would have won Florida.
Oh, and let's not forget that if we were operating on the basis of the people's vote, Al Gore would be president.
Check the CONSTITUTION about the rules of the game. Presidents aren't chosen on a vote by vote basis but by electoral votes. Both Bush and Gore knew the rules going in so it's silly to complain about the rules when they don't work in your favor.
That said, check out this site. Check out how much of the country voted for Bush. Bush won 78% of the counties in the country totaling 81% of the area of the United States. Those counties make up 53% of the population. Bush won 29 states.
Your candidate may have won by a few in the popular vote, but our Constitution was designed SPECIFICALLY so a popular candidate from a heavily populated state wouldn't win every time. This is a GOOD thing. And, on balance, if the two candidates are statistically tied on popular vote but one candidate wins 58% of the states, 81% of the area of the United States, and 78% of the countries, which candidate is really representative of the entire COUNTRY rather than just small pockets of it?
Look at the map in the link above. It's quite satisfying for Republicans and probably quite annoying for Gore supports who keep telling themselves that they should have won.
If the residents of a district would get off their asses, feed their minds, and vote their hearts, our Congressmen would be singing a very different tune.
I agree with you on that 100%.
Nobody seems to notice that the government, having spent 1.3 trillion dollars over the next ten years on a tax cut, is ALREADY asking Congress to let it borrow more money
Hello, they didn't SPEND 1.3 trillion dollars on a tax cut. It's not their money to start with. It's mine. They have money to spend because they take it from me. To say that they are "spending" money by taking less of it from me is somewhere between deceptive and slimey.
I'd rather have a tax cut and be allowed to keep my money--that way if/when they really DO need more money, they'll have to THINK about it and make a good case for it... because there is political fall-out when you raise tax rates. It is pretty easy to keep spending money that people are already paying.
Reducing taxes is always a good thing. If necessary, they can be raised again--and perhaps should be in order to pay off a debt generated the previous year. But that requires that Congress make their case to the PEOPLE. That's accountability and is ALWAYS a good thing.
So pay attention, be outraged, and for the love of God, don't move to North Dakota. Nobody will notice what you think.
On the flip side, you can do just about anything you want in North Dakota and no-one will even notice let alone care. So, on balance, you might actually come out ahead. Sometimes going "unnoticed" is a blessing.
In the 1.5 years spent on that project was any time spent pseudo-coding or plotting out what the program should do and how it should do it? If so, that would fall under "thinking" of the program, "becoming inspired" etc.
Very, very little was spent on anything but coding. I am one that tends to code, not do lots of hypothetical drawings, etc.
Even if I were, that's planning the program and, for some, an integral part of the work. It's not "becoming inspired."
I, myself, would love to see programmers go on tour.
Weird.
I probably would pay a programmer some money to come fix up a little program for me. But he or she'd have to come to my house, to my city to do it.
They're called consultants and they do exist.
And that you should never get time off (like how programmers can get vacation time from work).
In your example, an independent consultant would be a better comparison to a musician. And independent consultants, even though they don't have any boss, get notoriously little vacation time. And certainly not paid.
I know, because I am one.
Because if the musicians stop touring the income stops too. And where is the time to write new songs?
I am a consultant. That's where I make most of my money. In between "gigs", I write programs that I hope will make me more money--even if they don't make me much money, they at least are one more example of my capabilities to hopefully get me more gigs.
Yes, finding time to write new songs (or programs) is tough.
Musicians often have a hard time getting health insurance.
I'm a consultant and I don't have health insurance, and haven't had it for 6 years.
It's got cultural value as something computer users can share and discuss, but it has no economic value.
That might be true for entertainment programs, etc. but for programs that solve a business problem there is real economic value to the program.
From now on all of your programs should be available to everyone for free. We will only pay you to fix problems.
Yeah, good solution. So everyone will make software intentionally broken so they can be paid to fix it.
To make this match the 'on tour' philosophy a little better you have to come to my city to do it. You can fix it once, and everyone in this city (who shows up) can get the fix for a cost. Then you have to go to the next town to fix it for them. And so on and so on. That's the only way you should get to make money from programming. If you break a finger and can't program that's just too bad.
That's broken logic.
The value produced by the programmer is the program itself. If it is broken and doesn't work then I agree that program is worth zero and the programmer should be paid zero for it. Writing a perfect program will require no fixes and the programmer, under your scheme, will earn zero for a perfect work.
The value porudced by the musician is not the recorded music itself, but the performance of that music. Writing a "perfect" set of music will inspire many to come to the concerts and under your scheme, the performer will earn plenty of money in the concerts.
I see where you are trying to go, but you haven't grasped the fact that the fundamental workings of the music and software market are not the same even though, from a superficial point of view, they look similar.
So let me get this straight. Musicians should spend months (note the plural there) working hard on music for you to enjoy for free unless they happen to play a show in your town and you happen to be able to make it?
No, I'm not saying that they SHOULD. But if they decide they want to work hard on music and I like it, that's the way they'll earn money.
I personally enjoy playing the piano. I have friends that actually play gigs at bars, etc. Neither they nor I make any money, but we still enjoy playing music.
On the other hand, if the recording is worth keeping around, maybe it has some value to you.
Yes, it has value, but not economic.
And maybe you could let the artist know that by helping them pay the rent, or have food, or pay medical bills.
No, but since I've listened to their advertisement I'll be sure to pay 20 bucks to see them when they tour through my city.
But I think we've been through that already.
To circle back around to programming, that would mean my proper channel for telling you that your program is not worth my money is to not use your program whatsoever.
I think we're drifting here.
I'm a programmer because I enjoy it and because it still pays the rent. I make a living doing it because I can. If, 10 years from now, I can no longer make a living programming because the jobs have been outsourced to India or because AI has made programming so simple that even a manger can do it, well, it'll be a bummer and I'll have to find some other way to earn a living.
But I won't make silly arguments that jobs shouldn't be allowed to be shipped to India nor that businesses should forego using cheap AI programs so that I can continue to earn a living doing what I've always done. That's not the way it works.
The fact is that the current business model for musicians has changed. Lucky for you (musicians) that you still have a potential revenue stream from live performances, merchandise, endorsements, etc. Be thankful for that. If/when programming jobs go away completely, I don't expect any alternative revenue streams for obsoleted programmers--and I don't expect anyone to care.
WTF? What state or country do you live in? Sales tax is NOT a business expense. At least not in Colorado. I own my own business so I know what I'm talking about.
Businesses that sell to the public are REQUIRED to COLLECT sales tax on behalf of the state government. Sales taxes are NOT earnings for the company, it is money you COLLECT for the state from the purchaser, period. It never belonged to you. You never earned it.
In Colorado the Sales Tax Return that you file quarterly includes a line where the state actually allows you to retain something like 3% of the sales tax you collected as a "service fee." This is essentially your "commission" for having collected the money for the state.
In the United States the "sales tax" is paid by the person purchasing the product. That's why for a sale to be "tax exempt" the PURCHASER must provide a valid tax exemption (their sales tax certificate if they're going to resell the product).
You may have to include it in your company's accounting since it is money that has entered your company's bank account, and you may consider it a "cost" because you have to pay it. But the fact is that's only because you are acting as the middleman and COLLECTING the money. The actual tax is paid by the purchaser.
Sales tax is not a COST for a business, it is a COST for the purchaser. Period.
I grappled with that issue for some time, trying to figure out exactly why it was that in my mind I have no problem with music being free but don't say the same for software. I've come to the conclusion it comes back to WHERE the money should be made and the amount of effort in producing it.
1. Generally speaking--and not intending to demean a musicians' effort--it takes much more time to produce any sizeable program than to produce music. Sure the musician may have been "thinking" of the music for years, becoming inspired, etc. but in the end it's just some number of hours in the recording/editing studio. Programming a decent sized program can be matters of months. One of my projects was actually 1.5 years.
2. In software, if it is to generate money, sales, subscription, or maintenance is the only way to do it. I don't charge maintenance because I feel that gives me an incentive to write bad programs that require support. I don't charge a subscription any more than *I'D* be willing to rent software. So I sell it. Musicians, on the other hand, should make their money doing live performances. I don't think anyone would pay a programmer for live performances.
3. The idea of selling music recordings is based on the premise that you will record the music in a month (or whatever) and earn royalties or income from it ad infinitum. You do the recording, you're done and watch the money come in. With programming, if you're not constantly improving your product (i.e. spending more development time on it), your product will quickly fall off the radar screen.
Those are the differences. At a high level you can say that music and software is the same. But in a REAL analysis, the markets are very different and you cannot expect the dynamics of one to apply to the other.
I'm saying that no one will be able to be a fulltime musician if they aren't supported by payments of some sort.
They will be compensated. When they do concerts. If they want to earn more money, they'll have to work harder and do more concerts. What they won't be able to do is record some music and sit on their butts waiting for royalty payments. That's a thing of the past.
As I said before, it should be my choice, not the consumer's, to choose whether I get compensation from those who choose to use my product.
That's a fair view, but in reality your right to choose whether you get compensation is contrained by the free market. Call it piracy, call it civil disobedience, call it market forces... the free market is in the process of assinging the value of zero to recorded music. I have seen exactly the OPPOSITE trend in the price of concerts.
Fighting the free market, like fighting technology, is a losing battle. You can try to fight it--you WILL lose. Or you can accept the reality we live in and accept the fact that music is now free and you should focus on concerts for earning money from your music.
I'm a programmer. My computer cost thousands. I've written software that took months of development time. None of this means that I'm automatically entitled to some amount of money. It's entirely possible that my work will not be sufficiently valued by the public to pay me money for my investment and time.
And you're telling me that I shouldn't want to charge for you to listen to the music that cost me time, effort, and money?
No, it's natural to WANT to charge for it. I'd LIKE to charge a thousand bucks per copy of the programs I write. But there is a big difference between what I want and what the public is willing to do.
Look, I've done a *lot* of free concerts, and that's fine with me. I play music because I love to play music, not because it makes me a profit.
Well, which is it? Do you play music because you love to do it, or because you're looking for money?
If anything, you need to accept that your music will be distributed freely and CHARGE to play concerts. It sounds to me you've got the business plan reversed.
Nonetheless, I also don't believe I *owe* you anything, and that seems to be what you believe, at least in a general form.
Obviously you owe me absolutely nothing; but I don't owe you anything, either, if I'm just listening to audio waves you've recorded.
Musicians shouldgive you their music for free, because you're not willing to pay.
I'll happily pay to see them live in concert. That is a cultural event that will NOT be made obsolete by technology. And that's where musicians that want to make money need to be focusing.
Ain't gonna happen. If they can't be profitable as musicians (and I'm not saying rich, I'm saying profitable), then they won't make music for you.
I disagree. Most of the musicians I know have never made a cent off their music, and yet produce.
If you're saying N'Sync and Britney Spears will go away, you have a point. And I don't really care.
I have a right to be compensated.
That's BS. You have no such right. Is that in the Constitution? "The right to be compensated." Nope.
The free market makes no guarantees about compensation. You are free to spend time on something you think will be profitable with the hope of earning money. The free market has the right to slap you in the face and say, "I'm not paying for that!" End of story.
From an economic standpoint it is very possible that the bits representing music are worthless. That doesn't mean people don't enjoy music, that doesn't mean it doesn't have cultural value--but it's economic value may very well be zero.
then there will be no more music to aquire, with nomore professional musicians.
Define "professional musicians." Is that people that make a living full-time playing music, or people that produce quality music?
There was plenty of quality music before people earned obnoxious amounts of money to do it. In fact, it could be argued that there was MORE good music before it became a high-dollar business.
No, leeching is taking stuff without giving. By consuming tons of data quickly I am making the most of the broadband connection that was promoted as being ABLE to provide tons of data quickly, and I'm paying the amount I agreed to pay. This is not leeching.
For me, the value of having the always on connection far outweighs the high speed.
Get a dial-up connection and camp online. Right now my broadband is down here in Mexico (and has been for 4 weeks!). That's why I have a backup dial-up account. Now I just connect and camp online. The speed sucks, but I'm certainly not complaining about "always on." When I occasionally get disconnected, I just redial automatically.
but I would be absolutely delighted to have the option of a lower-cost class of service that had a lower maximum transfer rate.
That would be something else.
But have you seen any discussion of a plan like this being implemented? No... All we see is plans to keep charging low-use customers the same $50/month and hit "high-end users" with additional per GB charges.
That's downright unethical and, if/when it happens, I wouldn't be surprised to see a legal challenge. You can't have it both ways.
Yeah, but that was years ago. RIAA should have reduced their prices long ago. At the very least when Napster hit the scene. Instead they sued Napster into oblivion, increased their prices, and watched more P2Ps pop up. Now they want to drop prices and hope people will come back? No, it doesn't work that way.
If you could have sold 486 technology to IBM in 1980 you could have made billions of dollars. Now, you can't sell 486 technology to anyone, period. In 1980 you were in a good bargaining position, today that bargaining position is gone.
Likewise, the RIAA was in a monopoly position for decades. They were in a good bargaining position, still, in 1990 and could have reduced prices to fend off the "need" for users to go to P2P to get their music. Now, P2P is everywhere and they can't control it--and now they want to make a counter-offer? It doesn't work that way... They are no longer in a position to negotiate.
I will no longer pay for music, period. Only if I happen to be at the mall and happen to remember a CD I want and happen to know that there are at LEAST 3 tracks that I want. That last criteria (minimum 3 good tracks) is usually the deal-breaker.
Fact is, many people (including me) have been exposed to free music. Not only is it free, it can be obtained in a heartbeat and without having to identify yourself or give up personal information or a credit card number.
Even if the price is 1 penny per song I am not going to leave P2P to go to some corporate website to give them my name, address, phone number, credit card number, and email address to get my music. P2P is safer, more convenient, and faster.
Sorry, game over.
That said, 99 cents is too much. Back around 1987 that is what I used to pay for a 45rpm single. Now all they're giving me is access to bytes and want to charge the same amount? I don't think so.
Plus even if it's not too expensive, I'm not going to hassle with paying 99 cents for a track which requires that I register, give up a credit card, personal information, etc. when I can just pick it up in minutes free, no hassle, no personal information, done.
As I've also said before, the natural price of music is now zero. The free market has decided that. This is is showing that the free market is forcing the RIAA to move towards that price. They're not going to give away music because that'll be the end of their business--but going from a $20 CD to a $9.99 downloadable album or a $0.99 track is the RIAA realizing that the natural price is lower than what they've been charging.
Of course, they still haven't realized that the natural price is zero. But it's a matter of time.
You got that right. Their "complaint" is not important. Virtually no businesses are able to obtain the exact same profit level on every single sale. There will be sales that are more profitable than others, but the idea is that the pricing is such that, as a whole, you make money.
As you said, the entire population subsidizes the highway system used heavily by a small minority.
Consumers that carry large balances on their credit card give banks the money so that I can charge everything, pay it off, and pay absolutely nothing.
Many people have insurance and they end up paying for my mistake if I crash and cause lots of damage and medical bills. My premiums certainly didn't cover it.
It is also incredible to see companies trying to ration the use of their own product. It's counterproductive. The whole point of broadband is to be able to consume tons of data quickly. When they start limiting that they are reducing the value of their product and also limiting the things that can be done with Internet--and not just P2P. Videoconferencing, VoIP, gaming, streaming radio... These are things that 99% of the people still don't do, and WON'T do if they are limited on their bandwidth.
As has been said, it's a monopoly. They can charge, so they will. They want millions of users using their broadband at dial-up levels, but charging them $50/month instead of $9/month that dial-up costs.
In which case they should just research a little more until they can... How much would've a Pentium IV system with 1GB of memory cost 40 years ago?
Actually, according to CNN, "If IBM decides to manufacture millipede-based storage cards -- it has no current plans to do so -- the storage could begin replacing the current silicon-based flash memory cards in handheld computers and mobile phones by the end of 2005, Vettiger predicted.".
That blows me away. They supposedly have a techology that by 2005 could provide GBs of storage space for PDAs, laptops, and MP3 players. Your WATCH could be a PDA or an MP3 player. It presumably requires very little energy so you'd be able to listen to music (or whatever) for days, probably.
I never had to work with punch cards; I "came in" just as they were going out...
That said, I always have checked for chads on my voting cards as well. I don't think there is anything geeky about it, it's just logical. Just like making sure you fully fill-in the bubbles in a "scan-tron" test, obviously you make sure the chads are fully gone.
Those that mis-voted in FL have no-one to blame but themselves, even though the "in" thing is to blame anyone and everyone else rather than take responsibility.
Technically, any card that you use to pay for something that doesn't come directly out of your account (i.e. debit) are credit cards. Even AMEX.
Even though AMEX "forces" you to pay in full each month, they've extended credit on your behalf from the time you made the purchase until the time your payment is due.
As has been said before, people will be creative even if they aren't paid to do so. Perhaps SOME people will stop producing creative work, but creative work will not disappear. It could also be said that those that still create will be those that do it for the passion they have to create, not because of the dollar signs.
They'll probably have an (inadequate) day job (or not) *and* abandon the field.
And why is that my problem any more than it is their problem if I leave my field and don't find an adequate job?
All so the warezzzz d00dz can have it for free.
It has nothing to do with "warez doodz" and everything to do with distribution costs which, as they approach or are equal to zero, the public is less inclined to pay a unit cost for them.
Me: That's the free market. No-one ever said it was fair.
You: No, that's not the free market. If you don't want the book, fine. If you want the book, PAY FOR IT.
You missed the point.
You said that it is "unfair to expect people to produce professional works of literature AND hold down full time jobs." I replied that no-one ever said that the free-market was fair to any given individual.
It is entirely possible that society is now saying that authors and/or musicians may not be assigned a value high enough that their creative work alone will be sufficient to give them the standard of living that they want. That may obligate such creative persons to either work harder, have a "day job," or abandon the field.
That's the free market. No-one ever said it was fair.
I'm a dedicated slashdot reader, and to be 100% frank, I don't want to have to work at Burger King to continue doing so.
In other words, just because you want to do something--even full time--doesn't mean that anyone else is willing to pay you to do it.
Making music is a job.
But it's a job that others are willing to do for free.
It's obviously just a hobby to you, but to the people I know, it is a career, and if you work a career, you should get paid.
This isn't communist Russia. You don't get paid just because it's your carreer or if you work. You get paid if someone wants to buy what you're selling.
Making music is a 24 hour job.
Nah... I'm not a full-time musician. I play for fun and don't record. I have friends that are "amateur" musicians, they play for fun, record CDs, and play gigs.
Making music isn't a 24-hour job. It can be done while having a real job (doesn't have to be Burger King unless you like making hamburgers).
On the other hand, if you mean recording a CD and selling it that certainly ISN'T a 24-hour job. It's the time necessary to compose the song and record it. Done. That, in great part, is why society is no longer going to be willing to pay for the music itself when it can be downloaded at no cost to anybody.