To those thinking Bush may change something in the handling of the trial, consider
2)...Backing off would make you look like an idiot.
I think it's a little late for ol' Dubya to be worried about looking like an idiot.
"There ought to be limits to freedom..." - Gov. George W. Bush
"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" -- George W. Bush
"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods." -- George W. Bush, Dec. 20, 2000
"They misunderestimated me." --George W. Bush
"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures." --George W. Bush
"They want the federal government controlling social Security like it's some kind of federal program." --George W. Bush
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --George W. Bush
He can download the next book for free and pay some other company to print it up. He never has to pay the author anything because the books are available in electronic format.
My point was that the author would not get any money. He distributes the book in electronic form for free (to get them hooked, as per your comment), then the user pays some other company to get it made into a paperback. The author who actually did the work gets nothing.
The sad thing about a lot of people's arguments is that Linux isn't "user-friendly". This from people who use AOL. Those of us who use Linux had to learn the hard way - why can't everyone else just sit down and learn. Unfortunately, society nowadays expects user-friendliness to be defined as a set of "wizards" that accomplish mundane tasks with a series of pretty dialog boxes. They expect their hands to be held. The cynics will prevail until they are left behind by the practitioners of due diligence
Not everyone wants to grow up in their basement and suffer the kind of social isolation that most "geeks" go through to get the knowledge of computers that they have. Computers are supposed to make everyone's life easier, not harder. That's why we need pretty dialog boxes. I think the perfect OS would be easy enough for "AOLers" to use, but still provide enough control (hidden from the simpler folk) so that hardcore geeks can still challenge themselves. Linux looks like it has the potential to be this OS, but it may never get there precisely because of attitudes like yours (no offense).
I wasn't talking about a library. I was talking about a technology that could create paperback books from one digital copy of it. Using this machine, people could get physical books without any money going to the author. Eric Flint was talking about libraries and being places where people go to read books and talk about which ones were good, which helps sales. This new technology doesn't affect the library part, it affects the sales.
A story I read a while ago that talked about a new machine that could create paperback books in about fifteen minutes. Book stores could simply carry a digital copy of the book and print out unlimited numbers of paperback books instead of having to buy a bunch of copies that may or may not sell.
I wonder how authors would feel if there suddenly appeared companies who would create paperback books for you if you give them the digital copy of the book. We could then get the book from the web for free, then pay only the company that actually puts the words on paper (similar to the way it is now with music and CDs, ie. download the music and burn your own CD).
Would this new technology invalidate Eric Flint's argument? I mean, word of mouth would still spread about good books, but people could just get the ebook for free and pay someone else to put it in paperback form. The author would really only get paid by bookstores who want to carry his book and have to pay licensing or something for the ebook so they could make and sell their paperback copies.
This reminds me of another post I read on/. a while back (can't recall the date or poster, sorry. If anybody knows, please speak up so he gets some credit):
...I also believe that the social impact will be that casual copying will be seen as perfectly okay, and that the desire to not share copies will
be seen as childish. After all, if anyone anywhere -- including artisans -- can copy anything at any time for nothing, then what, fundamentally, will be wrong with copying anything?
So, in a universe where copying everything is seen as perfectly okay, is there anything an artisan should still have control over? I contend that
the most crucial aspect of creativity still needing strict controls is the artisan's reputation.
Consider: On a visit to the Enterprise, you see an object you quite like. Naturally, you ask, "Wow! Who made that?" Both you and the object's creator would like to be certain you receive an accurate
answer. Note that the question of whether the object you saw was an original or a copy is irrelevant. You no longer care if an object is
"genuine;" you want to know who did it. In other words, you want to know about their reputation. (After all, maybe they did other cool stuff,
too.)
...Okay, so we don't live on the Enterprise (yet), and we all still have to pay the rent. However, I strongly believe the concept of reputation will be central to a re-design of economics and the concept of intellectual "property" in the digital universe. Reputation will become a chief scarce resource in the digital universe, because it is an
artist's reputation that will guide you to their other scarce resource: their time. And it is their time that you will be paying for (no more
doing stuff "on spec")...
Perhaps this is already becoming the issue (and before the advent of replicators!). Would it be better to have the ubiqitous fame of someone like DaVinci or have lots of money like anyone of the faceless shmucks in your typical successful rock band?
Advertising (or run-at-a-loss) has given everyone the impression that "everything on the web is free", and the vast majority of comments on the subscription idea were reflecting that.
Has the rush to commercialize the web destroyed its commercial viability?:-)
One question: what have you done to stop junk mail from coming to your home? Anything?
I don't get any anymore.
Of course, unsolicited real-mail is a different topic altogether. Not nearly as bothersome, time consuming to get rid of, or dangerous (ie. virii) as unsolicited email. Then again, maybe that's just my experience.
The proper action for EBay would have been to email everyone affected and ask them to please opt back in if they had opted in before, giving them a link in the email to make it easy for them. This benefits Ebay and the users.
Instead, they did the opposite: Force people who opted out to opt back in against their will, then tell them if they really opted out to try and find their settings on the website and opt out again. This benefits only Ebay.
First off, they're giving you time to re-opt-out of the mailings. They are not sending any mail to you (despite re-setting all of the choices to "yes") until you have passed the date by which you can set your choices back to "no". That's fair warning.
Second, even if they pull this on you every month, you still have a choice of opting out, and besides, that's one email instead of the 50-100 you would have gotten per month if you would have kept the options set to "yes".
I can deal with this. Even monthly
First: 'Re-opting-out' is not 'opting-out'. Opting-out is a one time thing. It's not fair warning unless they state on the page you opt-out that "This opting-out is only temporary. You will automatically be opted-in after X months".
Second: Would you still deal with it if is were biweekly? Or weekly? Or every other day? Or every day? Or every hour? Or every half hour?... Where does it stop?
"No" means "No". It does not mean "No, but, in a little, while assume I meant 'Yes' and tell me to say 'No' again if I *really* meant 'No' the first time".
Some of us don't want any unsolicited email in our inboxes. Even one a month is too much when you specifically asked not to get it. And then it's one a month from this company, one a month from that... It adds up. The worst attitude to take would be to simply bend over and say "It's only once a month. It's not so bad, really." There should be absolutely no tolerance for this kind of crap.
IMHO, the best thing to do in this situation is for everyone who got this email to reply to it and demand Ebay change the settings back to 'No' instead of giving Ebay the pleasure of having you visit their site.
"Specifically, most scientists who have theorized about things that question the biblical account of things are ridiculed, shunned, blackballed, and/or drawn and quartered:) "
That's an interesting point considering there has yet to be a single instance of a Biblical event being 'debunked' by science. A human interpretation of a Biblical event, maybe, but never an actual event itself...
Slashdot Mirror
To those thinking Bush may change something in the handling of the trial, consider
...Backing off would make you look like an idiot.
2)
I think it's a little late for ol' Dubya to be worried about looking like an idiot.
"There ought to be limits to freedom..." - Gov. George W. Bush
"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" -- George W. Bush
"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods." -- George W. Bush, Dec. 20, 2000
"They misunderestimated me." --George W. Bush
"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures." --George W. Bush
"They want the federal government controlling social Security like it's some kind of federal program." --George W. Bush
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --George W. Bush
He can download the next book for free and pay some other company to print it up. He never has to pay the author anything because the books are available in electronic format.
Will these new MicroSoft/UniSys/Dell voting machines bluescreen if I try to vote Liberatarian?
My point was that the author would not get any money. He distributes the book in electronic form for free (to get them hooked, as per your comment), then the user pays some other company to get it made into a paperback. The author who actually did the work gets nothing.
The sad thing about a lot of people's arguments is that Linux isn't "user-friendly". This from people who use AOL. Those of us who use Linux had to learn the hard way - why can't everyone else just sit down and learn. Unfortunately, society nowadays expects user-friendliness to be defined as a set of "wizards" that accomplish mundane tasks with a series of pretty dialog boxes. They expect their hands to be held. The cynics will prevail until they are left behind by the practitioners of due diligence
Not everyone wants to grow up in their basement and suffer the kind of social isolation that most "geeks" go through to get the knowledge of computers that they have. Computers are supposed to make everyone's life easier, not harder. That's why we need pretty dialog boxes. I think the perfect OS would be easy enough for "AOLers" to use, but still provide enough control (hidden from the simpler folk) so that hardcore geeks can still challenge themselves. Linux looks like it has the potential to be this OS, but it may never get there precisely because of attitudes like yours (no offense).
I wasn't talking about a library. I was talking about a technology that could create paperback books from one digital copy of it. Using this machine, people could get physical books without any money going to the author. Eric Flint was talking about libraries and being places where people go to read books and talk about which ones were good, which helps sales. This new technology doesn't affect the library part, it affects the sales.
Yes with the new Ford Explorer Microsoft Edition you can now surf the web while you drive...
I don't think I'd want to drive a vehicle associated with a company which, when mentioned, brings up the word "crash" in my mind.
A story I read a while ago that talked about a new machine that could create paperback books in about fifteen minutes. Book stores could simply carry a digital copy of the book and print out unlimited numbers of paperback books instead of having to buy a bunch of copies that may or may not sell.
/. a while back (can't recall the date or poster, sorry. If anybody knows, please speak up so he gets some credit):
...I also believe that the social impact will be that casual copying will be seen as perfectly okay, and that the desire to not share copies will
be seen as childish. After all, if anyone anywhere -- including artisans -- can copy anything at any time for nothing, then what, fundamentally, will be wrong with copying anything?
...Okay, so we don't live on the Enterprise (yet), and we all still have to pay the rent. However, I strongly believe the concept of reputation will be central to a re-design of economics and the concept of intellectual "property" in the digital universe. Reputation will become a chief scarce resource in the digital universe, because it is an
artist's reputation that will guide you to their other scarce resource: their time. And it is their time that you will be paying for (no more
doing stuff "on spec")...
I wonder how authors would feel if there suddenly appeared companies who would create paperback books for you if you give them the digital copy of the book. We could then get the book from the web for free, then pay only the company that actually puts the words on paper (similar to the way it is now with music and CDs, ie. download the music and burn your own CD).
Would this new technology invalidate Eric Flint's argument? I mean, word of mouth would still spread about good books, but people could just get the ebook for free and pay someone else to put it in paperback form. The author would really only get paid by bookstores who want to carry his book and have to pay licensing or something for the ebook so they could make and sell their paperback copies.
This reminds me of another post I read on
So, in a universe where copying everything is seen as perfectly okay, is there anything an artisan should still have control over? I contend that the most crucial aspect of creativity still needing strict controls is the artisan's reputation.
Consider: On a visit to the Enterprise, you see an object you quite like. Naturally, you ask, "Wow! Who made that?" Both you and the object's creator would like to be certain you receive an accurate answer. Note that the question of whether the object you saw was an original or a copy is irrelevant. You no longer care if an object is "genuine;" you want to know who did it. In other words, you want to know about their reputation. (After all, maybe they did other cool stuff, too.)
Perhaps this is already becoming the issue (and before the advent of replicators!). Would it be better to have the ubiqitous fame of someone like DaVinci or have lots of money like anyone of the faceless shmucks in your typical successful rock band?
Advertising (or run-at-a-loss) has given everyone the impression that "everything on the web is free", and the vast majority of comments on the subscription idea were reflecting that.
:-)
Has the rush to commercialize the web destroyed its commercial viability?
One question: what have you done to stop junk mail from coming to your home? Anything?
I don't get any anymore.
Of course, unsolicited real-mail is a different topic altogether. Not nearly as bothersome, time consuming to get rid of, or dangerous (ie. virii) as unsolicited email. Then again, maybe that's just my experience.
The proper action for EBay would have been to email everyone affected and ask them to please opt back in if they had opted in before, giving them a link in the email to make it easy for them. This benefits Ebay and the users.
Instead, they did the opposite: Force people who opted out to opt back in against their will, then tell them if they really opted out to try and find their settings on the website and opt out again. This benefits only Ebay.
First off, they're giving you time to re-opt-out of the mailings. They are not sending any mail to you (despite re-setting all of the choices to "yes") until you have passed the date by which you can set your choices back to "no". That's fair warning.
Second, even if they pull this on you every month, you still have a choice of opting out, and besides, that's one email instead of the 50-100 you would have gotten per month if you would have kept the options set to "yes".
I can deal with this. Even monthly
First: 'Re-opting-out' is not 'opting-out'. Opting-out is a one time thing. It's not fair warning unless they state on the page you opt-out that "This opting-out is only temporary. You will automatically be opted-in after X months".
Second: Would you still deal with it if is were biweekly? Or weekly? Or every other day? Or every day? Or every hour? Or every half hour?... Where does it stop?
"No" means "No". It does not mean "No, but, in a little, while assume I meant 'Yes' and tell me to say 'No' again if I *really* meant 'No' the first time".
Some of us don't want any unsolicited email in our inboxes. Even one a month is too much when you specifically asked not to get it. And then it's one a month from this company, one a month from that... It adds up. The worst attitude to take would be to simply bend over and say "It's only once a month. It's not so bad, really." There should be absolutely no tolerance for this kind of crap.
IMHO, the best thing to do in this situation is for everyone who got this email to reply to it and demand Ebay change the settings back to 'No' instead of giving Ebay the pleasure of having you visit their site.
"Specifically, most scientists who have theorized about things that question the biblical account of things are ridiculed, shunned, blackballed, and/or drawn and quartered :) "
That's an interesting point considering there has yet to be a single instance of a Biblical event being 'debunked' by science. A human interpretation of a Biblical event, maybe, but never an actual event itself...