The words "gentle" and "benevolence" and "government" have NO business in the same sentence...
In your country maybe. I just had some big issues with my eye. Red, blurred vision, bleeding and all sorts of crazy shit like a vampire. Went to the doctor for free, got prescribed some antibiotics and a referral to an optometrist. Optometrist performed a Slit Lamp exam for free and advised to rest and keep the eye clean. After a few days it wasn't improving so went back to the doctor for free for another check, got the all clear and advised to rest. A few days later all clear back to normal, total cost $10 for some eye drops.
In most western countries other then the US, the govt are benevolent to the people, but that's evil socialism for you...
So why do houses have liability insurance? Because the residents can do dumb stuff.
And that insurance is a *lot* lower than comprehensive insurance on a regular car. That is exactly my point.
If you overload a self driving car beyond it's capacity there's no reasonable amount of engineering that will prevent a failure.
I can build you a $5 piece of electronics that can detect this and take the appropriate action. Elevators have exactly this built into them.
What about driving a vehicle that isn't road worthy? Bad ties rods, bad brakes... list goes on.
You seem to be missing the whole point of automation. Everything has sensors so any anomaly can result in an automated return-to-base for inspection. If you do robot cars properly, there is no need for user interaction at any point other than the input of a destination address.
I do, but you are missing the fact that the automated part doesn't mean you don't have influence on the outcome. If you overload an elevator it will fail. There's a warning so who's liable? Robot cars are still at the merci of the people inside.
See above, elevators already have automated mechanisms precisely to prevent such things. An overloaded elevator will not move. Any robot car will have the same.
It might be possible to have an influence on outcome, but the influence will be vastly reduced compared to a regular car, and hence your insurance premiums will reduce along with them.
After an investigation that proves this was actually the company's fault. If it was reckless then you are correct, product insurance will once again pay. What if a bug fried the circuits causing this? Who's liable now and who pays?
If the device has been serviced as per instructions, the manufacturer is liable. this is commonplace today.
No, because your not the owner of said machine. The building owner has liability insurance for that reason.
Only building owners of public spaces which is less specific to the elevator and more to do with general liability. I know someone with a lift in his house, he doesn't have any special insurance for it.
In my city (5 million people, 5000 taxis), the licensing of Taxis alone is worth $2Bil. Extrapolate that over more than 1 billion people in the Uber reaching universe, and $40Bil works out to roughly 10% of the total market. Based on that crude maths, and my various experiences of service between Taxis and Uber, I think that valuation is at least in the ballpark.
So who is being screwed here? Uber is happy, Uber drivers seem happy, Uber customers seem happy. The only people being screwed are the Taxi cartels who have deliberately gone out of their way to stifle competition to maintain a monopoly of poor and over-priced services. Fuck them, they deserve it.
The difference with a village, is that the lack of privacy goes both ways, but this new era is all one way. Faceless people in power know everything about you, you know nothing about them. It can only end in tears.
They can't use facial recognition on you if they don't have a photo of you to start with. Unless you're hopelessly dumb and allowed photos of your face, linked with your name, to be posted on the Internet,
You've never heard of Facebook then?
I don't have a Facebook account, yet my name and face are sure to be on there, easily connected with a bit of Googling. The Genie is already out of the bottle, it's going to be extremely hard to get it back in.
The human brain isn't wired this way, it's called the monkeysphere
There is a difference between personal relationships, and being constantly watched by strangers. Just ask any of those celebrities that go off the rails...
So is self driving cars. You enable it when you need it..
ABS and cruise Control still require you to be an active operator, the dream of a robot car doesn't. The whole point of a robot car is that you turn it on and forget about it. If you have to still take responsibility for every action the car makes, the is no point in having it automated. You may as well just drive it yourself.
Do you see oven manufacturers paying for your house fire insurance? The answer is NO!
If a manufacturing fault causes the oven to catch fire and burn your house down then yes, they are liable, and yes they have public liability insurance that covers this.
And in this case the oven is still operated by the end user, so it's not a suitable analogy.
You don't seem to understand the difference with a fully automated device. An robot car, like an elevator, is an automated vehicle. If you press the 5th floor on an elevator and the elevator drove you into an opposing lift shaft and killed somebody, you bet you're ass that elevator company would be liable. Last time I checked no-one takes out elevator insurance despite millions of people using them each day.
And by "the companies supplying it", they mean, "fuck the artists".
Um that's how the business works. Company signs artist, promises the world in exchange for the ownership of their work. From that point on any future deal has to go through the company that now owns the work.
The only way that this will change, is when musicians follow the path of software developers. Release your work for free on the Internet and good work will get noticed. Good artists will build a profile then can then start charging for their work. There's no reason why Artists can't deal with the likes of Spotify or Apple Music directly, but unlike developers who tend to be smarter than average, artists tend to be at the stupid end of the spectrum, and hence will continue to be taken advantage of.
I sure as hell don't purchase $120 in music per year, even when the CD was king I doubt many ever did.
So why do they suddenly expect us all to start spending as much on music as the most vociferous consumers?
$3-5 monthly, $36-60 per year, that's a price point where subscription services start making sense to me.
Maybe they aren't targeting you? I'd be lucky to spend $100/year on CDs when I was fresh out of school and earning $200/week. Now I earn 10x times that $120/year is peanuts for all the music I can eat.
I don't own anything Apple and avoid it where possible, but they have a market. They target the top 10% of the high disposal income earners (not necessarily high income), who are constantly looking for new shiny to blow their cash on. I think they'll do alright.
These same arguments were discussed when ABS and Cruise control were introduced. The only difference is that it was discussed by writers in magazines instead of on the internet.
Crap. Cruise Control and ABS are still end-user controlled technology. The closest analogy to a robot car is an elevator or automated train. Since both are stuck on fixed rails, there is no comparison, since a neither can steer you into oncoming traffic, or drive you off a cliff.
Once stats on accidents show a decrease in incidents, the result will be cheaper insurance.
Cheaper insurance for the end user, but the liability and therefore cost is simply transferred to the manufacturer, so you still pay for it through higher priced vehicles.
. So you are free to clone marketable things from those seeds/dogs. Also, making genetic copies, as you say, is quite time consuming and expensive since you have water the seeded land frequently
That takes no effort. A lot of plants can be copied simply by cutting a branch and letting it fall in the dirt. Some don't even require that, they break or fall naturally then just start growing by themselves. It's actually less effort than downloading and copying a file. Imagine in the Gardeners Industry Association of American knocked on your door randomly and ask for royalties for any plants you had in your garden that you didn't have a license for?
The whole idea that a vendor can sell you something, then control how you use it in future, is flawed. You either sell it or you don't. This whole end user license model is a device of tyranny and I will continue to pirate as a form of protest against it.
If artists want to get paid, then do what every other business has to do and come up with a business model that works, or find another job.
The singer should be choosing the song, and if they feel the need for a middleman to help them out with this task, it should be at their cost, not mine.
The music industry has grown around a monopoly on distribution, therefore the distributors got to call all the shots. Now that digital technology and the Internet renders that monopoly useless, the model needs to shift back in favour of the musician. The Musician is the brand, they need to take charge of their sound (writing, production etc) and be responsible for trying to make an income out of it all.
This is the solution. A new licensing model needs to be standardised, and an effort to get young and new artists onboard. If a new generation came through with more realistic expectations of the income they expect from recorded music, and an appropriate licensing model to suit, then the greedy old timers would just disappear off the map.
The problem is that the incumbents have a monopoly, and someone like Apple who has the potential to be a game changer in this field, seems to be suffering a little from me-too syndrome.
Suppose you bought a big mac and your family has 5 members including you. You placed the big mac in a food cloning machine and it generated 4 more big macs for the remaining family members. As you'd expect, McDonalds is going to sue you for paying for 1 big mac while consuming 5 big macs.
IOW, your analogy is flawed.
Good luck with that line of reasoning.
I have a garden. I buy plants all the time and use clippings and or seeds to grow more copies of it.
When I was a kid we bought a pedigree dog. We bred it and sold genetic copies of it
IOW, your analogy is flawed.
By pirating I'm letting the musician know that I enjoy their music but am not happy to support any of the other leeches in the chain.
If I really like them, and they come to my town, I will buy a ticket to their show and maybe a T-Shirt. I am supporting a model I believe is fair and sustainable.
In the day where real musicians can write, record and release songs from their bedroom, why do we need the middlemen? Someone will come up with a model that funnel profits directly to artists, then the "industry" as we know will die like it should.
.
Are you serious? I can't think of the last time I have been in a restaurant where there wasn't music playing.
Odd, I can't think of many that do play music. We must go to different types of restaurants?
Just to rattle some examples off the top of my head:
Last restaurant I was at I ate outside, no music there.
Before that was a cheapo Malaysian place that had no music, but they did have a TV:)
An Italian place I went had none, but a Mexican place did have some Mexican style (non-commercial) music to add some atmosphere.
I do recall a few places with the Muzak background type stuff which you never notice, but nothing commercial that any rights holders would be chasing?
And while we're doing that... how about raise the standard human IQ to something less obnoxiously pitiful. Because boy oh boy are there are a lot of morons.
Slashdot Mirror
The words "gentle" and "benevolence" and "government" have NO business in the same sentence...
In your country maybe. I just had some big issues with my eye. Red, blurred vision, bleeding and all sorts of crazy shit like a vampire. Went to the doctor for free, got prescribed some antibiotics and a referral to an optometrist. Optometrist performed a Slit Lamp exam for free and advised to rest and keep the eye clean. After a few days it wasn't improving so went back to the doctor for free for another check, got the all clear and advised to rest. A few days later all clear back to normal, total cost $10 for some eye drops.
In most western countries other then the US, the govt are benevolent to the people, but that's evil socialism for you...
So why do houses have liability insurance? Because the residents can do dumb stuff.
And that insurance is a *lot* lower than comprehensive insurance on a regular car. That is exactly my point.
If you overload a self driving car beyond it's capacity there's no reasonable amount of engineering that will prevent a failure.
I can build you a $5 piece of electronics that can detect this and take the appropriate action. Elevators have exactly this built into them.
What about driving a vehicle that isn't road worthy? Bad ties rods, bad brakes... list goes on.
You seem to be missing the whole point of automation. Everything has sensors so any anomaly can result in an automated return-to-base for inspection. If you do robot cars properly, there is no need for user interaction at any point other than the input of a destination address.
I do, but you are missing the fact that the automated part doesn't mean you don't have influence on the outcome. If you overload an elevator it will fail. There's a warning so who's liable? Robot cars are still at the merci of the people inside.
See above, elevators already have automated mechanisms precisely to prevent such things. An overloaded elevator will not move. Any robot car will have the same.
It might be possible to have an influence on outcome, but the influence will be vastly reduced compared to a regular car, and hence your insurance premiums will reduce along with them.
After an investigation that proves this was actually the company's fault. If it was reckless then you are correct, product insurance will once again pay. What if a bug fried the circuits causing this? Who's liable now and who pays?
If the device has been serviced as per instructions, the manufacturer is liable. this is commonplace today.
No, because your not the owner of said machine. The building owner has liability insurance for that reason.
Only building owners of public spaces which is less specific to the elevator and more to do with general liability. I know someone with a lift in his house, he doesn't have any special insurance for it.
You have Digital speakers?
In my city (5 million people, 5000 taxis), the licensing of Taxis alone is worth $2Bil. Extrapolate that over more than 1 billion people in the Uber reaching universe, and $40Bil works out to roughly 10% of the total market. Based on that crude maths, and my various experiences of service between Taxis and Uber, I think that valuation is at least in the ballpark.
So who is being screwed here? Uber is happy, Uber drivers seem happy, Uber customers seem happy. The only people being screwed are the Taxi cartels who have deliberately gone out of their way to stifle competition to maintain a monopoly of poor and over-priced services. Fuck them, they deserve it.
The difference with a village, is that the lack of privacy goes both ways, but this new era is all one way. Faceless people in power know everything about you, you know nothing about them. It can only end in tears.
They can't use facial recognition on you if they don't have a photo of you to start with. Unless you're hopelessly dumb and allowed photos of your face, linked with your name, to be posted on the Internet,
You've never heard of Facebook then? I don't have a Facebook account, yet my name and face are sure to be on there, easily connected with a bit of Googling. The Genie is already out of the bottle, it's going to be extremely hard to get it back in.
Good story, I think it ends with Jack shooting up the local shopping centre in a mad rage...
The human brain isn't wired this way, it's called the monkeysphere There is a difference between personal relationships, and being constantly watched by strangers. Just ask any of those celebrities that go off the rails...
So is self driving cars. You enable it when you need it. .
ABS and cruise Control still require you to be an active operator, the dream of a robot car doesn't. The whole point of a robot car is that you turn it on and forget about it. If you have to still take responsibility for every action the car makes, the is no point in having it automated. You may as well just drive it yourself.
Do you see oven manufacturers paying for your house fire insurance? The answer is NO!
If a manufacturing fault causes the oven to catch fire and burn your house down then yes, they are liable, and yes they have public liability insurance that covers this.
And in this case the oven is still operated by the end user, so it's not a suitable analogy.
You don't seem to understand the difference with a fully automated device. An robot car, like an elevator, is an automated vehicle. If you press the 5th floor on an elevator and the elevator drove you into an opposing lift shaft and killed somebody, you bet you're ass that elevator company would be liable. Last time I checked no-one takes out elevator insurance despite millions of people using them each day.
And by "the companies supplying it", they mean, "fuck the artists".
Um that's how the business works. Company signs artist, promises the world in exchange for the ownership of their work. From that point on any future deal has to go through the company that now owns the work.
The only way that this will change, is when musicians follow the path of software developers. Release your work for free on the Internet and good work will get noticed. Good artists will build a profile then can then start charging for their work. There's no reason why Artists can't deal with the likes of Spotify or Apple Music directly, but unlike developers who tend to be smarter than average, artists tend to be at the stupid end of the spectrum, and hence will continue to be taken advantage of.
I sure as hell don't purchase $120 in music per year, even when the CD was king I doubt many ever did.
So why do they suddenly expect us all to start spending as much on music as the most vociferous consumers?
$3-5 monthly, $36-60 per year, that's a price point where subscription services start making sense to me.
Maybe they aren't targeting you? I'd be lucky to spend $100/year on CDs when I was fresh out of school and earning $200/week. Now I earn 10x times that $120/year is peanuts for all the music I can eat.
I don't own anything Apple and avoid it where possible, but they have a market. They target the top 10% of the high disposal income earners (not necessarily high income), who are constantly looking for new shiny to blow their cash on. I think they'll do alright.
Except Apple. That was Apple's original target and they shat it in...
And nobody can delete or disable your files remotely. But please, even though this is 2015, MP3 is still good enough for most people
FTFY
These same arguments were discussed when ABS and Cruise control were introduced. The only difference is that it was discussed by writers in magazines instead of on the internet.
Crap. Cruise Control and ABS are still end-user controlled technology. The closest analogy to a robot car is an elevator or automated train. Since both are stuck on fixed rails, there is no comparison, since a neither can steer you into oncoming traffic, or drive you off a cliff.
Once stats on accidents show a decrease in incidents, the result will be cheaper insurance.
Cheaper insurance for the end user, but the liability and therefore cost is simply transferred to the manufacturer, so you still pay for it through higher priced vehicles.
. So you are free to clone marketable things from those seeds/dogs. Also, making genetic copies, as you say, is quite time consuming and expensive since you have water the seeded land frequently
That takes no effort. A lot of plants can be copied simply by cutting a branch and letting it fall in the dirt. Some don't even require that, they break or fall naturally then just start growing by themselves. It's actually less effort than downloading and copying a file. Imagine in the Gardeners Industry Association of American knocked on your door randomly and ask for royalties for any plants you had in your garden that you didn't have a license for?
The whole idea that a vendor can sell you something, then control how you use it in future, is flawed. You either sell it or you don't. This whole end user license model is a device of tyranny and I will continue to pirate as a form of protest against it.
If artists want to get paid, then do what every other business has to do and come up with a business model that works, or find another job.
The singer should be choosing the song, and if they feel the need for a middleman to help them out with this task, it should be at their cost, not mine.
The music industry has grown around a monopoly on distribution, therefore the distributors got to call all the shots. Now that digital technology and the Internet renders that monopoly useless, the model needs to shift back in favour of the musician. The Musician is the brand, they need to take charge of their sound (writing, production etc) and be responsible for trying to make an income out of it all.
Even if thousands dropped dead overnight, it will still be lower than the road toll, or deaths from air pollution due to burning coal
Also worth mentioning that over 1 million people die from car accidents each year, yet we still have cars.
This is the solution. A new licensing model needs to be standardised, and an effort to get young and new artists onboard. If a new generation came through with more realistic expectations of the income they expect from recorded music, and an appropriate licensing model to suit, then the greedy old timers would just disappear off the map.
The problem is that the incumbents have a monopoly, and someone like Apple who has the potential to be a game changer in this field, seems to be suffering a little from me-too syndrome.
Suppose you bought a big mac and your family has 5 members including you. You placed the big mac in a food cloning machine and it generated 4 more big macs for the remaining family members. As you'd expect, McDonalds is going to sue you for paying for 1 big mac while consuming 5 big macs.
IOW, your analogy is flawed.
Good luck with that line of reasoning.
I have a garden. I buy plants all the time and use clippings and or seeds to grow more copies of it.
When I was a kid we bought a pedigree dog. We bred it and sold genetic copies of it
IOW, your analogy is flawed.
So find out where their office is and burn it to the ground. Two can play that game.
By pirating I'm letting the musician know that I enjoy their music but am not happy to support any of the other leeches in the chain.
If I really like them, and they come to my town, I will buy a ticket to their show and maybe a T-Shirt. I am supporting a model I believe is fair and sustainable.
In the day where real musicians can write, record and release songs from their bedroom, why do we need the middlemen? Someone will come up with a model that funnel profits directly to artists, then the "industry" as we know will die like it should. .
Are you serious? I can't think of the last time I have been in a restaurant where there wasn't music playing.
Odd, I can't think of many that do play music. We must go to different types of restaurants? :)
Just to rattle some examples off the top of my head:
Last restaurant I was at I ate outside, no music there.
Before that was a cheapo Malaysian place that had no music, but they did have a TV
An Italian place I went had none, but a Mexican place did have some Mexican style (non-commercial) music to add some atmosphere.
I do recall a few places with the Muzak background type stuff which you never notice, but nothing commercial that any rights holders would be chasing?
And while we're doing that... how about raise the standard human IQ to something less obnoxiously pitiful. Because boy oh boy are there are a lot of morons.
We are