Robin, your defense of copy editors and headline writers is eloquent, but way-off IMO.
I have seen, too many times, bias creep its way into copy editing and (ESPECIALLY!) headline
writing decisions. Occasionally (see Slashdot's unfortunate coverage of Wired's "coverage" of the supposed "raid on e-gold" -- which would have been a fine story except that not only did it not happen, both Wired's headline writer and Slashdot's either didn't read the text of their own story or purposely chose to distort that text to make up a better headline) -- the facts be damned. I'm sure that competent copyeditors are always in short supply, but I'd think that even the INcompetent ones might read stories before slapping a headline on 'em and inviting my withering sarcasm.
What I'm disputing here is your "99%" estimate above. I'd say that AT LEAST 5% of mistakes are due to bias (not gonna get into whether there's media bias, or how various media outlets are biased, but we'd probably disagree on that, too). I have seen and informally studied headline & copy-editing errors for DECADES, and over the years the pattern of distortion has been more indicative of agendas than honest accidents in WAY more than 1% of cases. The mistakes AREN'T random (analysts at www.mrc.org and www.fair.org would probably both agree with me on that point, and they disagree on just-about everything).
Again, your eloquence is appreciated (especially by any copy-editors who are reading all this, and I'm sure their job sucks sometimes -- like all jobs can suck!) but your estimate is orders of magnitude off, IMO. Also, if incompetent headline writers really AREN'T anonymous cowards, then there's one over at Wired whose actual name I'd appreciate knowing -- so far all I've got is 'not Declan,' which (even with media-layoffs) doesn't really narrow things down too much, does it?
JMR
I'm sure not everyone would tip for everything they enjoyed, but whether it's Courtney Love saying it or Scott McCloud saying it even better (twice! one and two) it's clear that some of us would like to directly compensate artists we like.
I think that musicians are poorly represented in this debate by the RIAA, and if we as individual consumers reach out to the artists we like, then maybe we'll get more of what we want with fewer (or less-greedy*) middlemen.
JMR
*Obligatory plug -- try it and send me an account number so I can click you a bit.
That's not the only question to ask. "What companies survived, and are now in the black?" is also an interesting question, especially if you've happily chosen the stock less-purchased.
I'm also amazed that companies deliberately choose pop-up ads. Even adult sites are moving away from them, as users complain. I wish I could set my browser to always ask if it should really pop up another window titled "XXXXX"? with the default being of course "NO!"
JMR
Interesting idea, but I don't think it would be unfair, since according to the rules you can enter as many times as you want (don't even bother with friends, unless you want to). Also, I got the feeling from reading the site that programs are pitted against eachother one on one (I don't know for sure, perhaps this is another game rule that could change from game to game?). If this is the case, your "real" program might be subjected to other competitors' real programs and be unable to decline playing with them. Also, the judge program might not allow any identity information through until after your program makes a commitment. Still, assuming enough of the "fake" entries, it might still be possible to gain an advantage by dint of sheer numbers if you entered, say, a million times.
I suspect, if they ever try this contest again, they'll want to ponder that rule a bit more...
JMR
They knew in advance the size of the decoy, and programmed the interceptor to discriminate accordingly, from what I've read. Otherwise (like in real life) they'd have had a 50-50 chance of failure.
I was pleased to see that Jamie chose the words: "dictators who just have to deliver their nuclear warheads the hard way." I've been ranting about missiles only being warhead DELIVERY SYSTEMS for YEARS, while the military "experts" on TV prattle-on as if all future opponents will of course box only according to the Marquis of Queensbury rules and never use an unconventional warhead delivery system (say, diplomatic pouches, which can't be searched?). My respect for these "experts" is low, and I'm surprised when countries like Russia act scared of their projects (US citizens are who should be scared, since we're going to pay the taxes to spawn this make-work jobs program for the military industrial complex).
All's fair in war, anyway. If I were (Saddam, Hussein, Khadaffi, insert favorite dictator) and I has plans to turn Washington, DC into a few square miles of smoking glass, I don't think I'd want a missile's obvious physical trail back to (insert dictator's nation) anyway, and it's a lot easier to aim the trunk of a rental car, or an old freighter, or even a backpack(!) to directly hit a city than it is to make an intercontinental ballistic missile work accurately the first time you try it. IMO.
JMR
Because they don't currently accept a payment mechanism that would allow them to automatically take such small payments with halfway-decent efficiency. They'd need automation, authentication, low fees, and a total lack of fraud problems to make your idea work, is my self-serving, venal, greedy, profit-oriented guess. Given their present payment-acceptance cost-structure (whether it's checks or plastic, it costs them more than you'd think in order to get each payment banked) I'm not surprised.
They could, of course, try something different...
JMR
Amazon wants to survive (before this, my prediction had been that they wouldn't live for long). AOL's 100 million is what they wanted, and AOL's search technology probably didn't matter.
The more-interesting question is what effect (if any) this will/won't have on the one-click controversy, and I don't profess to know anything about that!
JMR
I just wish Courtney would notice that her own idea for a solution to the problem -- tipjars and contributions given voluntarily by fans -- could be happening on her page right now, if she wanted it (and not just with my preferred metal-currency, either, though that's obviously my main interest).
Napster changed everything (and not always for the better, IMO, because whether or not either one of us likes paying the RIAA quintopoly too much for a CD mostly because we like one or two songs, I suspect we both agree that musicians deserve to be paid something for making music we enjoy). I wish Fairtunes had come along before Napster, instead of the other way around. Unless the idea of tipping music artists we like (and not just talking about it!) spreads a lot faster than I think it will, we're going to see more stuff like this -- a bad thing.
JMR
Nobody has yet said (AFAIK, and I've read every news piece on this dangerous case that I could) whether this poor kid has a lawyer yet, but he needs one BAD now, before he talks too much to the cops. I REALLY hope EFF's watching...
JMR
The most interesting element (to me) of your list is one neither of you directly mentioned -- the switchover to payment systems (not just ours...) that would allow merchants to accept payments as small as you're expecting to pay. I wish that folks could go with a "tipjar" model and just help the artists they like directly, but that's a bit idealistic on my part I guess. People say they want to tip, but tipping an artist requires a bit of effort (and money).
Music fans are used to paying nothing, but what they don't seem to believe is that with a little voluntary cooperation, artists & fans could completely bypass the RIAA quintopoly (an arm of which has now completely taken over Napster) and have something truly wonderful (for everyone except the RIAA).
JMR
In the future, they'll be easier (which might not always be a good thing) but e-gold lets you do micropayments & accomodate diverse interests right now. e-gold is also a good way to pay for services delivered instantly online, such as (but not limited to) ISPs, IMO. There are other flavors of currency as well (more of them seem to spring up every day...)
As usual,/. folks can try a small bit of e-gold for free by contacting me with an account number. Thanks.
JMR
And you want to bypass the RIAA's preferred subscription services & support the artists directly (good music isn't free) and voluntarily, then you want a system where you can tip artists; either directly with our currency (blatant plug!) or others, or just something like Fairtunes.
The problem I see is that plenty of people (I'm not singling you out, this is a general rant) spend a lot of time *saying* that they don't want to steal from artists, but folks don't seem to go out of their way -- even a little-bit -- to try to pay for the music that they get now for free, since they "haven't had to before." This is unfortunate (and it's a lousy excuse, IMO) but now there's no 'tipping culture' in online music. Obviously, I think that needs to change (preferably with a wide variety of payment choices). Perhaps someone more-eloquent than I can cause the change, I don't know.
JMR
(speaking only for myself, as always)
Amen. Thanks for mentioning the Ninth, more people should think about it IMO. I almost feel like putting out a Ninth Amendment t-shirt, but I can't think of anything quite clever enough to go with just the text of an amendment which so neatly fits in the Bill of Rights that even those opposed to reading it with its plain meaning are also vehemently opposed to discussing repeal...
JMR
speaking for myself, as always.
I think "tomorrow" is actually today (June 30)
on
MAP Satellite Launch
·
· Score: 2
The MAP launch is currently scheduled for June 30 2001 from pad 17B at 15:46:46 EDT. I plan to see it live from about 6 miles south, at a bar.
One of the small perks of living in Melbourne, FL is that I get to watch stuff that goes on at the Cape. This should be an OK launch, the weather is nice so far today, but it may get cloudy by the time they get around to it. The best show, by far, is a night shuttle launch.
JMR
I'm glad you're satisfied. One of the things I try to use to get merchants to accept e-gold is the fact that all they pay is the spend fee (fifty cents worth of gold, max, and much less for something like a tip to a musician) to get e-gold at "spot." At http://www.freedomhound.com you can sell $100 worth of e-gold for $102 worth of PayPal, and sites like that reinforce the (good, IMO) idea that e-gold is simply "better money." It's run by a friend, Vince Callaway, who has been around the "gold community" for a while, and knows the value of different currencies.:)
JMR
So if I go to Paris and buy franks with dollars for a week's vacation, but get called home after a day, they'll give me back six days' worth of currency on my card? I doubt it...
Currency exchange businesses (I work for one, I know) charge a spread & try to make a profit. We aren't charities at all. There's a bid and an ask price on grams of gold (and a lot of competition among those who sell it) for example.
JMR
Here's more about Parker Bradley. Despite three months + having passed since the raid, Parker has yet to be charged with jack squat. *sigh* Parker Bradley is a friend of mine, and life isn't too nice for him these days...(get some e-gold and donate it to him). e-gold isn't anonymous cash like in Cryptonomicon or the Grabbe piece, it's just another flavor of money, but one that can be particularly useful, IMO (see below). e-gold provides a level of privacy exceeding credit cards (they don't sell, trade, give away, etc. customer info) but not exceeding bearer stuff, so it's not a good idea for the Jim Bell types.
e-gold (which has so far lasted since 1996) andOmniPay (I work for them, not e-gold, and I speak only for myself) are doing fine, actually. I'd like lots of Slashdot folks to try the stuff, because you tend to be programmers, and nice things happen when programmers play with e-gold. I'd like for Slashdot-like sites to sell mod points (a quickly expiring currency) so I've offered a ten-gram reward for it (about 80-90 bucks' worth, at the moment, so not much). I'd like for folks to think of e-gold for the cool stuff that can be done with it. Using the shopping cart as a tipjar and direct, voluntary donations to musicians might solve the Napster problem someday, IMO. e-gold is a bit tough to understand at first (grams as a currency?!?) although selling gold (a very emotional substance with humans, still, whether it's electronic or physical) can be a business where it's very hard to love *every* single customer...Mostly it's fascinating and lots of fun. The currency is growing pretty fast without much marketing budget, in part because of the "fan club" of sites like BananaGold and cool directories maintained by others. It's very nice for me.
Anyway, if folks on Slashdot want to try it, I have a promotional account, so just send me your account number and I can click you some (not much, I don't toss this stuff around like Paypal, but OTOH we're in the black...) gratis. Thanks.
JMR
There are three kinds of fees (that's the bad news) but they're all relatively low.
e-gold Ltd. charges a storage fee of 1% per year to store your grams of gold. Recipients of spends are also charged a spend fee, which is a maximum of fifty cents worth of e-gold, but would be much less in a micropayment situation (and half of that fee, whatever it is, does not go to e-gold Ltd. and instead goes to the incentive program).
There are also a wide variety of fees charged by exchange providers, who accept a wide variety of payment media. Those who accept repudiable media (credit cards and the like) tend to charge very high fees to sell e-gold, because they occasionally experience 100% losses due to fraud.:( If you're a musician accepting micropayments, you needn't worry about any of that.
Exchange providers such as the one I work for, OmniPay, sometimes also charge fees to send you a check if/when they buy your grams. Of course, if you own e-gold, you can also sell it for a mark-up instead of selling it to us. For example, a site called Freedomhound will pay you $102 for $100 worth of e-gold (he also eats the e-gold spend fee mentioned above, so he's really usually getting only $99.50 worth of e-metal) because he knows that he can sell it later at a profit.
I know it's a bit confusing at first to think of at first, but hopefully this helped a bit. The best way is to poke around the site and maybe try it. I'll click you a bit for free if you create an account and send me the number. Thanks.
JMR
I wonder if there's a way to word a click-thru disclaimer that would prevent/minimize the legal issues you and Weird Al bring up? I'm guessing Scott Adams gets around Sturgeon's Law by just wading through with a finger on the delete key (and drinking lots of coffee) but that's also a good point.
I know using others' ideas is a touchy area for lots of artists. For example, my friend J.S.G. Boggs makes money the old fashioned way -- he draws it. He then goes out and tries to spend it in the "real world" to merchants who happen to have things that he wants. He's not a counterfeiter, merchants are well aware it's art they're accepting (although he has gotten into trouble with various governments in the past over that issue, it's a pretty silly one in his case and juries consistenly let him off). Needless to say, part of the reason that I like Boggs is that his art makes people actually think about the nature of money, art, and value in ways they haven't before, and that's good for business.
Anyway, I have an idea for a Boggs bill; but if he does it exactly the way I imagine, or he changes my idea in small (or big) ways, or if he doesn't do it at all, I won't feel that he owes me anything for my idea. If he creates the bill just as I imagine it, it will have a face value too high for me to ever obtain it, anyway.
It seems to me that folks should be able to give away art ideas as easily as people can give away software ideas, and that artists who accept free ideas should not have to fear an army of lawyers descending upon them if they commit the sin of financial success. I suppose Weird Al's lawyers would call me painfully idealistic for saying this...
JMR
Slashdot Mirror
Robin, your defense of copy editors and headline writers is eloquent, but way-off IMO.
I have seen, too many times, bias creep its way into copy editing and (ESPECIALLY!) headline
writing decisions. Occasionally (see Slashdot's unfortunate coverage of Wired's "coverage" of the supposed "raid on e-gold" -- which would have been a fine story except that not only did it not happen, both Wired's headline writer and Slashdot's either didn't read the text of their own story or purposely chose to distort that text to make up a better headline) -- the facts be damned. I'm sure that competent copyeditors are always in short supply, but I'd think that even the INcompetent ones might read stories before slapping a headline on 'em and inviting my withering sarcasm.
What I'm disputing here is your "99%" estimate above. I'd say that AT LEAST 5% of mistakes are due to bias (not gonna get into whether there's media bias, or how various media outlets are biased, but we'd probably disagree on that, too). I have seen and informally studied headline & copy-editing errors for DECADES, and over the years the pattern of distortion has been more indicative of agendas than honest accidents in WAY more than 1% of cases. The mistakes AREN'T random (analysts at www.mrc.org and www.fair.org would probably both agree with me on that point, and they disagree on just-about everything).
Again, your eloquence is appreciated (especially by any copy-editors who are reading all this, and I'm sure their job sucks sometimes -- like all jobs can suck!) but your estimate is orders of magnitude off, IMO. Also, if incompetent headline writers really AREN'T anonymous cowards, then there's one over at Wired whose actual name I'd appreciate knowing -- so far all I've got is 'not Declan,' which (even with media-layoffs) doesn't really narrow things down too much, does it?
JMR
(Speaking ONLY for myself!)
Apparently, the Borg aren't the only alien species with implants...
JMR
Speaking only for myself, as always.
"Ask Aldrich Ames!"
(Sorry, but it had to be said.)
JMR
Speaking ONLY for myself, as always.
I just wish we could also say...add to that tips.
I'm sure not everyone would tip for everything they enjoyed, but whether it's Courtney Love saying it or Scott McCloud saying it even better (twice! one and two) it's clear that some of us would like to directly compensate artists we like.
I think that musicians are poorly represented in this debate by the RIAA, and if we as individual consumers reach out to the artists we like, then maybe we'll get more of what we want with fewer (or less-greedy*) middlemen.
JMR
*Obligatory plug -- try it and send me an account number so I can click you a bit.
That's not the only question to ask. "What companies survived, and are now in the black?" is also an interesting question, especially if you've happily chosen the stock less-purchased.
I'm also amazed that companies deliberately choose pop-up ads. Even adult sites are moving away from them, as users complain. I wish I could set my browser to always ask if it should really pop up another window titled "XXXXX"? with the default being of course "NO!"
JMR
Speaking for me only, as always.
Interesting idea, but I don't think it would be unfair, since according to the rules you can enter as many times as you want (don't even bother with friends, unless you want to). Also, I got the feeling from reading the site that programs are pitted against eachother one on one (I don't know for sure, perhaps this is another game rule that could change from game to game?). If this is the case, your "real" program might be subjected to other competitors' real programs and be unable to decline playing with them. Also, the judge program might not allow any identity information through until after your program makes a commitment. Still, assuming enough of the "fake" entries, it might still be possible to gain an advantage by dint of sheer numbers if you entered, say, a million times.
I suspect, if they ever try this contest again, they'll want to ponder that rule a bit more...
JMR
They knew in advance the size of the decoy, and programmed the interceptor to discriminate accordingly, from what I've read. Otherwise (like in real life) they'd have had a 50-50 chance of failure.
I was pleased to see that Jamie chose the words: "dictators who just have to deliver their nuclear warheads the hard way." I've been ranting about missiles only being warhead DELIVERY SYSTEMS for YEARS, while the military "experts" on TV prattle-on as if all future opponents will of course box only according to the Marquis of Queensbury rules and never use an unconventional warhead delivery system (say, diplomatic pouches, which can't be searched?). My respect for these "experts" is low, and I'm surprised when countries like Russia act scared of their projects (US citizens are who should be scared, since we're going to pay the taxes to spawn this make-work jobs program for the military industrial complex).
All's fair in war, anyway. If I were (Saddam, Hussein, Khadaffi, insert favorite dictator) and I has plans to turn Washington, DC into a few square miles of smoking glass, I don't think I'd want a missile's obvious physical trail back to (insert dictator's nation) anyway, and it's a lot easier to aim the trunk of a rental car, or an old freighter, or even a backpack(!) to directly hit a city than it is to make an intercontinental ballistic missile work accurately the first time you try it. IMO.
JMR
Speaking ONLY for myself!!!!
Because they don't currently accept a payment mechanism that would allow them to automatically take such small payments with halfway-decent efficiency. They'd need automation, authentication, low fees, and a total lack of fraud problems to make your idea work, is my self-serving, venal, greedy, profit-oriented guess. Given their present payment-acceptance cost-structure (whether it's checks or plastic, it costs them more than you'd think in order to get each payment banked) I'm not surprised.
They could, of course, try something different...
JMR
Amazon wants to survive (before this, my prediction had been that they wouldn't live for long). AOL's 100 million is what they wanted, and AOL's search technology probably didn't matter.
The more-interesting question is what effect (if any) this will/won't have on the one-click controversy, and I don't profess to know anything about that!
JMR
...Apparantly MS admits it didnt patch its own servers with its own security patch.
...
I think you hit dead-on what their PR-dudes' ideal headline won't be.
JMR
(speaking only for myself, as always)
I just wish Courtney would notice that her own idea for a solution to the problem -- tipjars and contributions given voluntarily by fans -- could be happening on her page right now, if she wanted it (and not just with my preferred metal-currency, either, though that's obviously my main interest).
Napster changed everything (and not always for the better, IMO, because whether or not either one of us likes paying the RIAA quintopoly too much for a CD mostly because we like one or two songs, I suspect we both agree that musicians deserve to be paid something for making music we enjoy). I wish Fairtunes had come along before Napster, instead of the other way around. Unless the idea of tipping music artists we like (and not just talking about it!) spreads a lot faster than I think it will, we're going to see more stuff like this -- a bad thing.
JMR
Nobody has yet said (AFAIK, and I've read every news piece on this dangerous case that I could) whether this poor kid has a lawyer yet, but he needs one BAD now, before he talks too much to the cops. I REALLY hope EFF's watching...
JMR
(speaking ONLY for myself, again)
The most interesting element (to me) of your list is one neither of you directly mentioned -- the switchover to payment systems (not just ours...) that would allow merchants to accept payments as small as you're expecting to pay. I wish that folks could go with a "tipjar" model and just help the artists they like directly, but that's a bit idealistic on my part I guess. People say they want to tip, but tipping an artist requires a bit of effort (and money).
Music fans are used to paying nothing, but what they don't seem to believe is that with a little voluntary cooperation, artists & fans could completely bypass the RIAA quintopoly (an arm of which has now completely taken over Napster) and have something truly wonderful (for everyone except the RIAA).
JMR
In the future, they'll be easier (which might not always be a good thing) but e-gold lets you do micropayments & accomodate diverse interests right now. e-gold is also a good way to pay for services delivered instantly online, such as (but not limited to) ISPs, IMO. There are other flavors of currency as well (more of them seem to spring up every day...)
/. folks can try a small bit of e-gold for free by contacting me with an account number. Thanks.
As usual,
JMR
And you want to bypass the RIAA's preferred subscription services & support the artists directly (good music isn't free) and voluntarily, then you want a system where you can tip artists; either directly with our currency (blatant plug!) or others, or just something like Fairtunes.
The problem I see is that plenty of people (I'm not singling you out, this is a general rant) spend a lot of time *saying* that they don't want to steal from artists, but folks don't seem to go out of their way -- even a little-bit -- to try to pay for the music that they get now for free, since they "haven't had to before." This is unfortunate (and it's a lousy excuse, IMO) but now there's no 'tipping culture' in online music. Obviously, I think that needs to change (preferably with a wide variety of payment choices). Perhaps someone more-eloquent than I can cause the change, I don't know.
JMR
(speaking only for myself, as always)
Amen. Thanks for mentioning the Ninth, more people should think about it IMO. I almost feel like putting out a Ninth Amendment t-shirt, but I can't think of anything quite clever enough to go with just the text of an amendment which so neatly fits in the Bill of Rights that even those opposed to reading it with its plain meaning are also vehemently opposed to discussing repeal...
JMR
speaking for myself, as always.
The MAP launch is currently scheduled for June 30 2001 from pad 17B at 15:46:46 EDT. I plan to see it live from about 6 miles south, at a bar.
One of the small perks of living in Melbourne, FL is that I get to watch stuff that goes on at the Cape. This should be an OK launch, the weather is nice so far today, but it may get cloudy by the time they get around to it. The best show, by far, is a night shuttle launch.
JMR
I'm glad you're satisfied. One of the things I try to use to get merchants to accept e-gold is the fact that all they pay is the spend fee (fifty cents worth of gold, max, and much less for something like a tip to a musician) to get e-gold at "spot." At http://www.freedomhound.com you can sell $100 worth of e-gold for $102 worth of PayPal, and sites like that reinforce the (good, IMO) idea that e-gold is simply "better money." It's run by a friend, Vince Callaway, who has been around the "gold community" for a while, and knows the value of different currencies. :)
JMR
Sequence of links to get to the article:
E
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/?SITE=KSPAR&FRONTID=HOM
then "tech"
then "Cyber Currencies Spawn Money-Laundering Fears"
(sigh, as if green paper doesn't work for that!)
JMR
(speaking only for myself.)
You might enjoy the work of an artist named Boggs (plug: he's my friend, and he also sells stuff for e-gold).
JMR
So if I go to Paris and buy franks with dollars for a week's vacation, but get called home after a day, they'll give me back six days' worth of currency on my card? I doubt it...
Currency exchange businesses (I work for one, I know) charge a spread & try to make a profit. We aren't charities at all. There's a bid and an ask price on grams of gold (and a lot of competition among those who sell it) for example.
JMR
Here's more about Parker Bradley. Despite three months + having passed since the raid, Parker has yet to be charged with jack squat. *sigh* Parker Bradley is a friend of mine, and life isn't too nice for him these days...(get some e-gold and donate it to him). e-gold isn't anonymous cash like in Cryptonomicon or the Grabbe piece, it's just another flavor of money, but one that can be particularly useful, IMO (see below). e-gold provides a level of privacy exceeding credit cards (they don't sell, trade, give away, etc. customer info) but not exceeding bearer stuff, so it's not a good idea for the Jim Bell types.
e-gold (which has so far lasted since 1996) andOmniPay (I work for them, not e-gold, and I speak only for myself) are doing fine, actually. I'd like lots of Slashdot folks to try the stuff, because you tend to be programmers, and nice things happen when programmers play with e-gold. I'd like for Slashdot-like sites to sell mod points (a quickly expiring currency) so I've offered a ten-gram reward for it (about 80-90 bucks' worth, at the moment, so not much). I'd like for folks to think of e-gold for the cool stuff that can be done with it. Using the shopping cart as a tipjar and direct, voluntary donations to musicians might solve the Napster problem someday, IMO. e-gold is a bit tough to understand at first (grams as a currency?!?) although selling gold (a very emotional substance with humans, still, whether it's electronic or physical) can be a business where it's very hard to love *every* single customer...Mostly it's fascinating and lots of fun. The currency is growing pretty fast without much marketing budget, in part because of the "fan club" of sites like BananaGold and cool directories maintained by others. It's very nice for me.
Anyway, if folks on Slashdot want to try it, I have a promotional account, so just send me your account number and I can click you some (not much, I don't toss this stuff around like Paypal, but OTOH we're in the black...) gratis. Thanks.
JMR
http://www.golddirectory.com/e-gold.htm has a few.
JMR
There are three kinds of fees (that's the bad news) but they're all relatively low.
:( If you're a musician accepting micropayments, you needn't worry about any of that.
e-gold Ltd. charges a storage fee of 1% per year to store your grams of gold. Recipients of spends are also charged a spend fee, which is a maximum of fifty cents worth of e-gold, but would be much less in a micropayment situation (and half of that fee, whatever it is, does not go to e-gold Ltd. and instead goes to the incentive program).
There are also a wide variety of fees charged by exchange providers, who accept a wide variety of payment media. Those who accept repudiable media (credit cards and the like) tend to charge very high fees to sell e-gold, because they occasionally experience 100% losses due to fraud.
Exchange providers such as the one I work for, OmniPay, sometimes also charge fees to send you a check if/when they buy your grams. Of course, if you own e-gold, you can also sell it for a mark-up instead of selling it to us. For example, a site called Freedomhound will pay you $102 for $100 worth of e-gold (he also eats the e-gold spend fee mentioned above, so he's really usually getting only $99.50 worth of e-metal) because he knows that he can sell it later at a profit.
I know it's a bit confusing at first to think of at first, but hopefully this helped a bit. The best way is to poke around the site and maybe try it. I'll click you a bit for free if you create an account and send me the number. Thanks.
JMR
Interesting reply, thanks.
I wonder if there's a way to word a click-thru disclaimer that would prevent/minimize the legal issues you and Weird Al bring up? I'm guessing Scott Adams gets around Sturgeon's Law by just wading through with a finger on the delete key (and drinking lots of coffee) but that's also a good point.
I know using others' ideas is a touchy area for lots of artists. For example, my friend J.S.G. Boggs makes money the old fashioned way -- he draws it. He then goes out and tries to spend it in the "real world" to merchants who happen to have things that he wants. He's not a counterfeiter, merchants are well aware it's art they're accepting (although he has gotten into trouble with various governments in the past over that issue, it's a pretty silly one in his case and juries consistenly let him off). Needless to say, part of the reason that I like Boggs is that his art makes people actually think about the nature of money, art, and value in ways they haven't before, and that's good for business.
Anyway, I have an idea for a Boggs bill; but if he does it exactly the way I imagine, or he changes my idea in small (or big) ways, or if he doesn't do it at all, I won't feel that he owes me anything for my idea. If he creates the bill just as I imagine it, it will have a face value too high for me to ever obtain it, anyway.
It seems to me that folks should be able to give away art ideas as easily as people can give away software ideas, and that artists who accept free ideas should not have to fear an army of lawyers descending upon them if they commit the sin of financial success. I suppose Weird Al's lawyers would call me painfully idealistic for saying this...
JMR