Let's say that we accept the theory that something needed to jumpstart the universe, and that thing does not necessarily have to follow the same rules the universe does (and thus doesn't need a creator of it's own).
What reason exactly do we have to believe that thing is the biblical god?
Couldn't it just aswell have been Zeus? Odin?
Are the Muslims right? Jews? Christians? Buddhists? Tao?
Well, the Muslims, Jews, and Christians all believe in the same God (it's the whole "who's the messenger" and "did he write a sequel" thing they differ on).
Satirical counterprotests of Fred Phelps are getting a bit boring, aren't they? That's basically what everyone does these days when they show up.
It's good to see the UofC is upholding its tradition of free markets, free speech and quirky behavior. Maybe the scavenger hunt needs something Phelpsian...
As someone who was clipped by a Prius in a parking lot when it was on battery, the damned things are quiet as hell and sneak up on you like a ICE powered automobile doesn't.
Very true - I worked at a place where there were a number of electric vehicles (converted ICE and custom built) running around campus and they easily snuck up on you. Nothing like seeing a completely silent (vs an ICE),full size, van pulling in behind you. You learned to listen for "golf carts" when walking around.
As a very frequent flier; I'd rather they charge more for the extras and less for a ticket since I very rarely check bags (although when I do it's still free); and a lower ticket price is to my advantage.
But one does not lead to the other. You don't pay less when you say "no checked", you pay more when you DO check (for the cattle, anyway, us frequent fliers get checked bags for free.) If you think there is a price cut, try getting them to lower the price of your ticket when you don't check a bag. Nope. You pay X whether you check a bag or not. (In fact, at the United website, 'how many bags will you check' is a question not asked until check-in time, long after the price of the ticket has been established. There is no discount for not checking a bag.
Nor should there be - unbundling services allows a standard base charge and add-ons for services one person may desire and a another doesn't. Obtaining revenue from from those services offset lower ticket prices for service free flying - and since airlines compete on price for when people search for flights it allows them to set a lower base price because they know they will get x additional revenue from additional services. Offering a 'no bags' discount would disadvantage them in search engines; so they lower the base price to get the business.
While you may have some apocryphal evidence of how ticket prices have fluctuated over time, the real cause for the fluctuations is the varying prices charged for the same seats depending on contracts and availability. Buying a ticket two months in advance might get you one of the cheap tickets; two days gets you the full fare. The difference in price has nothing to do with unbundled services.
It has everything to do with unbundled services; your strawman argument aside. Although all of the price differences is not related to that; unbundling allows lower base prices to attract customers. Given teh nature of the product and competition on many routes; even if only 1 airline did it the others quickly match prices. As such, consumers benefit from lower fares because they can chose what services they need.
We need more regulation to lower these, what do you call them, "barriers to entry." That should fix the problem.
Except regulation only increases the barriers to entry. It's not a new idea, some guy one some sort of prize for that a while ago. Companies actually love regulation because it make sit harder for competitors to enter the market.
You are completely missing the point. Companies are not being honest, that is the problem. With your self-sufficient attitude, you may as well go to the place walking. But your approach is selfish. Maybe one day your grandma or your pregnant wife would not be able to handle her luggage by themselves, or will need to eat something at the plane, and they will be taken advantage of. Of, course, you will not have a problem with that, would you, big guy?
If the fees they charge for these services are in line with the cost of providing them, then no, I don't have a problem with that. TANSTAAFL. OTOH, if they're overcharging for them in order to subsidize a cheaper price on the ticket than it should be, then yes, it's a problem.
Why? the airline needs to make x$ per seat mile in order to turn a profit. How they make that is irrelevant - they either do or don't make a profit. By unbundling, consumers get to chose what they want to buy. As a very frequent flier; I'd rather they charge more for the extras and less for a ticket since I very rarely check bags (although when I do it's still free); and a lower ticket price is to my advantage.
There is no magic number that they must charge for a ticket and for a bag; the price is what the market will bear. Either they price the service into a ticket and spread it over all fliers; or unbundle and charge only those who use the services. Airlines have done this for years, some club rooms, for example used to be free to all frequent flier members; now you either fork over cash or fly a lot to get a membership.
The broader issue is, as pointed out, how do you engage with the broader public?
Seriously? Did you seriously ask this? The place where Pepsi would get their message out the easiest and to the most people who count would be through television commercials. Maybe at the end of the commercial tell people to check out the "facts" at pepsi-health.com.
This is straight forward. People know what it is. It also doesn't feel as sneaky as some other methods where they try to pass off the tests as having been done by someone else. I'm sure you remember the commercials talking about eggs having less cholesterol than they had thought? Or the ones talking about some food products being high in fiber or low in fat?
Commercials are the domain for companies to get their message out. This hasn't changed for a long time. Why is everyone so confused about their existence now?
Exactly, and as long as ScienceBlog clearly marks it as paid content from Pepsi it's no different (or worse) than any of the other ways companies get their message out. Such a paid blog is just another commercial, IMHO, and people can differentiate that from any other source of information and value the information accordingly.
The real danger, is from people who purport to be unbiased reporters of facts in a blog when they really have some underlying POV they want to put across. Such astroturfing is much more troublesome and insidious than a company putting a paid blog up and it being clearly identified as such.
As a side note, print media and televison has been doing that for quite some time "With paid advertisement" splashed across pages that appear to be articles and the ever popular "Paid Programing" infomercial.
If they are open about the source of the material and that it is paid I really don't see anything wrong with it. Readers will be aware that the blog is coming from a specific viewpoint and source; and can decide how much credibility they have and what biases may exist. To me, it's better than the blogger who may have an unrevealed conflict of interest or bias yet presents their viewpoint as factual and unbiased.
The broader issue is, as pointed out, how do you engage with the broader public? Scientific papers are nice but most people never know they exist, let alone read them. An open forum allows a level of interaction and skeptical inquiry that rarely exists today; cutting that off is not very useful. Of course, the cynic in me thinks there are people, on both sides, who don't desire such rational discussion since it may go against long held positions and point out fallacies in those positions. Silencing a messenger is teh easist way to prevent the message from being delivered.
Are actors getting screwed out of money by these companies? When these stories come up it seems like it's always writers, directors or the original owners of the property who get screwed. I'm guessing actors and film crews either know how to work the system or they've got unions protecting them. And I'm guessing big name actors hold some influence over the studios, given their ability to draw in viewers, so it's in their best interested not to screw with them.
Certainly. The big name actors that can draw a crowd are the money machine - so they will get a big payout because they will bring in the box and other sales that keep the cash flowing. Hollywood will then allocate that cash as they see fit; but they need the money machine up front to keep it flowing. Hence, those that can do that have a lot of clout in negotiations since the studios need them. Everyone else is replaceable and hence get take it or leave it deals.
Either way, I'm guessing there are so many people dying to get into the business that for anyone who's principled and prudent there are 10 suckers waiting in line right behind them. I'm also certain that Hollywood has enough lobbyists and close ties with some politicians to ensure that they can get away with quite a lot of things.
Or,as the saying goes: "Never try to charge for something others will give away for free."
Always ask for a percentage of revenue. It is much harder to lie about revenue than about profit.
Not really. While it might seem revenue is easier to track, it can also be manipulated so that one entity gets very little while another makes a killing. It all depends on how you have to share it (and pay taxes on it). Sure, at the end of the day you get X dollars and paid out Y. X-Y is the profit (or loss). The skill is in allocating X and Y so that you key as much of X as possible.
Or, as my accounting prof once said:
A good accountant will tell you 2+2 is 4. A great accountant will ask you "what do you want it to be?"
This thread has crystallized what I suspect is the "Slashdot-approved" stance with regards to protecting material. Correct me if I get any of these points wrong.
1. If you want to make a living creating works that exist in a data format (music, books, video) just accept the fact that nobody owes you a dime for your time. If some people choose to drop some money in your hat, that's awesome - but don't count on it.
2. If your music is so great, tour and make money that way. If you get moderately successful locally, each band member might be able to clear $80 a night! Of course you'll need a huge cash infusion (i.e. debt) to start touring big, but I'm sure the banks will be happy to help you with loans for such a riskless endeavour.
3. Always remember - costs like studio time, special effects, actors, musicians, props, sets, insurance, essentially every cost involved in the production of your work magically disconnect from the work itself at the moment it is finalized. A ripped copy of that work has absolutely no moral, legal, or implied connection to any of those costs.
As the entity "Slashdot" I hereby decree that the whole idea of "Professional Artist" is forever banned. You have been demoted to busker.
You forgot one:
None of the above applies when dealing with GPL'd code - if you ignore the GPL you are the most evil of evil; you are taking our creation and using it without giving back your code when you distribute it. We are entitles to that; after all it's OUR work that you are using. Hooray for the EFF; who may just sue you into oblivion for violating our rights.
Can we drop the double standard that GIMP has to be magically intuitive?
Well, if GIMP ever is to advance beyond a dedicated group of diehard users it needs to be much easier to use = and an intuitive UI goes a long way to doing that. To paraphrase - "the bitterness of hard to use lasts long after the sweetness of free is forgotten."
It's this kind of mercantilistic selfishness that leads to the third world continuing to be the third world. Engineering, Science and Art is not a zero-sum game. And if you're a blue-collar worker, well, that's on the level of luddism. Better yourself instead of complaining.
Actually no. If a country chose to enact laws that companies find untenable then the companies will locate elsewhere; it is the country's government's fault for chasing away the company and the results. If someone else views that as a positive for their country it's a realization that in order to prosper a country needs an environment the supports business; which results in an improving standard of living. Other countries either come to the same conclusion or suffer as a result of their decisions.
Bookstore owners have to pay sales tax.
Amazon doesn't have to.
End result: said store owner goes bankrupt because Amazon has a competitive advantage because of tax differences. More unemployment and less tax-income for the state because of less sales-tax income AND because less people have a job.
So actually this means a smaller amount of people have to cough up the taxes the state needs, while if you have regional businesses, all that is smeared out over more people.
This is just plugging a loophole.
Said bookstore owner can offer instant availability and no shipping charge (which exceeds the tax anyway on any book less than $25.00); along with the ability to actually recommend books to the buyer that they may actually like vs Amazons "others bought.." or "you might like..." which offers bizarre combination based on viewings and purchases. Oh yea, I can pay cash and trade in the book when I am done. Competitive advantage is finding a niche you can where you can outdo a competitor. For most purchases, sales tax is not that big of a deal to make mail order a viable purchase.
Now, if you want to talk about the advantage of significantly lower prices, then Amazon et. al. have an advantage, but sales tax isn't going to overcome that. As long as I can save enough to make waiting for an item a worthwhile trade then I won't buy locally; unless the level of service I get is worth the extra dollars.
The real threat to most small businesses is the big box that sells for less right down the street; the ability to sell via the internet in some ways is an equalizer by letting a small business get higher volumes and lower prices. Forcing them to collect and remit taxes would probably drive them off the internet simply because the burden of getting it right vs the small amounts involved would make it not worth it.
If you really wanted to level the playing field you'd require a best price policy that requires distributors / manufacturers to offer each store the same price on commercial goods; and forbid selling to the consumer at any price below that plus a fixed markup. Of course, government regulation is not about leveling the playing field but getting the government to give you an advantage.
The inevitable crumbling of centrally planned economies under authoritarian states - China, for example, is attempting to move to a market economy while maintaining the political structure they have.
So basically, the successes of USSR aren't evidence that communism works, because USSR wasn't really communist, but the failures of USSR are evidence tha communism doesn't work. It's not communist when it succeeds, but it's communist when it fails.
I get the feeling that you aren't so much trying to analyze economic systems, but have decided beforehand which you prefer and are trying to fudge evidence to support it by discrediting all others.
I pointed out in in my OP, they were authoritarian governments (a political, not economic, system) but used a central tenant of Marx in that the control of production decisions were not left to the market but planned. In their case by a small group in power vs by the people. That provides the example why communism is not a viable economic system; even if they were successful for a while (as any authoritarian government can be) they do not create a sustainable resource allocation method and eventually the economic system collapses.
Given taht the USSR, former east Europe, etc. have all undergone radical change and a move away from central planning, all within a few decades, I'd say history has shown it to have failed. Miserably.
As you noted, these were authoritarian states - dictatorships, in other words. Would it just perhaps be possible that it's the brutal oppression that they're rejecting, rather than central planning?
Sure, but it the failure of the economic system that results in the collapse; even if the people are more interested in lessening the yoke of oppression. Gorbachev realized the USSR could not survive as a centrally planned country and set in motion the change. The inevitable result was the breakup of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc.
The USSR, China and Cuba are authoritarian, not communist, states where production was / is controlled by the state - and simply prove an authoritarian state can accomplish a lot at the expense of its people.
Then what evidence were you referring to, when you claimed that "history has shown it doesn't work"?
The inevitable crumbling of centrally planned economies under authoritarian states - China, for example, is attempting to move to a market economy while maintaining the political structure they have. Given taht the USSR, former east Europe, etc. have all undergone radical change and a move away from central planning, all within a few decades, I'd say history has shown it to have failed. Miserably.
I'm amazed how many people replying to my original comment have don't know what Communism is. I'm prepared to bet that the bulk of them received their "education" in what passes for America's school system.
An alternative explanation is that you fail to understand Marx and his concept.
Actually, that is capitalism - you're free to do what you want with the fruits of you labor; as well as decide what to do in the first place.
No. The very grievance communism had against capitalism (and tried to change) is that under capitalism, most people work for someone else, and only get a tiny fraction of the fruits of their labour.
Yes, but Marx's viewpoint was while labor would be owned by the proletariat; decisions on how to use it would be democratically made - a collective approach.
In short, history has shown it doesn't work.
History has shown it works just fine: Russia went from a failed state to a global superpower in a few decades under communism, even with a paranoid lunatic at charge hindering it, and stayed that way for 70 years. China is still around and on its way to surpass the USA. Even Cuba is still around.
The USSR, China and Cuba are authoritarian, not communist, states where production was / is controlled by the state - and simply prove an authoritarian state can accomplish a lot at the expense of its people.
As I grew up, my silly, naive and idealistic capitalist side waned and I settled down into the comfort of being a rabid old Commie. I gave my software away for free. I gave my music away for free. I gave my circuit designs (ones that I wasn't being paid quite a lot of money to do by my employer, but stuff like guitar effects) away for free.
snip
Long story short, fuck capitalism. Give the stuff you love away for free, and earn money from the stuff you don't care about.
Actually, that is capitalism - you're free to do what you want with the fruits of you labor; as well as decide what to do in the first place. It ain't perfect; but it is better than anything else (to paraphrase a famous quote)
Communism, on the other hand, you would have to produce whatever the people decided (at least in Marx's viewpoint); of course 'communist' states are really authoritarian where the state, not the people, decide what to produce. At any rate, you would not be free to produce what you wanted in either scenario. In short, history has shown it doesn't work.
Of course, you could argue free market capitalism embodies Marx's idea that people would chose collectively what to produce since each buying decision is an individual, democratic vote on production. Marx would disagree with the idea of non-collective capital ownership.
Ahh career advice from someone who still thinks titles are important.
You are definitely the guy to listen to!
My personal opinion... if the title matters, you don't want the job. When people care about titles they don't actually know what they are doing in general and more often than not, don't actually DO anything.
It may not matter in your world; but in the real world titles do matter. A hiring manager has very little time to decide whether or not to interview a candidate, and a succession of promotions and increasing responsibilities catch your eye. That gets you in the door; then you can convince the manager you can do your job.
Yes, I realize a 24 year old VP of XX is probably pure BS and barely knows how to wipe his ass; but then again part of the job of hiring is to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the end, it's about getting your resume considered amongst the pile that comes in. Advancement is one part of that.
Keep your resume up-to-date and USE it. Shop yourself around at least every year to see what you're really worth and what job skills you should be working on.
The good thing about situations like that is that they look GREAT on your resume. Just work on the narrative and explain how you took on more responsibilities as the needs of your employer changed.
Exactly. This is why a title upgrade, even if you can't get a raise, is very valuable. Your resume will show advancement; and you can make a very compelling story around how you kept doing more and now were looking for the next opportunity (and more money). In this economy, guerilla tactics are even more useful - bide your time, build up your strengths, and attack when the odds are in your favor. Once the market picks up, you can decide what move to make; until then keep a paycheck and build your resume. Look for opportunities to add skills in areas where you want to work; look at them as paid training. Your present employer will probably never pay you what the going rate is, so enjoy the ride and develop the skills and titles to make the jump when you can.
In most of the companies I know, you'd be written up or fired within 8 hours of pulling such a stunt.
Weird. I could see a manager telling kids to settle down and put the shit back. I could also see the manager telling the boss that kids need to blow off steam when they work their asses off. Writing someone up or firing them seems more like an ego move than business sense, but then it seems like a lot of people want to be businessmen more than they want to do business.
The first time, sure. The second time, you have to put a stop to it. The only place I know of where you could get away with this was in the military; where it was "procuring through alternate channels the stuff you really needed to get the job done." Plus, you could hide it on the boat until you put to sea.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with religion is this.
Let's say that we accept the theory that something needed to jumpstart the universe, and that thing does not necessarily have to follow the same rules the universe does (and thus doesn't need a creator of it's own).
What reason exactly do we have to believe that thing is the biblical god?
Couldn't it just aswell have been Zeus? Odin?
Are the Muslims right? Jews? Christians? Buddhists? Tao?
Well, the Muslims, Jews, and Christians all believe in the same God (it's the whole "who's the messenger" and "did he write a sequel" thing they differ on).
Satirical counterprotests of Fred Phelps are getting a bit boring, aren't they? That's basically what everyone does these days when they show up.
It's good to see the UofC is upholding its tradition of free markets, free speech and quirky behavior. Maybe the scavenger hunt needs something Phelpsian...
As someone who was clipped by a Prius in a parking lot when it was on battery, the damned things are quiet as hell and sneak up on you like a ICE powered automobile doesn't.
Very true - I worked at a place where there were a number of electric vehicles (converted ICE and custom built) running around campus and they easily snuck up on you. Nothing like seeing a completely silent (vs an ICE) ,full size, van pulling in behind you. You learned to listen for "golf carts" when walking around.
Science is not a fucking democracy.
True. Some people get fucked more than others.
As a very frequent flier; I'd rather they charge more for the extras and less for a ticket since I very rarely check bags (although when I do it's still free); and a lower ticket price is to my advantage.
But one does not lead to the other. You don't pay less when you say "no checked", you pay more when you DO check (for the cattle, anyway, us frequent fliers get checked bags for free.) If you think there is a price cut, try getting them to lower the price of your ticket when you don't check a bag. Nope. You pay X whether you check a bag or not. (In fact, at the United website, 'how many bags will you check' is a question not asked until check-in time, long after the price of the ticket has been established. There is no discount for not checking a bag.
Nor should there be - unbundling services allows a standard base charge and add-ons for services one person may desire and a another doesn't. Obtaining revenue from from those services offset lower ticket prices for service free flying - and since airlines compete on price for when people search for flights it allows them to set a lower base price because they know they will get x additional revenue from additional services. Offering a 'no bags' discount would disadvantage them in search engines; so they lower the base price to get the business.
While you may have some apocryphal evidence of how ticket prices have fluctuated over time, the real cause for the fluctuations is the varying prices charged for the same seats depending on contracts and availability. Buying a ticket two months in advance might get you one of the cheap tickets; two days gets you the full fare. The difference in price has nothing to do with unbundled services.
It has everything to do with unbundled services; your strawman argument aside. Although all of the price differences is not related to that; unbundling allows lower base prices to attract customers. Given teh nature of the product and competition on many routes; even if only 1 airline did it the others quickly match prices. As such, consumers benefit from lower fares because they can chose what services they need.
We need more regulation to lower these, what do you call them, "barriers to entry." That should fix the problem.
Except regulation only increases the barriers to entry. It's not a new idea, some guy one some sort of prize for that a while ago. Companies actually love regulation because it make sit harder for competitors to enter the market.
You are completely missing the point. Companies are not being honest, that is the problem. With your self-sufficient attitude, you may as well go to the place walking. But your approach is selfish. Maybe one day your grandma or your pregnant wife would not be able to handle her luggage by themselves, or will need to eat something at the plane, and they will be taken advantage of. Of, course, you will not have a problem with that, would you, big guy?
If the fees they charge for these services are in line with the cost of providing them, then no, I don't have a problem with that. TANSTAAFL. OTOH, if they're overcharging for them in order to subsidize a cheaper price on the ticket than it should be, then yes, it's a problem.
Why? the airline needs to make x$ per seat mile in order to turn a profit. How they make that is irrelevant - they either do or don't make a profit. By unbundling, consumers get to chose what they want to buy. As a very frequent flier; I'd rather they charge more for the extras and less for a ticket since I very rarely check bags (although when I do it's still free); and a lower ticket price is to my advantage.
There is no magic number that they must charge for a ticket and for a bag; the price is what the market will bear. Either they price the service into a ticket and spread it over all fliers; or unbundle and charge only those who use the services. Airlines have done this for years, some club rooms, for example used to be free to all frequent flier members; now you either fork over cash or fly a lot to get a membership.
The broader issue is, as pointed out, how do you engage with the broader public?
Seriously? Did you seriously ask this? The place where Pepsi would get their message out the easiest and to the most people who count would be through television commercials. Maybe at the end of the commercial tell people to check out the "facts" at pepsi-health.com.
This is straight forward. People know what it is. It also doesn't feel as sneaky as some other methods where they try to pass off the tests as having been done by someone else. I'm sure you remember the commercials talking about eggs having less cholesterol than they had thought? Or the ones talking about some food products being high in fiber or low in fat?
Commercials are the domain for companies to get their message out. This hasn't changed for a long time. Why is everyone so confused about their existence now?
Exactly, and as long as ScienceBlog clearly marks it as paid content from Pepsi it's no different (or worse) than any of the other ways companies get their message out. Such a paid blog is just another commercial, IMHO, and people can differentiate that from any other source of information and value the information accordingly.
The real danger, is from people who purport to be unbiased reporters of facts in a blog when they really have some underlying POV they want to put across. Such astroturfing is much more troublesome and insidious than a company putting a paid blog up and it being clearly identified as such.
As a side note, print media and televison has been doing that for quite some time "With paid advertisement" splashed across pages that appear to be articles and the ever popular "Paid Programing" infomercial.
If they are open about the source of the material and that it is paid I really don't see anything wrong with it. Readers will be aware that the blog is coming from a specific viewpoint and source; and can decide how much credibility they have and what biases may exist. To me, it's better than the blogger who may have an unrevealed conflict of interest or bias yet presents their viewpoint as factual and unbiased.
The broader issue is, as pointed out, how do you engage with the broader public? Scientific papers are nice but most people never know they exist, let alone read them. An open forum allows a level of interaction and skeptical inquiry that rarely exists today; cutting that off is not very useful. Of course, the cynic in me thinks there are people, on both sides, who don't desire such rational discussion since it may go against long held positions and point out fallacies in those positions. Silencing a messenger is teh easist way to prevent the message from being delivered.
Are actors getting screwed out of money by these companies? When these stories come up it seems like it's always writers, directors or the original owners of the property who get screwed. I'm guessing actors and film crews either know how to work the system or they've got unions protecting them. And I'm guessing big name actors hold some influence over the studios, given their ability to draw in viewers, so it's in their best interested not to screw with them.
Certainly. The big name actors that can draw a crowd are the money machine - so they will get a big payout because they will bring in the box and other sales that keep the cash flowing. Hollywood will then allocate that cash as they see fit; but they need the money machine up front to keep it flowing. Hence, those that can do that have a lot of clout in negotiations since the studios need them. Everyone else is replaceable and hence get take it or leave it deals.
Either way, I'm guessing there are so many people dying to get into the business that for anyone who's principled and prudent there are 10 suckers waiting in line right behind them. I'm also certain that Hollywood has enough lobbyists and close ties with some politicians to ensure that they can get away with quite a lot of things.
Or,as the saying goes: "Never try to charge for something others will give away for free."
Always ask for a percentage of revenue. It is much harder to lie about revenue than about profit.
Not really. While it might seem revenue is easier to track, it can also be manipulated so that one entity gets very little while another makes a killing. It all depends on how you have to share it (and pay taxes on it). Sure, at the end of the day you get X dollars and paid out Y. X-Y is the profit (or loss). The skill is in allocating X and Y so that you key as much of X as possible.
Or, as my accounting prof once said:
A good accountant will tell you 2+2 is 4. A great accountant will ask you "what do you want it to be?"
This thread has crystallized what I suspect is the "Slashdot-approved" stance with regards to protecting material. Correct me if I get any of these points wrong. 1. If you want to make a living creating works that exist in a data format (music, books, video) just accept the fact that nobody owes you a dime for your time. If some people choose to drop some money in your hat, that's awesome - but don't count on it. 2. If your music is so great, tour and make money that way. If you get moderately successful locally, each band member might be able to clear $80 a night! Of course you'll need a huge cash infusion (i.e. debt) to start touring big, but I'm sure the banks will be happy to help you with loans for such a riskless endeavour. 3. Always remember - costs like studio time, special effects, actors, musicians, props, sets, insurance, essentially every cost involved in the production of your work magically disconnect from the work itself at the moment it is finalized. A ripped copy of that work has absolutely no moral, legal, or implied connection to any of those costs. As the entity "Slashdot" I hereby decree that the whole idea of "Professional Artist" is forever banned. You have been demoted to busker.
You forgot one:
None of the above applies when dealing with GPL'd code - if you ignore the GPL you are the most evil of evil; you are taking our creation and using it without giving back your code when you distribute it. We are entitles to that; after all it's OUR work that you are using. Hooray for the EFF; who may just sue you into oblivion for violating our rights.
Let me link to a comment in response to a UI complaint about Photoshop.
Can we drop the double standard that GIMP has to be magically intuitive?
Well, if GIMP ever is to advance beyond a dedicated group of diehard users it needs to be much easier to use = and an intuitive UI goes a long way to doing that. To paraphrase - "the bitterness of hard to use lasts long after the sweetness of free is forgotten."
It's this kind of mercantilistic selfishness that leads to the third world continuing to be the third world. Engineering, Science and Art is not a zero-sum game. And if you're a blue-collar worker, well, that's on the level of luddism. Better yourself instead of complaining.
Actually no. If a country chose to enact laws that companies find untenable then the companies will locate elsewhere; it is the country's government's fault for chasing away the company and the results. If someone else views that as a positive for their country it's a realization that in order to prosper a country needs an environment the supports business; which results in an improving standard of living. Other countries either come to the same conclusion or suffer as a result of their decisions.
Bank robbers usually escape in cars so maybe we should ban automobiles to cut down on the number of bank robberies! Its' the same logic.
Why is it always cars for the analogies? Why not ducks? Or oranges?
Why a duck? Why not a chicken?
Bookstore owners have to pay sales tax. Amazon doesn't have to. End result: said store owner goes bankrupt because Amazon has a competitive advantage because of tax differences. More unemployment and less tax-income for the state because of less sales-tax income AND because less people have a job. So actually this means a smaller amount of people have to cough up the taxes the state needs, while if you have regional businesses, all that is smeared out over more people. This is just plugging a loophole.
Said bookstore owner can offer instant availability and no shipping charge (which exceeds the tax anyway on any book less than $25.00); along with the ability to actually recommend books to the buyer that they may actually like vs Amazons "others bought.." or "you might like..." which offers bizarre combination based on viewings and purchases. Oh yea, I can pay cash and trade in the book when I am done. Competitive advantage is finding a niche you can where you can outdo a competitor. For most purchases, sales tax is not that big of a deal to make mail order a viable purchase.
Now, if you want to talk about the advantage of significantly lower prices, then Amazon et. al. have an advantage, but sales tax isn't going to overcome that. As long as I can save enough to make waiting for an item a worthwhile trade then I won't buy locally; unless the level of service I get is worth the extra dollars.
The real threat to most small businesses is the big box that sells for less right down the street; the ability to sell via the internet in some ways is an equalizer by letting a small business get higher volumes and lower prices. Forcing them to collect and remit taxes would probably drive them off the internet simply because the burden of getting it right vs the small amounts involved would make it not worth it.
If you really wanted to level the playing field you'd require a best price policy that requires distributors / manufacturers to offer each store the same price on commercial goods; and forbid selling to the consumer at any price below that plus a fixed markup. Of course, government regulation is not about leveling the playing field but getting the government to give you an advantage.
So basically, the successes of USSR aren't evidence that communism works, because USSR wasn't really communist, but the failures of USSR are evidence tha communism doesn't work. It's not communist when it succeeds, but it's communist when it fails.
I get the feeling that you aren't so much trying to analyze economic systems, but have decided beforehand which you prefer and are trying to fudge evidence to support it by discrediting all others.
I pointed out in in my OP, they were authoritarian governments (a political, not economic, system) but used a central tenant of Marx in that the control of production decisions were not left to the market but planned. In their case by a small group in power vs by the people. That provides the example why communism is not a viable economic system; even if they were successful for a while (as any authoritarian government can be) they do not create a sustainable resource allocation method and eventually the economic system collapses.
As you noted, these were authoritarian states - dictatorships, in other words. Would it just perhaps be possible that it's the brutal oppression that they're rejecting, rather than central planning?
Sure, but it the failure of the economic system that results in the collapse; even if the people are more interested in lessening the yoke of oppression. Gorbachev realized the USSR could not survive as a centrally planned country and set in motion the change. The inevitable result was the breakup of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc.
Then what evidence were you referring to, when you claimed that "history has shown it doesn't work"?
The inevitable crumbling of centrally planned economies under authoritarian states - China, for example, is attempting to move to a market economy while maintaining the political structure they have. Given taht the USSR, former east Europe, etc. have all undergone radical change and a move away from central planning, all within a few decades, I'd say history has shown it to have failed. Miserably.
I'm amazed how many people replying to my original comment have don't know what Communism is. I'm prepared to bet that the bulk of them received their "education" in what passes for America's school system.
An alternative explanation is that you fail to understand Marx and his concept.
No. The very grievance communism had against capitalism (and tried to change) is that under capitalism, most people work for someone else, and only get a tiny fraction of the fruits of their labour.
Yes, but Marx's viewpoint was while labor would be owned by the proletariat; decisions on how to use it would be democratically made - a collective approach.
History has shown it works just fine: Russia went from a failed state to a global superpower in a few decades under communism, even with a paranoid lunatic at charge hindering it, and stayed that way for 70 years. China is still around and on its way to surpass the USA. Even Cuba is still around.
The USSR, China and Cuba are authoritarian, not communist, states where production was / is controlled by the state - and simply prove an authoritarian state can accomplish a lot at the expense of its people.
snip
As I grew up, my silly, naive and idealistic capitalist side waned and I settled down into the comfort of being a rabid old Commie. I gave my software away for free. I gave my music away for free. I gave my circuit designs (ones that I wasn't being paid quite a lot of money to do by my employer, but stuff like guitar effects) away for free.
snip
Long story short, fuck capitalism. Give the stuff you love away for free, and earn money from the stuff you don't care about.
Actually, that is capitalism - you're free to do what you want with the fruits of you labor; as well as decide what to do in the first place. It ain't perfect; but it is better than anything else (to paraphrase a famous quote)
Communism, on the other hand, you would have to produce whatever the people decided (at least in Marx's viewpoint); of course 'communist' states are really authoritarian where the state, not the people, decide what to produce. At any rate, you would not be free to produce what you wanted in either scenario. In short, history has shown it doesn't work.
Of course, you could argue free market capitalism embodies Marx's idea that people would chose collectively what to produce since each buying decision is an individual, democratic vote on production. Marx would disagree with the idea of non-collective capital ownership.
Ahh career advice from someone who still thinks titles are important.
You are definitely the guy to listen to!
My personal opinion ... if the title matters, you don't want the job. When people care about titles they don't actually know what they are doing in general and more often than not, don't actually DO anything.
It may not matter in your world; but in the real world titles do matter. A hiring manager has very little time to decide whether or not to interview a candidate, and a succession of promotions and increasing responsibilities catch your eye. That gets you in the door; then you can convince the manager you can do your job.
Yes, I realize a 24 year old VP of XX is probably pure BS and barely knows how to wipe his ass; but then again part of the job of hiring is to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the end, it's about getting your resume considered amongst the pile that comes in. Advancement is one part of that.
When an antivirus subscription expires, it's an excellent time to reconsider your OS selection. Here's my story...
For a while, one of my Christmas presents for my wife every year was her NortonAV re-up subscription.
SNIP
Now I take that $50 every Christmas and buy her something from Victoria Secrets. A gift that keeps on giving ;)... instead of taking.
Be sure to package it in a Norton box and tell here you need to do a thorough install and check to see if it works.
Of course, if the protection fails...
Understand it and plan for it.
Keep your resume up-to-date and USE it. Shop yourself around at least every year to see what you're really worth and what job skills you should be working on.
The good thing about situations like that is that they look GREAT on your resume. Just work on the narrative and explain how you took on more responsibilities as the needs of your employer changed.
Exactly. This is why a title upgrade, even if you can't get a raise, is very valuable. Your resume will show advancement; and you can make a very compelling story around how you kept doing more and now were looking for the next opportunity (and more money). In this economy, guerilla tactics are even more useful - bide your time, build up your strengths, and attack when the odds are in your favor. Once the market picks up, you can decide what move to make; until then keep a paycheck and build your resume. Look for opportunities to add skills in areas where you want to work; look at them as paid training. Your present employer will probably never pay you what the going rate is, so enjoy the ride and develop the skills and titles to make the jump when you can.
In most of the companies I know, you'd be written up or fired within 8 hours of pulling such a stunt. Weird. I could see a manager telling kids to settle down and put the shit back. I could also see the manager telling the boss that kids need to blow off steam when they work their asses off. Writing someone up or firing them seems more like an ego move than business sense, but then it seems like a lot of people want to be businessmen more than they want to do business.
The first time, sure. The second time, you have to put a stop to it. The only place I know of where you could get away with this was in the military; where it was "procuring through alternate channels the stuff you really needed to get the job done." Plus, you could hide it on the boat until you put to sea.