Copyrights are limited. You accept the premise of copyright, but reject the limits. But... to accept the premise of copyrights you also accept that someone can own the rights to control how a digitally recorded work is copied. So you in fact accept digital ownership and intellectual property really just trying to make the statement "I don't like how long people can have copyrights for" sound really intellectual.
Telecommuting is a cornerstone of geek culture...
on
Telecommuting Backlash
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Without it... many geeks, particularly on this site, will be forced to bathe, work, and not "work" while watching ESPN, anime, or porn. The attack against telecommuting is the cultural eradication of the information age.
Construction companies do not own the roads. They're not competing with other modes of transportation to make money on the roads. They're only paid to build them. And then they're paid seperately to maintain them... but they recieve no revenue from their use.
Except, that a lot of the lines were paid for by tax dollars in the first place.
Can you provide me with more information about this?
If the companies that own the actual physical networks that the Internet is made up of choose to create differentiated services, then so be it. That's their choice. It's their network. Hell, they could just shut it down.
People running around screaming "the end of freedom speech" are idiots. Freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to a means to speak and desiminate your message. Prior to the Internet the government wasn't required to provide you with paper to write your scathing political treatise or publish your ramblings on the importance of Jules Vern to the modern psyche.
When the networks try to get government protection to screw with the public... I disagree with that as well... keep the whole damn government out of it.
Yeah, this is a pretty damning article for OpenOffice performance. But it also does speak to the different XML issues.
Most of that massive speed difference is due to XML being very processor intensive, but Microsoft still handles its own XML files about 7 times faster than OpenOffice.org handles OpenDocument ODS format and uses far less memory than OpenOffice.org.
Not a nail in the coffin to ODF, but when your leading reference implementation of the toolset for said standard is such a dog you've got to wonder if many people will actually implement it... especially when the Microsoft option is XML and performs well.
To point #2 the law that allows the import of media purchased legally outside the U.S. into the U.S. also stipulates that it must be for personal use...
For the U.S. the theory goes... that importing a work for personal use if acquired legally in another country is legal (it is in fact legal). The questionable part comes up with the idea that works were actually "aquired" in Russia and not the U.S., since media is stored in Russia and presumeably the buyer is in the U.S. It's one of those grey areas... maybe a loophole, maybe an oversimplification or misunderstanding of the law.
Features/conveniences are a valid reason to increase prices. If they're not acceptable then people will not pay them. In all the cases I'm aware of, you're always welcome to go right down to the box office and purchase the tickets yourself and avoid all of those nasty fees. I do occassionaly but in most cases I'd rather just spend and extra $10 or $15 and avoid spending 2 hours of my day acquiring tickets.
Convenience != increased cost as a rule. Sure it is. Innovation in technology or innovation in process frequently results in either increased convenience (features) and thereby some increase in cost, or increased efficiency and a reduction in cost. Sometime the two come at the same time so you get more for the same or less, but innovation doesn't come for free... so added convenience typically costs you more.
I remembered reading something a week or two ago about more trouble w/ the RIAA and crackdowns in Russia. Soon after that Allofmp3 had some technical problems and quit adding albums to their collection.
Oh... and I check today and they just added 30 albums... so I jumped to the wrong conclusions. Long live AllOfMp3.com!!
You're right the venue does take their share, which would vary depending on what the promoter setup I imagine. I should have written artist/venue. In either case it doesn't really matter... they're the one's who provide the show it's up to them to determine what they want to sell the tickets for and how they want to sell them.
The article says it best. "The tickets are worth what they're worth," said John Pleasants, Ticketmaster's president and chief executive. "If somebody wants to charge $50 for a ticket, but it's actually worth $1,000 on eBay, the ticket's worth $1,000. I think more and more, our clients -- the promoters, the clients in the buildings and the bands themselves -- are saying to themselves, `Maybe that money should be coming to me instead of Bob the Broker.' "
I was kidding about applying Ayn Rand directly to this discussion, she was only ever mentioned to insult me... although I'm at home and I've got the book handy so I'll give you a random quote from page of my copy.
She looked at the angular tiers of lights rising through the snowy curtain, and -- glancing at him, at the grip of his gloved hands on the wheel, at the austere, fastidious elegance of the figure in lack overcoat and white fuller--she though that he belonged in a great city, among polished sidewalks and sculptured stone.
Not cheaper... but they have a good selection of indie artists you will not find on AllofMp3.com. As the other poster noted, they are legal... not quasi-legal like AllOfMp3.com. Also, it appears that AllofMp3 may be on its way out of business... or at least on hiatus while they work things out with the Russian Mob... I mean government.
I don't want there to be any more new drugs! Our current crop of drugs are incredibly expensive, and due to patent limitations generic inexpensive version can't be made for several years. The result is that in order to recoup investments in successful and failed drugs the medical companies charge a high price (and a lot of people think they're greedy too). These high prices make it hard for senior citizens and the poor to afford their medications and this puts a tax on the US medicare system so that we are forced to pay higher taxes. If we didn't create any new drugs, in the next 20 or so years all of the drugs would be out of patent and would be very cheap. Everyone could afford the drugs they need and the Medicare/Medicaid system would be less costly. Also, if we don't invent new drugs we don't run the risk of extending people's lives longer then they are now which will increase the cost of Social Security, a system that is already on the virge of bankruptcy.
I'm not for destrying rainforests or tearing up reefs... but lets just stop making new drugs! Save the future for the children, stop new drugs now!
Ayn Rand novels have no real direct bearing on this discussion, and I don't get my economics from Rand. Although if you'd read page 345 of Atlas Shrugged I think you'd think differently about Ticketmaster (kidding).
- Artists/venues who put on show auction tickets to ensure that they recieve most of the profits, not a scalper. Dave wants the scalpers to recieve most of the money I guess.
- Dave doesn't want fans who have demonstrated their interest in the artist by joining a fanclub (or some other organization that pays the artist/venue for the privelage of being able to pre-order).
We all want more for less... and it's bullshit to blame others for what isn't their fault.
Whew... good news then. This new system allows the artists to receive all of the money for the ticket, minus ticket masters fees (or a small % of the final price).
Of course in today's model, for a $50 ticket... the artist gets $50, TicketMaster gets $10, and nobody can actually get to that $50 ticket because the scalpers bought it first and will be glad to sell it to you for $150.... so the scalper pockets $90. So you like this model better?
They Might Be Giants, playing at a small venue was $20 or so before fees,
Um, hey stupid, blame TMBG then not TicketMaster. TMBG is charging you $20.
I often find that Ticketmaster wants to charge me at least 30-40% of the cost of a ticket.
And that's because they have FLAT fees. It's $10 (or whatever) to get your ticket regardless of whether that ticket is $300 or $3. The fees suck, but just say that... but don't make stupid nonsensical agrument.
Oh... and about tickets in the past being cheaper. I'd suspect that the shows weren't as ellaborate (driving up artist prices) and you actually had to go to a box office or ticket outlet to get your tickets. You couldn't just make a phone call, or log onto a website (obviously) and get your tickets quickly and conveniently.
From TFA - "The band's biggest fans ought to have the best seats, not the band's richest fans," said Tim Todd, 47, of Kansas City, Mo., who used ticketFast recently to buy tickets for a concert by the rock group Phish.
More of this entitlement bullshit... so because I like something I'm more deserving of it. If the band wants to give discounts or preferential treatment to their fans let them... but if they want to sell their tickets via auction they can do that to. Of course... for Phish lovin' hippies that's a hard concept to grasp while your takin' your next toke.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyrights are limited. You accept the premise of copyright, but reject the limits. But... to accept the premise of copyrights you also accept that someone can own the rights to control how a digitally recorded work is copied. So you in fact accept digital ownership and intellectual property really just trying to make the statement "I don't like how long people can have copyrights for" sound really intellectual.
Without it... many geeks, particularly on this site, will be forced to bathe, work, and not "work" while watching ESPN, anime, or porn. The attack against telecommuting is the cultural eradication of the information age.
Construction companies do not own the roads. They're not competing with other modes of transportation to make money on the roads. They're only paid to build them. And then they're paid seperately to maintain them... but they recieve no revenue from their use.
Except, that a lot of the lines were paid for by tax dollars in the first place.
Can you provide me with more information about this?
If the companies that own the actual physical networks that the Internet is made up of choose to create differentiated services, then so be it. That's their choice. It's their network. Hell, they could just shut it down.
People running around screaming "the end of freedom speech" are idiots. Freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to a means to speak and desiminate your message. Prior to the Internet the government wasn't required to provide you with paper to write your scathing political treatise or publish your ramblings on the importance of Jules Vern to the modern psyche.
When the networks try to get government protection to screw with the public... I disagree with that as well... keep the whole damn government out of it.
What do they have in common you might ask? Well as this article clearly shows... they both are dominated by denial.
Yeah, this is a pretty damning article for OpenOffice performance. But it also does speak to the different XML issues.
Most of that massive speed difference is due to XML being very processor intensive, but Microsoft still handles its own XML files about 7 times faster than OpenOffice.org handles OpenDocument ODS format and uses far less memory than OpenOffice.org.
Not a nail in the coffin to ODF, but when your leading reference implementation of the toolset for said standard is such a dog you've got to wonder if many people will actually implement it... especially when the Microsoft option is XML and performs well.
It matters to me... I don't want to wait 3 minutes to open my spreadsheet.
Exactly because whose going to buy "8-minute Abs" when you've got the "7-minute abs" DVD right next to it?
To point #2 the law that allows the import of media purchased legally outside the U.S. into the U.S. also stipulates that it must be for personal use...
This site has some good information.
For the U.S. the theory goes... that importing a work for personal use if acquired legally in another country is legal (it is in fact legal). The questionable part comes up with the idea that works were actually "aquired" in Russia and not the U.S., since media is stored in Russia and presumeably the buyer is in the U.S. It's one of those grey areas... maybe a loophole, maybe an oversimplification or misunderstanding of the law.
Which comment exactly are you referring to?
Campfire and a bottle of wine at the beach...priceless
Right on! I like it.
Features/conveniences are a valid reason to increase prices. If they're not acceptable then people will not pay them. In all the cases I'm aware of, you're always welcome to go right down to the box office and purchase the tickets yourself and avoid all of those nasty fees. I do occassionaly but in most cases I'd rather just spend and extra $10 or $15 and avoid spending 2 hours of my day acquiring tickets.
Convenience != increased cost as a rule. Sure it is. Innovation in technology or innovation in process frequently results in either increased convenience (features) and thereby some increase in cost, or increased efficiency and a reduction in cost. Sometime the two come at the same time so you get more for the same or less, but innovation doesn't come for free... so added convenience typically costs you more.
I remembered reading something a week or two ago about more trouble w/ the RIAA and crackdowns in Russia. Soon after that Allofmp3 had some technical problems and quit adding albums to their collection.
Oh... and I check today and they just added 30 albums... so I jumped to the wrong conclusions. Long live AllOfMp3.com!!
You're right the venue does take their share, which would vary depending on what the promoter setup I imagine. I should have written artist/venue. In either case it doesn't really matter... they're the one's who provide the show it's up to them to determine what they want to sell the tickets for and how they want to sell them.
The article says it best.
"The tickets are worth what they're worth," said John Pleasants, Ticketmaster's president and chief executive. "If somebody wants to charge $50 for a ticket, but it's actually worth $1,000 on eBay, the ticket's worth $1,000. I think more and more, our clients -- the promoters, the clients in the buildings and the bands themselves -- are saying to themselves, `Maybe that money should be coming to me instead of Bob the Broker.' "
I was kidding about applying Ayn Rand directly to this discussion, she was only ever mentioned to insult me... although I'm at home and I've got the book handy so I'll give you a random quote from page of my copy.
:)
She looked at the angular tiers of lights rising through the snowy curtain, and -- glancing at him, at the grip of his gloved hands on the wheel, at the austere, fastidious elegance of the figure in lack overcoat and white fuller--she though that he belonged in a great city, among polished sidewalks and sculptured stone.
Yeah, uh... so take that
Not cheaper... but they have a good selection of indie artists you will not find on AllofMp3.com. As the other poster noted, they are legal... not quasi-legal like AllOfMp3.com. Also, it appears that AllofMp3 may be on its way out of business... or at least on hiatus while they work things out with the Russian Mob... I mean government.
I don't want there to be any more new drugs! Our current crop of drugs are incredibly expensive, and due to patent limitations generic inexpensive version can't be made for several years. The result is that in order to recoup investments in successful and failed drugs the medical companies charge a high price (and a lot of people think they're greedy too). These high prices make it hard for senior citizens and the poor to afford their medications and this puts a tax on the US medicare system so that we are forced to pay higher taxes. If we didn't create any new drugs, in the next 20 or so years all of the drugs would be out of patent and would be very cheap. Everyone could afford the drugs they need and the Medicare/Medicaid system would be less costly. Also, if we don't invent new drugs we don't run the risk of extending people's lives longer then they are now which will increase the cost of Social Security, a system that is already on the virge of bankruptcy.
I'm not for destrying rainforests or tearing up reefs... but lets just stop making new drugs! Save the future for the children, stop new drugs now!
Ayn Rand novels have no real direct bearing on this discussion, and I don't get my economics from Rand. Although if you'd read page 345 of Atlas Shrugged I think you'd think differently about Ticketmaster (kidding).
Dave calls Bullcrap on the following:
- Artists/venues who put on show auction tickets to ensure that they recieve most of the profits, not a scalper. Dave wants the scalpers to recieve most of the money I guess.
- Dave doesn't want fans who have demonstrated their interest in the artist by joining a fanclub (or some other organization that pays the artist/venue for the privelage of being able to pre-order).
We all want more for less... and it's bullshit to blame others for what isn't their fault.
- The Goat's Hoof
RTFA idiot. It's right there in plain sight.
Whew... good news then. This new system allows the artists to receive all of the money for the ticket, minus ticket masters fees (or a small % of the final price).
Of course in today's model, for a $50 ticket... the artist gets $50, TicketMaster gets $10, and nobody can actually get to that $50 ticket because the scalpers bought it first and will be glad to sell it to you for $150.... so the scalper pockets $90. So you like this model better?
When was the last time you have been to a major ticketed event where Ticketmaster didn't control everything?
Several times last year. I just drove down to the box office and purchased my tickets direct.
They Might Be Giants, playing at a small venue was $20 or so before fees,
Um, hey stupid, blame TMBG then not TicketMaster. TMBG is charging you $20.
I often find that Ticketmaster wants to charge me at least 30-40% of the cost of a ticket.
And that's because they have FLAT fees. It's $10 (or whatever) to get your ticket regardless of whether that ticket is $300 or $3. The fees suck, but just say that... but don't make stupid nonsensical agrument.
Oh... and about tickets in the past being cheaper. I'd suspect that the shows weren't as ellaborate (driving up artist prices) and you actually had to go to a box office or ticket outlet to get your tickets. You couldn't just make a phone call, or log onto a website (obviously) and get your tickets quickly and conveniently.
From TFA - "The band's biggest fans ought to have the best seats, not the band's richest fans," said Tim Todd, 47, of Kansas City, Mo., who used ticketFast recently to buy tickets for a concert by the rock group Phish.
More of this entitlement bullshit... so because I like something I'm more deserving of it. If the band wants to give discounts or preferential treatment to their fans let them... but if they want to sell their tickets via auction they can do that to. Of course... for Phish lovin' hippies that's a hard concept to grasp while your takin' your next toke.