Here we go again, the "your major is useless" debate...alright here goes. Science exists to describe precisely the universe as it truly exists, in all of its myriad complexity and variation whereas the arts, humanities, and letters exist to describe the human response to or perception of that reality. It is not possible or even worthwhile to compare the two because they are decidedly not the same or even similar. Perception is subjective and therefore debatable whereas scientific truth is provable generally not open to debate (or honest debate anyway). Now, scientists may disagree on scientific matters from time to time, but this is usually due to the fact that, as Issac Asimov put it in his famous short story, "there is insufficient data for a meaningful answer" (where meaningful means true, provable, and unambiguous) and NOT because of any genuine disagreement on proven and settled matters (i.e. the 2nd law of thermodynamics).
Math and Engineering are taught in a way to try to make people fail, vs. trying to succeede. There may have been some of that during the dot com boom days, particularly in computer science and other "hot" fields, where enrollment space was limited and demand was high, but I would not say that math or engineering have always been taught in that way.
It seems for the most part the diciplin is to make it seem as cryptic to the outsiders as possible. Afraid if the commoners understand these engineering prinicipals that the jobs for engineers will dry up. The mathematical rigor is not employed as part of an attempt to confuse outsiders, but rather as part of a time tested and proven process of arriving at scientific truth without error (or at least with some quantifiable certainty as to the magnitude of the error). The use of equations and mathematics has been linked with science almost since the beginning because it is difficult to arrive at provable and testable conclusions without the introduction of a certain amount of mathematical rigor.
McCain voted against the senate anti-torture bill --1E6 hypocrite points-- True, but that is a far cry from simply saying that he was against it and then voting for it. You might say that McCain has earned the right to vote how he wants on the torture bill the "hard way" during his service in Vietnamn and subsequent imprisonment by the communists.
if the GOP get back in power you agree with all they have done and you deserve everything you get The name of the game in politics is getting some of what you want some of the time. Those who are uncompromising and want it their way every day usually end up with little or nothing. A vote for a particular candidate or party does NOT indicate 100% agreement with that candidate or party, but rather more agreement than with alternative candidates or parties. While I am dissapointed with the current administration for being simple minded with our foreign policy and expanding government spending, that is not a good reason, at least in my estimation, to vote for either Obama or Clinton who will almost certainly persue policies which will make the situation even worse, the only difference will be the recipients of the increased spending. I don't much care for McCain either, but he is better in my estimation than the alternatives even though Obama is probably more intelligent. The Republicans will give us more war spending and the Democrats will give us more social spending, but very few candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, have talked about what we need MOST and that is LESS government spending on just about EVERYTHING. I actually like most of what Obama says in his speaches, but lets be honest, the guy is long on rhetoric and short on economics. If only he would speak more sensibly about the economy, trade, and the housing bust. Perhaps, he is simply saying what he is saying now to win the nomination and will change his tune during the general election, he is intelligent after all, but it will be difficult for him to do that without being labeled as a "flip-flopper" by McCain. It is really a shame that Ron Paul didn't win the nomination, I would have loved to see him debate Obama on the economy, but it was not to be.
The utility comes from the efforts made in organizing those resources and that is a valuable economic activity. In fact economists even have a name for that type of organizing, they call it entrepreneurship. Some people provide services (labor), others provide capital (assets), still others provide financing (money), and finaly there are the entreprenuers who put it all together and everyone shares in the rewards of a successful venture or the losses of an unsucessful one or at least that is how it should work, but governments and other well meaning but hoplessely progressive people attempt to interfere with this process to extract uncompensated value from the system and they are very often the real problem, not the investors who are "generating no utility" as you put it.
Figure out how to tell this to non-librarians, non-techies They don't care, it is sad but true. The majority of the people are so used to being nickled and dimed and so ignorant of their rights that they will continue handing over their nickles and dimes for whatever junk the entertainment industry continues to push out. There are fewer and fewer free thinkers growing up in America with each generation now. In a few more generations the America that we knew will be just a footnote in the sanitized history books, a historical curiousity of democracy similar to that brief period of time in the Athens of ancient greece, but fading once more into memory in the face of tyrany and conformity.
Unfortunately, the way that the law works in most jurisdictions is that intangible property (i.e. ideas, music, movies, etc) is not taxable and even though physical manifestations of this property (i.e. cds, dvds, books, papers, etc...) could exist and be considered unsecured property (i.e. unsecured as opposed to real property where the property itself can serve as a collateral if the taxes aren't paid) they are generally either (1) worth less than $5000 dollars or (2) fall under the definition of miscellaneous personal property and are not subject to tax. This is generally how it works in California, but I would bet that the laws in most other states are similar in this regard since property laws are usually well established and defined.
We should allow people to make exact copies of almost all works and distribute them freely. Then, as the Nike corporation is so fond of saying, just do it.
Again, a non response No it is not, it makes perfect sense. If you don't want it or don't like the price then don't buy it, it is that simple. We are not talking about food, clothing, or shelter here and driving is a privilege too, it is not a right. What do you want to do? Have the government come in and nationalize the cell phone companies or the gas pumps because you want these things but don't like the policies or prices of the companies that provide them? Should they be regulated out of existence or made to "pay" for their sins? Be careful what you wish for, you might find that what you want is not available at any price after you go down that road.
My point is, that even you, who are saying not to sign if you don't understand what you're signing, cannot follow that advice. Contrary to popular belief, NOT having a cell phone is not hazardous to one's health. You don't even need a contract to get a cell phone these days. You can just get a pre-paid phone and swap the sim cards around when you travel. If you don't like the pre-paid phone then just take the card out and swap it into your "regular" phone.
They won't find those answers in the contract, in any attached materials or plan descriptions, or in the heads of the sales reps. If the contract is completely opaque then why agree to it? I did not say the contract was guaranteed to be understandable, but rather that one should either not agree or be willing to live with the consequences of something which was agreed to but not understood (not a good idea IMHO). If you really want the niggling details then asking the salesperson in the store is useless in any case, you would probably have to call the provider and get your call escalated to someone who knows the difference between the "PDA" plan vs the other plans or data vs voice etc...Personally, I wouldn't go to the trouble. I use my laptop and leech wireless access when I am on the road and my cellphone is one of those old pre-pay phones (uses AT&T network).
Why pay Sony when you can get Crap Cleaner for free? Uninstall the junk you don't want via add/remove programs and then use Crap Cleaner to clean up anything that the uninstallers leave behind.
You don't think the decisions are made by individuals? Executives care about their compensation. They only care about you personally if you have some perceptible effect on that compensation, otherwise they are indifferent to your existence. You flatter yourself to think that you personally figure into their decisions in any meaningful way for either good or ill.
Monopolies don't charge the maximum you are willing to pay Yes, they do. Please re-read the chapter in your economics textbook on "monopoly".
they charge the maximum they can possibly get Which is equal to the maximum amount that you are willing to pay, up to and possibly including every last cent you've got, before you decide to find a substitute, if one exists, or are forced to do without the good or service instead. Why do you suppose that the drug monopolies charge an American $5,000 dollars for a life saving drug while providing the same drug in Africa for $2 (suppose that $1 is the actual cost of production and the rest is profit)? The person in Africa only has $2 available to save his life and if he dies then then drug company loses and the person who dies loses. Some profit is better than no profit.
That's why they are monopolies. As opposed to competitive enterprises. They exist because of the power of government. It is very difficult to maintain a monopoly position in a competitive marketplace for long without government intervention.
Don't be such a tool. The 1960's called and they wan't their quote back.
sounds like an excellent opportunity for the children in question to a learn a valuable lesson about the real world before the stakes in the game of life get much higher: always read the fine print and don't sign if you don't understand what you are signing. The cell phone contract almost certainly spelled out the fees if the had bothered to RTFC, but they didn't and learned an expensive lesson instead.
You make it sound like this is inevitable that we will be assimilated into their collective(s) and have our names changed to "x of y" or perhaps even "Locutus" in the process.
The problem with evil is that it is ultimately subjective, even though there are actions which the vast majority of people living on this planet would consider to be evil. In fact, Plato argued that which we call evil is merely ignorance and that good is that which everyone desires. In the case of the corporation "amoral profit maximizer" results in a more accurate and complete analysis of why certain actions are taken whereas "evil" can be used to muddy the waters and arrive at false conclusions depending upon one's pre-conceived ideas about the morality of those actions which may or may not be entirely shared with others participating in the discussion.
I think that you misunderstand the point of the post...
it's not a monopoly, and last I heard they where pretty happy with it, but that they wanted more.
Here is the problem: The music labels don't want to release non-DRM content (i.e. MP3) if the can possibly help it. If they want DRM on the iPod then they have to go with fairplay which means using iTunes (no other DRM is supported on iPod). They cannot create their own online music store with DRM and have it work on the iPod (the most popular player on the market by far).
Now, personally I and most other people on Slashdot think that DRM is lame and that it doesn't solve the problems of the music industry, but that is my personal viewpoint and I am trying to explain this from the point of view of the music labels, wrongheaded though their point of view may be. The music labels are stubborn, they want DRM and no DRM is anathema to them, it just doesn't fit in with their world view (i.e. they don't get it).
Look, there mad because the RIAA/MPAA are screwing them, but they are afraid to say that.
That doesn't preclude them from being displeased with BOTH the MAFIAA, to which they pay membership dues, AND Apple. In this case they were talking about Apple.
There is NO reason why a entertainment company can't do the same thing. They could even make it better.
Either they do it with no DRM ala MP3 (which they refuse to do...see above) OR they forgo compatibility with the iPod, the most popular portable music player in the world and the Walkman of this generation, for whatever DRM they do chose. Most labels are unwilling to do either, MAFIAA or not, and so they complain.
No, the **AA saw an easy way to make money, and went for it and by default brought the peopel who signed deals with the **IA. They could drop the **IA from all future products but I don't think they have the balls to do so. They signed a deal with the Devil and are getting exactly what the devil told them they would get.
Yup, beware of the contract that you sign with Apple and read the fine print.
Complete fear mongering. Apple isn't making most of the money, the industry is.
I am not so sure. Apple gets $150 dollars plus for each iPod they sell and they have sold tens of millions of them. How many of those iPod owners buy 150 songs from iTunes at 99 cents apiece? Probably not very many.
And finally, the real deal breaker, the proof that says the has beens are fear mongering:
Of course they are exaggerating, that is what any party in any negotiation attempts to do in order to improve their bargaining position. They fact that they are exaggerating doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have the upper hand in their dealings anyway.
The label don't have to do more business with Apple. DId Jobs hold a gun to someones head and force them to allow the Beatles to be released?
Does Steve really care if the Beatles are available or not on iTunes? How many people who own an iPod and want the Beatles in their playlists haven't already ripped their CDs in iTunes or downloaded what they wanted from the file sharing networks? Either way Steve has benefited from more iPod sales. Meanwhile the music labels cannot release DRM Beatles on the iPod independently without submitting to Steve and iTunes. Steve has them right where he wants them and they both know it.
The music industry can cut Apple loose anytime.
And release their music without DRM or NOT on the iPod? Not likely.
They haven't, why is that? oh yeah, because they are making money hand over fist. the **IA that is. These CEO's wanted to give all the work. risk, and responsibilty to another company, and just collect theur 'Phat L00tz', and now it's biting them in the Ass.
Less work by the music labels == less profit...makes sense.
Also, you can not destroy the music industry, but you can certia
feel however you want, but hate implies an active dislike which cannot be the case with corporations (they are just legal entities). The people in charge of them might not like you, but they are other people, not "the corporation".
They will find a loophole, they hate the customer that much It is interesting to see how people take the actions of particular corporations personally as if they were "out to get the little guy" for no other reason than simple spite. The spectrum auctions provide a limited monopoly for their winning bidders. The rational (i.e. profit maximizing) behavior for a monopoly firm in any market is to price discriminate or in other words they charge each customer the maximum amount that he or she is willing to pay for a particular amount of goods or services (or as close to that amount as their metered pricing schemes and various contracts can get). Now, this time there are conditions attached to the winning bid that will supposedly prevent some of the previous worst practices from being repeated, but corporations are famous for circumventing, capturing, and generally corrupting attempts by the government to regulate them so I don't have much confidence in these "strings" attached by the government. However, the actions of a particular corporation, should not be viewed in a good or evil way, but rather from the standpoint of a completely amoral and dispassionate entity who seeks to maximize his profits.
Once you're making over a few hundred grand a year you're treading on very thing ice. Suppose that an individual investor, entirely or even just mostly through his own diligent effort, builds up a portfolio of real estate, stocks, bonds, and other assorted securities that generated an income of more than a few hundred grand a year in rents, interest, and dividends (there are many individual investors who have actually done this and I am well on my way to doing this). Are you saying that they are not entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labors once those rents, interest, and dividend payments exceed say $250,000 per year?
I realize that Universal is playing up the downside to try and get a better deal from Apple, but it is pretty clear that the labels need Apple more than Apple needs the labels so I doubt Apple will be swayed by what Universal says to the press. The iTunes music store is not really making a mint for Apple, the hardware sales are where Apple is making their money and the iPod plays MP3s downloaded from the file sharing networks or ripped from CDs just as well as music purchased from the iTunes store. Apple is in a stronger negotiation position than the music labels for any deals going forward, at least for the foreseeable future anyway, and everyone (i.e. Apple, the music labels, wall street, the public, etc...) knows that.
I have a big problem with the "Winner takes all" system anyway, with the majority giving the power to a handful to beat up on us all. Not even getting into how the Republicans and the Democrats systemically shuts out all other parties. The system has its problems to be sure. However, as we are witnessing right now with the 2008 democratic presidential nomination, it has some advantages as well. The current situation with the super delegates, split primaries, and close races leading up to a nail bitter at the 2008 Democratic convention increases the chance for special interests to engage in back room deals and brokering at the convention of the "smoke filled room" type which used to be notorious in the Democratic party. This back room dealing undermines the confidence of the people in the fairness and openness of the selection process even more than the "winner takes all" system. I don't know anybody who believes that a delegate death match between Hilary and Obama leading all the way to a fractious, bitterly contested, and possibly even a brokered convention is in any way "good" for the Democratic party. The "winner take all" system eliminates these possibilities which, in my opinion, are even worse than "the majority giving the power to a handful to beat up on us all". If the system is not "winner take all" then it is very likely that the brokered candidate will be beholden to an array of narrow minded special interests that will all come calling to collect on their "loans of support" if the candidate is eventually elected.
The difference is that Sequoia is selling a product that is being used to fulfill a very critical and very public function of our democracy while the personal affairs of a private citizen are generally not critical in the same way. I see no double standard in advocating personal privacy while at the same time defending the ability of the people to reverse engineer, test, and verify that a product which they have purchased, either individually or collectively, fulfills the requirements of the buyer.
The music labels already don't care very much for Apple and its iPod + iTunes monopoly. They are losing control of paid distribution (never mind P2P) to their new gatekeeper and key master, Steve Jobs. The following quote is excerpted from an article posted earlier today, How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong
But not everyone sees Apple's all-or-nothing approach in such benign terms. The music and film industries, in particular, worry that Jobs has become a gatekeeper for all digital content. Doug Morris, CEO of Universal Music, has accused iTunes of leaving labels powerless to negotiate with it. (Ironically, it was the labels themselves that insisted on the DRM that confines iTunes purchases to the iPod, and that they now protest.) "Apple has destroyed the music business," NBC Universal chief Jeff Zucker told an audience at Syracuse University. "If we don't take control on the video side, [they'll] do the same." At a media business conference held during the early days of the Hollywood writers' strike, Michael Eisner argued that Apple was the union's real enemy: "[The studios] make deals with Steve Jobs, who takes them to the cleaners. They make all these kinds of things, and who's making money? Apple!"
The labels have already locked themselves into Steve's golden iHandcuffs with DRM on the iPod + iTunes platform with fixed price songs so they will be very careful before they give over even more power to Apple to run their business, or what is left of it anyway. I do not see them agreeing to a monthly subscription for the entire iTunes catalogs, such a move would signal complete and utter desperation on the part of the music labels.
Slashdot Mirror
Here we go again, the "your major is useless" debate...alright here goes. Science exists to describe precisely the universe as it truly exists, in all of its myriad complexity and variation whereas the arts, humanities, and letters exist to describe the human response to or perception of that reality. It is not possible or even worthwhile to compare the two because they are decidedly not the same or even similar. Perception is subjective and therefore debatable whereas scientific truth is provable generally not open to debate (or honest debate anyway). Now, scientists may disagree on scientific matters from time to time, but this is usually due to the fact that, as Issac Asimov put it in his famous short story, "there is insufficient data for a meaningful answer" (where meaningful means true, provable, and unambiguous) and NOT because of any genuine disagreement on proven and settled matters (i.e. the 2nd law of thermodynamics).
The utility comes from the efforts made in organizing those resources and that is a valuable economic activity. In fact economists even have a name for that type of organizing, they call it entrepreneurship. Some people provide services (labor), others provide capital (assets), still others provide financing (money), and finaly there are the entreprenuers who put it all together and everyone shares in the rewards of a successful venture or the losses of an unsucessful one or at least that is how it should work, but governments and other well meaning but hoplessely progressive people attempt to interfere with this process to extract uncompensated value from the system and they are very often the real problem, not the investors who are "generating no utility" as you put it.
Unfortunately, the way that the law works in most jurisdictions is that intangible property (i.e. ideas, music, movies, etc) is not taxable and even though physical manifestations of this property (i.e. cds, dvds, books, papers, etc...) could exist and be considered unsecured property (i.e. unsecured as opposed to real property where the property itself can serve as a collateral if the taxes aren't paid) they are generally either (1) worth less than $5000 dollars or (2) fall under the definition of miscellaneous personal property and are not subject to tax. This is generally how it works in California, but I would bet that the laws in most other states are similar in this regard since property laws are usually well established and defined.
Why pay Sony when you can get Crap Cleaner for free? Uninstall the junk you don't want via add/remove programs and then use Crap Cleaner to clean up anything that the uninstallers leave behind.
So don't sign one. Richard Stallman doesn't have a cell phone either.
sounds like an excellent opportunity for the children in question to a learn a valuable lesson about the real world before the stakes in the game of life get much higher: always read the fine print and don't sign if you don't understand what you are signing. The cell phone contract almost certainly spelled out the fees if the had bothered to RTFC, but they didn't and learned an expensive lesson instead.
You make it sound like this is inevitable that we will be assimilated into their collective(s) and have our names changed to "x of y" or perhaps even "Locutus" in the process.
The problem with evil is that it is ultimately subjective, even though there are actions which the vast majority of people living on this planet would consider to be evil. In fact, Plato argued that which we call evil is merely ignorance and that good is that which everyone desires. In the case of the corporation "amoral profit maximizer" results in a more accurate and complete analysis of why certain actions are taken whereas "evil" can be used to muddy the waters and arrive at false conclusions depending upon one's pre-conceived ideas about the morality of those actions which may or may not be entirely shared with others participating in the discussion.
it's not a monopoly, and last I heard they where pretty happy with it, but that they wanted more.
Here is the problem: The music labels don't want to release non-DRM content (i.e. MP3) if the can possibly help it. If they want DRM on the iPod then they have to go with fairplay which means using iTunes (no other DRM is supported on iPod). They cannot create their own online music store with DRM and have it work on the iPod (the most popular player on the market by far).
Now, personally I and most other people on Slashdot think that DRM is lame and that it doesn't solve the problems of the music industry, but that is my personal viewpoint and I am trying to explain this from the point of view of the music labels, wrongheaded though their point of view may be. The music labels are stubborn, they want DRM and no DRM is anathema to them, it just doesn't fit in with their world view (i.e. they don't get it).
Look, there mad because the RIAA/MPAA are screwing them, but they are afraid to say that.
That doesn't preclude them from being displeased with BOTH the MAFIAA, to which they pay membership dues, AND Apple. In this case they were talking about Apple.
There is NO reason why a entertainment company can't do the same thing. They could even make it better.
Either they do it with no DRM ala MP3 (which they refuse to do...see above) OR they forgo compatibility with the iPod, the most popular portable music player in the world and the Walkman of this generation, for whatever DRM they do chose. Most labels are unwilling to do either, MAFIAA or not, and so they complain.
No, the **AA saw an easy way to make money, and went for it and by default brought the peopel who signed deals with the **IA. They could drop the **IA from all future products but I don't think they have the balls to do so. They signed a deal with the Devil and are getting exactly what the devil told them they would get.
Yup, beware of the contract that you sign with Apple and read the fine print.
Complete fear mongering. Apple isn't making most of the money, the industry is.
I am not so sure. Apple gets $150 dollars plus for each iPod they sell and they have sold tens of millions of them. How many of those iPod owners buy 150 songs from iTunes at 99 cents apiece? Probably not very many.
And finally, the real deal breaker, the proof that says the has beens are fear mongering:
Of course they are exaggerating, that is what any party in any negotiation attempts to do in order to improve their bargaining position. They fact that they are exaggerating doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have the upper hand in their dealings anyway.
The label don't have to do more business with Apple. DId Jobs hold a gun to someones head and force them to allow the Beatles to be released?
Does Steve really care if the Beatles are available or not on iTunes? How many people who own an iPod and want the Beatles in their playlists haven't already ripped their CDs in iTunes or downloaded what they wanted from the file sharing networks? Either way Steve has benefited from more iPod sales. Meanwhile the music labels cannot release DRM Beatles on the iPod independently without submitting to Steve and iTunes. Steve has them right where he wants them and they both know it.
The music industry can cut Apple loose anytime.
And release their music without DRM or NOT on the iPod? Not likely.
They haven't, why is that? oh yeah, because they are making money hand over fist. the **IA that is. These CEO's wanted to give all the work. risk, and responsibilty to another company, and just collect theur 'Phat L00tz', and now it's biting them in the Ass.
Less work by the music labels == less profit...makes sense.
Also, you can not destroy the music industry, but you can certia
feel however you want, but hate implies an active dislike which cannot be the case with corporations (they are just legal entities). The people in charge of them might not like you, but they are other people, not "the corporation".
I realize that Universal is playing up the downside to try and get a better deal from Apple, but it is pretty clear that the labels need Apple more than Apple needs the labels so I doubt Apple will be swayed by what Universal says to the press. The iTunes music store is not really making a mint for Apple, the hardware sales are where Apple is making their money and the iPod plays MP3s downloaded from the file sharing networks or ripped from CDs just as well as music purchased from the iTunes store. Apple is in a stronger negotiation position than the music labels for any deals going forward, at least for the foreseeable future anyway, and everyone (i.e. Apple, the music labels, wall street, the public, etc...) knows that.
They mean four sumo wrestlers OR four Americans, your choice.
The difference is that Sequoia is selling a product that is being used to fulfill a very critical and very public function of our democracy while the personal affairs of a private citizen are generally not critical in the same way. I see no double standard in advocating personal privacy while at the same time defending the ability of the people to reverse engineer, test, and verify that a product which they have purchased, either individually or collectively, fulfills the requirements of the buyer.
The music labels already don't care very much for Apple and its iPod + iTunes monopoly. They are losing control of paid distribution (never mind P2P) to their new gatekeeper and key master, Steve Jobs. The following quote is excerpted from an article posted earlier today, How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong
But not everyone sees Apple's all-or-nothing approach in such benign terms. The music and film industries, in particular, worry that Jobs has become a gatekeeper for all digital content. Doug Morris, CEO of Universal Music, has accused iTunes of leaving labels powerless to negotiate with it. (Ironically, it was the labels themselves that insisted on the DRM that confines iTunes purchases to the iPod, and that they now protest.) "Apple has destroyed the music business," NBC Universal chief Jeff Zucker told an audience at Syracuse University. "If we don't take control on the video side, [they'll] do the same." At a media business conference held during the early days of the Hollywood writers' strike, Michael Eisner argued that Apple was the union's real enemy: "[The studios] make deals with Steve Jobs, who takes them to the cleaners. They make all these kinds of things, and who's making money? Apple!"
The labels have already locked themselves into Steve's golden iHandcuffs with DRM on the iPod + iTunes platform with fixed price songs so they will be very careful before they give over even more power to Apple to run their business, or what is left of it anyway. I do not see them agreeing to a monthly subscription for the entire iTunes catalogs, such a move would signal complete and utter desperation on the part of the music labels.