This is a typical cycle. The old is disregarded by the new generation for the next big thing. Those on the bleeding edge can profit. But now in our corporate sponsored world, it is cheaper for the old vanguard to wait and just purchase the next big thing instead of trying to innovate. Of course, they wouldn't be buying it if they didn't think it was worth SIGNIFICANTLY more than they were paying (otherwise, how could they should 7% growth of income every year).
I agree entirely with you. The fallacy is that one could change the school for the better in a short time. Many school districts have election cycles that would take 2 years to change...but unless you're the richest, most popular family in the district, good luck at overthrowing more than one or two of them. So realistically, it's more like 4 to 6 years to change a school board. Then those changes take 2 to 4 years to trickle through the system and give your 24 year old 9th grader the education he deserves. So why not just do what's best for your kid?
Yeah, many areas have great public schools, many have great private schools, but in most areas, you are stuck with whatever public school you are in-district for, but can easily switch out of a bad private school to a better one.
Do your best as a parent, you won't always be right, but at least you're trying.
Without the social safety net however, a fair portion of the 77% that were displaced would be suffering from hunger, common diseases and the like. There is a peak to the benefits of automation, and it varies by type of government. After that peak, you end up displacing too many workers that are unskilled for the higher tech jobs and over skilled to compete in the floor sweeping jobs (oops, Roomba got those too).
Automation will continue to destroy jobs, it is inevitable. The main jobs that are being "created" are service based, and most of these amount to trading a bit of money back and forth so Bob will mow your lawn and Jane cuts Bob's hair. But we're just trading money at the low levels doing stuff most people used to do but (despite automation) are "too busy"...yet somehow still find time to follow every move Honey Boo Boo makes and never misses an episode of Teen Mom.
My long but related example is the what I call the Three Box Theory. Imagine if you will, a box, about the size of an Central Air conditioner that provides virtually pollution free energy for an entire household and needs little/no maintenance. It is affordable. It is Box One...the Power Box. Technology? Who knows but given the level of tech advances we'll say very small pebble bed reactor just to put a name on it. If it works, it's the best thing since sliced bread as we reduce pollution and increase reliability, plus no more electric lines killing birds/causing cancer/signaling alien invaders...no need for most of the coal fired power plants (less pollution again), no 8000' coal trains delivering coal and spewing diesel exhaust, no one having to work in a dangerous occupation like mining. In almost every metric, its a winning deal, EXCEPT you wipe out all those jobs (lineman, miners, railroaders) that pay pretty well. Sure a few high tech jobs get created but a magnitude more are destroyed permanently. So now, everyone has virtually unlimited electricity, pollution is decreased but you end up with a lot of high end jobs being wiped out. Box Two is the Food Box, who cares the specifics of how it works (probably an small algae farm) but in the end, a family gets their entire nutrition needs from this box. While some will still like an apple versus the apple tasting paste the machine extrudes, you'll dramatically reduce the amount of farmland needed and food delivery infrastructure. No more farm cruelty, erosion or beets, but again, a lot of good jobs down the drain. Box Three, the FixIt Box, probably powered by nanobots, can repair or even do small scale building. Again, great for the consumer and terrible for the worker. While far fetched, who really would have guessed how far 3D printing would be 15 years ago, or tell the 1800's farmer that in 200 years, one man will farm 40 times what he does and produce 300 times the food. He'd think you were nuts that what he and his 11 kids did was 1/300th of what one man could do in 8 generations.
In the end, the future is bleak for the worker but really, can you hold technology back?
With this revelation, it seems more and more likely by the second that the attacks on Tor had nothing to do with pedophiles and everything to due with Snowden and the like.
You're already on track to the best solution. Charging $5-10 for an a useful application (which seems pretty fair to me depending on what it does) is a great deterrent. As others have said, there are those that would pirate it if it were 25 cents, those that would buy it at 100x it's list price (or not use it) and those in the middle who will pirate when the price to value ratio is out of skew or the price point is simply too high for their budgets.
If you call $17.50 an hour a career, I have news for you.
Hopefully I took this the wrong way, so I'll hash both sides.
If you intended to highlight that a career is not the wage you make, then kudos.
However, if you meant to say that $17.50 an hour didn't make for good wages, I take exception with that. Figuring a 36 hour work week, 52 weeks a year, you get $32,760 a year. That exceeds the median income for households in two states (according to the 2000 census). A second household member working part time 20 hours a week (even at the Federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour) would increase the household income above the median in 10 states.
If you're living in an area where housing costs are exceeding the median rental cost of $602 by a factor of two or three, then yes, $33K isn't going to cut it. But in many areas of the United States, there would be no shortage of people clamoring for a job at $17.50 an hour, especially for a semi-skilled job (no offense intended to checkers).
Not saying that all oil change places are this way, but many of the big chains will definitely try and up-sell you. Go in just wanting an oil change, they'll assume you want the "Full Service" oil change, not the $19.95 or whatnot "Basic" Oil Change. And since your car is over 75,000 miles you really out to consider the high milage oil which is another $10. And your PCV Valve is looking a bit dirty so you really out to change it for just another $6. And really, as high as gas prices are, it makes more sense to change this air filter for another $15 even if you're not sure if you really need it. So your $20 oil change becomes a $55 affair. But they'll be nice and give you the $3 ladies day discount even though you're a gent since they're such nice guys.
And I personly know of people that have had engines die because the tech didn't put the right filter on, didn't tighten the drain valve properly or simply forgot to put in the oil. In my book, the analogy stands.
First, why radio music sucks so hard. The RIAA charges so much for the few songs they let radio stations play that the average station can only have a thousand or two songs on hand, and they have to be vetted carefully.
I tuned out after reading this but here's the simplified version of how it works. You pay BMI, ASCAP and SESAC a predetermined fee each month (although SESAC may be quarterly, I can't fully recall). It is based on a wide range of variables, but the only way depth of library will impact your fees is if you can pull off only playing music from one or two of the cartels (SESAC is the easiest to avoid, but also rather inexpensive compared to the other two). So if you have a library of 6.5 million songs, and they just happen to be the same 6.5 million that BMI claims they have under contract, then you'll end up paying the same as if you play the same 10 songs every hour. Heck you could save a few bucks if the 10 songs you'd end up playing included one from ASCAP and one from SESAC and not all BMI titles. So the real reason to have a small playlist is thats what the market demands.
The one issue with this is that Real Estate agents, by their nature, are always looking for houses to sell (or better be!). So they are willing to pay a monthly fee to maintain the local MLS. The local realtor board is able to depend that all active agents in its geographic area will use the MLS, and thus pay into the system. So the MLS can have someone that maintains the MLS, even if its not their full time job (or several someones if it's a large MLS).
A Job Bank MLS (JBMLS) fails on the revenue side of things. Since there are often only a few, high-turnover places constantly hiring (low paying manufacturing jobs, low paying retail jobs, heck, just about any low paying job), a JBMLS doesn't have a steady stream of income if the employer pays. And you don't think that someone paying minimum wage and minimal benefits should have to pay to get the low quality applicants their positions attract, do you?
Granted, there are some areas where certain employers are in a long term hiring mode and would sign up for several years. But most, I suspect, would only want the service for a short time. A short listing means nearly as much work as a long term listing, and that means short timers pay a higher cost per candidate. And many major employers have decided they can do the job better internally, http://www.uprr.com/employment/index.shtml or have states where the state employment bureau already does a fair job.
If the service is free to employers, you have to charge the job seekers. Certainly in the on-line dating world, there are both pay and free services, so it would seem in the job hunting world it would work. However, if it is free to employers, you'd have to spend a great deal of time manually weeding out the head-hunters that were there just for resume collection. That increases your costs, but without it you're no better than the free sites. There has got to be a better way!
It seems the easiest path to finacial success is to emulate the dating sites entirely, where both users pay (job hunter and employer). In fact, to a desperate job hunter OR desperate employer, the process is just like on-line dating. The key would be to deliver good candiates to the employers (which by virtue of being a pay site, would seem to improve the odds) and deliver quality jobs to the job seekers (avoiding the fishers). Keeping up both ends of the bargain means you can get both sides to pay, and probably gladly pay.
Straying even further off topic, the only sockets allowed in bathrooms in the UK are special low-drain ones with a different shape for driving electric shavers. I noticed on my last visit to the US that it is relatively common to have standard sockets in bathrooms there.
There are still many bathrooms that have standard outlets. But the code is to have GFCI protected outlets in the bathroom. These outlets minimize the risk for using electric devices plugged into them. Just remember to test them regularly to make sure you're still protected.
It costs them nothing to distribute music this way...
Servers aren't free.
Since they are Apple's servers, it costs them (the labels) nothing to distribute music this way. While there is the issue that Apple is taking a cut, the real point is that music via download does cost less to distribute than music via physical media. But the labels want to be paid the same for music from either source, and not pass on any of their reduced costs. Of course, we ought to be used to this by now since CDs were priced significantly above that of cassette tapes, despite the fact that the manufacturing cost for a cassette was above that of a CD.
The difference is that so far Google has earned our trust. Much in the same way I'll open a package from my brother, I might be a little more cautious about one from Ted Kazenski or be a bit concerned about Union Carbide building a pesticide plant in my town. So far Google has shown that is (by and large) doing no evil. And until they breach that trust, I'll take them at their word.
The Big Businesses handle the big business, and that frees up creators to create, and not balance books, write checks, and lick envelopes all day long.
The recording industry should be the "for hire" workers in a fair system. A small business doesn't give the accountant any trademarks or patents they use just to get the books balanced. Nor does the UPS guy get final say in next falls product line. And last I knew, the newspapers don't get the keys to the warehouse when its time to run a few ads. Unless you're the RIAA, the current business model makes little sense applied to its own industry...and becomes quite laughable when compared to others.
Can't make money w/free content using advertising you say? The television networks do.
Last I checked the content that TV networks use costs millions of dollars. If thats no longer the case I'm sure the Slashdotters looking to save Enterprise will be quite happy.
You might check out http://www.boardgamegeek.com/. It can be a bit daunting at first as there is a lot of information to go through. And be forewarned, there is a definite bias against traditional American games (i.e., Monopoly). But if you enjoyed Carcassonne and Settlers, its hopefully a bias you'll agree with. Most games have a review or two (many written by reviewers that are very good at what they do), plus session reports of various depths and often times player aids.
Which really bugs me: religion has no place in politics, except for the fact that you have to keep in mind the various religions of the people in your country.
The one point I'd bring to the table is that John Kerry campaigned at churches during their Sunday services. If both parties are going to campaign in churches (something I'm sure George Bush did as well, but just wasn't reported on as heavily) then that says to me that religion DOES have a place in politics. When one or both parties cease courting the religious voter during his or her own Sunday morning service then we can talk more seriously about it. But until then, you have to accept that religion has a defacto place in politics even if you don't like it.
The problem that arises (by the very nature of a two-party ystem) is that even though the Republicans only just barely won, they do get to (and will, the past four years have shown) utterly disregard the other side.
Until the two party system is dethroned we'll not see equitable representation from the minority party, whether it be Democrat or Republican. And to me, it seems the best way to do that is to dump the Electoral College and go to a straight popular vote like states now use to select their Governors. Then my vote in Illinois, matters as much as a vote cast in Ohio (or in 2000 read Florida). But since my state consistently votes in large margins for the Democratic presidental candidate, my vote for either party has no real impact no matter what methodology is used to take it. If we use punchcards, optical scan, Diebolds machines or big frickin' piles of rocks my vote in Illinois doesn't really effect the election here since it is a winner take all proposition on both a state (minus the two that split their electoral votes) and federal level.
More likely everyone will be paying a road tax on all our electic usage even if we're still using the good 'ole IC engine. Would hate for any potential revenue to slip through the cracks.
As another radio professional, I don't always agree with the industry lobby, but in all honesty I (we) probably dislike Clear Channel, et. al., more than the average Joe. If CC were to take over the station I work at, my listeners would have to "suffer" with their cookie cutter / off site approach to radio, but I'd (most likely) be out of a job that I've loved for a decade OR be doing twice the work for the same (relatively low) pay.
Just because I work in radio doesn't mean I agree with those doing the lobbying and driving policies. Much in the same way I doubt the drones at WalMart support exported labor, the average American service person supports prisoner abuse or those with Slashdot user account enjoy redundant topic postings.
Actually the best games are "Carboard and wooden pieces". Get the family hooked on a game like Settlers of Catan, Puerto Rico or Pirate's Cove and then ask yourself why you are watching so much television.
What happens after they eliminate the top 1% of users (the ones using 28% of the bandwidth)? All of the sudden there is a new top 1% of users that are using more than 1% of the bandwidth. Slippery slope, yes...but at what point do you stop cutting off that top 1%? When they are using 15% of the bandwidth...10%, 5%, 1%?
A 1% phony reply rate is barely going to hurt at all, unfortunately.
I think you've missed out on what the parent was advocating. If "we" reply to 1% of our spam with phoney data, it will (easily?) outweigh the real replies (which I pray is less than 1%) and thus pollute the stream, driving down the rate that the legitimate companies are willing to pay. For more thinking along this line check out this googled karma-whoring link. Automate this idea with a Mozilla plug-in and I'll bet all of us lazy Slashdotters (its not just me right?) will install and escalate things a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a typical cycle. The old is disregarded by the new generation for the next big thing. Those on the bleeding edge can profit. But now in our corporate sponsored world, it is cheaper for the old vanguard to wait and just purchase the next big thing instead of trying to innovate. Of course, they wouldn't be buying it if they didn't think it was worth SIGNIFICANTLY more than they were paying (otherwise, how could they should 7% growth of income every year).
Black Ice!
I agree entirely with you. The fallacy is that one could change the school for the better in a short time. Many school districts have election cycles that would take 2 years to change...but unless you're the richest, most popular family in the district, good luck at overthrowing more than one or two of them. So realistically, it's more like 4 to 6 years to change a school board. Then those changes take 2 to 4 years to trickle through the system and give your 24 year old 9th grader the education he deserves. So why not just do what's best for your kid?
Yeah, many areas have great public schools, many have great private schools, but in most areas, you are stuck with whatever public school you are in-district for, but can easily switch out of a bad private school to a better one.
Do your best as a parent, you won't always be right, but at least you're trying.
Without the social safety net however, a fair portion of the 77% that were displaced would be suffering from hunger, common diseases and the like. There is a peak to the benefits of automation, and it varies by type of government. After that peak, you end up displacing too many workers that are unskilled for the higher tech jobs and over skilled to compete in the floor sweeping jobs (oops, Roomba got those too).
Automation will continue to destroy jobs, it is inevitable. The main jobs that are being "created" are service based, and most of these amount to trading a bit of money back and forth so Bob will mow your lawn and Jane cuts Bob's hair. But we're just trading money at the low levels doing stuff most people used to do but (despite automation) are "too busy"...yet somehow still find time to follow every move Honey Boo Boo makes and never misses an episode of Teen Mom.
My long but related example is the what I call the Three Box Theory. Imagine if you will, a box, about the size of an Central Air conditioner that provides virtually pollution free energy for an entire household and needs little/no maintenance. It is affordable. It is Box One...the Power Box. Technology? Who knows but given the level of tech advances we'll say very small pebble bed reactor just to put a name on it. If it works, it's the best thing since sliced bread as we reduce pollution and increase reliability, plus no more electric lines killing birds/causing cancer/signaling alien invaders...no need for most of the coal fired power plants (less pollution again), no 8000' coal trains delivering coal and spewing diesel exhaust, no one having to work in a dangerous occupation like mining. In almost every metric, its a winning deal, EXCEPT you wipe out all those jobs (lineman, miners, railroaders) that pay pretty well. Sure a few high tech jobs get created but a magnitude more are destroyed permanently. So now, everyone has virtually unlimited electricity, pollution is decreased but you end up with a lot of high end jobs being wiped out. Box Two is the Food Box, who cares the specifics of how it works (probably an small algae farm) but in the end, a family gets their entire nutrition needs from this box. While some will still like an apple versus the apple tasting paste the machine extrudes, you'll dramatically reduce the amount of farmland needed and food delivery infrastructure. No more farm cruelty, erosion or beets, but again, a lot of good jobs down the drain. Box Three, the FixIt Box, probably powered by nanobots, can repair or even do small scale building. Again, great for the consumer and terrible for the worker. While far fetched, who really would have guessed how far 3D printing would be 15 years ago, or tell the 1800's farmer that in 200 years, one man will farm 40 times what he does and produce 300 times the food. He'd think you were nuts that what he and his 11 kids did was 1/300th of what one man could do in 8 generations.
In the end, the future is bleak for the worker but really, can you hold technology back?
With this revelation, it seems more and more likely by the second that the attacks on Tor had nothing to do with pedophiles and everything to due with Snowden and the like.
You're already on track to the best solution. Charging $5-10 for an a useful application (which seems pretty fair to me depending on what it does) is a great deterrent. As others have said, there are those that would pirate it if it were 25 cents, those that would buy it at 100x it's list price (or not use it) and those in the middle who will pirate when the price to value ratio is out of skew or the price point is simply too high for their budgets.
Hopefully I took this the wrong way, so I'll hash both sides.
If you intended to highlight that a career is not the wage you make, then kudos.
However, if you meant to say that $17.50 an hour didn't make for good wages, I take exception with that. Figuring a 36 hour work week, 52 weeks a year, you get $32,760 a year. That exceeds the median income for households in two states (according to the 2000 census). A second household member working part time 20 hours a week (even at the Federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour) would increase the household income above the median in 10 states.
If you're living in an area where housing costs are exceeding the median rental cost of $602 by a factor of two or three, then yes, $33K isn't going to cut it. But in many areas of the United States, there would be no shortage of people clamoring for a job at $17.50 an hour, especially for a semi-skilled job (no offense intended to checkers).
Not saying that all oil change places are this way, but many of the big chains will definitely try and up-sell you. Go in just wanting an oil change, they'll assume you want the "Full Service" oil change, not the $19.95 or whatnot "Basic" Oil Change. And since your car is over 75,000 miles you really out to consider the high milage oil which is another $10. And your PCV Valve is looking a bit dirty so you really out to change it for just another $6. And really, as high as gas prices are, it makes more sense to change this air filter for another $15 even if you're not sure if you really need it. So your $20 oil change becomes a $55 affair. But they'll be nice and give you the $3 ladies day discount even though you're a gent since they're such nice guys.
And I personly know of people that have had engines die because the tech didn't put the right filter on, didn't tighten the drain valve properly or simply forgot to put in the oil. In my book, the analogy stands.
I tuned out after reading this but here's the simplified version of how it works. You pay BMI, ASCAP and SESAC a predetermined fee each month (although SESAC may be quarterly, I can't fully recall). It is based on a wide range of variables, but the only way depth of library will impact your fees is if you can pull off only playing music from one or two of the cartels (SESAC is the easiest to avoid, but also rather inexpensive compared to the other two). So if you have a library of 6.5 million songs, and they just happen to be the same 6.5 million that BMI claims they have under contract, then you'll end up paying the same as if you play the same 10 songs every hour. Heck you could save a few bucks if the 10 songs you'd end up playing included one from ASCAP and one from SESAC and not all BMI titles. So the real reason to have a small playlist is thats what the market demands.
The one issue with this is that Real Estate agents, by their nature, are always looking for houses to sell (or better be!). So they are willing to pay a monthly fee to maintain the local MLS. The local realtor board is able to depend that all active agents in its geographic area will use the MLS, and thus pay into the system. So the MLS can have someone that maintains the MLS, even if its not their full time job (or several someones if it's a large MLS).
A Job Bank MLS (JBMLS) fails on the revenue side of things. Since there are often only a few, high-turnover places constantly hiring (low paying manufacturing jobs, low paying retail jobs, heck, just about any low paying job), a JBMLS doesn't have a steady stream of income if the employer pays. And you don't think that someone paying minimum wage and minimal benefits should have to pay to get the low quality applicants their positions attract, do you?
Granted, there are some areas where certain employers are in a long term hiring mode and would sign up for several years. But most, I suspect, would only want the service for a short time. A short listing means nearly as much work as a long term listing, and that means short timers pay a higher cost per candidate. And many major employers have decided they can do the job better internally, http://www.uprr.com/employment/index.shtml or have states where the state employment bureau already does a fair job.
If the service is free to employers, you have to charge the job seekers. Certainly in the on-line dating world, there are both pay and free services, so it would seem in the job hunting world it would work. However, if it is free to employers, you'd have to spend a great deal of time manually weeding out the head-hunters that were there just for resume collection. That increases your costs, but without it you're no better than the free sites. There has got to be a better way!
It seems the easiest path to finacial success is to emulate the dating sites entirely, where both users pay (job hunter and employer). In fact, to a desperate job hunter OR desperate employer, the process is just like on-line dating. The key would be to deliver good candiates to the employers (which by virtue of being a pay site, would seem to improve the odds) and deliver quality jobs to the job seekers (avoiding the fishers). Keeping up both ends of the bargain means you can get both sides to pay, and probably gladly pay.
There are still many bathrooms that have standard outlets. But the code is to have GFCI protected outlets in the bathroom. These outlets minimize the risk for using electric devices plugged into them. Just remember to test them regularly to make sure you're still protected.
Since they are Apple's servers, it costs them (the labels) nothing to distribute music this way. While there is the issue that Apple is taking a cut, the real point is that music via download does cost less to distribute than music via physical media. But the labels want to be paid the same for music from either source, and not pass on any of their reduced costs. Of course, we ought to be used to this by now since CDs were priced significantly above that of cassette tapes, despite the fact that the manufacturing cost for a cassette was above that of a CD.
The difference is that so far Google has earned our trust. Much in the same way I'll open a package from my brother, I might be a little more cautious about one from Ted Kazenski or be a bit concerned about Union Carbide building a pesticide plant in my town. So far Google has shown that is (by and large) doing no evil. And until they breach that trust, I'll take them at their word.
The Big Businesses handle the big business, and that frees up creators to create, and not balance books, write checks, and lick envelopes all day long.
The recording industry should be the "for hire" workers in a fair system. A small business doesn't give the accountant any trademarks or patents they use just to get the books balanced. Nor does the UPS guy get final say in next falls product line. And last I knew, the newspapers don't get the keys to the warehouse when its time to run a few ads. Unless you're the RIAA, the current business model makes little sense applied to its own industry...and becomes quite laughable when compared to others.
Last I checked the content that TV networks use costs millions of dollars. If thats no longer the case I'm sure the Slashdotters looking to save Enterprise will be quite happy.
You might check out http://www.boardgamegeek.com/. It can be a bit daunting at first as there is a lot of information to go through. And be forewarned, there is a definite bias against traditional American games (i.e., Monopoly). But if you enjoyed Carcassonne and Settlers, its hopefully a bias you'll agree with. Most games have a review or two (many written by reviewers that are very good at what they do), plus session reports of various depths and often times player aids.
The one point I'd bring to the table is that John Kerry campaigned at churches during their Sunday services. If both parties are going to campaign in churches (something I'm sure George Bush did as well, but just wasn't reported on as heavily) then that says to me that religion DOES have a place in politics. When one or both parties cease courting the religious voter during his or her own Sunday morning service then we can talk more seriously about it. But until then, you have to accept that religion has a defacto place in politics even if you don't like it.
Until the two party system is dethroned we'll not see equitable representation from the minority party, whether it be Democrat or Republican. And to me, it seems the best way to do that is to dump the Electoral College and go to a straight popular vote like states now use to select their Governors. Then my vote in Illinois, matters as much as a vote cast in Ohio (or in 2000 read Florida). But since my state consistently votes in large margins for the Democratic presidental candidate, my vote for either party has no real impact no matter what methodology is used to take it. If we use punchcards, optical scan, Diebolds machines or big frickin' piles of rocks my vote in Illinois doesn't really effect the election here since it is a winner take all proposition on both a state (minus the two that split their electoral votes) and federal level.
Which is why we hear of so accidents involving Mack Trucks and Yugos that end badly for the over-the-road truck driver.
More likely everyone will be paying a road tax on all our electic usage even if we're still using the good 'ole IC engine. Would hate for any potential revenue to slip through the cracks.
As another radio professional, I don't always agree with the industry lobby, but in all honesty I (we) probably dislike Clear Channel, et. al., more than the average Joe. If CC were to take over the station I work at, my listeners would have to "suffer" with their cookie cutter / off site approach to radio, but I'd (most likely) be out of a job that I've loved for a decade OR be doing twice the work for the same (relatively low) pay.
Just because I work in radio doesn't mean I agree with those doing the lobbying and driving policies. Much in the same way I doubt the drones at WalMart support exported labor, the average American service person supports prisoner abuse or those with Slashdot user account enjoy redundant topic postings.
You hoard the cheap ethanol, and we'll hoard the penicillin (well, we might share with the British too).
Actually the best games are "Carboard and wooden pieces". Get the family hooked on a game like Settlers of Catan, Puerto Rico or Pirate's Cove and then ask yourself why you are watching so much television.
Sure this is a troll reply but...
What happens after they eliminate the top 1% of users (the ones using 28% of the bandwidth)? All of the sudden there is a new top 1% of users that are using more than 1% of the bandwidth. Slippery slope, yes...but at what point do you stop cutting off that top 1%? When they are using 15% of the bandwidth...10%, 5%, 1%?
A 1% phony reply rate is barely going to hurt at all, unfortunately.
I think you've missed out on what the parent was advocating. If "we" reply to 1% of our spam with phoney data, it will (easily?) outweigh the real replies (which I pray is less than 1%) and thus pollute the stream, driving down the rate that the legitimate companies are willing to pay. For more thinking along this line check out this googled karma-whoring link. Automate this idea with a Mozilla plug-in and I'll bet all of us lazy Slashdotters (its not just me right?) will install and escalate things a bit.