Hopefully the riaa will force everyone onto one service (with no central server to shut down). That way it will be more useful because of the network effect.
Glossary:
Network effect: The usefulness of a network is proportunate to the square of the number of users.
Please forgive my ingorance. What do you recommend for downloading stuff. Most people Kazza, but I understand that has "spyware." (I'm not sure what that does.) Any feedback would be appreciated.
They are lucky to have flat sales. WE ARE IN A RECESSION. For example, I am a young CPE who cannot find a job. I rarely buy CD's, if I had a job I'd probably buy a CD a week.
Well, no I'm lying; I'd just get them of the internet.
No, he is hypothesizing. (I don't know if I spelled that right.) Most scientists seem to think it won't work, but he'll probably get a Nobel Prize if it does.
Mark me as flaimbait, but have you noticed that starting your post "Mark me as flaimbait" always prevents that from happening and usually will get you modded up. Mark me as flaimbait, I don't care. This seems to be true. Mark this as offtopic too. I don't care. Mod me down see if I care. I got lots of karma.
Your arguement is essentially 1) Companies want money 2) The consumer gives them money 3) They must appease consumers for money
1 is correct. 2 They can get money from other companies. For example Disney could pay the ISP to allow more bandwidth for downloading their stuff.
3 In the real world not even close. If their are only 8 companies (sometimes called an olgapoly) controling everything, they will probably tacitly agree to not out do each other since this would lead to "destructive competion." They will all benfit if they all agree to not lower their prices. (This can often be an unspoken thing. They say let's not lower our prices because our few competitors will do the same and we will gain more market.)
It is different if there are more companies because if company X controls 0.01% of the market and it lowers its prices then it would increase its market share because its competitors would not respond to this because company X has an insignificant affect on the market.
I have been talking about pricing but everything I said also applies to quality of service.
Companies also don't need to improve products if they use fraud and high quality marketing but thats not as relevent to what we're talking about and this post is already to long.
What is the maximum negative economic impact allowable before environmental regulations must be curbed
The entire framing of the issue that we normally use is off IMO. People tend to think that it is an intrinisic right to throw pollutants in the air. It is not. One would need to own the air to have that right, but all people share the air.
I'll give an example. Let's say I take a dump on the sidewalk in front of your house. Now I could go on and on saying that you don't have scientific proof that my dump has harmed you, but your response would probably be "To heck with you! Prove that you haven't hurt me. You took a dump on the sidewalk." So just have I have no right to take a dump on the sidewalk companies have no right to pollute the air.
However, we do live in a society in which people have been allowed to take dumps on the sidewalk for a long time and it will be hard to change.
I think the only realistic option is lots of R&D spending to come up with envoirnmental ways of doing things. We must make the search for new energy sources the new space program or we'll all die
I don't know if this true but I read in a recent ask slashdot that microsoft will show its source code to anyone who can afford it. The source code could easily get stolen and could eventually wind up in terrorist hands. So it would be no better than open source.
I am in total agreement with what you said about groups in college work. I have question for the grown-ups. Is group work better in the real world or is it still just one or two workers and two freeloaders?
Slashdot Mirror
Glossary:
Network effect: The usefulness of a network is proportunate to the square of the number of users.
Thanks, I appericate the advice. Feel free to e-mail me at bigsexyjoe@riaa.org
Please forgive my ingorance. What do you recommend for downloading stuff. Most people Kazza, but I understand that has "spyware." (I'm not sure what that does.) Any feedback would be appreciated.
Well, no I'm lying; I'd just get them of the internet.
Nevermind.
He says in his paper that an experiment is presently being conducted. Did you even read the post? It's not rocket science.
No, he is hypothesizing. (I don't know if I spelled that right.) Most scientists seem to think it won't work, but he'll probably get a Nobel Prize if it does.
Mark me as flaimbait, but have you noticed that starting your post "Mark me as flaimbait" always prevents that from happening and usually will get you modded up. Mark me as flaimbait, I don't care. This seems to be true. Mark this as offtopic too. I don't care. Mod me down see if I care. I got lots of karma.
Your arguement is essentially
1) Companies want money
2) The consumer gives them money
3) They must appease consumers for money
1 is correct.
2 They can get money from other companies. For example Disney could pay the ISP to allow more bandwidth for downloading their stuff.
3 In the real world not even close. If their are only 8 companies (sometimes called an olgapoly) controling everything, they will probably tacitly agree to not out do each other since this would lead to "destructive competion."
They will all benfit if they all agree to not lower their prices. (This can often be an unspoken thing. They say let's not lower our prices because our few competitors will do the same and we will gain more market.)
It is different if there are more companies because if company X controls 0.01% of the market and it lowers its prices then it would increase its market share because its competitors would not respond to this because company X has an insignificant affect on the market.
I have been talking about pricing but everything I said also applies to quality of service.
Companies also don't need to improve products if they use fraud and high quality marketing but thats not as relevent to what we're talking about and this post is already to long.
Maybe I'll lose karma for this, but the above is a good comment and doesn't deserve to be at -1.
What is the maximum negative economic impact allowable before environmental regulations must be curbed
The entire framing of the issue that we normally use is off IMO. People tend to think that it is an intrinisic right to throw pollutants in the air. It is not. One would need to own the air to have that right, but all people share the air.
I'll give an example. Let's say I take a dump on the sidewalk in front of your house. Now I could go on and on saying that you don't have scientific proof that my dump has harmed you, but your response would probably be "To heck with you! Prove that you haven't hurt me. You took a dump on the sidewalk." So just have I have no right to take a dump on the sidewalk companies have no right to pollute the air.
However, we do live in a society in which people have been allowed to take dumps on the sidewalk for a long time and it will be hard to change.
I think the only realistic option is lots of R&D spending to come up with envoirnmental ways of doing things. We must make the search for new energy sources the new space program or we'll all die
I don't know if this true but I read in a recent ask slashdot that microsoft will show its source code to anyone who can afford it. The source code could easily get stolen and could eventually wind up in terrorist hands. So it would be no better than open source.
I am in total agreement with what you said about groups in college work. I have question for the grown-ups. Is group work better in the real world or is it still just one or two workers and two freeloaders?
Yeah, I read chomsky too, but let's not over-analyze everything. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.