"You left out one little fact that the OWNERS CHOOSE to pay the more common job that much less."
So you're saying you're a good little consumer, who never tries to get the best car, house, food, clothes, computer, phone service, gasoline, or whatever they can for the least amount of money possible? You like overpaying for things? You never want the most value for your hard-earned dollar?
What makes you think employers are any differnent?
Regardless, the fact is that some employers DO pay more... and some don't. Money, however, doesn't grow on trees no matter what some people think, and those that do pay more have to pass those costs on to the people who purchase their products. Some markets will accept this... and some will not. If it's one that's highly competitive those costs can NOT be passed on and you're faced with two choices: don't pay them, or go out of business.
As to CEOs, Steve Jobs almost certainly turned Apple around, made billions for Apple's stockholders (do you have a pension fund?), generated thousands of jobs, and in the process revitalized several industries. Can just anyone do that job? Obviously not, or the prior batch of CEOs would have done so.
And yes, some CEOs are bastards and not worth the money... and again, as shown, some are not. Of course, there's also a fair share of actors, singers, managers, sports figures, co-workers, presidents, factory workers, and Slashdot members who are also complete and utter bastards...
Part of the human condition I guess. As in all such things, most are in-between.
Personally, I think you need to buy a video card with a higher bit depth... one with more than simply black and white. And study some business and economics while you're waiting for it to arrive.
'Course, more and more games are going the "console" route due to two reasons: a well-defined platform and reduced piracy. One game company said recently that more people tried to use their game's online service with a SN that had been posted on the web... than had purchased the game in the first place.
Besides, do I want to be pounding the heck out of a $2000 notebook or a $400 console?
To give credit where credit is due, do a side-by-side comparison of a Sony against practically anything else, and the Sony simply looks better, sharper, etc..
The number of people who have the job title CEO are, what, a tenth of one percent of all of the people in "business"? So, name one field of endeavor in which the top 1% of its practioner's are NOT the most highly compensated?
And I'm sure it violates one of your many conspiracy theories, but your salary IS a direct function of your skill set, education, and knowledge. When 100,000,000 people can do your job with ease, your earnings reflect that fact. If, however, you're one of the top five people in the world on XYZ, you can probably set your own price.
The sad fact is that here, in the US, more teenagers believe they're going to be a major league football player or famous singer or actor, and/or win American Idol, than are willing to do the work to gain marketable skills, education, and knowledge. With predictable results.
...there are a lot of people who don't see the point of even trying for a minimum wage job because they can't afford the child care or transportation or whatever that it would cost them to hold the job in the first place.
Which gives rise to other questions. Like, would we be better off NOT raising the minimum wage, but instead taking that money and providing child care credits or vouchers? More subsidized preschools? Reduced cost public transportation? While the basic effect on one side would be a wash, as in welfare payments becoming child care vouchers, at least those people would be working and paying taxes and even, perhaps, gaining health insurance benefits.
Personally, I'm in the "education is the silver bullet" camp. Take the same amount of money a mimimum wage increase would generate and provide GED's and advanced education such that people can go for jobs that pay MORE than the minimum wage. Reduce the pool of people whose only recourse is a minimum wage job, and the "minimum wage" will go up by itself as a function of demand.
Why do people not look at the consequences of the actions they advocate? Many small businesses (and medium and large ones, for that matter) already ride the razor's edge when it comes to profitability. All a quota system would do would be to put them OUT of business, either by increasing costs beyond revenues or by decreasing their ability to compete against others not so encumbered.
The end result of mandating more jobs would be, in many cases, to eliminate them.
Yes, because the problem with your argument is that it STILL uses more fuel. If those systems were in lighter, more aerodynamic vehicles we'd be talking 40, 50, or even 60 MPG. So it's still burning twice as much fuel as a more efficient vehicle, and driving up demand in the process, which translates into less fuel and higher prices for everyone else.
And that's not even getting into the additional CO2 emissions and energy-independence arguments.
When my favorite author writes a new book I buy it. Same for my favorite musician. In both cases, I already own most of their older works, as do plenty of other people who also like them as well. So when a new book or album of theirs is released, I buy it.
From my perspective, the majority of the sales proceed from that point, rather than someone thinking everyone is buying 50 cent (over-priced) and they should too.
First, you're upon the twin horns of liability and warrenty issues. You know that some jerks will manage to screw up their modifications and "repairs", and demand the company honor their warrenty after doing so. Also, I could easily see in today's climate how providing specs and diagrams could be construed as "encouraging" people to play with their toys... and the lawsuits that follow after little Timmy electrocutes himself in the process, improvements to the gene pool notwithstanding.
Second, what "specs" did you have in mind? An electronic wristwatch (to pick your example) is basically a big IC, a display, and a battery. Did you want the pinouts? The circuits? The listings to all the code in the firmware? And do most people want to pay more for a 500-page manual included with each one just so a fraction of a percent of the owners can tinker?
"Provide" specs (as in on the website) maybe. Include specs? No way.
It's not a "huge threat". First, "big oil" will still produce diesel, heating oil, aviation fuel, sources for fertilizer and plastics, and gasoline for use in those situation where EV's still aren't practical. Those are not small markets.
Second, the operators of those "charging stations" will have to pay for them and will still want to make a profit. That washes out "big oil's" costs involved with service stations and their profits.
Third, a significant EXPENSE involved with gasoline lies with distribution: trucks, truckers, pipelines, stations, and so on.
Fourth, a good portion of the oil that would have gone to cars will go instead to oil-fired electric plants so power can be generated to charge all the little cars.
In short, they'll still be able to sell as much oil as they can make, AND cut out all of those pesky expenses involved in doing things the old way.
No, they're ceasing to exist because--from my perspective--they're insisting on the razor blade model, and demanding $20/month just to supply TV listings. (And for what, 3 or 4 20-second downloads a month?)
I would have bought one of the silly things a long time ago if I could have BOUGHT one and been done with it. Or if the "subscription" was $20 a YEAR (price of TV guide). As is, I don't need yet another $20/month "service" perpetually draining my credit card.
First, Lithium Polymer batteries are a new technology, so there's bound to be some teething pains. But you're right, no one should release anything until it's absolutely positively beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt 100% perfect.
Of course, since that's impossible, no one would release ever anything. In fact, I hear they're still having problems with the new-fangled round wheel thing...
And to quote myself, "As to graphics, there's a ton of FREE and inexpensive $29.95 web templates out there that are CSS-based, highly usable, accessible, and graphically pleasing."
So there're plenty of options beyond creating your own crummy graphics and hiring an expensive graphic artist, which, along with bandwidth, are the only reasons given. As such, his "explanations" fail to explain, and lead me to suspect he's whitewashed over the real reason: he simply doesn't care enough to do any better.
As a user you're probably paying a fixed rate for bandwidth anyway, so you're not paying any more money to get the ads as opposed to blocking the ads. Given that fact, one could make a good case that you're "wasting" your bandwidth by blocking ads, as otherwise your paid line is sitting there unused.
And if you want to use the "stealing" metaphor, let's not forget that by blocking ads you're in effect "stealing" the content they've provided without "paying" for it.
Of course, I'd expect someone who refers to others as "mere mortals" to regard themselves as above such silly considerations, and probably a charter member of the "if they didn't want it stolen they shouldn't have published it" crowd.
Of course one still want pages to load quickly. That said, we have much higher market penetrations of DSL and cable modems than we did just a few years ago, and as such the 28K dialup-modem bit isn't really relevant here. Especially when you consider the audience of the site will be primarily web professionals, the vast majority of whom will NOT be accessing his site at 28K.
IIRC, failing to consider your site's audience is also a big usability no-no.
As to graphics, there's a ton of free and inexpensive $29.95 web templates out there that are CSS-based, highly usable, accessible, and graphically pleasing.
So what he's really saying is that he just doesn't want to be bothered with it and that's fine, but he should SAY that, and eschew the dated rationalizations.
One additional side effect of the Adobe ripoff: Someone who swipes a copy of PS and uses it is also not buying a cheaper product, like Elements or Paintshop Pro, or any of a dozen other commercial and shareware programs that in all likelyhood would have been equally suitable.
So while they may never have paid $600 for PS, they might well have paid $99 or $25 for an alternative. But in using the pirated version of PS that potential sale is lost as well.
All in all it supports your point in that it's difficult to judge cause and effect, or even what constitutes a "lost" sale...
"To counter that inherent piratability effectively, the laws have to be very severe."
Nope. We just need to convince people that they it's in their best interests to pay for value received. Because if no one pays for music, books, movies, games, or software then there's not going to be very many people making them. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my favorite author actually writing books full time, and not spending day greating people at WalMart's front door.
People constantly say they're willing to pay "fair" prices (whatever that is) for content. Personally, I think they're just engaging in rationalization, but I suspect that soon we're going to find out...
Or something. How many paid book readings have you been to recently? How many Broadway shows at $100 a pop?Heck, the "concert" model doesn't even fit half the singers, songwriters, and musicians out there.
For the most part the current system works just fine: The content creators take a risk and produce a product. You decide if it has value to you and buy it if it does. A "microregulation" system known as commerce.
Sorry, but your "truth" is anything but. What's needed is less extremism such as this, and more work towards achieving workable solutions that are fair to those on both sides of the equation, e.g., those who create the content, and those who consume and enjoy it.
I don't think the current copyright situation is fair, and I believe that works should be generally unemcumbered, subject to "fair use", and that the copyright term should be limited. That said, I think we also need to recognize that the stuff we love takes time, energy, money, and highly skilled and talented people to create, that they do so on a risk/reward basis, and that most of them need to pay the rent just like we do.
In other words, both sides have "rights" and any solution needs to respect that fact. Any solution that doesn't is simply not going to work...
Slashdot Mirror
"You left out one little fact that the OWNERS CHOOSE to pay the more common job that much less."
So you're saying you're a good little consumer, who never tries to get the best car, house, food, clothes, computer, phone service, gasoline, or whatever they can for the least amount of money possible? You like overpaying for things? You never want the most value for your hard-earned dollar?
What makes you think employers are any differnent?
Regardless, the fact is that some employers DO pay more... and some don't. Money, however, doesn't grow on trees no matter what some people think, and those that do pay more have to pass those costs on to the people who purchase their products. Some markets will accept this... and some will not. If it's one that's highly competitive those costs can NOT be passed on and you're faced with two choices: don't pay them, or go out of business.
As to CEOs, Steve Jobs almost certainly turned Apple around, made billions for Apple's stockholders (do you have a pension fund?), generated thousands of jobs, and in the process revitalized several industries. Can just anyone do that job? Obviously not, or the prior batch of CEOs would have done so.
And yes, some CEOs are bastards and not worth the money... and again, as shown, some are not. Of course, there's also a fair share of actors, singers, managers, sports figures, co-workers, presidents, factory workers, and Slashdot members who are also complete and utter bastards...
Part of the human condition I guess. As in all such things, most are in-between.
Personally, I think you need to buy a video card with a higher bit depth... one with more than simply black and white. And study some business and economics while you're waiting for it to arrive.
'Course, more and more games are going the "console" route due to two reasons: a well-defined platform and reduced piracy. One game company said recently that more people tried to use their game's online service with a SN that had been posted on the web... than had purchased the game in the first place.
Besides, do I want to be pounding the heck out of a $2000 notebook or a $400 console?
"An equivalent Pro is over $1,000 more, almost a 90% premium."
Cool. Where do I get the equivalent completely aluminum-cased notebook that's the same weight for $1000 less?
To give credit where credit is due, do a side-by-side comparison of a Sony against practically anything else, and the Sony simply looks better, sharper, etc..
How do you know the existing bank machine isn't already scanning and recording the serial numbers as it counts off the bills?
The number of people who have the job title CEO are, what, a tenth of one percent of all of the people in "business"? So, name one field of endeavor in which the top 1% of its practioner's are NOT the most highly compensated?
And I'm sure it violates one of your many conspiracy theories, but your salary IS a direct function of your skill set, education, and knowledge. When 100,000,000 people can do your job with ease, your earnings reflect that fact. If, however, you're one of the top five people in the world on XYZ, you can probably set your own price.
The sad fact is that here, in the US, more teenagers believe they're going to be a major league football player or famous singer or actor, and/or win American Idol, than are willing to do the work to gain marketable skills, education, and knowledge. With predictable results.
"Hi! Would you like fries with that?"
Which gives rise to other questions. Like, would we be better off NOT raising the minimum wage, but instead taking that money and providing child care credits or vouchers? More subsidized preschools? Reduced cost public transportation? While the basic effect on one side would be a wash, as in welfare payments becoming child care vouchers, at least those people would be working and paying taxes and even, perhaps, gaining health insurance benefits.
Personally, I'm in the "education is the silver bullet" camp. Take the same amount of money a mimimum wage increase would generate and provide GED's and advanced education such that people can go for jobs that pay MORE than the minimum wage. Reduce the pool of people whose only recourse is a minimum wage job, and the "minimum wage" will go up by itself as a function of demand.
"...only to be sitting next to them at the light at the bottom of the Interstate off-ramp that's 5 miles down the road."
50% of the time I make the light.
Why do people not look at the consequences of the actions they advocate? Many small businesses (and medium and large ones, for that matter) already ride the razor's edge when it comes to profitability. All a quota system would do would be to put them OUT of business, either by increasing costs beyond revenues or by decreasing their ability to compete against others not so encumbered.
The end result of mandating more jobs would be, in many cases, to eliminate them.
Yes, because the problem with your argument is that it STILL uses more fuel. If those systems were in lighter, more aerodynamic vehicles we'd be talking 40, 50, or even 60 MPG. So it's still burning twice as much fuel as a more efficient vehicle, and driving up demand in the process, which translates into less fuel and higher prices for everyone else.
And that's not even getting into the additional CO2 emissions and energy-independence arguments.
Being responsible is being responsible. Period.
I think you're confusing popular with new.
When my favorite author writes a new book I buy it. Same for my favorite musician. In both cases, I already own most of their older works, as do plenty of other people who also like them as well. So when a new book or album of theirs is released, I buy it.
From my perspective, the majority of the sales proceed from that point, rather than someone thinking everyone is buying 50 cent (over-priced) and they should too.
Of course, that's one extra stop by nervous cops with guns ready to apprehend a thief engaged in Grand Theft - Auto.
First, you're upon the twin horns of liability and warrenty issues. You know that some jerks will manage to screw up their modifications and "repairs", and demand the company honor their warrenty after doing so. Also, I could easily see in today's climate how providing specs and diagrams could be construed as "encouraging" people to play with their toys... and the lawsuits that follow after little Timmy electrocutes himself in the process, improvements to the gene pool notwithstanding.
Second, what "specs" did you have in mind? An electronic wristwatch (to pick your example) is basically a big IC, a display, and a battery. Did you want the pinouts? The circuits? The listings to all the code in the firmware? And do most people want to pay more for a 500-page manual included with each one just so a fraction of a percent of the owners can tinker?
"Provide" specs (as in on the website) maybe. Include specs? No way.
That explains why the local Wal Mart has 4 self-checkout lanes.
Wait...
It's not a "huge threat". First, "big oil" will still produce diesel, heating oil, aviation fuel, sources for fertilizer and plastics, and gasoline for use in those situation where EV's still aren't practical. Those are not small markets.
Second, the operators of those "charging stations" will have to pay for them and will still want to make a profit. That washes out "big oil's" costs involved with service stations and their profits.
Third, a significant EXPENSE involved with gasoline lies with distribution: trucks, truckers, pipelines, stations, and so on.
Fourth, a good portion of the oil that would have gone to cars will go instead to oil-fired electric plants so power can be generated to charge all the little cars.
In short, they'll still be able to sell as much oil as they can make, AND cut out all of those pesky expenses involved in doing things the old way.
Sounds like we need a spam filter that counts the number of "misspelled" words.
No, they're ceasing to exist because--from my perspective--they're insisting on the razor blade model, and demanding $20/month just to supply TV listings. (And for what, 3 or 4 20-second downloads a month?)
I would have bought one of the silly things a long time ago if I could have BOUGHT one and been done with it. Or if the "subscription" was $20 a YEAR (price of TV guide). As is, I don't need yet another $20/month "service" perpetually draining my credit card.
First, Lithium Polymer batteries are a new technology, so there's bound to be some teething pains. But you're right, no one should release anything until it's absolutely positively beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt 100% perfect.
Of course, since that's impossible, no one would release ever anything. In fact, I hear they're still having problems with the new-fangled round wheel thing...
And to quote myself, "As to graphics, there's a ton of FREE and inexpensive $29.95 web templates out there that are CSS-based, highly usable, accessible, and graphically pleasing."
So there're plenty of options beyond creating your own crummy graphics and hiring an expensive graphic artist, which, along with bandwidth, are the only reasons given. As such, his "explanations" fail to explain, and lead me to suspect he's whitewashed over the real reason: he simply doesn't care enough to do any better.
As a user you're probably paying a fixed rate for bandwidth anyway, so you're not paying any more money to get the ads as opposed to blocking the ads. Given that fact, one could make a good case that you're "wasting" your bandwidth by blocking ads, as otherwise your paid line is sitting there unused.
And if you want to use the "stealing" metaphor, let's not forget that by blocking ads you're in effect "stealing" the content they've provided without "paying" for it.
Of course, I'd expect someone who refers to others as "mere mortals" to regard themselves as above such silly considerations, and probably a charter member of the "if they didn't want it stolen they shouldn't have published it" crowd.
Of course one still want pages to load quickly. That said, we have much higher market penetrations of DSL and cable modems than we did just a few years ago, and as such the 28K dialup-modem bit isn't really relevant here. Especially when you consider the audience of the site will be primarily web professionals, the vast majority of whom will NOT be accessing his site at 28K.
IIRC, failing to consider your site's audience is also a big usability no-no.
As to graphics, there's a ton of free and inexpensive $29.95 web templates out there that are CSS-based, highly usable, accessible, and graphically pleasing.
So what he's really saying is that he just doesn't want to be bothered with it and that's fine, but he should SAY that, and eschew the dated rationalizations.
One additional side effect of the Adobe ripoff: Someone who swipes a copy of PS and uses it is also not buying a cheaper product, like Elements or Paintshop Pro, or any of a dozen other commercial and shareware programs that in all likelyhood would have been equally suitable.
So while they may never have paid $600 for PS, they might well have paid $99 or $25 for an alternative. But in using the pirated version of PS that potential sale is lost as well.
All in all it supports your point in that it's difficult to judge cause and effect, or even what constitutes a "lost" sale...
"To counter that inherent piratability effectively, the laws have to be very severe."
Nope. We just need to convince people that they it's in their best interests to pay for value received. Because if no one pays for music, books, movies, games, or software then there's not going to be very many people making them. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my favorite author actually writing books full time, and not spending day greating people at WalMart's front door.
People constantly say they're willing to pay "fair" prices (whatever that is) for content. Personally, I think they're just engaging in rationalization, but I suspect that soon we're going to find out...
Or something. How many paid book readings have you been to recently? How many Broadway shows at $100 a pop?Heck, the "concert" model doesn't even fit half the singers, songwriters, and musicians out there.
For the most part the current system works just fine: The content creators take a risk and produce a product. You decide if it has value to you and buy it if it does. A "microregulation" system known as commerce.
Sorry, but your "truth" is anything but. What's needed is less extremism such as this, and more work towards achieving workable solutions that are fair to those on both sides of the equation, e.g., those who create the content, and those who consume and enjoy it.
I don't think the current copyright situation is fair, and I believe that works should be generally unemcumbered, subject to "fair use", and that the copyright term should be limited. That said, I think we also need to recognize that the stuff we love takes time, energy, money, and highly skilled and talented people to create, that they do so on a risk/reward basis, and that most of them need to pay the rent just like we do.
In other words, both sides have "rights" and any solution needs to respect that fact. Any solution that doesn't is simply not going to work...