There's also only a single vendor for the iPhone, as long as you're ranting about inconsequentials. 'Course, there's only a single vendor for Crackberries too.
The flip side tp all of this is the "App Store". By providing developers with an audience willing and able --and required-- to actually pay for their software, Apple is going to encourage the development of an avalanche of applications for the iPhone platform.
No more hoping that more than one user out of a hundred will pay the shareware fee or make a "donation". No more playing whack-a-mole with crack sites and serial numbers. And by promoting that development, and by providing the marketplace, Apple stands a very good chance of becoming a dominant player in the marketplace based on the strength of all of those applications.
"I know some great software which their developers asking $5, $10 donation in a very embarrassed way if you love the software and you are "rich"."
And why is that? Developers ask for donations when they have no way to market their work to a sufficiently large audience. Apple provides that. Developers ask for donations because they have no e-commerce systems. Apple provides that.
Further, now they can, if they so desire, get paid for their work. And they can also do it at a price point that makes sense, because everyone who gets the program pays for the program. There are no cracked serial numbers, so there aren't 100 parasites for every user that bothers to make a donation.
If as few as 29 people pay a nominal fee of $5, a developer breaks even. If 50 people pay $5, he's going to be ahead of the game.
Actually, I'd say that "some" people like to hold things in their hands. Look at music. Some people may want CDs and covers and liners, while others are perfectly happy having their entire music collection in MP3 on their iPods. Some people print photos and then stuff them in albums and shoeboxes. Others use iPhoto and show people their pictures on their iPhones.
I, myself, am in the later category. In fact, I'd be more than happy to have ALL of my music and nearly ALL of my books and movies in digital formats. It's much, much, much easier to move a couple of terabyte drives than 50 boxes of books, CDs, and DVDs.
"You can't really compress it any more than it is on the disk without having lossy compression, which kind of negates the whole "HD" concept..."
First, the content on the is already compressed in a lossy format, so now, to paraphrase the punch line to an old joke, we're just arguing over how much.
And file size and bit rates are only a good indicator when you're comparing identical codecs. The H.264 codec Apple uses, for example, is far superior to the mpeg2 compression technology used in DVDs, so a 1.2GB file gives you a video that's "near" DVD quality, despite not being anywhere close to 4GB in size.
Also, just to touch on another point, Qwest is promising to upgrade our neighborhood this summer from 1.5 to 15... for the same price. They're trying to stem the flow of people moving to IP-over-cable. Downloadable HD movies, at 720p, obviously aren't quite as good as Blu-Ray, but do manage to beat out "high-def" content delivered over cable or on-demand.
Most DSL services already list different bit rates, like 1.5mpbs down and 600kbps up, and cable is even worse. As such, charging more for upstream usage would simply reflect the fact that upstream bandwidth is more limited. Either way, you're only paying for the service, not content.
"P2P relies on a good portion of the people engaged in the share not being leeches, or it all falls over."
Precisely. So if upstream charges are used then it becomes a revenue stream for ISPs, and if P2P usage drops then they get 60% or so of their network bandwidth back. From their perspective there's no downside...
Like I said, if I were them I'd just charge on a per megabyte basis for upstream traffic, turning the majority of torrent users into leaches. There are certainly legitimate uses, but as 80% or so of all traffic is estimated to be illegally distributed content, those legitimate uses are overshadowed by illegitimate ones.
Most of the parasites are there because they can get content for "free". If, however, they're now paying out of their own pocket for everyone else to get free content, I'd be willing to bet that the proposition would begin to look quite different.
And if you REALLY need that Linux distro, I'm sure you won't mind paying a buck or so to get it.;)
If "P2P != illegal file sharing" is +5 "Informative", then remarking on the amount of traffic devoted to legal and illegal sharing is equally informative, and not trolling at all.
Other than https/port 443? Torrent traffic, with large amounts of data coming in (and going out) to a widely distributed network of IP addresses is a relatively distinct pattern. Personally, I'd just charge on a per megabyte basis for upstream traffic, turning the majority of torrent users into leaches.
"What do you when calls and complains that their IT staff can't use SSH to connect to the web server from home...."
Like I said, torrent traffic is a different pattern. An SSH connection is a steady link to a particular IP address, which is also known from an RDNS standpoint. Pretty easy to tell corporate accounts from IP blocks designated as belonging to home service providers.
Interesting idea there, as it turns enforcement from an expense into a profit center, just like banks and credit card companies who make big bucks from overdraft charges and late fees.
And if the points add up and you lose your account, then what? Most people only have a few choices as to DSL or cable providers. Having a 6-month hold on any data lines to your house could be a major disruption.
But I think they'd like the idea of just slapping a $100 per-occurrence fine on your account even more. Why kill the golden goose?
No, it just means that sooner or later they'll start shaping encrypted traffic, whereupon we can thank all of the parasites for having screwed up yet another legitimate internet protocol.
Nearly every ISP on the planet has terms of service, and almost all of them have provisions regarding the unauthorized distribution of copywritten material, child porn, hate speech, and so on.
From my perspective, enforcing those policies would be entirely within their mandate.
""I can't lift this 300-lb carry-on into the overhead..."
Bingo. The problem is that people can't get on and sit down because half the plane is trying to find a place to stowe their carry-on bags.
Which means that the solution, as I've often maintained, is to ban all carry-on luggage with the exception of purses and one briefcase or small backpack per person. Everything else goes through as checked backage. No garment bags. No wheelies. Nothing else.
This also speeds up getting OFF the plane, as everyone isn't now trying to get their 300lb bags down, and also speeds up security as well, since there are fewer bags to scan and x-ray and manually search. It wasn't bad when just the stewies did it. Now 2/3rds of the plane is trying to "save time" as well, and it's just not working.
"Since utilities have built enough power plants to provide electricity when people are operating their air conditioners at full blast, they have excess generating capacity during off-peak hours. As a result, according to an upcoming report from the Pacific Northwestern National Laboratory (PNNL), a Department of Energy lab, there is enough excess generating capacity during the night and morning to allow more than 80 percent of today's vehicles to make the average daily commute solely using this electricity. If plug-in-hybrid or all-electric-car owners charge their vehicles at these times, the power needed for about 180 million cars could be provided simply by running these plants at full capacity." http://www.evpowersystems.com/PHEVs%20Save%20Grid.htm
Or, "The next step would be to add smart meters that would track electricity use in real time and allow utilities to charge more for power used during times of peak demand, and less at off-peak hours." http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17930/
Or, " A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of these 198 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics.... Researchers found, in the Midwest and EAST [emphasis mine], there is sufficient off-peak generation, transmission and distribution capacity to provide for ALL [emphasis mine] of today's vehicles if they ran on batteries." http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204
BTW, the phrase "quoted" for emphasis of "SUBSTANTIAL GRID EXPANSION WOULD BE NEEDED" occurs NOWHERE in the linked article.
If I were you I wouldn't post anything more on this topic either...
Glad your dad is an expert. Did you go to the same engineering school?
"How will you enforce a charge during off peak policy?"
Oh, I don't know. Maybe set the rates higher to charge during peak periods and less during off-peak? Maybe we can put timers or networked controllers on the chargers? Since they haven't even been designed and installed yet, one would think that just maybe something or other could be built into the system. Besides, most people out there work during the day, and as such their cars won't be at home plugged into thier chargers, now will they? Ask your dad, the engineer. I'm sure he can think of two or three solutions off the top of his head.
"... this would mean that battery size increases at an increasing rate as you extend the range of the car."
Odd that someone always brings up the weight of batteries (though LiPo is relatively light), but always seems to forget that a gallon of gasoline weighs over 6 lbs per gallon, or about 100 lbs for a typical 16 gallon SUV tank, which at, say 20MPG gives a 320 mile range. The battery pack in a Prius weighs 100 lbs, with a 12 gallon tank, or 172lbs total, but gives you about 550 miles per tank. (Of which you'd need 27 gallons, at 160 lbs to match in the SUV.) It also uses a much smaller, lighter engine, so anything lost on the battery side is regained there.)
Double battery size so you have the makings of a PHEV, and you now have an electric commuter vehicle for an extra 100lbs. Use LiPo instead of NiMH, and you cut your parasitic weight in half again.
A recent test hydrogen Prius, OTOH, had an whopping 500 lbs of extra weight in the bullet-proof non-explosive non-leaking fuel tank and associated parts, in ADDITION to the 100lb battery.
So the real problems with hydrogen is that, in gaseous form it's energy density is low, is relatively difficult to handle, and requires quite a bit of parasitic weight to go with.
" However, the electric grid would be unable to cope with the load of 20% of drivers using electric cars..."
Guess, fact, or just a number you pulled out of your... hat? In actually, I believe the last quote I saw was that today's infrastructure is sufficient to enable 80% of the population to drive plug-in electric vehicles, since the majority of those could be recharged at night during off-peak load periods. Chargers could trickle charge all night if need be, or be programmed to charge during certain periods so that group A recharges, then group B, and so on. Further, some power generating solutions are MORE efficient when they can be run under constant loads.
Get the right batteries so that you hit the magic 40-miles-before-needing-gas number, and the vast majority of people would be able to do their commutes and run all of their errands in "electric" cars.
It's precisely the fact that DVD is "more affordable" that will prompt retailers to kill it off as soon as possible. High-definition is their secret weapon in raising DVD prices, something consumers have resisted for years now. With new Blu-Ray titles selling at a 50-70% premium over SD titles, as a retailer which one would you want to sell?
The box stores also hated the format wars because they had to waste precious floor space space stocking the same title three times: Blu-Ray, HD DVD, and SD. Now that they've gotten rid of HD DVD, guess which one is next?
Regardless, at this point in time copyright infringement is against the terms of service of pretty much every ISP. As such, monitoring their networks for service violations and imposing penalties would seem to be entirely within their mandate.
In fact, if such penalties were financial in origin, one could easily see how such monitoring could easily become a major profit center, much like how banks and credit card companies make their bread and butter on overdraft and late payment fees.
I take your point, but since you're nitpicking one could easily add burglaries, shoplifting, traffic offenses, and plenty of other "non-violent" crimes to the mix.
Secondarily, there may be a lot of people "fed up" with the current copyright system (and I, for one, think we should be REDUCING terms), but as a previous commenter said, a lot of that rhetoric is simply rationalization. They can get stuff for free, with little to no chance of being caught. So they do. Simple.
If the odds of being caught, and the consequences, were more inline with, say, shoplifting, would they still do so? Doubtful.
Finally, there's also a significant number of people out there (and I'm one of them, too), who believe that the authors of creative works deserve payment for that work, especially if one values it enough to listen, read, or watch it.
"...a move back to sneakernet for duplication and distribution..."
In which case they've scored a major win. Better that you "share" your music with a half-dozen or so friends than with 10,000 of your "friends" online.
"The people who currently make vast profits from prohibition, i.e. drug dealers, will step into the gap left by strict online enforcement."
If ALL music was prohibited, then I might agree. But even in that case you can still buy new and used CDs, iTunes and Amazon tracks, use streaming services like Sirius and --horror-- listen to the radio. In short, there's not much of a gap for them to fill. Nor are there the kind of high profits needed to get them involved. The guy on the corner selling bootleg CDs still has to undercut Wal-Mart by a significant margin, or what's the point?
"I don't even think it should require a "majority". If a statistically significant number of people are routinely flaunting the law then we should probably examine that law and find out whether or not it's just."
Agree! We should also look at the millions of assults, rapes, murders, and so committed each year. Those numbers are certainly significant.
(Just pointing out the obvious weakness in your criteria.)
Slashdot Mirror
There's also only a single vendor for the iPhone, as long as you're ranting about inconsequentials. 'Course, there's only a single vendor for Crackberries too.
The flip side tp all of this is the "App Store". By providing developers with an audience willing and able --and required-- to actually pay for their software, Apple is going to encourage the development of an avalanche of applications for the iPhone platform.
No more hoping that more than one user out of a hundred will pay the shareware fee or make a "donation". No more playing whack-a-mole with crack sites and serial numbers. And by promoting that development, and by providing the marketplace, Apple stands a very good chance of becoming a dominant player in the marketplace based on the strength of all of those applications.
See: Apple's Magical Mystical Application Store
"I know some great software which their developers asking $5, $10 donation in a very embarrassed way if you love the software and you are "rich"."
And why is that? Developers ask for donations when they have no way to market their work to a sufficiently large audience. Apple provides that. Developers ask for donations because they have no e-commerce systems. Apple provides that.
Further, now they can, if they so desire, get paid for their work. And they can also do it at a price point that makes sense, because everyone who gets the program pays for the program. There are no cracked serial numbers, so there aren't 100 parasites for every user that bothers to make a donation.
If as few as 29 people pay a nominal fee of $5, a developer breaks even. If 50 people pay $5, he's going to be ahead of the game.
Read: Apple's Magical Mystical Application Store
"People like to hold things in their hands."
Actually, I'd say that "some" people like to hold things in their hands. Look at music. Some people may want CDs and covers and liners, while others are perfectly happy having their entire music collection in MP3 on their iPods. Some people print photos and then stuff them in albums and shoeboxes. Others use iPhoto and show people their pictures on their iPhones.
I, myself, am in the later category. In fact, I'd be more than happy to have ALL of my music and nearly ALL of my books and movies in digital formats. It's much, much, much easier to move a couple of terabyte drives than 50 boxes of books, CDs, and DVDs.
"You can't really compress it any more than it is on the disk without having lossy compression, which kind of negates the whole "HD" concept..."
First, the content on the is already compressed in a lossy format, so now, to paraphrase the punch line to an old joke, we're just arguing over how much.
And file size and bit rates are only a good indicator when you're comparing identical codecs. The H.264 codec Apple uses, for example, is far superior to the mpeg2 compression technology used in DVDs, so a 1.2GB file gives you a video that's "near" DVD quality, despite not being anywhere close to 4GB in size.
Also, just to touch on another point, Qwest is promising to upgrade our neighborhood this summer from 1.5 to 15... for the same price. They're trying to stem the flow of people moving to IP-over-cable.
Downloadable HD movies, at 720p, obviously aren't quite as good as Blu-Ray, but do manage to beat out "high-def" content delivered over cable or on-demand.
Most DSL services already list different bit rates, like 1.5mpbs down and 600kbps up, and cable is even worse. As such, charging more for upstream usage would simply reflect the fact that upstream bandwidth is more limited. Either way, you're only paying for the service, not content.
"P2P relies on a good portion of the people engaged in the share not being leeches, or it all falls over."
Precisely. So if upstream charges are used then it becomes a revenue stream for ISPs, and if P2P usage drops then they get 60% or so of their network bandwidth back. From their perspective there's no downside...
Like I said, if I were them I'd just charge on a per megabyte basis for upstream traffic, turning the majority of torrent users into leaches. There are certainly legitimate uses, but as 80% or so of all traffic is estimated to be illegally distributed content, those legitimate uses are overshadowed by illegitimate ones.
;)
Most of the parasites are there because they can get content for "free". If, however, they're now paying out of their own pocket for everyone else to get free content, I'd be willing to bet that the proposition would begin to look quite different.
And if you REALLY need that Linux distro, I'm sure you won't mind paying a buck or so to get it.
If "P2P != illegal file sharing" is +5 "Informative", then remarking on the amount of traffic devoted to legal and illegal sharing is equally informative, and not trolling at all.
Other than https/port 443? Torrent traffic, with large amounts of data coming in (and going out) to a widely distributed network of IP addresses is a relatively distinct pattern. Personally, I'd just charge on a per megabyte basis for upstream traffic, turning the majority of torrent users into leaches.
"What do you when calls and complains that their IT staff can't use SSH to connect to the web server from home...."
Like I said, torrent traffic is a different pattern. An SSH connection is a steady link to a particular IP address, which is also known from an RDNS standpoint. Pretty easy to tell corporate accounts from IP blocks designated as belonging to home service providers.
"... maybe you get a fine and points..."
Interesting idea there, as it turns enforcement from an expense into a profit center, just like banks and credit card companies who make big bucks from overdraft charges and late fees.
And if the points add up and you lose your account, then what? Most people only have a few choices as to DSL or cable providers. Having a 6-month hold on any data lines to your house could be a major disruption.
But I think they'd like the idea of just slapping a $100 per-occurrence fine on your account even more. Why kill the golden goose?
Right. Only, what, 70-80% of the traffic consists of illegally distributed content? Hardly worth mentioning, really.
No, it just means that sooner or later they'll start shaping encrypted traffic, whereupon we can thank all of the parasites for having screwed up yet another legitimate internet protocol.
Nearly every ISP on the planet has terms of service, and almost all of them have provisions regarding the unauthorized distribution of copywritten material, child porn, hate speech, and so on.
From my perspective, enforcing those policies would be entirely within their mandate.
""I can't lift this 300-lb carry-on into the overhead..."
Bingo. The problem is that people can't get on and sit down because half the plane is trying to find a place to stowe their carry-on bags.
Which means that the solution, as I've often maintained, is to ban all carry-on luggage with the exception of purses and one briefcase or small backpack per person. Everything else goes through as checked backage. No garment bags. No wheelies. Nothing else.
This also speeds up getting OFF the plane, as everyone isn't now trying to get their 300lb bags down, and also speeds up security as well, since there are fewer bags to scan and x-ray and manually search. It wasn't bad when just the stewies did it. Now 2/3rds of the plane is trying to "save time" as well, and it's just not working.
"Since utilities have built enough power plants to provide electricity when people are operating their air conditioners at full blast, they have excess generating capacity during off-peak hours. As a result, according to an upcoming report from the Pacific Northwestern National Laboratory (PNNL), a Department of Energy lab, there is enough excess generating capacity during the night and morning to allow more than 80 percent of today's vehicles to make the average daily commute solely using this electricity. If plug-in-hybrid or all-electric-car owners charge their vehicles at these times, the power needed for about 180 million cars could be provided simply by running these plants at full capacity."
... Researchers found, in the Midwest and EAST [emphasis mine], there is sufficient off-peak generation, transmission and distribution capacity to provide for ALL [emphasis mine] of today's vehicles if they ran on batteries."
http://www.evpowersystems.com/PHEVs%20Save%20Grid.htm
Or, "PG&E's experimental EV tariff would likely deter PHEV owners from charging during summer afternoon hours..."
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/10/phevs-cost-more-to-operate-than-gas-cars/
Or, the following PHEV fact sheet from Wisconson Public Power...
http://www.wppi.org/media/PHEV_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Or, "The next step would be to add smart meters that would track electricity use in real time and allow utilities to charge more for power used during times of peak demand, and less at off-peak hours."
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17930/
Or, " A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of these 198 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics.
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204
BTW, the phrase "quoted" for emphasis of "SUBSTANTIAL GRID EXPANSION WOULD BE NEEDED" occurs NOWHERE in the linked article.
If I were you I wouldn't post anything more on this topic either...
Glad your dad is an expert. Did you go to the same engineering school?
"How will you enforce a charge during off peak policy?"
Oh, I don't know. Maybe set the rates higher to charge during peak periods and less during off-peak? Maybe we can put timers or networked controllers on the chargers? Since they haven't even been designed and installed yet, one would think that just maybe something or other could be built into the system. Besides, most people out there work during the day, and as such their cars won't be at home plugged into thier chargers, now will they? Ask your dad, the engineer. I'm sure he can think of two or three solutions off the top of his head.
"... this would mean that battery size increases at an increasing rate as you extend the range of the car."
Odd that someone always brings up the weight of batteries (though LiPo is relatively light), but always seems to forget that a gallon of gasoline weighs over 6 lbs per gallon, or about 100 lbs for a typical 16 gallon SUV tank, which at, say 20MPG gives a 320 mile range. The battery pack in a Prius weighs 100 lbs, with a 12 gallon tank, or 172lbs total, but gives you about 550 miles per tank. (Of which you'd need 27 gallons, at 160 lbs to match in the SUV.) It also uses a much smaller, lighter engine, so anything lost on the battery side is regained there.)
Double battery size so you have the makings of a PHEV, and you now have an electric commuter vehicle for an extra 100lbs. Use LiPo instead of NiMH, and you cut your parasitic weight in half again.
A recent test hydrogen Prius, OTOH, had an whopping 500 lbs of extra weight in the bullet-proof non-explosive non-leaking fuel tank and associated parts, in ADDITION to the 100lb battery.
So the real problems with hydrogen is that, in gaseous form it's energy density is low, is relatively difficult to handle, and requires quite a bit of parasitic weight to go with.
" However, the electric grid would be unable to cope with the load of 20% of drivers using electric cars..."
Guess, fact, or just a number you pulled out of your... hat? In actually, I believe the last quote I saw was that today's infrastructure is sufficient to enable 80% of the population to drive plug-in electric vehicles, since the majority of those could be recharged at night during off-peak load periods. Chargers could trickle charge all night if need be, or be programmed to charge during certain periods so that group A recharges, then group B, and so on. Further, some power generating solutions are MORE efficient when they can be run under constant loads.
Get the right batteries so that you hit the magic 40-miles-before-needing-gas number, and the vast majority of people would be able to do their commutes and run all of their errands in "electric" cars.
"... power generation would be better off with a smaller fraction of nuclear powered energy, because of the inherent drawbacks of centralization."
/gas / oil / wind / solar / hydro plants closer to... ah... hey!
Darn right! We should build more coal
Not In My Back Yard!!! I've got PROPERTY values to think about!
It's precisely the fact that DVD is "more affordable" that will prompt retailers to kill it off as soon as possible. High-definition is their secret weapon in raising DVD prices, something consumers have resisted for years now. With new Blu-Ray titles selling at a 50-70% premium over SD titles, as a retailer which one would you want to sell?
The box stores also hated the format wars because they had to waste precious floor space space stocking the same title three times: Blu-Ray, HD DVD, and SD. Now that they've gotten rid of HD DVD, guess which one is next?
Regardless, at this point in time copyright infringement is against the terms of service of pretty much every ISP. As such, monitoring their networks for service violations and imposing penalties would seem to be entirely within their mandate.
In fact, if such penalties were financial in origin, one could easily see how such monitoring could easily become a major profit center, much like how banks and credit card companies make their bread and butter on overdraft and late payment fees.
I take your point, but since you're nitpicking one could easily add burglaries, shoplifting, traffic offenses, and plenty of other "non-violent" crimes to the mix.
Secondarily, there may be a lot of people "fed up" with the current copyright system (and I, for one, think we should be REDUCING terms), but as a previous commenter said, a lot of that rhetoric is simply rationalization. They can get stuff for free, with little to no chance of being caught. So they do. Simple.
If the odds of being caught, and the consequences, were more inline with, say, shoplifting, would they still do so? Doubtful.
Finally, there's also a significant number of people out there (and I'm one of them, too), who believe that the authors of creative works deserve payment for that work, especially if one values it enough to listen, read, or watch it.
"...a move back to sneakernet for duplication and distribution..."
In which case they've scored a major win. Better that you "share" your music with a half-dozen or so friends than with 10,000 of your "friends" online.
"The people who currently make vast profits from prohibition, i.e. drug dealers, will step into the gap left by strict online enforcement."
If ALL music was prohibited, then I might agree. But even in that case you can still buy new and used CDs, iTunes and Amazon tracks, use streaming services like Sirius and --horror-- listen to the radio. In short, there's not much of a gap for them to fill. Nor are there the kind of high profits needed to get them involved. The guy on the corner selling bootleg CDs still has to undercut Wal-Mart by a significant margin, or what's the point?
"I don't even think it should require a "majority". If a statistically significant number of people are routinely flaunting the law then we should probably examine that law and find out whether or not it's just."
Agree! We should also look at the millions of assults, rapes, murders, and so committed each year. Those numbers are certainly significant.
(Just pointing out the obvious weakness in your criteria.)