Actually it isn't hard to find economics texts that are suitable for the layman.
I have to disagree, albeit on the weak grounds that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I have done a lot of searching, and the best (contemporary) literature I can come up with is David D. Friedman. I would be much obliged if you can give me some leads to follow up on. Strange as it sounds, I would be overjoyed if you proved me wrong. It just doesn't seem that likely.
I'm afraid you went off the deep end with the rest of your post.
As I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to your poor grammar.
Not all economists like government intervention. Try reading Hayek ("The Road to Serfdom" would be a good place to start).
"The Road to Serfdom" was published in 1944, and I'm relatively certain that Hayek is now deceased. I thank you for the lead, but if you remember, my original complaint was with the relationship between contemporary economists and the public. That qualifier, contemporary, may not be omitted.
Then let me simplify it for you: what have they done recently to challenge the established standards? A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, economists decided that the creators of intellectual goods should be given a temporary monopoly on their product. That is a very serious decision, as economists are rigorously opposed to monopolies elsewhere. What have they done, in modern times, to challenge this concept of intellectual goods? If I struck a Faustian bargain with corporate America, I would question the value of that bargain daily. Then again, I am not an economist.
I thank you for your recap on recent progress in economics, but you're missing my initial point. "AFAICS, formally educated economists have done nothing but support conventional wisdom for the past few decades. If they have done anything great, I haven't heard of it, probably because I'm not an economist and "those in the know" do not feel obligated to explain to the public (in words we can understand) why their theories should govern us."
It's nice that you're letting me know what good they have done, but why don't the economists do that? You (they?) probably think it's because economics is a complex science that is not easily understood by the common man, but I don't consider that a valid point. Every person should have an equal hand in decisions that define our government and our economy. That's just my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
If you want to find work that challenges capitalism, or something like that, then there have been many attempts, but none successful, so you will have to look elsewhere in the economic literature.
I am a big believer in capitalism (a Libertarian, precisely), and I do not intend to challenge it. To the contrary, I want a freer (is that a word?) market, with no regulations and no (professional) economists.
Perhaps you misunderstand what it means for a given type of good to be "under-produced".
No, I don't. You are squirming. From the beginning:
One of their predictions was that intellectual goods were being under-produced.
That phraseology indicates a contemporary observation to me ("were being" instead of "would be"), but you can only "predict" something which hasn't happened yet. Hence, I suggested the term "observation."
A theoretical prediction was made that if more money was spent on R&D then the economy would grow at a faster rate.
Not what you said initially. Even so, "hypothesis" would be a better choice than "prediction," since they planned on testing their assumption in a scientific manner, but that is just a matter of taste.
So when it was claimed that intellectual goods were being under-produced this was a theortetical prediction that growth would result if more goods were produced.
Is that your final answer? Make up your mind. As Horace said, "A word once let out of the cage cannot be whistled back again."
Hmmm...well to me it looks like I was agreeing that the stuff about IP law was wrong, but also pointing out that the other stuff about the production of intellectual goods and growth was right.
That's why I wrote a version of what you said with enhanced clarity.
No, you need one to figure out that increased spending on R&D will lead to economic growth not just more intellectual goods.
But that was not the statement of intent you originally gave. If you wanted to say that economists believed they could promote economic growth by increasing the production rate of intellectual goods (which could be initiated by increased R&D spending), you should have done just that.
Let's get back to square one. I understand that the creation of economic theories is a black art. But these theories, once applied, will affect all. Therefore, they should put into language that the majority of adults can understand and presented to the public at large. I believe that the same thing should be done with politics. Obviously, this doesn't happen, and could be considered a moot point, but that is my opinion, to which I believe I am entitled.
Whenever I do hear from economists, it is only when they defend conventional wisdom. If they do anything to challenge that wisdom, I don't find about it (save for the recent work of Boldrin and Levine). If you care to discuss this further, let's take it from that point on.
There was nothing conventional about it when the work was done... it is quite unreasonable to ask for examples that are less than a couple of decades old
That's great. A few decades ago, they did something unconventional. But what have they done now? I don't care if the policies have or have not been implemented, what are they doing now to question the established standards? You linked me to osdn.com, btw, but I found the proper site and checked it out. While it is interesting stuff, and pertinent to our existence, it doesn't try to answer the Big Question. The freshest thing on that website was "Equilibrium Selection and Public-good Provision: The Development of Open-source Software", although that has already been beaten to death.
A theoretical prediction was made that if more money was spent on R&D then the economy would grow at a faster rate.
You initially said: One of their predictions was that intellectual goods were being under-produced. You cannot predict that which is currently happening, that is not in step with the definition
of the word. You could, however, hypothesize. Although my knowledge of economist-speak is limited, so maybe in their world you can use 'predict' in such manner (but if so, they are wrong).
Different issue - increased spending on research produced more growth - whether changes in IP laws helped is another question entirely.
If you were speaking of increased spending, and not IP law, then why did you say: Sure it now looks like they were too enthusiastic about strengthening intellectual property law, but in other ways their predictions have turned out to be accurate. Did you throw that in there specifically to confuse me? [insert comment about how dumb I am for not understanding]
Perhaps what you meant to say was: True, economists have promoted the strengthening of IP laws beyond reason. But this doesn't mean they aren't doing anything useful. A few decades ago, they encouraged greater expenditures in public and private R&D, which increased our output of intellectual goods. This is considered one of the primary causes of our recent economic growth.
If that was the case, I wouldn't disagree. I would wonder why you mentioned it, however, because I wanted to know what they have done recently to challenge conventional wisdom, not how they created it a few decades back. And for chrissakes, do you really need a degree in economics to conclude that increased R&D results in increased IP goods? I learned that in StarCraft...
Even your pseudo-code would SEGV. I believe it should be done thusly:
You're right, I forgot to malloc() =-O Although it wouldn't necessarily segfault... it should, but it might not, which would result in one hell of an insidious bug.
I'm about us unpatriotic as they come, but I think war with Iraq is a Good Thing. I'm not an expert, but for the love of god, did anyone forget that Iraq is a police state ruled by Sadam Hussein? It's not like the US is talking about bombing Canada or anything. Iraq is in a seriously sad state, and I guess it's high time we fixed that.
Of course, much of the world is in a sad state, and we're not doing shit... so I don't know if war with Iraq is the Right Thing.
Your version would put your mouth where your money is. Furthermore, what datatype is money? Unless it is a pointer to a pointer, your assignment statement is invalid.
Take for example the work of Arrow (and many others) in comming up with the (now) old model of the production of intellectual goods.
This would be the conventional wisdom I claimed they have done nothing but support for the past few decades. In order to refute my claim, you need to tell me what they have done recently (aside from Boldrin and Levine) that challenges conventional wisdom.
One of their predictions was that intellectual goods were being under-produced. In turn this led to a massive expansion of public and private R&D expenditure in the US. All the evidence suggests that this increased spending has produced a large part of the growth that the US economy has seen over the last decade or two.
I take it you mean "one of their observations." Niggling aside, Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the right to pass IP laws to "promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts." The goal was to increase innovation, not economic growth (not that economic growth is a bad thing, and if we can get both innovation and growth I am all for it). I would like to see that evidence of which you spake, because my personal observations have lead me to believe that IP laws haven't done much for the average man, but have gone a long way towards making the rich even richer.
Yes, but a Slashdsot post is typically constructed in a few minutes, and usually uses only anecdotal evidence, if any at all. And they frequently have poor spelling and grammer, like my last sentance.
I won't contest that the majority of Slashdot posts are bad, but this does not negate the fact that there are wise things being said in these forums. I'd say about 10% of all Slashdot posts are very good, and considering how many visitors Slashdot gets, that is a not insignificant figure when translated into absolutes.
Comment moderation, IMHO, makes it very easy for an outsider to see only the cream of the Slashdot crop. Although most of what is posted is bad, an economist (should they care what we think) could easily sift through the morass of mediocrity and get to that top 10%.
They also tend to suggest radical solutions, such as 'The entire IP system should be abandoned', which betray a lack of knowledge about other industries and sectors which rely on IP so survive.
Radical suggestions are an indication of a healthy democratic process, and though I generally disagree with them, I embrace their existence. But that's not the point. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives congress the power to create IP law to "promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts." Whether or not abandoning IP law will kill some industries is irrelevant; the question is how will it affect the rate of innovation in our country?
There are a lot of discussions going on in economics. You just don't hear about them, just like you don't hear about things going on in English Literature.
English Literature doesn't affect the way my life is governed. Economics, on the other hand, does. Our economy, and the way it is run, is a tremendous part of any citizens life, and therefore, everyone has the right to influence it. I disagree with the idea of "professional" lawmakers and "professional," who make a living out of deciding how to run my life. When everyone has a stake, everyone should have a voice, and a prerequisite of having a voice is knowledge of the discussion at hand. In my eye, it doesn't matter what discussions are going on in economics if I can't hear about it without becoming an economist myself.
And it could be that the conventional wisdom is, well, right.
I could provide extreme examples of where conventional wisdom was wrong (slavery, suffrage), but I think there is better empirical evidence. In particular, the Prohibition act seems strikingly similar to our current IP laws. It was a law that simply nobody followed, and was eventually repealed. Nobody is following IP laws, the public _wants_ them to change, and they most certainly will. The only reason they haven't yet is because there is a lot of money to be had in strengthening them.
The difference between wild speculation (i.e. what happens on/. most of the time) and rigorous accademic inquiry (like the papers produced by Boldrin and Levine) is that the later produces theories which can be tested against the facts, refined, put into use, etc.
Not all slashdot posts are pointless speculative drivel, and many "rigorous academic inquiries" are pompous, pedantic, and obfuscated. The medium through which a thing is said does not inherently render it good or bad. Granted, you didn't say that, but I feel the need to point it out regardless.
Anyone can say "intellectual property is BS". Few can give a rigorous proof of why intellectual property is BS.
AFAICS, formally educated economists have done nothing but support conventional wisdom for the past few decades. If they have done anything great, I haven't heard of it, probably because I'm not an economist and "those in the know" do not feel obligated to explain to the public (in words we can understand) why their theories should govern us.
Anyone can support intellectual property by reiterating conventional wisdom. Frankly, I'm not comfortable with a system that isn't constantly being challenged. If the academics aren't gonna do it, I'm more than happy to have the slashdot trolls fill the void.
I believe the real reason why Boldrin and Levine are getting an audience is because economists don't care to listen to people who aren't of their ilk. Although I suppose I'll have to make a "rigorous academic inquiry" into that hypothesis before anybody listens.
Eric S. Raymond has written a few papers on open source design methodologies and the benefits thereof. Check them out at his website. In particular, The Cathedral and the Bazaar is a very enlightening read.
You're right, we need some more sophisticated humor! The next time somebody laughs, if I don't deem it mature, I'm gonna throw their candy ass to the ground and then stab and/or shoot them!
Sure I can. Valuing ethics over business is exactly the kind of thing a bleeding-heart communist would do. Oh, and fine...he's a hippie too.
There are a lot of "bleeding-heart" organizations that value ethics over business, communism is only one of them. Why is RMS automatically a communist, and not a liberal or a libertarian?
Not at all. Look at companies that sell commodities like oil.
What does this have to do with free software? Apart from the fact that Linux is being used by some
notable oil companies?
With open source, you don't develop assets so it's going to be difficult to get seed capital.
Once again, this only applies to companies that sell software as a product.
Open source is more likely to create unhealthy competition.
If all corporations that sell software were to follow the open source methodology, yes, unhealthy competition would run rampant. However, you assume that shrink-wrapped software is inherently good, that it is The Right Thing. I believe that the only way that market can succeed is by anthropomorphizing information, something I am firmly against. I don't believe that businesses have the right to bend a new medium to their will so that it may be profitable. The way we live should determine the way businesses attain profitability, not vice versa.
I was talking about "the power grabs, genocide, and spying on civilians."
Are you saying that just because RMS isn't trying to take over the world now doesn't mean he won't in the future? Well, this could apply to anyone, although it is pretty absurd.
Go read a historical (i.e. not full of American propoganda) version of these events.
Such as what?
Have you considered the logistics of parliamentary representation in an age when even the mail could take months?
Exactly. That's why it didn't make sense for the Colonies to be ruled by a country all the way across the Atlantic.
P.S. Who is the senior senator from Puerto Rico?
Funny. I'm well aware of the status-of-Puerto-Rico debacle, although frankly I have no idea what the hell happened since HR856 in 1998.
You think we are at opposite political poles.
I don't know if you noticed the part where I mentioned that it was a cursory evaluation, provided because I didn't have anything else to go on. Now it is clear that you aren't at the opposite end of the spectrum, and I guess you'd be a Democrat (but why can't you just tell me?).
You introduced the strawman argument of the runners shooting each other during the race.
This is in no way a straw man. The analogy was provided to describe my position on a tangential point. I didn't attempt to refute your argument that open source is bad for business this way; I argued that point by saying that open source only hurts a small subsector of businesses, and I don't think we need them anyway. The next idea I introduced, that all out war between businesses is bad for the public, was tangential, provided to further clarify my position on business practices. The analogy was used in its purest form: to let you know more clearly what I was thinking. On top of it all, you seem to agree with me on that point. This is not a straw man.
As for your third point, I already explained that we seemed to be polar opposites, since I had nothing else to go on and invited you to describe your position clearly, which was why I stated that you must be extreme if I am extreme. I can't believe you really took that seriously, though. The point I was trying to get across was that I'm not extreme simply because I have a different view of copyright. You seem to think that it is impossible to deviate slightly from the middle ground. Remember, you were the one tagged me as a "pinko commie," because my qoute said "Free as in Freedom." I only thought it fair that I return the favor.
But on to the meat of our debate...
First off, Janis never says that Verizon's suit is going to do her financial harm. Her point of view is that "The record companies say this decision will mean more money for musicians, but they have it backward. The downloaded music they're shutting off actually creates sales by exposing artists to new fans." Amazingly, incredibly, and completely illogically, Janis isn't primarily concerned with herself right now. She's attempting to make a point about the music industry as a whole.
With that out of the way, my topic is not indefensible because you're putting words in my mouth. I said that it requires a not-insignificant effort to determine if a download is from P2P or the web, I never said it was too difficult. It isn't. I know this because I spend a lot of time analyzing network traffic on a packet by packet basis (god bless ethereal). But that wasn't the point. Anyone suspected (can I not say this loud enough for you?) of downloading illegal music can be subject to a lawsuit without evidence. So anyone can be sued on what basically amounts to the RIAAs whim. The defendant would have to go to court, which costs $$. The idea is that the threat of litigation, and not the litigation itself, will keep people from downloading music illegally.
But how does this affect people who download music legally? Well, how do you tell where a file on a hard disk came from? You can't just look at a file once it's on disk and say "this was ripped from a cd," or "this was downloaded illegally." This means that if a person has a legal rip of a CD on their computer, and then downloads annother unrelated mp3 legally, the record company could provide "proof" from "experts" that they had illegally downloaded what they in fact ripped from their CD. Proving this to be fallacious is not exactly difficult, but it will still require time consuming court proceedings (which means a hefty expenditure of cash). As I already mentioned, it is the threat of litigation, not the litigation itself, that the RIAA wants to use against people. This isn't necessarily bad, as the threat of litigation is what keeps many people from doing bad things. However, the fact that they can use this against anyone without proof means that they can easily abuse their power to bludgeon legal music downloaders.
This all started when you sensed a logical fallacy in a generalization about Janis' statement that you created. I called you a jackass for that, insulting you because I'm a bastard motherfucker who does that kind of thing, with the clause that "I could be wrong, and am amply willing to be proven so." All you've managed to do is prove yourself to be more immature than I am, which is saying something (my name is freakin' ninjadroid). I'm going to bet, which isn't generally wise but that's ok because neither am I, that you are a computer programmer by trade, and you don't want RMS to put you out of a job. Furthermore, I'm going to bet that our conflict really boils down to our perspectives over copyright law (although you seem adament about the fallacy which prompted the US's fight for independence, but that's ok because I think they faked the first moon landing). So, I suggest that we drop the pretense and shift gears to focus on copyright, and whether the capabilities of the people should be intentionally impaired in the name of defending it. Furthermore, perhaps we should consider a different medium (email?).
Not a business idea, mind you, but an ethical ideal that he has rationalized into making business sense.
This is merely a conflict of priorities, whether you value ethics over business sense or vice versa. Debating the practical rammifications of either stance are probably beyond the scope of this flame. Either way, you can't tag RMS as a communist for this. Hippie would be a better fit.
I've heard that stat cited a billion times without justification and without a definition of how software is quantified. Personally, I think ESR just made it up.
Truthfully, I've spent a long time trying to find evidence of that after the post, and it has been in vain so far. I haven't discovered any statistics on software development percentages at all. So until I can come up with some stats, I will shut my fucking mouth on this point.
Reducing costs doesn't help a business make money if the competitors get the same advantage. In fact, it hurts them.
This only holds true for companies that attain profitability by selling software. As it stands, there are a tremendous number of corporations with inhouse developed software that is never sold. Having unrestricted access to source code means start-ups will have it easier, and established businesses will have more contracting options and greater flexibility.
Furthermore, I don't believe it is in the public's best interest for corporations to best their competition at all costs. That's like giving runners carte blanche to shoot each other during a race.
The communist revolution wasn't about that stuff either.
The communist revolution was absolutely about centralizing government power and control of resources. If you don't agree with this, you are wrong.
Suffrage and racial equality aren't really extremist ideas. They were just novel ideas in their time. The American Revolution, on the other hand, was started by a bunch of extremists.
You are speaking from a future where suffrage and racial equality are the accepted norm, of course you wouldn't find these to be extreme. The Revolution was started for some very good reasons, "Taxation without Representation" and "The Boston Massacre" being the two most prominent in my mind.
That's a natural conclusion for you to make, since you are an extremist. I, on the other hand, am not an extremist, so I don't believe that not believing in one extreme means that you have to embrace the other.
You are begging the question here. You cannot prove my position to be extreme by assuming that your position isn't. The reason why I concluded that you were extreme was because we seem to be at opposite political poles. Therefore, if I'm extreme, you're extreme. Albeit this is a very cursory evaluation, but I didn't have much to go on. Frankly, you haven't given me any more.
RMS is pretty much a communist. If he had is way, the only ones left paying significant money for software development would be governments.
In a nutshell, RMS believes that it is ethically wrong to treat a fundamentally conceptual entity, software in this instance, as a physical product; the service of software development is still plenty viable. And what the hell makes you think that the government alone would have a use for this service? Are you aware that 95% of all software never reaches store shelves? Most people who write code for a living are writing custom applications to be used in a corporate environment; I don't see how placing such code under a Free license can be anything but helpful.
A quick visit to stallman.org further confirms that RMS is, in fact, not a communist. Communists seek centralized governmental power and control of the collective mind share of the people. RMS gains absolutely no power through his activities; at most, he diminishes the power of others. Additionally, communists don't oppose legislation which legalizes spying on civilains. And I'd like to know how many communists have a proclivity for qouting Frederick Douglas.
Libertarianism is an extremist philosophy, just as any other.
A corollary of your statement is that all philosophies are extreme, which I don't think was your intended meaning. But allow me to point out that the concept of suffrage was extreme in its time, as was equality of all skin colors, as was the idea that 13 small British colonies are entitled to independence. The underlying concept that drives Libertarianism is that the government should be minimized and freedom maximized, which is right in-line with the principles on which our Country was founded. If you view this as extreme, I must conclude that you believe that government should be maximized and freedom minimized, and want to make good friends with Big Brother. There's nothing wrong with disliking Libertarianism, but it is no more extreme than the Republican and Democratic parties, so please don't be absurd/hypocritcal.
What I can't figure out is why Janis thinks this endangers her ability to allow free downloads from her website.
P2P filingsharing systems use http protocols to transfer data. This means that it requires a certain not-insignificant degree of scrutiny to determine if an mp3 being downloaded is really from the web or from a P2P network. Since the lawsuit effectively gives the RIAA the right to sue anyone suspected of downloading infringing songs, they can wield this power to eliminate online music distribution, legal or illegal. The RIAA is a very greedy organization, and online filesharing of even a legal nature greatly decreases the stranglehold they have on what the public gets to listen to. I wouldn't put it beneath them to try and kill diversity for the sake of seven figure salaries.
Well, I couldn't really evaluate the blog, as it was in a non-english language, or the sites requiring Flash and/or Java, as I have neither. That said, the sites I could peruse weren't all that great. Contemporary Ascii was nothing but a bunch of links to a medical site (?), and Ascii Disko was some dude's music site.
Really, what the hell? Where's all the kick-ass Ascii art?
Well, I'm certainly not going to stop you from being a pussy...
You may be a/. newbie, but I know better than to argue with a troll while logged in.
Either you're implicating me as a troll, which is wrong, or yourself. So far, all your correspondence has been nothing but vacuous claims. RMS is clearly not communist, and all political parties think they have all the answers. Your scintilating perspicacity underwhelms me.
Janis Ian said that her sales went up after she allowed free downloads from her website. Then she blames the RIAA for their suit against Verizon regarding P2P. That's a total non-sequitor.
Huh? She blames them for what again? Filing suit against Verizon regarding P2P? Well, in case you weren't aware, that actually happened. I don't even have a nifty little Latin phrase to describe that kind of mentally inept reasoning... but I can invent one!
Cupa tua in ano est!
The RIAA isn't going to shut anyone down for sharing Janis Ian songs if they don't own the rights to them.
Wow, you've obviously done a great deal of research on Janis' contracts with RIAA represented labels...
Well, aparently YOU didn't visit their website. When/. was threatened by the Church of Scientology because of DMCA infringement, CmdrTaco posted a large story detailing why they didn't like the fact that they had to give in, but were doing it anyway. In this case, not only did they give in, but they consented that they deserved to be shutdown, and offered to provide whatever information they had on users who had posted false information.
That is why they are pussies; not because they realized the practical infeasibility of a court battle, but because they so completely gave up. You, on the other hand, are an Anonymous Dumbass.
But keep in mind that a huge percentage of US Citizens are illegally copying music. When and if the Government gets serious about cracking down, there will be a huge outcry. Yes, I agree that most people can't make their own decisions, and while this problem is single-handedly responsible for more stryfe than anything else, IMHO, it isn't particularly relevant at this point. They have something they like, and legislation that tries to take it away will share the same fate as Prohibition. Although I am worried that we are quietly slipping into the hell Bradbury described in "Fahrenheit 451."
But isn't it interesting that everyone remembers "Pour Some Sugar On Me" and not "Photograph"?
Are you just stupid or are you
lazy? Both of those songs made it within the top 25 of the Billboard's Mainstream Rock charts. It should be noted, however, that "Photograph" was number 1, whereas "Pour Some Sugar on Me" was number 25.
Isn't it interesting everyone remembers "Rollin'" and not "Rearranged"?
You're
stupid. Both of those songs were all over the charts. On the Billboard Hot 100, "Re-arranged" was number 75 and "Rollin'" was 65. On the Modern Rock Charts, "Re-arranged" was number 1 and "Rollin'" was 5. Both these songs have been incredibly prolific, and unless you have evidence to disprove what I'm saying you should seriously re-evaluate your stance.
But unlike you, i understand and accept that the majority of people prefer pop music and are quite happy with it.
Guess you're too lazy to really read my post. All four of my example songs, including the 2 I liked, are Pop Music. My favorite band happens to be Weezer, which is decidedly Pop. I didn't say a damn thing about how inherently bad Pop is and how inherently great Indie is because that would be elitism. I too listen to off-the-beaten-path stuff, like Down to Earth, in addition to mainstream music. But I refuse to like something simply because it is popular, and this is where I differ with most of my peers, which was the point of my original post.
You can't blame them for exploiting a large market - that's what owning a successful business is all about.
That is cold and evil, man. Cold and evil. I suppose quality and integrity mean nothing.
I've got some bad news for you. Def Leopard always sucked.
I wasn't around when Def Leopard was big. All I know about them is the two songs I have heard, and I liked one and disliked the other. The point of my post was not that such-and-such a band was awesome. My point was that there are people (ME!) who decide what they like and dislike regardless of the trends. If a song I like happens to be incredibly popular, or woefully unpopular, it does not influence my opinion in the least.
Teenage fucktards, as you call them, have been swallowing whatever shit has been crammed down their throats for decades
Then you and I shouldn't be arguing. Perhaps you thought that I was denying how stupid my peers are. In reality, I wholeheartedly agree that my peers are stupid (hence "fucktard"), but that doesn't make it OK to exploit them. And who the hell are The Monkees?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it isn't hard to find economics texts that are suitable for the layman.
I have to disagree, albeit on the weak grounds that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I have done a lot of searching, and the best (contemporary) literature I can come up with is David D. Friedman. I would be much obliged if you can give me some leads to follow up on. Strange as it sounds, I would be overjoyed if you proved me wrong. It just doesn't seem that likely.
I'm afraid you went off the deep end with the rest of your post.
As I am entitled to my opinion, you are entitled to your poor grammar.
Not all economists like government intervention. Try reading Hayek ("The Road to Serfdom" would be a good place to start).
"The Road to Serfdom" was published in 1944, and I'm relatively certain that Hayek is now deceased. I thank you for the lead, but if you remember, my original complaint was with the relationship between contemporary economists and the public. That qualifier, contemporary, may not be omitted.
I am not sure what you asking for here.
Then let me simplify it for you: what have they done recently to challenge the established standards? A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, economists decided that the creators of intellectual goods should be given a temporary monopoly on their product. That is a very serious decision, as economists are rigorously opposed to monopolies elsewhere. What have they done, in modern times, to challenge this concept of intellectual goods? If I struck a Faustian bargain with corporate America, I would question the value of that bargain daily. Then again, I am not an economist.
I thank you for your recap on recent progress in economics, but you're missing my initial point. "AFAICS, formally educated economists have done nothing but support conventional wisdom for the past few decades. If they have done anything great, I haven't heard of it, probably because I'm not an economist and "those in the know" do not feel obligated to explain to the public (in words we can understand) why their theories should govern us."
It's nice that you're letting me know what good they have done, but why don't the economists do that? You (they?) probably think it's because economics is a complex science that is not easily understood by the common man, but I don't consider that a valid point. Every person should have an equal hand in decisions that define our government and our economy. That's just my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
If you want to find work that challenges capitalism, or something like that, then there have been many attempts, but none successful, so you will have to look elsewhere in the economic literature.
I am a big believer in capitalism (a Libertarian, precisely), and I do not intend to challenge it. To the contrary, I want a freer (is that a word?) market, with no regulations and no (professional) economists.
Perhaps you misunderstand what it means for a given type of good to be "under-produced".
No, I don't. You are squirming. From the beginning:
One of their predictions was that intellectual goods were being under-produced.
That phraseology indicates a contemporary observation to me ("were being" instead of "would be"), but you can only "predict" something which hasn't happened yet. Hence, I suggested the term "observation."
A theoretical prediction was made that if more money was spent on R&D then the economy would grow at a faster rate.
Not what you said initially. Even so, "hypothesis" would be a better choice than "prediction," since they planned on testing their assumption in a scientific manner, but that is just a matter of taste.
So when it was claimed that intellectual goods were being under-produced this was a theortetical prediction that growth would result if more goods were produced.
Is that your final answer? Make up your mind. As Horace said, "A word once let out of the cage cannot be whistled back again."
Hmmm...well to me it looks like I was agreeing that the stuff about IP law was wrong, but also pointing out that the other stuff about the production of intellectual goods and growth was right.
That's why I wrote a version of what you said with enhanced clarity.
No, you need one to figure out that increased spending on R&D will lead to economic growth not just more intellectual goods.
But that was not the statement of intent you originally gave. If you wanted to say that economists believed they could promote economic growth by increasing the production rate of intellectual goods (which could be initiated by increased R&D spending), you should have done just that.
Let's get back to square one. I understand that the creation of economic theories is a black art. But these theories, once applied, will affect all. Therefore, they should put into language that the majority of adults can understand and presented to the public at large. I believe that the same thing should be done with politics. Obviously, this doesn't happen, and could be considered a moot point, but that is my opinion, to which I believe I am entitled.
Whenever I do hear from economists, it is only when they defend conventional wisdom. If they do anything to challenge that wisdom, I don't find about it (save for the recent work of Boldrin and Levine). If you care to discuss this further, let's take it from that point on.
There was nothing conventional about it when the work was done... it is quite unreasonable to ask for examples that are less than a couple of decades old
That's great. A few decades ago, they did something unconventional. But what have they done now? I don't care if the policies have or have not been implemented, what are they doing now to question the established standards? You linked me to osdn.com, btw, but I found the proper site and checked it out. While it is interesting stuff, and pertinent to our existence, it doesn't try to answer the Big Question. The freshest thing on that website was "Equilibrium Selection and Public-good Provision: The Development of Open-source Software", although that has already been beaten to death.
A theoretical prediction was made that if more money was spent on R&D then the economy would grow at a faster rate.
You initially said: One of their predictions was that intellectual goods were being under-produced. You cannot predict that which is currently happening, that is not in step with the definition of the word. You could, however, hypothesize. Although my knowledge of economist-speak is limited, so maybe in their world you can use 'predict' in such manner (but if so, they are wrong).
Different issue - increased spending on research produced more growth - whether changes in IP laws helped is another question entirely.
If you were speaking of increased spending, and not IP law, then why did you say: Sure it now looks like they were too enthusiastic about strengthening intellectual property law, but in other ways their predictions have turned out to be accurate. Did you throw that in there specifically to confuse me? [insert comment about how dumb I am for not understanding]
Perhaps what you meant to say was: True, economists have promoted the strengthening of IP laws beyond reason. But this doesn't mean they aren't doing anything useful. A few decades ago, they encouraged greater expenditures in public and private R&D, which increased our output of intellectual goods. This is considered one of the primary causes of our recent economic growth.
If that was the case, I wouldn't disagree. I would wonder why you mentioned it, however, because I wanted to know what they have done recently to challenge conventional wisdom, not how they created it a few decades back. And for chrissakes, do you really need a degree in economics to conclude that increased R&D results in increased IP goods? I learned that in StarCraft...
Even your pseudo-code would SEGV. I believe it should be done thusly:
You're right, I forgot to malloc() =-O Although it wouldn't necessarily segfault... it should, but it might not, which would result in one hell of an insidious bug.
I just gotta flap my yap a second...
I'm about us unpatriotic as they come, but I think war with Iraq is a Good Thing. I'm not an expert, but for the love of god, did anyone forget that Iraq is a police state ruled by Sadam Hussein? It's not like the US is talking about bombing Canada or anything. Iraq is in a seriously sad state, and I guess it's high time we fixed that.
Of course, much of the world is in a sad state, and we're not doing shit... so I don't know if war with Iraq is the Right Thing.
::sigh:: The world is confusing.
int money;
int *mouth;
*mouth = money
Your version would put your mouth where your money is. Furthermore, what datatype is money? Unless it is a pointer to a pointer, your assignment statement is invalid.
There are those who say I need a life...
Take for example the work of Arrow (and many others) in comming up with the (now) old model of the production of intellectual goods.
This would be the conventional wisdom I claimed they have done nothing but support for the past few decades. In order to refute my claim, you need to tell me what they have done recently (aside from Boldrin and Levine) that challenges conventional wisdom.
One of their predictions was that intellectual goods were being under-produced. In turn this led to a massive expansion of public and private R&D expenditure in the US. All the evidence suggests that this increased spending has produced a large part of the growth that the US economy has seen over the last decade or two.
I take it you mean "one of their observations." Niggling aside, Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the right to pass IP laws to "promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts." The goal was to increase innovation, not economic growth (not that economic growth is a bad thing, and if we can get both innovation and growth I am all for it). I would like to see that evidence of which you spake, because my personal observations have lead me to believe that IP laws haven't done much for the average man, but have gone a long way towards making the rich even richer.
Yes, but a Slashdsot post is typically constructed in a few minutes, and usually uses only anecdotal evidence, if any at all. And they frequently have poor spelling and grammer, like my last sentance.
I won't contest that the majority of Slashdot posts are bad, but this does not negate the fact that there are wise things being said in these forums. I'd say about 10% of all Slashdot posts are very good, and considering how many visitors Slashdot gets, that is a not insignificant figure when translated into absolutes.
Comment moderation, IMHO, makes it very easy for an outsider to see only the cream of the Slashdot crop. Although most of what is posted is bad, an economist (should they care what we think) could easily sift through the morass of mediocrity and get to that top 10%.
They also tend to suggest radical solutions, such as 'The entire IP system should be abandoned', which betray a lack of knowledge about other industries and sectors which rely on IP so survive.
Radical suggestions are an indication of a healthy democratic process, and though I generally disagree with them, I embrace their existence. But that's not the point. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives congress the power to create IP law to "promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts." Whether or not abandoning IP law will kill some industries is irrelevant; the question is how will it affect the rate of innovation in our country?
There are a lot of discussions going on in economics. You just don't hear about them, just like you don't hear about things going on in English Literature.
English Literature doesn't affect the way my life is governed. Economics, on the other hand, does. Our economy, and the way it is run, is a tremendous part of any citizens life, and therefore, everyone has the right to influence it. I disagree with the idea of "professional" lawmakers and "professional," who make a living out of deciding how to run my life. When everyone has a stake, everyone should have a voice, and a prerequisite of having a voice is knowledge of the discussion at hand. In my eye, it doesn't matter what discussions are going on in economics if I can't hear about it without becoming an economist myself.
And it could be that the conventional wisdom is, well, right.
I could provide extreme examples of where conventional wisdom was wrong (slavery, suffrage), but I think there is better empirical evidence. In particular, the Prohibition act seems strikingly similar to our current IP laws. It was a law that simply nobody followed, and was eventually repealed. Nobody is following IP laws, the public _wants_ them to change, and they most certainly will. The only reason they haven't yet is because there is a lot of money to be had in strengthening them.
The difference between wild speculation (i.e. what happens on /. most of the time) and rigorous accademic inquiry (like the papers produced by Boldrin and Levine) is that the later produces theories which can be tested against the facts, refined, put into use, etc.
Not all slashdot posts are pointless speculative drivel, and many "rigorous academic inquiries" are pompous, pedantic, and obfuscated. The medium through which a thing is said does not inherently render it good or bad. Granted, you didn't say that, but I feel the need to point it out regardless.
Anyone can say "intellectual property is BS". Few can give a rigorous proof of why intellectual property is BS.
AFAICS, formally educated economists have done nothing but support conventional wisdom for the past few decades. If they have done anything great, I haven't heard of it, probably because I'm not an economist and "those in the know" do not feel obligated to explain to the public (in words we can understand) why their theories should govern us.
Anyone can support intellectual property by reiterating conventional wisdom. Frankly, I'm not comfortable with a system that isn't constantly being challenged. If the academics aren't gonna do it, I'm more than happy to have the slashdot trolls fill the void.
I believe the real reason why Boldrin and Levine are getting an audience is because economists don't care to listen to people who aren't of their ilk. Although I suppose I'll have to make a "rigorous academic inquiry" into that hypothesis before anybody listens.
Eric S. Raymond has written a few papers on open source design methodologies and the benefits thereof. Check them out at his website. In particular, The Cathedral and the Bazaar is a very enlightening read.
We won one... holy god WOOTAH!
You're right, we need some more sophisticated humor! The next time somebody laughs, if I don't deem it mature, I'm gonna throw their candy ass to the ground and then stab and/or shoot them!
Sure I can. Valuing ethics over business is exactly the kind of thing a bleeding-heart communist would do. Oh, and fine...he's a hippie too.
There are a lot of "bleeding-heart" organizations that value ethics over business, communism is only one of them. Why is RMS automatically a communist, and not a liberal or a libertarian?
Not at all. Look at companies that sell commodities like oil.
What does this have to do with free software? Apart from the fact that Linux is being used by some notable oil companies?
With open source, you don't develop assets so it's going to be difficult to get seed capital.
Once again, this only applies to companies that sell software as a product.
Open source is more likely to create unhealthy competition.
If all corporations that sell software were to follow the open source methodology, yes, unhealthy competition would run rampant. However, you assume that shrink-wrapped software is inherently good, that it is The Right Thing. I believe that the only way that market can succeed is by anthropomorphizing information, something I am firmly against. I don't believe that businesses have the right to bend a new medium to their will so that it may be profitable. The way we live should determine the way businesses attain profitability, not vice versa.
I was talking about "the power grabs, genocide, and spying on civilians."
Are you saying that just because RMS isn't trying to take over the world now doesn't mean he won't in the future? Well, this could apply to anyone, although it is pretty absurd.
Go read a historical (i.e. not full of American propoganda) version of these events.
Such as what?
Have you considered the logistics of parliamentary representation in an age when even the mail could take months?
Exactly. That's why it didn't make sense for the Colonies to be ruled by a country all the way across the Atlantic.
P.S. Who is the senior senator from Puerto Rico?
Funny. I'm well aware of the status-of-Puerto-Rico debacle, although frankly I have no idea what the hell happened since HR856 in 1998.
You think we are at opposite political poles.
I don't know if you noticed the part where I mentioned that it was a cursory evaluation, provided because I didn't have anything else to go on. Now it is clear that you aren't at the opposite end of the spectrum, and I guess you'd be a Democrat (but why can't you just tell me?).
You introduced the strawman argument of the runners shooting each other during the race.
This is in no way a straw man. The analogy was provided to describe my position on a tangential point. I didn't attempt to refute your argument that open source is bad for business this way; I argued that point by saying that open source only hurts a small subsector of businesses, and I don't think we need them anyway. The next idea I introduced, that all out war between businesses is bad for the public, was tangential, provided to further clarify my position on business practices. The analogy was used in its purest form: to let you know more clearly what I was thinking. On top of it all, you seem to agree with me on that point. This is not a straw man.
As for your third point, I already explained that we seemed to be polar opposites, since I had nothing else to go on and invited you to describe your position clearly, which was why I stated that you must be extreme if I am extreme. I can't believe you really took that seriously, though. The point I was trying to get across was that I'm not extreme simply because I have a different view of copyright. You seem to think that it is impossible to deviate slightly from the middle ground. Remember, you were the one tagged me as a "pinko commie," because my qoute said "Free as in Freedom." I only thought it fair that I return the favor.
But on to the meat of our debate...
First off, Janis never says that Verizon's suit is going to do her financial harm. Her point of view is that "The record companies say this decision will mean more money for musicians, but they have it backward. The downloaded music they're shutting off actually creates sales by exposing artists to new fans." Amazingly, incredibly, and completely illogically, Janis isn't primarily concerned with herself right now. She's attempting to make a point about the music industry as a whole.
With that out of the way, my topic is not indefensible because you're putting words in my mouth. I said that it requires a not-insignificant effort to determine if a download is from P2P or the web, I never said it was too difficult. It isn't. I know this because I spend a lot of time analyzing network traffic on a packet by packet basis (god bless ethereal). But that wasn't the point. Anyone suspected (can I not say this loud enough for you?) of downloading illegal music can be subject to a lawsuit without evidence. So anyone can be sued on what basically amounts to the RIAAs whim. The defendant would have to go to court, which costs $$. The idea is that the threat of litigation, and not the litigation itself, will keep people from downloading music illegally.
But how does this affect people who download music legally? Well, how do you tell where a file on a hard disk came from? You can't just look at a file once it's on disk and say "this was ripped from a cd," or "this was downloaded illegally." This means that if a person has a legal rip of a CD on their computer, and then downloads annother unrelated mp3 legally, the record company could provide "proof" from "experts" that they had illegally downloaded what they in fact ripped from their CD. Proving this to be fallacious is not exactly difficult, but it will still require time consuming court proceedings (which means a hefty expenditure of cash). As I already mentioned, it is the threat of litigation, not the litigation itself, that the RIAA wants to use against people. This isn't necessarily bad, as the threat of litigation is what keeps many people from doing bad things. However, the fact that they can use this against anyone without proof means that they can easily abuse their power to bludgeon legal music downloaders.
This all started when you sensed a logical fallacy in a generalization about Janis' statement that you created. I called you a jackass for that, insulting you because I'm a bastard motherfucker who does that kind of thing, with the clause that "I could be wrong, and am amply willing to be proven so." All you've managed to do is prove yourself to be more immature than I am, which is saying something (my name is freakin' ninjadroid). I'm going to bet, which isn't generally wise but that's ok because neither am I, that you are a computer programmer by trade, and you don't want RMS to put you out of a job. Furthermore, I'm going to bet that our conflict really boils down to our perspectives over copyright law (although you seem adament about the fallacy which prompted the US's fight for independence, but that's ok because I think they faked the first moon landing). So, I suggest that we drop the pretense and shift gears to focus on copyright, and whether the capabilities of the people should be intentionally impaired in the name of defending it. Furthermore, perhaps we should consider a different medium (email?).
Your call.
Not a business idea, mind you, but an ethical ideal that he has rationalized into making business sense.
This is merely a conflict of priorities, whether you value ethics over business sense or vice versa. Debating the practical rammifications of either stance are probably beyond the scope of this flame. Either way, you can't tag RMS as a communist for this. Hippie would be a better fit.
I've heard that stat cited a billion times without justification and without a definition of how software is quantified. Personally, I think ESR just made it up.
Truthfully, I've spent a long time trying to find evidence of that after the post, and it has been in vain so far. I haven't discovered any statistics on software development percentages at all. So until I can come up with some stats, I will shut my fucking mouth on this point.
Reducing costs doesn't help a business make money if the competitors get the same advantage. In fact, it hurts them.
This only holds true for companies that attain profitability by selling software. As it stands, there are a tremendous number of corporations with inhouse developed software that is never sold. Having unrestricted access to source code means start-ups will have it easier, and established businesses will have more contracting options and greater flexibility.
Furthermore, I don't believe it is in the public's best interest for corporations to best their competition at all costs. That's like giving runners carte blanche to shoot each other during a race.
The communist revolution wasn't about that stuff either.
The communist revolution was absolutely about centralizing government power and control of resources. If you don't agree with this, you are wrong.
Suffrage and racial equality aren't really extremist ideas. They were just novel ideas in their time. The American Revolution, on the other hand, was started by a bunch of extremists.
You are speaking from a future where suffrage and racial equality are the accepted norm, of course you wouldn't find these to be extreme. The Revolution was started for some very good reasons, "Taxation without Representation" and "The Boston Massacre" being the two most prominent in my mind.
That's a natural conclusion for you to make, since you are an extremist. I, on the other hand, am not an extremist, so I don't believe that not believing in one extreme means that you have to embrace the other.
You are begging the question here. You cannot prove my position to be extreme by assuming that your position isn't. The reason why I concluded that you were extreme was because we seem to be at opposite political poles. Therefore, if I'm extreme, you're extreme. Albeit this is a very cursory evaluation, but I didn't have much to go on. Frankly, you haven't given me any more.
RMS is pretty much a communist. If he had is way, the only ones left paying significant money for software development would be governments.
In a nutshell, RMS believes that it is ethically wrong to treat a fundamentally conceptual entity, software in this instance, as a physical product; the service of software development is still plenty viable. And what the hell makes you think that the government alone would have a use for this service? Are you aware that 95% of all software never reaches store shelves? Most people who write code for a living are writing custom applications to be used in a corporate environment; I don't see how placing such code under a Free license can be anything but helpful.
A quick visit to stallman.org further confirms that RMS is, in fact, not a communist. Communists seek centralized governmental power and control of the collective mind share of the people. RMS gains absolutely no power through his activities; at most, he diminishes the power of others. Additionally, communists don't oppose legislation which legalizes spying on civilains. And I'd like to know how many communists have a proclivity for qouting Frederick Douglas.
Libertarianism is an extremist philosophy, just as any other.
A corollary of your statement is that all philosophies are extreme, which I don't think was your intended meaning. But allow me to point out that the concept of suffrage was extreme in its time, as was equality of all skin colors, as was the idea that 13 small British colonies are entitled to independence. The underlying concept that drives Libertarianism is that the government should be minimized and freedom maximized, which is right in-line with the principles on which our Country was founded. If you view this as extreme, I must conclude that you believe that government should be maximized and freedom minimized, and want to make good friends with Big Brother. There's nothing wrong with disliking Libertarianism, but it is no more extreme than the Republican and Democratic parties, so please don't be absurd/hypocritcal.
What I can't figure out is why Janis thinks this endangers her ability to allow free downloads from her website.
P2P filingsharing systems use http protocols to transfer data. This means that it requires a certain not-insignificant degree of scrutiny to determine if an mp3 being downloaded is really from the web or from a P2P network. Since the lawsuit effectively gives the RIAA the right to sue anyone suspected of downloading infringing songs, they can wield this power to eliminate online music distribution, legal or illegal. The RIAA is a very greedy organization, and online filesharing of even a legal nature greatly decreases the stranglehold they have on what the public gets to listen to. I wouldn't put it beneath them to try and kill diversity for the sake of seven figure salaries.
YOU ARE INSANE! This is some awesome stuff, thanks!
Well, I couldn't really evaluate the blog, as it was in a non-english language, or the sites requiring Flash and/or Java, as I have neither. That said, the sites I could peruse weren't all that great. Contemporary Ascii was nothing but a bunch of links to a medical site (?), and Ascii Disko was some dude's music site.
Really, what the hell? Where's all the kick-ass Ascii art?
And why shouldn't I be an Anonymous Coward?
Well, I'm certainly not going to stop you from being a pussy...
You may be a /. newbie, but I know better than to argue with a troll while logged in.
Either you're implicating me as a troll, which is wrong, or yourself. So far, all your correspondence has been nothing but vacuous claims. RMS is clearly not communist, and all political parties think they have all the answers. Your scintilating perspicacity underwhelms me.
Janis Ian said that her sales went up after she allowed free downloads from her website. Then she blames the RIAA for their suit against Verizon regarding P2P. That's a total non-sequitor.
Huh? She blames them for what again? Filing suit against Verizon regarding P2P? Well, in case you weren't aware, that actually happened. I don't even have a nifty little Latin phrase to describe that kind of mentally inept reasoning... but I can invent one!
Cupa tua in ano est!
The RIAA isn't going to shut anyone down for sharing Janis Ian songs if they don't own the rights to them.
Wow, you've obviously done a great deal of research on Janis' contracts with RIAA represented labels...
My god. If I only had a time machine and a Rocket Launcher...
I don't know what you guessed me to be, but I'm 18 (and a "starving" college dropout, I might add). Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
Well, aparently YOU didn't visit their website. When /. was threatened by the Church of Scientology because of DMCA infringement, CmdrTaco posted a large story detailing why they didn't like the fact that they had to give in, but were doing it anyway. In this case, not only did they give in, but they consented that they deserved to be shutdown, and offered to provide whatever information they had on users who had posted false information.
That is why they are pussies; not because they realized the practical infeasibility of a court battle, but because they so completely gave up. You, on the other hand, are an Anonymous Dumbass.
That's all I really got to say. People just cave in way to quick under the threat of litigation.
But keep in mind that a huge percentage of US Citizens are illegally copying music. When and if the Government gets serious about cracking down, there will be a huge outcry. Yes, I agree that most people can't make their own decisions, and while this problem is single-handedly responsible for more stryfe than anything else, IMHO, it isn't particularly relevant at this point. They have something they like, and legislation that tries to take it away will share the same fate as Prohibition. Although I am worried that we are quietly slipping into the hell Bradbury described in "Fahrenheit 451."
My brain could kick your brain's ass.
The fact is, he *is* the first pres the US has had with an MBA; he didn't get it on daddy's merits.
Prove it.
one of the dumbest girls I've ever dated has a masters. But then, she voted Democrat, so that should have clued me in.
The only difference between the parties, as far as I can see, is the name. Fuck 'em both.
But isn't it interesting that everyone remembers "Pour Some Sugar On Me" and not "Photograph"?
Are you just stupid or are you lazy? Both of those songs made it within the top 25 of the Billboard's Mainstream Rock charts. It should be noted, however, that "Photograph" was number 1, whereas "Pour Some Sugar on Me" was number 25.
Isn't it interesting everyone remembers "Rollin'" and not "Rearranged"?
You're stupid. Both of those songs were all over the charts. On the Billboard Hot 100, "Re-arranged" was number 75 and "Rollin'" was 65. On the Modern Rock Charts, "Re-arranged" was number 1 and "Rollin'" was 5. Both these songs have been incredibly prolific, and unless you have evidence to disprove what I'm saying you should seriously re-evaluate your stance.
But unlike you, i understand and accept that the majority of people prefer pop music and are quite happy with it.
Guess you're too lazy to really read my post. All four of my example songs, including the 2 I liked, are Pop Music. My favorite band happens to be Weezer, which is decidedly Pop. I didn't say a damn thing about how inherently bad Pop is and how inherently great Indie is because that would be elitism. I too listen to off-the-beaten-path stuff, like Down to Earth, in addition to mainstream music. But I refuse to like something simply because it is popular, and this is where I differ with most of my peers, which was the point of my original post.
You can't blame them for exploiting a large market - that's what owning a successful business is all about.
That is cold and evil, man. Cold and evil. I suppose quality and integrity mean nothing.
I've got some bad news for you. Def Leopard always sucked.
I wasn't around when Def Leopard was big. All I know about them is the two songs I have heard, and I liked one and disliked the other. The point of my post was not that such-and-such a band was awesome. My point was that there are people (ME!) who decide what they like and dislike regardless of the trends. If a song I like happens to be incredibly popular, or woefully unpopular, it does not influence my opinion in the least.
Teenage fucktards, as you call them, have been swallowing whatever shit has been crammed down their throats for decades
Then you and I shouldn't be arguing. Perhaps you thought that I was denying how stupid my peers are. In reality, I wholeheartedly agree that my peers are stupid (hence "fucktard"), but that doesn't make it OK to exploit them. And who the hell are The Monkees?