For those of us who remember Cyberpunk 2020 and Shadowrun, it sounds like we're prepping ourselves for a cyberdeck here. Don't need no stinking LCD, just my wetwire neural headjack!!! Bring it on: I'm ready!!!
Re:I love my Trench Coat
on
Half Mast
·
· Score: 1
Using something like a trenchcoat to intimidate others doesn't sound a lot better than using your size and fists to instill fear. If people react that way just because you look different, it makes a statement about them and their prejudices. Drawing on that reaction as a source of self-satisfaction says something equally unpleasant about the wearer.
Rebels object to the "social conversation." Sociopaths fail to recognize the conversation altogether. I choose the sociopaths.
Does the book even ask why bullies "bully"?
on
Half Mast
·
· Score: 1
While, given, some people just suck and live to abuse other people for no reason at all, there are also people who bully because they are themselves bullied, usually by someone at home. To be honest, the problem's not as simple as fascist bullies harrassing the smart kid. Some bullying, at least in part, can be attributed to retaliation by "victims" in an effort to rebuild self-image, which is kind of what I'm reading on some of the "pizza-tipping" posts. My $0.02.
I see your point, and it's a good one, but I can also see Lexis and West's position of being wary of offering access in a public venue, such as a library. The pricing of our office plans (in your case a large plan, in my case a small one) are based on the databases we want access to and the number of people who will access the system. The access contracts are through our firms and we are contractually bound in how we will use and disseminate the information.
Consider that Lexis mentioned in its rebuttal that it offers service to libraries which would permit the librarian to perform legal research for the patron (I'm curious on the guidelines they set for that), but that they aren't comfortable offering the same service to the anonymous patrons who walk through the door. While it is conceivable that lawyers who previously subscribed to their services would abandon them in order to get the same access from the library (as they suggest), that seems highly unlikely. I would suggest that the vast majority of the users of their services favor the convenience and only infrequent users would be inclined to visit the library to get a free search.
I wonder if Lexis/Westlaw's "user-privity"-esque issues may be alleviated with individual user registration (no more anonymity) and a click-thru agreement substantially in the form of the use contracts with law firms. Libraries could purchase blocks of 1000 hours of use. But in the end, it does come down to the products that the services choose to sell. Something that leads me to believe that cost really was an issue is found in Lexis' rebuttal:
"LexisNexis sales reps discussed several options with the writer, Melissa Barr, although none of the plans would allow her to do what she wanted to do -- give unlimited, unmediated access in multiple locations to the LexisNexis legal information service at an unrealistic price."
Money may in fact be the issue of disagreement. I guess, to build on your analogy, it's like having the CD in the bin, but charging men a higher price than women. It doesn't remove the "bad taste", but consider also other instances of preferences retailers show to different customers (i.e. selling "academic" versions of software for less than the standard version, based on the limited duration of the license). Why don't software manufacturers offer discounted "standard" versions of software with limited duration licenses to someone outside of academia (which considering the speed of obsolescence in software, would be a great deal)? Should we require them to? Should they be obligated to price their products based on the extent of the license/quantity we want to purchase?
Her complaint that the information is not available via her public library turns Lexis and Westlaw into a pseudo-monopoly, which is a distortion of what's really going on. Her public library can BUY the various reporters that Lexis and Westlaw make available in online form, but probably don't because those volumes are enormous, take up a lot of library real estate, and cost a fortune to maintain and update. Lexis and Westlaw make those same resources available without the hassle of the books and with a per unit cost (hour or transaction). In order to make their business model profitable, they have to limit access, which is difficult to do in a public library because anyone off the street can walk in. Her argument is that they are not selling her what she wants to buy, WHICH IS THEIR RIGHT. She wants a product which is not available, which basically provides near-unlimited access for next-to-nothing (or freely available through a public library).
However, in order for her monopoly argument to succeed, she would have to demonstrate limited access which either makes it impossible or impracticable to get the same information from another source. However, there are multiple alternative methods to get free (even no-cost) access to this same information, BUT NOT THE WAY SHE WANTS IT.
She IS perfectly capable of buying the same product that I can, but she has to pay the same price that I do and is limited to purchasing only the products they have offered to sell. This is no different than information in the public domain being packaged in multiple forms. If you want to buy a classic piece of music in the public domain on compact disc but it's only available on cassette, either buy the cassette or make the CD yourself.
Yeah...I agree. And I think they made biology too complicated. They should have made it understandable enough that I can perform my own appendectomy at home and not be FORCED to visit a doctor. Damn reality.....
Ms. Bar does not seem to be arguing for FREE ACCESS to the information she seeks, but FREE (no cost), IMMEDIATELY ACCESSIBLE ACCESS. All of the case law Ms. Bar seeks is readily available from your local law school library, courthouse library, and certain other public facilities so equipped, if you would just take the time to visit them. Reporters of case law, state and federal laws, and federal regulations are readily available if you can work the index of a book (federal law and some regulations are also freely available from government websites).
As an attorney, I can tell you why we subscribe to Westlaw or Lexis instead of using the libraries available to us: CONVENIENCE. If I had to go to the library for every case I worked on in a day, I'd waste an enormous amount of my time. The cost of these services is perfectly acceptable to me because I can do all the same research, more efficiently, from the convenience of my own office, which makes me more productive.
We need to understand that "entitlement" does not apply to private sector resources. If you would benefit enough from a service that the price is reasonable, pay it. If not, stop complaining.
Slashdot Mirror
For those of us who remember Cyberpunk 2020 and Shadowrun, it sounds like we're prepping ourselves for a cyberdeck here. Don't need no stinking LCD, just my wetwire neural headjack!!! Bring it on: I'm ready!!!
Rebels object to the "social conversation." Sociopaths fail to recognize the conversation altogether. I choose the sociopaths.
While, given, some people just suck and live to abuse other people for no reason at all, there are also people who bully because they are themselves bullied, usually by someone at home. To be honest, the problem's not as simple as fascist bullies harrassing the smart kid. Some bullying, at least in part, can be attributed to retaliation by "victims" in an effort to rebuild self-image, which is kind of what I'm reading on some of the "pizza-tipping" posts. My $0.02.
Consider that Lexis mentioned in its rebuttal that it offers service to libraries which would permit the librarian to perform legal research for the patron (I'm curious on the guidelines they set for that), but that they aren't comfortable offering the same service to the anonymous patrons who walk through the door. While it is conceivable that lawyers who previously subscribed to their services would abandon them in order to get the same access from the library (as they suggest), that seems highly unlikely. I would suggest that the vast majority of the users of their services favor the convenience and only infrequent users would be inclined to visit the library to get a free search.
I wonder if Lexis/Westlaw's "user-privity"-esque issues may be alleviated with individual user registration (no more anonymity) and a click-thru agreement substantially in the form of the use contracts with law firms. Libraries could purchase blocks of 1000 hours of use. But in the end, it does come down to the products that the services choose to sell. Something that leads me to believe that cost really was an issue is found in Lexis' rebuttal:
"LexisNexis sales reps discussed several options with the writer, Melissa Barr, although none of the plans would allow her to do what she wanted to do -- give unlimited, unmediated access in multiple locations to the LexisNexis legal information service at an unrealistic price."
Money may in fact be the issue of disagreement. I guess, to build on your analogy, it's like having the CD in the bin, but charging men a higher price than women. It doesn't remove the "bad taste", but consider also other instances of preferences retailers show to different customers (i.e. selling "academic" versions of software for less than the standard version, based on the limited duration of the license). Why don't software manufacturers offer discounted "standard" versions of software with limited duration licenses to someone outside of academia (which considering the speed of obsolescence in software, would be a great deal)? Should we require them to? Should they be obligated to price their products based on the extent of the license/quantity we want to purchase?
However, in order for her monopoly argument to succeed, she would have to demonstrate limited access which either makes it impossible or impracticable to get the same information from another source. However, there are multiple alternative methods to get free (even no-cost) access to this same information, BUT NOT THE WAY SHE WANTS IT.
She IS perfectly capable of buying the same product that I can, but she has to pay the same price that I do and is limited to purchasing only the products they have offered to sell. This is no different than information in the public domain being packaged in multiple forms. If you want to buy a classic piece of music in the public domain on compact disc but it's only available on cassette, either buy the cassette or make the CD yourself.
Yeah...I agree. And I think they made biology too complicated. They should have made it understandable enough that I can perform my own appendectomy at home and not be FORCED to visit a doctor. Damn reality.....
As an attorney, I can tell you why we subscribe to Westlaw or Lexis instead of using the libraries available to us: CONVENIENCE. If I had to go to the library for every case I worked on in a day, I'd waste an enormous amount of my time. The cost of these services is perfectly acceptable to me because I can do all the same research, more efficiently, from the convenience of my own office, which makes me more productive.
We need to understand that "entitlement" does not apply to private sector resources. If you would benefit enough from a service that the price is reasonable, pay it. If not, stop complaining.