It is the goal of producers to maximize profit. It is the goal of consumers to get what they want at the lowest price. Free market Capitalism is the system where producers and consumers are free to set that price.
But consumers never are free to set that price. When was the last time you went into a supermarket and say the to checkout girl "Actually I don't think that banana is worth that much, I want to pay 10% less". The people in the western world don't know how to haggle any more.
And if some idiot tells me that I can vote with my wallet I would point out to them that I don't particularly like starving.
The real reason the cost of living doesn't go down is because of the federal reserve. They are constantly inflating the money supply to slowly steal the wealth of the country for the politicians and wall street bankers. If there was sound money all prices including wages would be constantly falling as people saved and became more productive. The goal for the last 100 years has been to inflate enough to keep prices stable so that people don't notice the theft.
[citation needed] No seriously. You need to re-examine your evidence. This has been going on in all countries everywhere since the "free market" and capitalism was invented. This is not a problem specific to America (land of the relatively inexpensive), but it's a problem with capitalism and basic human greed. The aim of the rich is to get richer. The aim of the poor is not to starve to death.
Please stop whining about how it's the government's fault, and realise that it's human nature to want more.
They don't (for the most part) carry them in the UK either where I grew up. I still feel a little nervous about the RCMP carrying. Would I feel any less nervous if I was allowed to carry? Not really. More guns just means more opportunity to get shot - accidentally or otherwise.
Do you mean this from a DRM point or a technical point?
DRM: Well, apart from the fact that Blockbuster went bust, people still want to be able to rent movies. Not everyone wants a massive DVD/Blu-ray collection cluttering up their houses, and most people are turning away from $15 theatre tickets in favour of $8 per month for Netflix. The cost is incomparable. It is also conceivable that not everyone wants to pirate the stuff they want to watch.
Technical: The difference is the lag time. Netflix can do a lot of buffering, but with games it's interactive - how do you buffer when you don't know what is coming up?
They do to a degree. I'm not a Netflix customer, but various people have posted online that you can register 6 devices, but can only stream to one IP at any one time.
I've felt that the "TV experience"* has got worse ever since high def TVs started being pushed to the masses. The TV manufacturers suddenly realised that people were willing to throw away perfectly good TVs for ones that shows the same stuff but in higher def. Except most of the TV channels don't do high def.
So now, people are willing to landfill perfectly good HD TVs for the next thing - 3D TVs.
And what will happen next? People junking 3D TVs in favour of ones which "enhance our viewing^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmarketability"
*sigh*
Me? I'm still watching the perfectly good, pre-HD TV I bought 20 years ago.
PS: why does everything have to be an "experience"?
Especially considering their reputation isn't tarnished already. I mean, it's not like they are partly responsible for one of the worse recessions in 100 years.
Umm - actually England (which is ruled by the Queen) has a bill of rights too, which was written a full 100 years before the US got it's Bill of Rights.
Granted - in Nevada they will need to ship lots of water out to the plant to keep the mirrors clean. But its still cheaper than coal or oil. But it won't be subject in any meaningful way to the whims of the coal or oil markets.
I would probably be classed as a green, in that I would rather we didn't f*** up the environment whilst using industrialised processes. I certainly like the price of the fuel for green energy - after all we spend millions of $ per year on the sun. Oh no - that's right it's free.
But I'm also a realist. I like my car, but I would prefer an electric one, especially if the power used was produced with green energy. I like having the conveniences of cities, although I prefer a smaller town to a larger one. I certainly don't oppose factories, the stuff I like to have around me is often produced in one. I'm not opposed to big businesses, but I am opposed to big businesses who think that because they are big, they can pollute the environment without consequence - because it's "all about the jobs". Never mind the fact that it will pollute the river the factory uses, so no one can use the water for anything else.
And you have completely mis-read the OP. He's not arguing that people should be able to pirate Hollywood's content as and when they please. He's arguing that Hollywood abuses the legal system, and does so to extort more money out of the people than Hollywood are due by suppressing Fair Use, and in this case parody. The irony here (seeing as you don't seem to understand it) is that WB are using the parody clauses of copyright law to get out of paying someone damages.
This is yet another example of how public sector workers think that they are beyond reproach, and do not have to work to the same standards that the private sector does.
FTFY
Incidentally, I've worked for both the public and private sectors. Granted I've never worked in the States - the people in the public sector there may have a different attitude. But certainly in the UK, people working in the public sector are considerably less greedy and far more conscientious than the private sector workers. To add to that they have a layer of bureaucracy above them that "holds them accountable if they screw up" (read: because some politician somewhere will fire them as a scapegoat) - certainly more than in the private sector.
Ok - so historically America has never provided a universal (or social or whatever you want to call it) health care system due to a sense of "Wild wild west"ism? Perhaps that explains the NRA as well.
So why are you not all riding around on horses still? I joke obviously.
Why is your tax code so complicated that "most people don't pay taxes at all"? Certainly not the case in the UK (where I'm originally from), where the employer is responsible for ensuring your income tax is paid direct to the government (known as Pay As You Earn - PAYE). Or are you referring to the massively wealthy, who are not the numeric majority?
England certainly is not a cosy place to live where your every whim is provided by the government. The welfare is not enough to live on. There used to be "council houses" you could rent from the local government, but Maggie Thatcher put paid to that, and has caused a lot of other problems with rising house prices. But we also don't generally have a 50% tax burden. All in all I would say I was paying about 25%, as a rough guestimate taking into account my tax bracket and national insurance. I was on an average income, and I don't think any of my friends were much different. The 50% tax bracket is reserved for people earning in excess of £150,000 (USD 240,000). But the people who pay that kind of tax is relatively few, certainly not the numeric majority.
Do I think the National Health Service (the NHS) and other welfare benefits is worth my 25%? Yes, actually I do. Do I think my freedom has been curtailed as a result of having the NHS? No, I don't think it has. We still have a private healthcare system in the UK, and if I wanted to avoid going to the NHS for whatever reason, I could - if I had the money/health insurance for it. Do I think I would have been financially better off if I didn't have the NHS? No, I don't think I would. There are several points in my life where I've needed the NHS, and one of those times I was unemployed. It would have been financially detrimental to me if I hadn't had the NHS.
Please do explain to me why it's not the purpose of government to provide health care? It works just fine in most other first world nations. Why not America?
I'm not trying to troll - just trying to understand what's so wrong about it?
We all need it at one point or other in our lives - much like we all need public education, roads, justice system, air traffic control, police etc.
Actually, yes - but not in the way you are thinking.
Girls can be way more spiteful than boys. Don't like some other girl in your class? Call her fat and she becomes the laughing stock of the whole class.
My wife developed a LOT earlier than the other girls in her class. She was ridiculed for years because she had boobs, which those that didn't like her equated to being fat. Personally, I rather like my wife's boobs!
Slashdot Mirror
It is the goal of producers to maximize profit. It is the goal of consumers to get what they want at the lowest price. Free market Capitalism is the system where producers and consumers are free to set that price.
But consumers never are free to set that price. When was the last time you went into a supermarket and say the to checkout girl "Actually I don't think that banana is worth that much, I want to pay 10% less". The people in the western world don't know how to haggle any more.
And if some idiot tells me that I can vote with my wallet I would point out to them that I don't particularly like starving.
The real reason the cost of living doesn't go down is because of the federal reserve. They are constantly inflating the money supply to slowly steal the wealth of the country for the politicians and wall street bankers. If there was sound money all prices including wages would be constantly falling as people saved and became more productive. The goal for the last 100 years has been to inflate enough to keep prices stable so that people don't notice the theft.
[citation needed]
No seriously. You need to re-examine your evidence. This has been going on in all countries everywhere since the "free market" and capitalism was invented. This is not a problem specific to America (land of the relatively inexpensive), but it's a problem with capitalism and basic human greed. The aim of the rich is to get richer. The aim of the poor is not to starve to death.
Please stop whining about how it's the government's fault, and realise that it's human nature to want more.
Would this mean that there was more tat on the supermarket shelves?
They don't (for the most part) carry them in the UK either where I grew up. I still feel a little nervous about the RCMP carrying. Would I feel any less nervous if I was allowed to carry? Not really. More guns just means more opportunity to get shot - accidentally or otherwise.
There are plenty of Doctors who do that already. How many Doctors do you know would champion euthanasia?
Do you mean this from a DRM point or a technical point?
DRM: Well, apart from the fact that Blockbuster went bust, people still want to be able to rent movies. Not everyone wants a massive DVD/Blu-ray collection cluttering up their houses, and most people are turning away from $15 theatre tickets in favour of $8 per month for Netflix. The cost is incomparable. It is also conceivable that not everyone wants to pirate the stuff they want to watch.
Technical: The difference is the lag time. Netflix can do a lot of buffering, but with games it's interactive - how do you buffer when you don't know what is coming up?
Either way, your comparison isn't one.
They do to a degree. I'm not a Netflix customer, but various people have posted online that you can register 6 devices, but can only stream to one IP at any one time.
I've felt that the "TV experience"* has got worse ever since high def TVs started being pushed to the masses. The TV manufacturers suddenly realised that people were willing to throw away perfectly good TVs for ones that shows the same stuff but in higher def. Except most of the TV channels don't do high def.
So now, people are willing to landfill perfectly good HD TVs for the next thing - 3D TVs.
And what will happen next? People junking 3D TVs in favour of ones which "enhance our viewing^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmarketability"
*sigh*
Me? I'm still watching the perfectly good, pre-HD TV I bought 20 years ago.
PS: why does everything have to be an "experience"?
Nothing is "innovated" these days for the benefit of mankind, but rather for the benefit of the marketing departments.
FTFY
And why not? It's about the only area they've not gone into yet
Especially considering their reputation isn't tarnished already. I mean, it's not like they are partly responsible for one of the worse recessions in 100 years.
Umm - actually England (which is ruled by the Queen) has a bill of rights too, which was written a full 100 years before the US got it's Bill of Rights.
Wipers would scratch the mirrored surface making it less efficient
Granted - in Nevada they will need to ship lots of water out to the plant to keep the mirrors clean. But its still cheaper than coal or oil. But it won't be subject in any meaningful way to the whims of the coal or oil markets.
Oh yeah - that's right because the money always "trickles down". Right?
You're an idiot if you believe that.
I would probably be classed as a green, in that I would rather we didn't f*** up the environment whilst using industrialised processes. I certainly like the price of the fuel for green energy - after all we spend millions of $ per year on the sun. Oh no - that's right it's free.
But I'm also a realist. I like my car, but I would prefer an electric one, especially if the power used was produced with green energy.
I like having the conveniences of cities, although I prefer a smaller town to a larger one.
I certainly don't oppose factories, the stuff I like to have around me is often produced in one.
I'm not opposed to big businesses, but I am opposed to big businesses who think that because they are big, they can pollute the environment without consequence - because it's "all about the jobs". Never mind the fact that it will pollute the river the factory uses, so no one can use the water for anything else.
Yes, but what has that to do with solar energy?
That's cos it is...
And you have completely mis-read the OP. He's not arguing that people should be able to pirate Hollywood's content as and when they please. He's arguing that Hollywood abuses the legal system, and does so to extort more money out of the people than Hollywood are due by suppressing Fair Use, and in this case parody. The irony here (seeing as you don't seem to understand it) is that WB are using the parody clauses of copyright law to get out of paying someone damages.
Have your union bargain for raises? Not in Wisconsin. And any other state that's enacting union stripping bills.
The unions maybe seen as greedy, but this kind of bargaining is why unions are a good idea. Democracy in action.
The head of the IMF was arrested on a plane. He's in jail (as opposed to being out on bail) because it was suggested he might be a flight risk.
This is yet another example of how public sector workers think that they are beyond reproach, and do not have to work to the same standards that the private sector does.
FTFY
Incidentally, I've worked for both the public and private sectors. Granted I've never worked in the States - the people in the public sector there may have a different attitude. But certainly in the UK, people working in the public sector are considerably less greedy and far more conscientious than the private sector workers. To add to that they have a layer of bureaucracy above them that "holds them accountable if they screw up" (read: because some politician somewhere will fire them as a scapegoat) - certainly more than in the private sector.
Ok - so historically America has never provided a universal (or social or whatever you want to call it) health care system due to a sense of "Wild wild west"ism? Perhaps that explains the NRA as well.
So why are you not all riding around on horses still? I joke obviously.
Why is your tax code so complicated that "most people don't pay taxes at all"? Certainly not the case in the UK (where I'm originally from), where the employer is responsible for ensuring your income tax is paid direct to the government (known as Pay As You Earn - PAYE). Or are you referring to the massively wealthy, who are not the numeric majority?
England certainly is not a cosy place to live where your every whim is provided by the government. The welfare is not enough to live on. There used to be "council houses" you could rent from the local government, but Maggie Thatcher put paid to that, and has caused a lot of other problems with rising house prices. But we also don't generally have a 50% tax burden. All in all I would say I was paying about 25%, as a rough guestimate taking into account my tax bracket and national insurance. I was on an average income, and I don't think any of my friends were much different. The 50% tax bracket is reserved for people earning in excess of £150,000 (USD 240,000). But the people who pay that kind of tax is relatively few, certainly not the numeric majority.
Do I think the National Health Service (the NHS) and other welfare benefits is worth my 25%? Yes, actually I do.
Do I think my freedom has been curtailed as a result of having the NHS? No, I don't think it has. We still have a private healthcare system in the UK, and if I wanted to avoid going to the NHS for whatever reason, I could - if I had the money/health insurance for it.
Do I think I would have been financially better off if I didn't have the NHS? No, I don't think I would. There are several points in my life where I've needed the NHS, and one of those times I was unemployed. It would have been financially detrimental to me if I hadn't had the NHS.
Please do explain to me why it's not the purpose of government to provide health care? It works just fine in most other first world nations. Why not America?
I'm not trying to troll - just trying to understand what's so wrong about it?
We all need it at one point or other in our lives - much like we all need public education, roads, justice system, air traffic control, police etc.
Actually, yes - but not in the way you are thinking.
Girls can be way more spiteful than boys. Don't like some other girl in your class? Call her fat and she becomes the laughing stock of the whole class.
My wife developed a LOT earlier than the other girls in her class. She was ridiculed for years because she had boobs, which those that didn't like her equated to being fat. Personally, I rather like my wife's boobs!
Oh no - I think they know EXACTLY how far reaching this kind of law is.