You mean like a society that has decided the only unprotected people are those that are both white and men?
This is a myth. Anti discrimination laws apply to all people who suffer discrimination based on ethnicity and gender. Both white people and males have sued for discrimination and frequently won their cases.
There doesn't need to be anywhere near a total collapse (interesting that you hedge with a rather extreme definition of "collapse") for public services and safety to degrade to a level that adversely affects the health and safety of ordinary citizens for a period of days to months. One only need to look to Latin America's last big economic collapse, the Syrian War or the roughest periods of post-Communist Eastern Europe to witness a massive drop in police protection, civil service resources and public utilities.
By the way, hundreds of thousands families in World War II were instantly displaced or caught in harrowing deadly situations by army movements, massive bombings, deliberate targeting of civilians and frequent rounds of genocide. In many major cities services were disrupted for weeks, months, even years. A Jewish family, much less *any* family in Europe in 1939 would have been well served by some survival training, spare supplies, escape plans, safety plans and a even a serviceable, concealable weapon in many cases.
It's long past time to reclaim parts of the internet for public use. I propose a movement where various internet service providers (across the stack) pledge or contractually bind themselves to:
- Never assist third parties in tracking users or acquiring user information. This means no XSS, web bugs, cookies, or other trade of user tracking data - Destroy personally identifying information on a regular basis - Never allow the government to acquire or seize information without a public warrant - Never sell-out to entities that break any of the above rules
Power attracts people or entities who want to abuse that power and use it to exploit other people for their own benefit. Always.
Information of *any* kind is power, and large amounts of correlated and personalized information is *immense* power for any person or entity who has access to it.
Editorialized Rubbish From Dead Tree Flakes
on
The eBook Backlash
·
· Score: 1
The NY Times reports that people who read ebooks on tablets like the iPad are beginning to realize that while a book in print is straightforward and immersive, a tablet is more like a 21st-century cacophony than a traditional solitary activity
This article presents no sales figures, no trend graphs, and no statistics from actual book buyers. The only citation in the article that supports this assertion are the opinions of unspecified random publishers, an opinion survey - of publishers, and one random reader much perfers her tablet over paper books.
The entire article is yet another example of poorly supported screed from out-of-touch haters in the tree killing industry pining for the past where publishers, rather than e-book authors, controlled publishing.
You've gotta love this specious, narcissistic, antisocial line of argument. It's a specious form of false attribution that also conflates anecdote with data, similar to the refrain that, "I don't see my rights aren't being violated, so what's the problem?"
The initial outlay for wireless equipment and towers may be higher, but just like land lines, the costs are fixed and extremely low per MB. There is no more different necessity to meter wireless service than there is to meter fiber or copper service.
Canada and Saudi Arabia, unlike the United States, have a massive surplus, and like most people around the world, they really, really like money. Different strokes for different folks, ya'll.
And when those same companies are finished wringing your treasury dry with tax abatements, they'll flee overseas, leaving your state with astronomical bond payments.
Ars Technica produces the kind of baseless speculation that would make Cringely blush; that leads to wrong-headed opinions that would make David Coursey blush, and coalesces into inaccurate predictions penned with a conceitedness that would make Dovorak blush.
This is all created with the kind of 'inside information' that would make the guy running Mac OS Rumors blush.
For an Ars Technica commentator, being embarrassingly wrong is a profession...and a cause for pride.
A sixteen year old is found in posession of 40K songs on his home server. There is no record the accused has uploaded or downloaded the songs, but with no physical data medium the accused has commited a copyright violation.
Using the RIAA's reasoning and iTunes pricing the plaintiff has infringed $40K of gross profit.
Accepting Cuban's reasoning, the defendant has reduced the plaintiff infringed's gross by $3840.
Yearly Sub Fee * Average Life Span in country of residence
The average life span for a person in the U.S. is 80 years. The subscription fee is only $60 a year.
Non punitive judgements are often given based on the lifetime worth to the plaintiff had the unlawful action not occured. Under Cuban's model the plaitiff will typically receive no more than $5000 per judgement, and in that case, the infringer would have to download from the womb.
Under Cuban's model, unless a very large number of cases can be processed cheaply, or punitive measure's pursued forcefully, it's not worth the expense to file.
"That is precisely why I asked. The fact that there are thousands of indie labels all selling their goods for about the same price is contradictory of a couple of facts that every Slashdotter knows: the RIAA is a monopoly, and CDs are sold at a very high margin. In a market with thousands of suppliers, price fixing can't realistically be maintained." Absolutely wrong.
Price fixing can occur at the supplier level or the distribution level. The RIAA's power is not in dominating supply, but dominating distribution through a handful of large retailers who sell the vast majority of music.
"Just so that we're talking about the same thing, would you agree that the auto industry has a monopoly on cars?" Positively wrong on both of your hidden premises.
Firstly, the auto industry does not enjoy a monopoly on product distribution. Car companies don't sell %95 of their product through a relative handful of one stop retailers. As a matter of fact, such arrangements are illegal in many states.
Secondly, anyone with sufficient capital can enter the auto industry and be competitive, *because there is no limit on distribution*. A new car company can easily find dealers.
The music industry is dominated by a handful of retailers, the RIAA has effective control over the product supplied to those retailers, they can pressure the (say it with me) handful of major resellers into not selling other products.
This kind of behavior is not hypothetical The RIAA has been tried and convicted of such price fixing schemes.
If you can't grok that, put down your classical liberal screed and learn some modern macroeconomics. The 'Slashdotters' you like to strawman so eagerly make more sense in than you're making.
"I see this claim on Slashdot a lot, but I'm just not seeing the evidence. Apple and the record labels have sold tens of millions of tracks on the iTMS and are laughing all the way to the bank."
I'll give you this. At this point there is no strong evidence either way as to Apple's intentions. Apple isn't yet in the position to execute such a maneuver and it would be a decade or so before they can do so. I'm willing to wait and see. Are you?
"it is impossible to run Universal has recently launched their own online-only label." How is this germane to the overall discussion? Some details would be helpful. Sony and BMG have tried and failed at online distribution, how do they fit into this discussion. Educate me.
"Meanwhile, online ventures like Magnatune, which would fit many Slashdotter's ideal of the future of online music, are flailing. I seems to me that the record labels get this Internet thing just fine."
Magnatune is is failing? How so? Is it a result of being an early experiment, a bad business plan or simply being an innovator in an *emerging* market?
You're going to have to come up with some more information regarding Magnatune's 'failure' before I buy your argument.
Okay, okay, I admit it. I don't know what you're auguring here. My argument is that the major labels get the Internet too well. The majors want exclusive distribution *and* continued dominance of the distribution channel.
"As you know, the record industry is a hugely speculative one; just one hit a year can keep the lights on and pay for all the other failures. Record companies have an obligation to their employees to stay in business,"
I thought they *only* have an obligation to make money, right?
" so they take the path of least resistance and make safe choices. However, I think that's their prerogative and it's certainly not "evil" at all -- in fact, it's how most businesses operate." God bless the indie labels that take chances on the fringe acts, but running a small label with no capital is an even riskier business."
The irony is that a moderately successful indie artist is going to make much more money selling and promoting their own products *in this current market* than listening to the drivel of an A&R dope a
"I don't understand what you mean. If this is the case, why do people keep signing recording contracts?"
Record companies spend a great deal of money convincing good artists that signing with a record label is actually a good idea when it generally isn't. Artist's are not exactly famous for their business acumen.
More importantly, until very recently, the major labels enjoyed a stranglehold on distribution and mass-marketing. If a band or an indie wants wide distribution, they have to go through a major or spend a lot of money and time trying to secure sales through major retailers.
"There's something I've always wondered; maybe you can explain it since you know so much about the record industry. There are relatively few labels that belong to the RIAA, but there are thousands of thousands of indie labels. Why is it that indie CDs cost about the same as CDs from RIAA labels? I can understand if CDs could be sold profitably for five bucks and the big RIAA labels formed a cartel that agreed to sell them at twelve bucks, but if that's the case, why doesn't one of the indie labels start selling CDs for five bucks?"
The RIAA will tell the major resellers to either stop selling those products or lose the business.
Of course the small labels can sue and the government can bring an antitrust charge, but by the time it was adjudicated the technically illegal actions will have done the job nicely. Yey for the cartel.
You can be an independent label and sell through your own channels like live shows, word of mouth, luck, etc, but if you want your CD in Best Buy Tower, Wal*Mart, or Target, you play by their rules.
"All it would take is one... then the rest would follow... then the RIAA labels would have to lower their prices."
Captain Obvious, if it was that easy, there wouldn't be a problem now would there?
As long as the RIAA enjoys a distribution monopoly your scheme can't and won't work.
"Is it that all the indie labels are in on the conspiracy as well?"
Some are and some aren't. Many indie labels are vanity labels for megastars or indies that essentially operate as subsidiaries for the major labels. Until very recently it has been rather difficult for an indie label to get national distribution outside of a major label distribution contract.
The RIAA is terrified of the Internet because it contains the possibility of breaking their distribution model. They will lobby legislators, get laws passed, do anything to take down any net distribution model that looks like a threat.
You can thank iTunes for giving artists the ability to distribute work independently. It will eventually snowball into something more significant...as long as Apple doesn't sell out to keep the RIAA on it's good side.
"I've lost you there. Aren't record companies in business to make money?"
And it is in my interest as a consumer to widen the availability and lower the price of profit.
It is in the interest of the artist to secure the best distribution and price for their work.
Have you made a hidden assumption that the only business worthy of consideration is the record companies?
"It's well and good for us to tell the record companies that they should instead be concentrating more on unprofitable bands, but it is they, not we, who are responsible to their employees."
You need to be more clear on what exactly you mean by 'unprofitable'.
"I tend to think that I shouldn't violate somebody's rights no matter what impression I might have of their business model, and I also think that two wrongs don't make a right. Do you disagree?"
This is about the only thing you said that I can agree with. Laws have to be changed to make a real difference.
"Using your patented library approach, you probably understand Kant's ethics as much as I understand the mathematical proofs of General Relativity." Yes, you can get a good understanding of a mathematical proof of general relativity by studying the matter on your own if you are so inclined. Whats your point?" I obviously wasn't clear enough.
My point is, how many working Physicists gained useful practicing knowledge exclusively through library study? Many fewer than college trained.
The same analysis would applies for any liberal arts major, including Philosophy. "Where do I start..." With the facts and not broad and misleading stereotypes... "Not getting a career right out of college as the original poster claimed to have done. Thus they are irrelevant."
You're making a false attribution. He never made the specific claim as you state. If he wants maximum career flexibility or the choice of a career in non-technical management, he is likely better served with a philosophy degree over say, a CS or CIS degree.
Potential Careers
Philosophy majors find their training useful in a variety of fields. They have developed general analytic and organizational skills, which they can transfer from one career area or job to another. They have the flexibility and capacity for growth that employers find valuable. Many enter jobs in business, journalism, computer science, public administration, teaching (all levels), publishing, and public relations. With appropriate graduate work they find careers in law, the health professions, and college teaching.
"Bringing them up only shows your ignorance of the subject." So far, the only ignorance on display is yours. Continue reading. "Second, did at some point in your wonderful liberal arts education did you learn the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc? Just because philosophy students do better on the test does not mean their education caused that. I never made the stated claim, however, the correlation between high performing Philosophy students and their major cannot be written off as a fluke of chance. Either philosophy majors are intellectually strong naturally, the coursework filters out out weak students, or the training improves their skills - skills which apparently apply to a variety of lucrative career fields or a post graduate education. One cannot assert that the Philosophy training necessarily produces strong graduates but you can safely assert Philosophy major are very strong graduates with flexible career options. "Thirdly, I have not seen such specific data." You can get started with a simple goggle search. But seeing as how obsessed you are with scoring style points and parroting patronizing nonsense. I'll provide some links for you. http://www.collegeboard.com/apps/careers/maj ors/0, 3480,23-119,00.html http://chiron.valdosta.edu/ph i/jobsphm2.htm Most of these links say basically the same thing so I won't bother repeating myself.
"Citing statistics is appropriate when making claims like this." You're correct. I've been a little too casual, but my nightcap tends to do that to me. "I have seen data showing philosophy students do well on the LSATs, and surprise philosophy is often taken by pre-law students. I have seen that philosophy students do best majors on the verbal section of the GREs, but not the GREs as a whole." http://thereitis.org/displayarticle637.ht ml It helps to read the whole article, but note the chart in the middle of the page. "While they do better than most liberal arts students in the quantitative sections, science majors still do better. And I have seen data that shows philosophy majors do better than business students on the GMAT, but similar data shows math majors do even better. In reality those numbers are probably skewed since few non-business students will take the GMAT." While I oversimplified my claim, your claim is totally specious in that it
Using your patented library approach, you probably understand Kant's ethics as much as I understand the mathematical proofs of General Relativity.
Kant's attempt to formulate a transcendental ethics from the Critique of Pure Reason into the Critique of Practical Reason leaves most Philosophy professors reaching for their reference books during the lecture. You can get the high points with a read through or browsing Wiki, but not much more than that.
Fact: Philosophy majors score higher on the GRE and GMAT than *every other major except Chemistry and Physics*. With those results Philosophy must be teaching something worthwhile and valuable.
Fact: Liberal Arts degree holders on average earn less, but are more consistently employed than science majors. This is something to consider when your job is send to a cheaper, overseas code monkey.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like a society that has decided the only unprotected people are those that are both white and men?
This is a myth. Anti discrimination laws apply to all people who suffer discrimination based on ethnicity and gender. Both white people and males have sued for discrimination and frequently won their cases.
Nice to know you've been so sheltered until now.
There doesn't need to be anywhere near a total collapse (interesting that you hedge with a rather extreme definition of "collapse") for public services and safety to degrade to a level that adversely affects the health and safety of ordinary citizens for a period of days to months. One only need to look to Latin America's last big economic collapse, the Syrian War or the roughest periods of post-Communist Eastern Europe to witness a massive drop in police protection, civil service resources and public utilities.
By the way, hundreds of thousands families in World War II were instantly displaced or caught in harrowing deadly situations by army movements, massive bombings, deliberate targeting of civilians and frequent rounds of genocide. In many major cities services were disrupted for weeks, months, even years. A Jewish family, much less *any* family in Europe in 1939 would have been well served by some survival training, spare supplies, escape plans, safety plans and a even a serviceable, concealable weapon in many cases.
Well Manhattan, Ansterdam, Venice and Hong Kong should not have been built on coastal land only few feet above sea level. And your point again was?
It's long past time to reclaim parts of the internet for public use. I propose a movement where various internet service providers (across the stack) pledge or contractually bind themselves to:
- Never assist third parties in tracking users or acquiring user information. This means no XSS, web bugs, cookies, or other trade of user tracking data
- Destroy personally identifying information on a regular basis
- Never allow the government to acquire or seize information without a public warrant
- Never sell-out to entities that break any of the above rules
This.
Power attracts people or entities who want to abuse that power and use it to exploit other people for their own benefit. Always.
Information of *any* kind is power, and large amounts of correlated and personalized information is *immense* power for any person or entity who has access to it.
This article presents no sales figures, no trend graphs, and no statistics from actual book buyers. The only citation in the article that supports this assertion are the opinions of unspecified random publishers, an opinion survey - of publishers, and one random reader much perfers her tablet over paper books.
The entire article is yet another example of poorly supported screed from out-of-touch haters in the tree killing industry pining for the past where publishers, rather than e-book authors, controlled publishing.
You've gotta love this specious, narcissistic, antisocial line of argument. It's a specious form of false attribution that also conflates anecdote with data, similar to the refrain that, "I don't see my rights aren't being violated, so what's the problem?"
The initial outlay for wireless equipment and towers may be higher, but just like land lines, the costs are fixed and extremely low per MB. There is no more different necessity to meter wireless service than there is to meter fiber or copper service.
Canada and Saudi Arabia, unlike the United States, have a massive surplus, and like most people around the world, they really, really like money. Different strokes for different folks, ya'll.
And when those same companies are finished wringing your treasury dry with tax abatements, they'll flee overseas, leaving your state with astronomical bond payments.
Thanks China, seriously.
Stop lying. Just. Stop.
Ars Technica produces the kind of baseless speculation that would make Cringely blush; that leads to wrong-headed opinions that would make David Coursey blush, and coalesces into inaccurate predictions penned with a conceitedness that would make Dovorak blush.
This is all created with the kind of 'inside information' that would make the guy running Mac OS Rumors blush.
For an Ars Technica commentator, being embarrassingly wrong is a profession...and a cause for pride.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
A sixteen year old is found in posession of 40K songs on his home server. There is no record the accused has uploaded or downloaded the songs, but with no physical data medium the accused has commited a copyright violation.
Using the RIAA's reasoning and iTunes pricing the plaintiff has infringed $40K of gross profit.
Accepting Cuban's reasoning, the defendant has reduced the plaintiff infringed's gross by $3840.
The average life span for a person in the U.S. is 80 years. The subscription fee is only $60 a year.
Non punitive judgements are often given based on the lifetime worth to the plaintiff had the unlawful action not occured. Under Cuban's model the plaitiff will typically receive no more than $5000 per judgement, and in that case, the infringer would have to download from the womb.
Under Cuban's model, unless a very large number of cases can be processed cheaply, or punitive measure's pursued forcefully, it's not worth the expense to file.
So what kind of economic pressure will work?
Pirating is obviously not working.
The time for whining is over, it's time for solutions.
"That is precisely why I asked. The fact that there are thousands of indie labels all selling their goods for about the same price is contradictory of a couple of facts that every Slashdotter knows: the RIAA is a monopoly, and CDs are sold at a very high margin.
In a market with thousands of suppliers, price fixing can't realistically be maintained."
Absolutely wrong.
Price fixing can occur at the supplier level or the distribution level. The RIAA's power is not in dominating supply, but dominating distribution through a handful of large retailers who sell the vast majority of music.
"Just so that we're talking about the same thing, would you agree that the auto industry has a monopoly on cars?"
Positively wrong on both of your hidden premises.
Firstly, the auto industry does not enjoy a monopoly on product distribution. Car companies don't sell %95 of their product through a relative handful of one stop retailers. As a matter of fact, such arrangements are illegal in many states.
Secondly, anyone with sufficient capital can enter the auto industry and be competitive, *because there is no limit on distribution*. A new car company can easily find dealers.
The music industry is dominated by a handful of retailers, the RIAA has effective control over the product supplied to those retailers, they can pressure the (say it with me) handful of major resellers into not selling other products.
This kind of behavior is not hypothetical The RIAA has been tried and convicted of such price fixing schemes.
If you can't grok that, put down your classical liberal screed and learn some modern macroeconomics. The 'Slashdotters' you like to strawman so eagerly make more sense in than you're making.
"I see this claim on Slashdot a lot, but I'm just not seeing the evidence. Apple and the record labels have sold tens of millions of tracks on the iTMS and are laughing all the way to the bank."
I'll give you this. At this point there is no strong evidence either way as to Apple's intentions. Apple isn't yet in the position to execute such a maneuver and it would be a decade or so before they can do so. I'm willing to wait and see. Are you?
"it is impossible to run Universal has recently launched their own online-only label."
How is this germane to the overall discussion? Some details would be helpful. Sony and BMG have tried and failed at online distribution, how do they fit into this discussion. Educate me.
"Meanwhile, online ventures like Magnatune, which would fit many Slashdotter's ideal of the future of online music, are flailing. I seems to me that the record labels get this Internet thing just fine."
Magnatune is is failing? How so? Is it a result of being an early experiment, a bad business plan or simply being an innovator in an *emerging* market?
You're going to have to come up with some more information regarding Magnatune's 'failure' before I buy your argument.
Okay, okay, I admit it. I don't know what you're auguring here. My argument is that the major labels get the Internet too well. The majors want exclusive distribution *and* continued dominance of the distribution channel.
"As you know, the record industry is a hugely speculative one; just one hit a year can keep the lights on and pay for all the other failures. Record companies have an obligation to their employees to stay in business,"
I thought they *only* have an obligation to make money, right?
" so they take the path of least resistance and make safe choices. However, I think that's their prerogative and it's certainly not "evil" at all -- in fact, it's how most businesses operate." God bless the indie labels that take chances on the fringe acts, but running a small label with no capital is an even riskier business."
The irony is that a moderately successful indie artist is going to make much more money selling and promoting their own products *in this current market* than listening to the drivel of an A&R dope a
"I don't understand what you mean. If this is the case, why do people keep signing recording contracts?"
Record companies spend a great deal of money convincing good artists that signing with a record label is actually a good idea when it generally isn't. Artist's are not exactly famous for their business acumen.
More importantly, until very recently, the major labels enjoyed a stranglehold on distribution and mass-marketing. If a band or an indie wants wide distribution, they have to go through a major or spend a lot of money and time trying to secure sales through major retailers.
"There's something I've always wondered; maybe you can explain it since you know so much about the record industry. There are relatively few labels that belong to the RIAA, but there are thousands of thousands of indie labels. Why is it that indie CDs cost about the same as CDs from RIAA labels? I can understand if CDs could be sold profitably for five bucks and the big RIAA labels formed a cartel that agreed to sell them at twelve bucks, but if that's the case, why doesn't one of the indie labels start selling CDs for five bucks?"
The RIAA will tell the major resellers to either stop selling those products or lose the business.
Of course the small labels can sue and the government can bring an antitrust charge, but by the time it was adjudicated the technically illegal actions will have done the job nicely. Yey for the cartel.
You can be an independent label and sell through your own channels like live shows, word of mouth, luck, etc, but if you want your CD in Best Buy Tower, Wal*Mart, or Target, you play by their rules.
"All it would take is one... then the rest would follow... then the RIAA labels would have to lower their prices."
Captain Obvious, if it was that easy, there wouldn't be a problem now would there?
As long as the RIAA enjoys a distribution monopoly your scheme can't and won't work.
"Is it that all the indie labels are in on the conspiracy as well?"
Some are and some aren't. Many indie labels are vanity labels for megastars or indies that essentially operate as subsidiaries for the major labels. Until very recently it has been rather difficult for an indie label to get national distribution outside of a major label distribution contract.
The RIAA is terrified of the Internet because it contains the possibility of breaking their distribution model. They will lobby legislators, get laws passed, do anything to take down any net distribution model that looks like a threat.
You can thank iTunes for giving artists the ability to distribute work independently. It will eventually snowball into something more significant...as long as Apple doesn't sell out to keep the RIAA on it's good side.
"I've lost you there. Aren't record companies in business to make money?"
And it is in my interest as a consumer to widen the availability and lower the price of profit.
It is in the interest of the artist to secure the best distribution and price for their work.
Have you made a hidden assumption that the only business worthy of consideration is the record companies?
"It's well and good for us to tell the record companies that they should instead be concentrating more on unprofitable bands, but it is they, not we, who are responsible to their employees."
You need to be more clear on what exactly you mean by 'unprofitable'.
"I tend to think that I shouldn't violate somebody's rights no matter what impression I might have of their business model, and I also think that two wrongs don't make a right. Do you disagree?"
This is about the only thing you said that I can agree with. Laws have to be changed to make a real difference.
Yes, you can get a good understanding of a mathematical proof of general relativity by studying the matter on your own if you are so inclined. Whats your point?"
I obviously wasn't clear enough.
My point is, how many working Physicists gained useful practicing knowledge exclusively through library study? Many fewer than college trained.
The same analysis would applies for any liberal arts major, including Philosophy.
"Where do I start..."
With the facts and not broad and misleading stereotypes...
"Not getting a career right out of college as the original poster claimed to have done. Thus they are irrelevant."
You're making a false attribution. He never made the specific claim as you state. If he wants maximum career flexibility or the choice of a career in non-technical management, he is likely better served with a philosophy degree over say, a CS or CIS degree.
"Bringing them up only shows your ignorance of the subject."
So far, the only ignorance on display is yours. Continue reading.
"Second, did at some point in your wonderful liberal arts education did you learn the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc? Just because philosophy students do better on the test does not mean their education caused that.
I never made the stated claim, however, the correlation between high performing Philosophy students and their major cannot be written off as a fluke of chance. Either philosophy majors are intellectually strong naturally, the coursework filters out out weak students, or the training improves their skills - skills which apparently apply to a variety of lucrative career fields or a post graduate education.
One cannot assert that the Philosophy training necessarily produces strong graduates but you can safely assert Philosophy major are very strong graduates with flexible career options.
"Thirdly, I have not seen such specific data."
You can get started with a simple goggle search. But seeing as how obsessed you are with scoring style points and parroting patronizing nonsense. I'll provide some links for you.
http://www.collegeboard.com/apps/careers/maj ors/0, 3480,23-119,00.html
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/ph i/jobsphm2.htm
Most of these links say basically the same thing so I won't bother repeating myself.
"Citing statistics is appropriate when making claims like this."
You're correct. I've been a little too casual, but my nightcap tends to do that to me.
"I have seen data showing philosophy students do well on the LSATs, and surprise philosophy is often taken by pre-law students. I have seen that philosophy students do best majors on the verbal section of the GREs, but not the GREs as a whole."
http://thereitis.org/displayarticle637.ht ml
It helps to read the whole article, but note the chart in the middle of the page.
"While they do better than most liberal arts students in the quantitative sections, science majors still do better. And I have seen data that shows philosophy majors do better than business students on the GMAT, but similar data shows math majors do even better. In reality those numbers are probably skewed since few non-business students will take the GMAT."
While I oversimplified my claim, your claim is totally specious in that it
Using your patented library approach, you probably understand Kant's ethics as much as I understand the mathematical proofs of General Relativity. Kant's attempt to formulate a transcendental ethics from the Critique of Pure Reason into the Critique of Practical Reason leaves most Philosophy professors reaching for their reference books during the lecture. You can get the high points with a read through or browsing Wiki, but not much more than that. Fact: Philosophy majors score higher on the GRE and GMAT than *every other major except Chemistry and Physics*. With those results Philosophy must be teaching something worthwhile and valuable. Fact: Liberal Arts degree holders on average earn less, but are more consistently employed than science majors. This is something to consider when your job is send to a cheaper, overseas code monkey.