>"If things were truly open, do you really think labor in other countries would be so much cheaper?"
Absolutely!
Two things that affect going salaries in geographic locations are the features of that geography (is water locally readily available? does it have to be shipped in at exorbinant costs?) and the desired quality of life by that geographies inhabitants (although *maybe* that might even out, but its still a largly cultural factor that is unlikely to dissappear any time soon.)
I'm in Canada. I got lots of calls from the US during the boom. Companies were willing to put me in 'training', a translucent ploy to allow me to sidestep HB1 requirements. So, I didn't even meet the requirements for an HB1, and companies were *still* trying to figure out ways of getting me into the USofA to work.
Unless anybody can prove that when you sign up, you are giving these companies permission to use that information for the purposes of advertising, its silly to speculate that they will do anything with a list of people who signed up.
I mean, think about it.. do they really want the names of 3.5 million customers who are nitpicky enough about their money, or anti-riaa enough, or smart & engaged enough to proactively sign up to get a maximum of 20 back?
This sounds like the list of people they *dont* want to waste their money on. Frankly, I think every one of those 3.5 million people kick ass. If nobody is interested in damages, it sends a clear message to the market players that market abuse will be ignored.
The kind of list you're charging them with suddenly being able to use to advertise, which even then is a pretty glib assumption, is not worth 50 million dollars.
Email lists with 3.5 million opt-in targetted blue-chip collected address would costa tiny fraction of that money. The idea that 50 million dollars is a good price for that tiny amount of contacts, even if you *were* allowed to suddenly spam them, is insane. That kind of price would get you absolutely laughed out of any online advertising campaign sales meeting.
>The reason people aren't pushing to ban automobiles is because, even though the numbers sound large, the percentages, and therefore, the risks aren't. You are unlikely to personally be affected.
And this is different from terrorism how?
Everyone who knows somebody who's been in a car accident, raise your hands.
Everyone who knows somebody who's been hurt in a terrorist attack, raise your hands.
You mean, privacy is needed before its hiding things that you consider immoral, but I do not.
Privacy helps us escape mob-lynches, but like everything else, the possible pitfalls of granting too much privacy to individuals can be seen lots of places online (yes, I'm talking to you, Anonymous Cowards;)
You are a big wussy. Listen to yourself man. "Wahhh, I might be killed."
Thousands of people die in cars every day, yet I dont see you going to enormous lengths to ban cars.
Why fuck your neighbours just because you're too scared to live in a world where you might be attacked.. even tho thats the way the world has been since Day One?
Bruce didn't say a thing about hurting or boycotting Trolltech or whatever. He clearly believes they're an amazing company, as many of us to.. he was just rightly pointing out that *if* Trolltech were subject to being jerked around on the investor string (which does not seem to be the case, of course), we should try and *help* Trolltech find a way out of being between a possible rock and hard place.
Since that doesn't appear to be a likely problem, I think this entire thread is moot unless somebody makes a solid case that Trolltech could be subject to the consequences of a potentially unscrupulous investor's whims.
I think your point makes sense; but I also think you're arguing against an opinion Bruce doesn't even seem to have.:)
> They may not have everything, but they're pretty close.
Erm, and you know this how?
If Amazon decides not to carry the book, *poof* it ceases to exist if we rely on it as a means of archiving records of books.
Also, if we rely on Amazon purely as a reference, I don't like the idea of the huge advantage they get on their competitors. Even if another site sells the book for cheaper, the convenience (pardon me, the conflict of interest) of mixing reference lists with sales catalogs seems a little too market-muddling for me.
Well, in terms of gaming cards, new games expect you to have around the 200$ worth mark of current graphics power. By the time a card is 50$, it probably won't run new applications so well.. of course, if you dont mind lagging behind in the application market too, thats all well and good, but as online games increasingly rely on a large user community (online FPSes have been like this for years and years) to make them enjoyable, I think you'll find it'll be more and more useless to stay behind the curve when it comes to games.
I feel its worth mentionning that the amount of kids starting to death in the states is FAR less than in other countries. We have tons of homeless people here, but access to food, no matter how meager or shitty, generally does exist.
In other countries, they actually starve. Until they die.
Try pulling some numbers on that, because I suspect the two instances of the word "starving" in those last two lines are of different degrees of severity.
And for the record, I live in shitsville here and interface with homeless folks all the time.
Plus, you could make the argument that *some* people who are homeless here are homeless of their own design (not that I particularly believe that or not, but there are way easier methods of avoiding starvation here), where as in many other countries you have no choice. You will starve, its just a matter of when.
Dude, you can live off lawn grass and rain water for free if you like, and yet, for some odd reason, you're not doing it.
Is that because you might actually pay for something that is otherwise available for free if the quality of that product is offered at a price you consider worth spending on it? Gasp...
I'm one of the RIAA and company's most vocal critics. I also use filesharing services from time to time.
But please, if you remove the RIAA from the picture, and thus their bilking of the arist, the artists would like to be paid *somehow*.
I give my music away on mp3.com, besonic.com for free. But if I entered into a recording contract, I would like to imagine that people dont want all their music for free, for ever, no ifs ands or buts.
Kazaa is preferable to handing over money to the RIAA's members, but paying 1$ a song should be preferable to most people than getting all their music for free.
Even building a cheap mini studio to make music can cost anywhere from a grand (if you dont mind poor sound quality and only listen to intrumental/vocal music), to ten grand (approaching radio-quality production quality, more electronic type music). While many artists would like to give music away for free, its just not economically possible. So please temper your opinions with the realization that money has to come from somewhere.. the goal is to cut out the middle man and make music cheaper to buy for the consumer, and more economically viable to pursue for the musician.
People say musicians make money from touring, but alot of the new kind of music coming out doesn't make sense in a live context (electronic music, mostly.) So its a pipe dream to imagine that getting distributed copies of music should always be free because musicians can just tour... this is not an option going forward, as more music will be created in such a way that it cannot be performed live. A much, much, much cheaper cost per song than we're paying now (20$ for 2 songs, as the saying goes) is the ideal goal in my mind, and I do hope that you support that. While you clock dollars at your job, musicians have to work minimum wage jobs and live in shitholes (or with the parents) in order to provide you with the music you want. Given how ubiquitous and important music is to people, I'd like to believe that most people would volounteer some cash to help artists if the option were available and reasonable in the marketplace. Its just a matter of reducing the expected production value of current music (the artificial barrier to the mainstream music market is insane thanks to the labels) so that both consumers and creators can stop worrying about the economics and focus on the music.
The point he was making is that corperations will hijack certain demands, holding the 'blackmail' if they can use that to maintain higher profits in other areas.
I dont think anybody claims they can't make a profit this way, but do they want to make their profit that way or is it easier to make it elsewhere?
Corperations supply to meet demand.. just not all demands. Some demands just take too much work/risk/uncertainty to meet, so using the promise of meeting that demand to minimize competition/risk in other profit making ventures is a common tactic of large companies.
Uh, the US exports weapons/tanks/helicopers to many countries. Holy shit, are you really denying this? These are public records even republicans are proud of!! It's business! The only thing that makes the Republican Party more money than the oil industry is the defence contracting industry.
Slashdot Mirror
>"If things were truly open, do you really think labor in other countries would be so much cheaper?"
Absolutely!
Two things that affect going salaries in geographic locations are the features of that geography (is water locally readily available? does it have to be shipped in at exorbinant costs?) and the desired quality of life by that geographies inhabitants (although *maybe* that might even out, but its still a largly cultural factor that is unlikely to dissappear any time soon.)
I'm in Canada. I got lots of calls from the US during the boom. Companies were willing to put me in 'training', a translucent ploy to allow me to sidestep HB1 requirements. So, I didn't even meet the requirements for an HB1, and companies were *still* trying to figure out ways of getting me into the USofA to work.
Unless anybody can prove that when you sign up, you are giving these companies permission to use that information for the purposes of advertising, its silly to speculate that they will do anything with a list of people who signed up.
.. do they really want the names of 3.5 million customers who are nitpicky enough about their money, or anti-riaa enough, or smart & engaged enough to proactively sign up to get a maximum of 20 back?
I mean, think about it
This sounds like the list of people they *dont* want to waste their money on. Frankly, I think every one of those 3.5 million people kick ass. If nobody is interested in damages, it sends a clear message to the market players that market abuse will be ignored.
The kind of list you're charging them with suddenly being able to use to advertise, which even then is a pretty glib assumption, is not worth 50 million dollars.
Email lists with 3.5 million opt-in targetted blue-chip collected address would costa tiny fraction of that money. The idea that 50 million dollars is a good price for that tiny amount of contacts, even if you *were* allowed to suddenly spam them, is insane. That kind of price would get you absolutely laughed out of any online advertising campaign sales meeting.
Take off the tinfoil, buddy!
>The reason people aren't pushing to ban automobiles is because, even though the numbers sound large, the percentages, and therefore, the risks aren't. You are unlikely to personally be affected.
And this is different from terrorism how?
Everyone who knows somebody who's been in a car accident, raise your hands.
Everyone who knows somebody who's been hurt in a terrorist attack, raise your hands.
That was my point.
You mean, privacy is needed before its hiding things that you consider immoral, but I do not.
;)
Privacy helps us escape mob-lynches, but like everything else, the possible pitfalls of granting too much privacy to individuals can be seen lots of places online (yes, I'm talking to you, Anonymous Cowards
You are a big wussy. Listen to yourself man. "Wahhh, I might be killed."
.. even tho thats the way the world has been since Day One?
Thousands of people die in cars every day, yet I dont see you going to enormous lengths to ban cars.
Why fuck your neighbours just because you're too scared to live in a world where you might be attacked
Wussy!
[flame retardant suit] ;)
If anything can prove that perl makes you bitter, you need only read the above post.
[/flame retardant suit]
You want to pay me for my unused PC cycles?
Fine.
You want me to pay for my music?
Fine.
Why tie one to the other? Sounds like a stupid idea to me.
Bruce didn't say a thing about hurting or boycotting Trolltech or whatever. He clearly believes they're an amazing company, as many of us to .. he was just rightly pointing out that *if* Trolltech were subject to being jerked around on the investor string (which does not seem to be the case, of course), we should try and *help* Trolltech find a way out of being between a possible rock and hard place.
:)
Since that doesn't appear to be a likely problem, I think this entire thread is moot unless somebody makes a solid case that Trolltech could be subject to the consequences of a potentially unscrupulous investor's whims.
I think your point makes sense; but I also think you're arguing against an opinion Bruce doesn't even seem to have.
> They may not have everything, but they're pretty close.
Erm, and you know this how?
If Amazon decides not to carry the book, *poof* it ceases to exist if we rely on it as a means of archiving records of books.
Also, if we rely on Amazon purely as a reference, I don't like the idea of the huge advantage they get on their competitors. Even if another site sells the book for cheaper, the convenience (pardon me, the conflict of interest) of mixing reference lists with sales catalogs seems a little too market-muddling for me.
I'm a 25 year old professional C++ programmer whose been working for 3+ years.
...
But gee, close guess. Let me introduce you to the concept of slashdot bios
I dont go off like this too often, but you're a smarmy retard. That kind of response is Glib, Annoying Stock Answer #23.
If somebody pays tuition, they expect something back in return.
Whats next, you pay tution only to find out learning is a priveledge, not a right?
What the hell are students paying for, the right to maybe have access to the resources they pay tution for?
Well, in terms of gaming cards, new games expect you to have around the 200$ worth mark of current graphics power. By the time a card is 50$, it probably won't run new applications so well .. of course, if you dont mind lagging behind in the application market too, thats all well and good, but as online games increasingly rely on a large user community (online FPSes have been like this for years and years) to make them enjoyable, I think you'll find it'll be more and more useless to stay behind the curve when it comes to games.
something has changed: you can choose what songs are on the CD ... very rarely do you want all 15 songs on a commercial CD.
Maybe you always like all songs on CDs, but you are in the minority.
I feel its worth mentionning that the amount of kids starting to death in the states is FAR less than in other countries. We have tons of homeless people here, but access to food, no matter how meager or shitty, generally does exist.
In other countries, they actually starve. Until they die.
Try pulling some numbers on that, because I suspect the two instances of the word "starving" in those last two lines are of different degrees of severity.
And for the record, I live in shitsville here and interface with homeless folks all the time.
Plus, you could make the argument that *some* people who are homeless here are homeless of their own design (not that I particularly believe that or not, but there are way easier methods of avoiding starvation here), where as in many other countries you have no choice. You will starve, its just a matter of when.
Dude, you can live off lawn grass and rain water for free if you like, and yet, for some odd reason, you're not doing it.
...
Is that because you might actually pay for something that is otherwise available for free if the quality of that product is offered at a price you consider worth spending on it? Gasp
I'm one of the RIAA and company's most vocal critics. I also use filesharing services from time to time.
.. the goal is to cut out the middle man and make music cheaper to buy for the consumer, and more economically viable to pursue for the musician.
... this is not an option going forward, as more music will be created in such a way that it cannot be performed live. A much, much, much cheaper cost per song than we're paying now (20$ for 2 songs, as the saying goes) is the ideal goal in my mind, and I do hope that you support that. While you clock dollars at your job, musicians have to work minimum wage jobs and live in shitholes (or with the parents) in order to provide you with the music you want. Given how ubiquitous and important music is to people, I'd like to believe that most people would volounteer some cash to help artists if the option were available and reasonable in the marketplace. Its just a matter of reducing the expected production value of current music (the artificial barrier to the mainstream music market is insane thanks to the labels) so that both consumers and creators can stop worrying about the economics and focus on the music.
But please, if you remove the RIAA from the picture, and thus their bilking of the arist, the artists would like to be paid *somehow*.
I give my music away on mp3.com, besonic.com for free. But if I entered into a recording contract, I would like to imagine that people dont want all their music for free, for ever, no ifs ands or buts.
Kazaa is preferable to handing over money to the RIAA's members, but paying 1$ a song should be preferable to most people than getting all their music for free.
Even building a cheap mini studio to make music can cost anywhere from a grand (if you dont mind poor sound quality and only listen to intrumental/vocal music), to ten grand (approaching radio-quality production quality, more electronic type music). While many artists would like to give music away for free, its just not economically possible. So please temper your opinions with the realization that money has to come from somewhere
People say musicians make money from touring, but alot of the new kind of music coming out doesn't make sense in a live context (electronic music, mostly.) So its a pipe dream to imagine that getting distributed copies of music should always be free because musicians can just tour
Thanks.
.. had god been smart and made the universe and everything within it with RFID tags. Imagine the possibilities ...
Yeah, with only 6 billion people on this planet, we couldn't possibly work on two or three things at once could we?
Oops, sure we can.
The site is slashdotted and equiring minds want to know ...
The point he was making is that corperations will hijack certain demands, holding the 'blackmail' if they can use that to maintain higher profits in other areas.
.. just not all demands. Some demands just take too much work/risk/uncertainty to meet, so using the promise of meeting that demand to minimize competition/risk in other profit making ventures is a common tactic of large companies.
I dont think anybody claims they can't make a profit this way, but do they want to make their profit that way or is it easier to make it elsewhere?
Corperations supply to meet demand
Uh, the US exports weapons/tanks/helicopers to many countries. Holy shit, are you really denying this? These are public records even republicans are proud of!! It's business! The only thing that makes the Republican Party more money than the oil industry is the defence contracting industry.
No.
.. try and get out of your glass house once in a while to see the world.
English should be capitalized. But who the fuck cares
- a carrot
- a can of coke
- a 2l pop bottle
Or just eat the weed.
Or smoke it in a joint.
I mean, poor american taxpayers, how much are you paying a year now to try and keep those dangerous stoners from running amok?