...and reason was also that agreement is too complex to be signed away so easily, so they have to discuss it first too. I highly doubt that they will hear nothing what happen in Poland and other countries with public opinion. This is country where government actually listens to people, using Internet extensively to collect comments about proposed laws.This is also a land where they elect their government using Internet and Skype was also started there.
Unfortunately, no matter how I would like it to happen, it is too late. Current Nokia leadership (CEO and board) are simply stubborn and they propably hated all openess stuff about Maemo and Linux platform it's based on. There's no bigger danger for company's existence than overrighteous overzealous leadership.
"Nokia were up shit creek bereft of paddles before MS infiltrated them, with engineers incapable of finishing any of their new OS projects."
I would challenge that notion. Lot of feedback from internals indicates that this time management was that who blow it. Reasons where numerous, but mostly Nokia legal's deep distrust with open source and Linux per se. As far as I remember biggest problem was to provide closed DRM based system within Linux system (that wouldn't be so easy to override). As Nokia legals has always have been overzealous pro-IP, this isn't really a surprise. They could easily release normal working Maemo system year and half ago. I mean, that OS and stack were battle tested on N770 and N800/N810. But legal fears and trying to introduce half-backed DRM solution when world strictly moved away for them killed any hope for Maemo.
It also explains why Nokia management fell into Microsoft arms in nanoseconds. Unfortunately, they are made for each other.
Really? How they could harass for example Germany if it refused to bow to such demands? Please keep hyperbole at home. Yes, US laws are overreaching, stupid and borders with control freakism at it's best. Yes, they are trying to push several laws very strongly (*caugh*Intelectual "property"*caugh*). No, they can't get everything unless address country decides to give them.
Moral rules? Really? For small video games which are made to waste their time and enrich their creators, while giving almost nothing for society in general?
Ideas will get copied. Ideas should be allowed to get copied. That's whole idea of the culture is. There's nothing moral or ambigous about it.
Well, no one forbids him to take GNOME Panel and support it. GNOME devs care about GNOME libs and GNOME Shell. But they don't deny anyone keeping legacy software alive if someone says and does so. Trust me, I know these guys.
And there's problem with taking GNOME Panel under your wing and provide some development and direction how? It could be a little more taxing, and require initial investment, but in nutshell, where's problem?
Disclaimer: yes, I'm using GNOME 3 with GNOME Shell as devs intended to and I have some ironic laughts about claims that "GS/Unity devs are screwballs and don't know nothing". However, everyone uses tools best for him, so...just use it, don't go around claiming that it's best desktop for now.
However, I have purerly technical question - why not improving GNOME 3 Panel? It's ported, code cleaned up, it's introspectable (you can write JS extentions like for GNOME Shell) and you can still keep all the goodies, including having compiz and friends.
Problem in nutshell is that free market clashes with idea of capitalism itself per se. Capitalism is all about collecting capital to create more capital, to create more capital, to grow infinitively...
Free market and capitalism is concepts which are self-destructive, because it follows human instincts which are basis of this self-destruction (because of built-in short term vision/insight).
I strongly disagree (yeah, I'm coming from Eastern Europe). If that would be true new generations would be example of politeness and respect to each other.
It has little to do with abolishment of private property (In fact, for Bolshevist elite owning something a lot wasn't a issue, government couldn't take your property away just because they would like to after sixties). Main reason was butchering of middle intelligence of Eastern Europe during Stalin and WWII times. Lot of them where Jews, lot of them where liberals, lot of them where actual communists (yeah, Stalin loved to push his way how he sees future to people). Both sides - Bolshevists and Nazi - killed them in hundred thousands. Society were raped brutally. It resulted in lot of perversions you see today in Russia and Eastern Russia.
Without people as example respect to each other became extinct and with it - respect to other property (because it is related with respect to other feelings and opinion).
And in the end, correction - Communism never calls for abolishment of property, it calls for abolishment of capital property used for manufacturing. And it calls for respecting collective property. I know, I know, human nature can't wrap his mind around it - BS, I don't believe that. We choose because it is more convenient to tell us that no one can stop greed.
Sorry, first of all, with all we know Paul could be very similar to this bunch of politicians, and second, with his lack in crafting a message he will never get near the White House.
About O: 1) Gitmo failed to close due of processes not depending on him; 2) US is out of Iraq, last time I checked the news. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is very easy to get into war. It is very hard to properly get out of it, without creating chaos; 3) Obama care changed to pro big business when he tried to appease Reps. This is one of things I actually blame him about. Why oh why even care to talk with these people if all they want to see you fall? It is again self survival.
You are right about pro business and pro media. I'm not very sure about pro big banks. Problem is quite simple - capitalism in current form is heavily depending on banks. Like it or not, without them from 2005 - till 2008 there wouldn't be see of cheap money which everyone got addicted to. From where I stand, across the pond, it looked that Obama tries no to disturb finance markets to not get into "please us or economy gets it" cycle.
In nutshell, no matter Paul or no Paul, we are basically screwed with capitalism. And no, I'm not saying this as socialist (which I am, disclaimer), but because frankly I don't see how we can continue much longer this way - and I am afraid to look forward and see nothing but trouble (I don't believe that people are ready - if they will ever be - ready for some sort of socialism, which requires high level of education, intelligence and participation). We will pull ourselves up, but if finance market gets away with same tricks and methods like till now, then people will soon give up dreams of houses and cars and will start to look for different system with stability and promises of tomorrow.
Moderate this up. I'm all for some limited copyright, but twenty years - no more, no less. You can recoup your costs easily. Also all patents should be valuated very strictly. You do R&D to compete, not to get some guaranteed profit. And looking to numbers, proper marketing and actual products brings you money, not protected R&D.
I'm not sure about trademarks - I think current situation is problematic because of abuse of system, like trademarking generic words and stuff. This must be more regulated too.
Agreed about penalties of abusing from corporations - they must be much harsher, especially knowingly claiming false copyright ownership.
None of this hits "abuse of monopoly", because they sell hardware and software as one. You don't have to wake up one day and Apple is more restrictive than yesterday. They allways is. They don't give any promises to lurk you in Apple walled garden.
Abuse of monopoly would be if they would start to make deals with mobile operators to tweak their networks just for iTech.
They are in despair. They are too late in mobile market. They start to understand that, but they still have this strong hand mentality. They tried it with Windows Mobile - nope, didn't worked. They are tried with lot of different concepts - also wasted. Now the same with ARM notebooks/tablets.
They don't understand that it is too late. People has seen tomorrow without Microsoft. Tablet competition is very strong out there. What is your killer feature? Office? Who needs that? Email, web - it's all there, it's everywhere.
You don't really get it, do you? By default, in standard mode, EFI will be locked down as it supposed to be. But as a user you could switch to other mode where you can still boot from other OSes and devices. This would require actually switching something, not turning it on automatically every time virus needs it.
Thanks for correction. Yeah, those were very concrete issues Communism manifesto touched that time. Sadly no one talks about these points anymore, because everyone has given up thinking about better solution how to produce stuff.
To be honest, it is more "Imperialism/Corporativism" against "Bolshevism". Because "Capitalism" is just basis of one rule - aviability of private capital, and "Communism" is also pure version of socialism, where "no thing belongs to private entity", but everyone get what he/she wants. "Bolshevism" was a version that state must impose socialism on peers, not vice versa. Therefore it was authoritative at it's definition. "Imperialism/Corporativism" also favors other kind of authoritative power - money.
What is different that first kind of power people always have had some thinkers who saw the sings of the possible conflict and pushed for a change - of course not so big change so they would be removed from (money) power, but still. Russia, however, were land of low intellectual, lack of empathy and intelligence at the beginning of 20th century. If someone would implement pure socialism let's say in Germany right now, there would be less victims, more insight and we would end up with socialdemographic system anyway.
Wow. No one can deny madness that ruled Russia in 1917, but so overwhelmingly one side argument doesn't do history a justice. Sorry, but truth is much more complex.
First of all, let's get some facts straight - there were universal support for Soviets in nation. First of all, look up what that word means - there were committees of workers and peasants. In nutshell, that was good idea because Russia went trough serious existential and political crisis and these organizations where only things that kept society together. However, Bolshevists used this structure of power to take over - because in the end they didn't see anything to justify waiting for proper way to take over. They were ruthless and bloody, no doubt - but also Whites were cruel as well. Both sides are implicated for quite number of killings of civilians (However, that was a war time - Stalin with his mindless killing - creating paranoia and mistrust atmosphere and gave free reign to Troikas - broke that record quite easily).
First of all you must understand that was/is a country which had seen almost nothing of Enlightenment. Czar was a God sent (As it is Putin now - or he thoughts he is). Your, peasant, worker or mere clerk - thoughts were worthless. Whites definitely didn't fought for "Democratic, balanced Russia". Actually, at that time, I highly doubt that anyone cared. Maybe few thousand people.
What Bolshevists should be accused of is killing anyone which could be a even single threat, therefore antagonizing any opposition they had. No, they weren't monsters. They just thought in categories "either we or them". And at one time, they could easily justify their position in such way. However, they sealed their total isolation with any moderate socialist at that time and had hard time to convince anyone outside Russia and USSR that they aren't bloodthirsty.
As I'm living in Eastern Europe, just 400 km from Russia border, I think that some level of cruelty are within Russians themselves and Bolshevism or revolution has little if anything to do with that bloodbath. Combine that and their ruler's usual paranoia which is subject of the TFA is what frightens their neighbors. Because they sometimes actually think that everyone out there is about to destroy them. And they have nukes.
"This mad cult had VERY LITTLE popular support at the moment" Aside emotional comments like "mad cult" (they were very rational at that point, otherwise would talk about millions killed in 1917), and "very little support" - again, support for socialism was quite solid and was strong even in Eastern Europe at that time, were significant number of national states born - no, most opposition rise after they started killing everyone who didn't agree to them or could have helped the enemy. They also tried to return break away regions with iron hand - again, failing and antagonizing their opposition. Also Germany sponsorship of the Lenin is very disputable because of lack of direct proof. However, Berlin indeed sent Lenin back to Russia with special cabin.
What is most important however that you forget context of the situation. Russia were involved in WWI. Big mistake, because it almost destroyed country. Bolshevists promised to end this and that was their golden ticket to the power.
"1) they were ruthless fanatics, well disciplined and devoid of human doubts and compassion"
Again, they were ruthless, but there were many indications that Lenin was quite a strategic genius. Also he showed some remorse about victims later (how believable - it's for everyone to decide, he also wrote and said on many accounts that enemies must be crushed and executed too) and hoped that further fights about Communism wouldn't be so bloody. Almost all old wing of Communist Party at the middle of twenties believed that more open society (relatively of course, without discussion about fundamentals) must be given chance for revolution to survive. Again, how much of that was really true, and how much window dressing - hard to say. Stalin swept any chance of it a
Invent something truly original, patent it, enjoy success and monopoly, get caught into surprise web when suddenly everything changes (including market), fade away, go bankrupt, go...not to die, but to rise as patent troll, because it is all what's left for you.
Why people don't let companies die with dignity? Money? Debt? Why to scullf....k company good name for sake of few millions?
And suddenly everyone in Slashdot believes it?:) Come on, your Apple cravings are THAT bad? Guess it's time to look for treatment:)
I don't know, I think it still sounds legitimate to me. Not because Apple or Nokia would cave in, no. Because it sounds like current India government. There's serious political rivalry between groups and some of them want to stick to power because of nice corrupt binds they have created. I have hard time to believe that no one would be happy to spy on enemies at so high level.
I just don't understand why there is no world wide movement for requesting setting back copyright terms to 20 years? Even in UK 100 year law extention just passed. BBC article on it was wrote like PR bullshit from recording companies. That's what's happening - journalism ignores this issue (some of them willingly, some of them are not allowed to even think about it, but lots of them simply don't care, because it's "difficult" subject for beer/pizza/tv junkies to understand).
I say - we need 20 year limit back on track. With current media consumption it is more than enough for company to regain costs, and see if it's even are ready to regain costs. Argue that everyone can squeeze enough profit from 20 year term. Copyright cartel will hard time to explain why they need 100 years.
So in nutshell we again are against progress because some politician are afraid to loose job or say his peers to get into something else. You can't hope to stay on just trading forever.
Well, claiming that Rowling and Dan Brown haven't contributed anything to the progress of human society is very elite view. I could agree that people would gain nothing much of seeing "Saw" or any other exploitative cinema, or from reading pulp fiction with cheap shots of sex, erotica and emotions. However, between them there are gems which inspire us more than any high class literature ever do. Because they can reach us - comparing to former which rarely do. This is what I miss from this kind of POV.
To write truly inspiring high quality adventure and fantasy literature is really hard.
Slashdot Mirror
...and reason was also that agreement is too complex to be signed away so easily, so they have to discuss it first too. I highly doubt that they will hear nothing what happen in Poland and other countries with public opinion. This is country where government actually listens to people, using Internet extensively to collect comments about proposed laws.This is also a land where they elect their government using Internet and Skype was also started there.
Unfortunately, no matter how I would like it to happen, it is too late. Current Nokia leadership (CEO and board) are simply stubborn and they propably hated all openess stuff about Maemo and Linux platform it's based on. There's no bigger danger for company's existence than overrighteous overzealous leadership.
"Nokia were up shit creek bereft of paddles before MS infiltrated them, with engineers incapable of finishing any of their new OS projects."
I would challenge that notion. Lot of feedback from internals indicates that this time management was that who blow it. Reasons where numerous, but mostly Nokia legal's deep distrust with open source and Linux per se. As far as I remember biggest problem was to provide closed DRM based system within Linux system (that wouldn't be so easy to override). As Nokia legals has always have been overzealous pro-IP, this isn't really a surprise. They could easily release normal working Maemo system year and half ago. I mean, that OS and stack were battle tested on N770 and N800/N810. But legal fears and trying to introduce half-backed DRM solution when world strictly moved away for them killed any hope for Maemo.
It also explains why Nokia management fell into Microsoft arms in nanoseconds. Unfortunately, they are made for each other.
Really? How they could harass for example Germany if it refused to bow to such demands? Please keep hyperbole at home. Yes, US laws are overreaching, stupid and borders with control freakism at it's best. Yes, they are trying to push several laws very strongly (*caugh*Intelectual "property"*caugh*). No, they can't get everything unless address country decides to give them.
Moral rules? Really? For small video games which are made to waste their time and enrich their creators, while giving almost nothing for society in general?
Ideas will get copied. Ideas should be allowed to get copied. That's whole idea of the culture is. There's nothing moral or ambigous about it.
Well, no one forbids him to take GNOME Panel and support it. GNOME devs care about GNOME libs and GNOME Shell. But they don't deny anyone keeping legacy software alive if someone says and does so. Trust me, I know these guys.
And there's problem with taking GNOME Panel under your wing and provide some development and direction how? It could be a little more taxing, and require initial investment, but in nutshell, where's problem?
Disclaimer: yes, I'm using GNOME 3 with GNOME Shell as devs intended to and I have some ironic laughts about claims that "GS/Unity devs are screwballs and don't know nothing". However, everyone uses tools best for him, so...just use it, don't go around claiming that it's best desktop for now.
However, I have purerly technical question - why not improving GNOME 3 Panel? It's ported, code cleaned up, it's introspectable (you can write JS extentions like for GNOME Shell) and you can still keep all the goodies, including having compiz and friends.
Problem in nutshell is that free market clashes with idea of capitalism itself per se. Capitalism is all about collecting capital to create more capital, to create more capital, to grow infinitively...
Free market and capitalism is concepts which are self-destructive, because it follows human instincts which are basis of this self-destruction (because of built-in short term vision/insight).
I strongly disagree (yeah, I'm coming from Eastern Europe). If that would be true new generations would be example of politeness and respect to each other.
It has little to do with abolishment of private property (In fact, for Bolshevist elite owning something a lot wasn't a issue, government couldn't take your property away just because they would like to after sixties). Main reason was butchering of middle intelligence of Eastern Europe during Stalin and WWII times. Lot of them where Jews, lot of them where liberals, lot of them where actual communists (yeah, Stalin loved to push his way how he sees future to people). Both sides - Bolshevists and Nazi - killed them in hundred thousands. Society were raped brutally. It resulted in lot of perversions you see today in Russia and Eastern Russia.
Without people as example respect to each other became extinct and with it - respect to other property (because it is related with respect to other feelings and opinion).
And in the end, correction - Communism never calls for abolishment of property, it calls for abolishment of capital property used for manufacturing. And it calls for respecting collective property. I know, I know, human nature can't wrap his mind around it - BS, I don't believe that. We choose because it is more convenient to tell us that no one can stop greed.
Sorry, first of all, with all we know Paul could be very similar to this bunch of politicians, and second, with his lack in crafting a message he will never get near the White House.
About O:
1) Gitmo failed to close due of processes not depending on him;
2) US is out of Iraq, last time I checked the news. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is very easy to get into war. It is very hard to properly get out of it, without creating chaos;
3) Obama care changed to pro big business when he tried to appease Reps. This is one of things I actually blame him about. Why oh why even care to talk with these people if all they want to see you fall? It is again self survival.
You are right about pro business and pro media. I'm not very sure about pro big banks. Problem is quite simple - capitalism in current form is heavily depending on banks. Like it or not, without them from 2005 - till 2008 there wouldn't be see of cheap money which everyone got addicted to. From where I stand, across the pond, it looked that Obama tries no to disturb finance markets to not get into "please us or economy gets it" cycle.
In nutshell, no matter Paul or no Paul, we are basically screwed with capitalism. And no, I'm not saying this as socialist (which I am, disclaimer), but because frankly I don't see how we can continue much longer this way - and I am afraid to look forward and see nothing but trouble (I don't believe that people are ready - if they will ever be - ready for some sort of socialism, which requires high level of education, intelligence and participation). We will pull ourselves up, but if finance market gets away with same tricks and methods like till now, then people will soon give up dreams of houses and cars and will start to look for different system with stability and promises of tomorrow.
Moderate this up. I'm all for some limited copyright, but twenty years - no more, no less. You can recoup your costs easily. Also all patents should be valuated very strictly. You do R&D to compete, not to get some guaranteed profit. And looking to numbers, proper marketing and actual products brings you money, not protected R&D.
I'm not sure about trademarks - I think current situation is problematic because of abuse of system, like trademarking generic words and stuff. This must be more regulated too.
Agreed about penalties of abusing from corporations - they must be much harsher, especially knowingly claiming false copyright ownership.
None of this hits "abuse of monopoly", because they sell hardware and software as one. You don't have to wake up one day and Apple is more restrictive than yesterday. They allways is. They don't give any promises to lurk you in Apple walled garden.
Abuse of monopoly would be if they would start to make deals with mobile operators to tweak their networks just for iTech.
How exploits in Windows can do the same if system is properly built? How?
They are in despair. They are too late in mobile market. They start to understand that, but they still have this strong hand mentality. They tried it with Windows Mobile - nope, didn't worked. They are tried with lot of different concepts - also wasted. Now the same with ARM notebooks/tablets.
They don't understand that it is too late. People has seen tomorrow without Microsoft. Tablet competition is very strong out there. What is your killer feature? Office? Who needs that? Email, web - it's all there, it's everywhere.
You don't really get it, do you? By default, in standard mode, EFI will be locked down as it supposed to be. But as a user you could switch to other mode where you can still boot from other OSes and devices. This would require actually switching something, not turning it on automatically every time virus needs it.
It is abusing of monopoly loud and clear.
Doesn't stop MPAA/RIAA to sue people. To win actually...well, it is totally different story.
This is classic bully mentality. When you answer to their challenge not in their level, they start to drag their feet.
Thanks for correction. Yeah, those were very concrete issues Communism manifesto touched that time. Sadly no one talks about these points anymore, because everyone has given up thinking about better solution how to produce stuff.
To be honest, it is more "Imperialism/Corporativism" against "Bolshevism". Because "Capitalism" is just basis of one rule - aviability of private capital, and "Communism" is also pure version of socialism, where "no thing belongs to private entity", but everyone get what he/she wants. "Bolshevism" was a version that state must impose socialism on peers, not vice versa. Therefore it was authoritative at it's definition. "Imperialism/Corporativism" also favors other kind of authoritative power - money.
What is different that first kind of power people always have had some thinkers who saw the sings of the possible conflict and pushed for a change - of course not so big change so they would be removed from (money) power, but still. Russia, however, were land of low intellectual, lack of empathy and intelligence at the beginning of 20th century. If someone would implement pure socialism let's say in Germany right now, there would be less victims, more insight and we would end up with socialdemographic system anyway.
Wow. No one can deny madness that ruled Russia in 1917, but so overwhelmingly one side argument doesn't do history a justice. Sorry, but truth is much more complex.
First of all, let's get some facts straight - there were universal support for Soviets in nation. First of all, look up what that word means - there were committees of workers and peasants. In nutshell, that was good idea because Russia went trough serious existential and political crisis and these organizations where only things that kept society together. However, Bolshevists used this structure of power to take over - because in the end they didn't see anything to justify waiting for proper way to take over. They were ruthless and bloody, no doubt - but also Whites were cruel as well. Both sides are implicated for quite number of killings of civilians (However, that was a war time - Stalin with his mindless killing - creating paranoia and mistrust atmosphere and gave free reign to Troikas - broke that record quite easily).
First of all you must understand that was/is a country which had seen almost nothing of Enlightenment. Czar was a God sent (As it is Putin now - or he thoughts he is). Your, peasant, worker or mere clerk - thoughts were worthless. Whites definitely didn't fought for "Democratic, balanced Russia". Actually, at that time, I highly doubt that anyone cared. Maybe few thousand people.
What Bolshevists should be accused of is killing anyone which could be a even single threat, therefore antagonizing any opposition they had. No, they weren't monsters. They just thought in categories "either we or them". And at one time, they could easily justify their position in such way. However, they sealed their total isolation with any moderate socialist at that time and had hard time to convince anyone outside Russia and USSR that they aren't bloodthirsty.
As I'm living in Eastern Europe, just 400 km from Russia border, I think that some level of cruelty are within Russians themselves and Bolshevism or revolution has little if anything to do with that bloodbath. Combine that and their ruler's usual paranoia which is subject of the TFA is what frightens their neighbors. Because they sometimes actually think that everyone out there is about to destroy them. And they have nukes.
"This mad cult had VERY LITTLE popular support at the moment"
Aside emotional comments like "mad cult" (they were very rational at that point, otherwise would talk about millions killed in 1917), and "very little support" - again, support for socialism was quite solid and was strong even in Eastern Europe at that time, were significant number of national states born - no, most opposition rise after they started killing everyone who didn't agree to them or could have helped the enemy. They also tried to return break away regions with iron hand - again, failing and antagonizing their opposition. Also Germany sponsorship of the Lenin is very disputable because of lack of direct proof. However, Berlin indeed sent Lenin back to Russia with special cabin.
What is most important however that you forget context of the situation. Russia were involved in WWI. Big mistake, because it almost destroyed country. Bolshevists promised to end this and that was their golden ticket to the power.
"1) they were ruthless fanatics, well disciplined and devoid of human doubts and compassion"
Again, they were ruthless, but there were many indications that Lenin was quite a strategic genius. Also he showed some remorse about victims later (how believable - it's for everyone to decide, he also wrote and said on many accounts that enemies must be crushed and executed too) and hoped that further fights about Communism wouldn't be so bloody. Almost all old wing of Communist Party at the middle of twenties believed that more open society (relatively of course, without discussion about fundamentals) must be given chance for revolution to survive. Again, how much of that was really true, and how much window dressing - hard to say. Stalin swept any chance of it a
Invent something truly original, patent it, enjoy success and monopoly, get caught into surprise web when suddenly everything changes (including market), fade away, go bankrupt, go...not to die, but to rise as patent troll, because it is all what's left for you.
Why people don't let companies die with dignity? Money? Debt? Why to scullf....k company good name for sake of few millions?
And suddenly everyone in Slashdot believes it? :) Come on, your Apple cravings are THAT bad? Guess it's time to look for treatment :)
I don't know, I think it still sounds legitimate to me. Not because Apple or Nokia would cave in, no. Because it sounds like current India government. There's serious political rivalry between groups and some of them want to stick to power because of nice corrupt binds they have created. I have hard time to believe that no one would be happy to spy on enemies at so high level.
I just don't understand why there is no world wide movement for requesting setting back copyright terms to 20 years? Even in UK 100 year law extention just passed. BBC article on it was wrote like PR bullshit from recording companies. That's what's happening - journalism ignores this issue (some of them willingly, some of them are not allowed to even think about it, but lots of them simply don't care, because it's "difficult" subject for beer/pizza/tv junkies to understand).
I say - we need 20 year limit back on track. With current media consumption it is more than enough for company to regain costs, and see if it's even are ready to regain costs. Argue that everyone can squeeze enough profit from 20 year term. Copyright cartel will hard time to explain why they need 100 years.
So in nutshell we again are against progress because some politician are afraid to loose job or say his peers to get into something else. You can't hope to stay on just trading forever.
Well, claiming that Rowling and Dan Brown haven't contributed anything to the progress of human society is very elite view. I could agree that people would gain nothing much of seeing "Saw" or any other exploitative cinema, or from reading pulp fiction with cheap shots of sex, erotica and emotions. However, between them there are gems which inspire us more than any high class literature ever do. Because they can reach us - comparing to former which rarely do. This is what I miss from this kind of POV.
To write truly inspiring high quality adventure and fantasy literature is really hard.