Am I missing something here? Don't the RIAA get a cut from the music variety of CD-Rs (the kind that only work in the settop boxes, not PC burners? What are those for then? Those were sold to use as a way to make custom CDs by taking tracks from discs you already owned and mixing a perfect CD for yourself. Now, this isn't allowed? They need to get their arguments straight.
Well, you have to pay for it before hand or afterwards. Businesses don't do anything unless there's a revenue stream for it. If you want better software, you have to pay for it one way or another.
The biggest issue is this argument works only for a monopoly. Now, if we had some type of real competition against MSoft, you might not pay for it. That's the benefit of competition.
People have long paid more money to make more long distance calls, that only makes sense. Why not for heavier internet usage? It makes sense that heavier users pay higher fees.
This only makes sense if you do not believe in competition between companies. Its competition now that allows many of us to make long distance phone calls for one flat low rate. Yes, this argument makes sense from a cost stand point to the company. But by allowing competition in these market places, we the comsumers reap more benefits.
Don't forget that!
There is nothing wrong with usage as it is now. If anything, it isn't in the favor of the consumer in the US given the fact that other users in non-US countries have access to better connections at a far lower price.
This is a simple fact of economics: There is no profit in a competitive market.
Careful, economics does not say this. It says there is no 'economic profit' in a perfectly competitive market. Economic profit is any profit above a normal level or profit. So, its not like people aren't making money. They are. But not like they would be in a Monopoly situation. It is a small difference, but one that actually affects a lot of things.
Why would you want to do that? You _should_ adjust the numbers for inflation. Its the closest way to compare movie ticket prices over the years. that way you get a better idea of what people are spending their money on in terms of what other available substitutes exist. Any new films that are high on _that_ list deserve to be there.
But a lot of people on the consuming end seem to have lost touch with the general notion of "the person selling it is asking more than I want to pay, so I'll buy something cheaper, instead" and have shifted to "so I'll rip it off, instead" without any sense whatsover of causality (when it comes to the consequences).
Actually, they haven't lost touch, they are evaluating their costs in terms of probabilities. The probability of losing something if you buy the CD is 100%, versus a small probability of stealing it and getting caught.
In short, the expected value of stealing it comes out greater than the expected value from purchasing it.
This would change if everyone who did download a song actually did get sued. Then the chances of loss are the same, and it would be cheaper to just buy it instead of steal it and get sued.
I bought a nice 51" Sony WEGA about 5 months ago. It's rear projection, but for $1600 I got 480i, 480p, *real* 720p, and 1080i support, and every connector imaginable up to HDMI.
You also need to realize that 99% of the population taht actually owns a TV has NO idea what any of that means. Even the people that can afford a TV like that (who are not video junk-heads) don't really know what it means. Here, at Slashdot, this is our field of interest. Most people who are going to get an XBox 360/PS3/Revolution will have no clue. That's why N doesn't need to include it if it will allow them to produce the Revolution at a lower cost in order to offer it at a lower price to better compete with 360/PS3.
Keep in mind most households actually have a game system in them (at least here in the US), and most of those households still think the internet is that little blue E...
Seriously though, when will this "Nintendo is the kidie!" sentiment just die.
It will end when the ratio of M rated games increases compared to the rest of the game base. Look at ratio of higher rated games in the XBox and PS2 bins compared to Nintendo's.
I don't think anyone will argue that the games aren't fun, most of them are... but look at the games you mentioned. Mario Kart and Animal Crossing. Most games cranked out by N _actually do_ look like they belong beside a Sesame Street show. Most adults don't really watch Barney and Sesame Street. So, one look at the game gives the perception of its target audience, regardless if it is actually fun to play.
Fun to play doesn't mean it has to look cartoon-ey all the time.
Relatively speaking, rotten eggs are in less supply than normal eggs. But people don't go buying those.
You're forgetting the other side to the market, the demand side. Its like asking which side of the scissors cuts the paper? The same can be said with supply and demand. One alone is never enough to force any situation. You need both.
The ESRB is trying to do something that parents are too lazy to do for themsleves.
At least be fair to the situation. When it is a movie, you (as a parent) can actually view the movie ahead of time if you wished. But the rating system on movies serves the purpose in this scenario of allowing the parents to make the decision based on the rating. Not because all parents are lazy.
For a game, the expectation is somewhat the same. The issue is that most parents probably don't realize there is a rating on half of the games, because there never was when when they were kids playing games (for the younger parents playing Atari 2600 and whatnot).
The other side of it is the problem at the point of sale. Its not enforced, but in the theatre, it often (sometimes) is enforced.
I think the solution to the problem is to make the information about the ratings more salient to the general public. Most of the time, when you see a commercial/trailer for a movie, you see the rating every time, often with a voice over at the end stating "Rated R," or "This film not yet rated"... I don't always see the same thing for video games. Instead, a lot of the commercials had the funny voice saying "Playstation..."... or back in the day, the fellow was yelling "SEGA!" at the end instead of some message stating what a suitable audience would be.
I hit submit on the my message too early on my last message. To be fair to the poster, '04 did not see inflation above 4%. But my main point is we are now...
4% is more than the consumer price index, even including energy, rose in 2004... Compare it with the real numbers.
No, this isn't accurate. Please check the numbers from the official site (www.bls.org - U.S. Department of Labor : Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Then check out Series ID CUUR0000SA0 (Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers : U.S. All items, 1982-84=100).
The CPI for Sept. 04 was 189.9, the current level of the CPI is at 198.8. That is a 4.68 % increase in the past 12 months.
That number is official. Although in '02 we had lower than average inflation, '03 had roughly average inflation, but lately inflation has been higher than average.
#1 Tenure needs to be removed. Peer reviews need to be implemented. Salaries should be review / performance based. Schooling for teachers needs to be DRASTICALLY improved. Remove all the buzzword-techno-political crap that's found it's way into teaching and just TEACH.
I agree with your Number two and Number three ideas, but removing tenure is something that can hold back research for several reasons. First, keep in mind, if tenure is removed, salaries for those same faculty increase. Its all apart of the compensation a professor would receive for the job they do (which at the larger Universities, their primary responsibility is research, not teach. Many Slashdotters need to figure this out! Research Universities are there to do research first, teach second. There actually are labels for the Universities, they do undergow a process to become a 'research University.') If they do not get a higher salary, they will go elsewhere to get a higher salary and be held to the same standards.
But the main reason you want tenure there is to promote what are sometimes called 'Big T' theories. Sometimes theories are catgorized into 'Big T' and 'Little T' theories. The Big T's are the ones that change the field and add value to society. The Little T's are the supporting papers that verify this, that & the other (in other words, the smaller papers people are writing as fast as they can to get tenure). Once a professor has tenure, they have more freedom to focus on Big T theories. Its true the success rate will not be as high for these ideas, but what you suggest will ultimately lead to penalizing people for pursuing the Big T theories. If you want to produce actual research that far is more useful to society, which should you support? While there are tenure reviews for certain universities, you sound like you want to fire anyone that does not produce results on the first or second try when attempting to do something on that scale. To do so would reduce the amount of people wanting to go into the field of research in general (a problem mentioned above from a previous poster). I can't find the source, but roughly only 24% of the population in the US holds a 4-year degree. Even fewer for the Masters, and obviously less for the PhD. You really don't want the people with 4-year degrees doing the research.
Actually, I think the list aplies to home numbers only. Read below, taken from www.donotcall.gov:
The National Do Not Call Registry gives you a choice about whether to receive telemarketing calls at home
Note, the "at home" portion.
That said, I've had two number since the registry began. Both home numbers have had a decrease in the number of calls. The only place that ever called was a political campaign and the local firehouse. Both which, I believe, are legally allowed to do so. Other than that, the thing works great at home!
And unlike the other components in the console, a hardrive's price doesn't drop over time. Capacities go up, but prices don't go down
What in the world are you talking about? Of course HDD prices have dropped over time. Is getting a 20 gig drive now the same cost as it used to be 8 years ago? No...
The argument against that is it is an incentive not to invent as fast.
You may think it works to keep crap like this from happening in the IT sector, but other areas (Health Care and drugs) would be hurt far more where it could be used for good.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I missing something here? Don't the RIAA get a cut from the music variety of CD-Rs (the kind that only work in the settop boxes, not PC burners? What are those for then? Those were sold to use as a way to make custom CDs by taking tracks from discs you already owned and mixing a perfect CD for yourself. Now, this isn't allowed? They need to get their arguments straight.
Well, you have to pay for it before hand or afterwards. Businesses don't do anything unless there's a revenue stream for it. If you want better software, you have to pay for it one way or another.
The biggest issue is this argument works only for a monopoly. Now, if we had some type of real competition against MSoft, you might not pay for it. That's the benefit of competition.
People have long paid more money to make more long distance calls, that only makes sense. Why not for heavier internet usage? It makes sense that heavier users pay higher fees.
This only makes sense if you do not believe in competition between companies. Its competition now that allows many of us to make long distance phone calls for one flat low rate. Yes, this argument makes sense from a cost stand point to the company. But by allowing competition in these market places, we the comsumers reap more benefits.
Don't forget that!
There is nothing wrong with usage as it is now. If anything, it isn't in the favor of the consumer in the US given the fact that other users in non-US countries have access to better connections at a far lower price.
This is a simple fact of economics: There is no profit in a competitive market.
Careful, economics does not say this. It says there is no 'economic profit' in a perfectly competitive market. Economic profit is any profit above a normal level or profit. So, its not like people aren't making money. They are. But not like they would be in a Monopoly situation. It is a small difference, but one that actually affects a lot of things.
But will it allow me to download porno any faster?
Why would you want to do that? You _should_ adjust the numbers for inflation. Its the closest way to compare movie ticket prices over the years. that way you get a better idea of what people are spending their money on in terms of what other available substitutes exist. Any new films that are high on _that_ list deserve to be there.
the technology they used contained a security vulnerability of which they were unaware
i don't have one of the discs with the rootkit on it, but I remember the consumers not being aware that the program was installed.
By that logic, I should be able to install a key-tracking program on this guy's PC.
But a lot of people on the consuming end seem to have lost touch with the general notion of "the person selling it is asking more than I want to pay, so I'll buy something cheaper, instead" and have shifted to "so I'll rip it off, instead" without any sense whatsover of causality (when it comes to the consequences).
Actually, they haven't lost touch, they are evaluating their costs in terms of probabilities. The probability of losing something if you buy the CD is 100%, versus a small probability of stealing it and getting caught.
In short, the expected value of stealing it comes out greater than the expected value from purchasing it.
This would change if everyone who did download a song actually did get sued. Then the chances of loss are the same, and it would be cheaper to just buy it instead of steal it and get sued.
I bought a nice 51" Sony WEGA about 5 months ago. It's rear projection, but for $1600 I got 480i, 480p, *real* 720p, and 1080i support, and every connector imaginable up to HDMI.
You also need to realize that 99% of the population taht actually owns a TV has NO idea what any of that means. Even the people that can afford a TV like that (who are not video junk-heads) don't really know what it means. Here, at Slashdot, this is our field of interest. Most people who are going to get an XBox 360/PS3/Revolution will have no clue. That's why N doesn't need to include it if it will allow them to produce the Revolution at a lower cost in order to offer it at a lower price to better compete with 360/PS3.
Keep in mind most households actually have a game system in them (at least here in the US), and most of those households still think the internet is that little blue E...
Seriously though, when will this "Nintendo is the kidie!" sentiment just die.
It will end when the ratio of M rated games increases compared to the rest of the game base. Look at ratio of higher rated games in the XBox and PS2 bins compared to Nintendo's.
I don't think anyone will argue that the games aren't fun, most of them are... but look at the games you mentioned. Mario Kart and Animal Crossing. Most games cranked out by N _actually do_ look like they belong beside a Sesame Street show. Most adults don't really watch Barney and Sesame Street. So, one look at the game gives the perception of its target audience, regardless if it is actually fun to play.
Fun to play doesn't mean it has to look cartoon-ey all the time.
Slashdot: Don't you have more of a responsibility to paying customers than you do to promoting the game?
John Smedley: No... next question?
Relatively speaking, rotten eggs are in less supply than normal eggs. But people don't go buying those.
You're forgetting the other side to the market, the demand side. Its like asking which side of the scissors cuts the paper? The same can be said with supply and demand. One alone is never enough to force any situation. You need both.
The ESRB is trying to do something that parents are too lazy to do for themsleves.
... I don't always see the same thing for video games. Instead, a lot of the commercials had the funny voice saying "Playstation..." ... or back in the day, the fellow was yelling "SEGA!" at the end instead of some message stating what a suitable audience would be.
At least be fair to the situation. When it is a movie, you (as a parent) can actually view the movie ahead of time if you wished. But the rating system on movies serves the purpose in this scenario of allowing the parents to make the decision based on the rating. Not because all parents are lazy.
For a game, the expectation is somewhat the same. The issue is that most parents probably don't realize there is a rating on half of the games, because there never was when when they were kids playing games (for the younger parents playing Atari 2600 and whatnot).
The other side of it is the problem at the point of sale. Its not enforced, but in the theatre, it often (sometimes) is enforced.
I think the solution to the problem is to make the information about the ratings more salient to the general public. Most of the time, when you see a commercial/trailer for a movie, you see the rating every time, often with a voice over at the end stating "Rated R," or "This film not yet rated"
Is there a GoogleOS in our future?
One could only hope?
I hit submit on the my message too early on my last message. To be fair to the poster, '04 did not see inflation above 4%. But my main point is we are now...
4% is more than the consumer price index, even including energy, rose in 2004 ... Compare it with the real numbers.
No, this isn't accurate. Please check the numbers from the official site (www.bls.org - U.S. Department of Labor : Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Then check out Series ID CUUR0000SA0 (Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers : U.S. All items, 1982-84=100).
The CPI for Sept. 04 was 189.9, the current level of the CPI is at 198.8. That is a 4.68 % increase in the past 12 months.
That number is official. Although in '02 we had lower than average inflation, '03 had roughly average inflation, but lately inflation has been higher than average.
OSS can't censor out Janet Jackson's left boob, only the FCC can.
Clearly you do not know what you are talking about. Otherwise, you'd know it was her right boob that we saw.
#1 Tenure needs to be removed. Peer reviews need to be implemented. Salaries should be review / performance based. Schooling for teachers needs to be DRASTICALLY improved. Remove all the buzzword-techno-political crap that's found it's way into teaching and just TEACH.
I agree with your Number two and Number three ideas, but removing tenure is something that can hold back research for several reasons. First, keep in mind, if tenure is removed, salaries for those same faculty increase. Its all apart of the compensation a professor would receive for the job they do (which at the larger Universities, their primary responsibility is research, not teach. Many Slashdotters need to figure this out! Research Universities are there to do research first, teach second. There actually are labels for the Universities, they do undergow a process to become a 'research University.') If they do not get a higher salary, they will go elsewhere to get a higher salary and be held to the same standards.
But the main reason you want tenure there is to promote what are sometimes called 'Big T' theories. Sometimes theories are catgorized into 'Big T' and 'Little T' theories. The Big T's are the ones that change the field and add value to society. The Little T's are the supporting papers that verify this, that & the other (in other words, the smaller papers people are writing as fast as they can to get tenure). Once a professor has tenure, they have more freedom to focus on Big T theories. Its true the success rate will not be as high for these ideas, but what you suggest will ultimately lead to penalizing people for pursuing the Big T theories. If you want to produce actual research that far is more useful to society, which should you support? While there are tenure reviews for certain universities, you sound like you want to fire anyone that does not produce results on the first or second try when attempting to do something on that scale. To do so would reduce the amount of people wanting to go into the field of research in general (a problem mentioned above from a previous poster). I can't find the source, but roughly only 24% of the population in the US holds a 4-year degree. Even fewer for the Masters, and obviously less for the PhD. You really don't want the people with 4-year degrees doing the research.
Actually, I think the list aplies to home numbers only. Read below, taken from www.donotcall.gov:
The National Do Not Call Registry gives you a choice about whether to receive telemarketing calls at home
Note, the "at home" portion.
That said, I've had two number since the registry began. Both home numbers have had a decrease in the number of calls. The only place that ever called was a political campaign and the local firehouse. Both which, I believe, are legally allowed to do so. Other than that, the thing works great at home!
And unlike the other components in the console, a hardrive's price doesn't drop over time. Capacities go up, but prices don't go down
What in the world are you talking about? Of course HDD prices have dropped over time. Is getting a 20 gig drive now the same cost as it used to be 8 years ago? No...
Just to be fair, he claims hacker breaches reported.
How many home users running Linux report a breach?? I'm guessing next to nothing (but I may be wrong). So the numbers might be for commercial boxes.
while they waited for full analysis
So, waiting for a full analysis is a bad thing now?
QUICK!!!! Someone PATENT "Ads for Loading Screes" so we never have to watch them and can sue the companies for trying to use the idea.
Microsoft blogger Robert Scoble claims the site may not perform at full capacity until Monday.
Would that have anything to do with it?
The argument against that is it is an incentive not to invent as fast.
You may think it works to keep crap like this from happening in the IT sector, but other areas (Health Care and drugs) would be hurt far more where it could be used for good.