In discussions about RIAA, etc., the assertion arises that what we see with P2P reflects that the "traditional" model of the music industry is dead.
It seems to me that not only does this statistic refute that "Napster killed the music industry", but it even supports a claim that the music industry's business model works as well as ever (even if they are evil in their souls:).
I think we must be talking at cross purposes, because some of what you're seeing seems transparently incorrect to me, and apparently you feel the same way.
1) You claim that you "never said the record companies were monopolies", but in message #8572595, your rhetorical question "Have you never heard of a monopoly?" clearly implied it.
You say that my definition of correct pricing is a general statement implying that monopolies are fair. This doesn't make sense. First, my definition is objectively true. I can't see any other way to define pricing unless you want to resort to fascistic government price controls, and you certainly haven't offered any alternate definition other than an abstract "too high".
Second, the way that prices are agreed upon in a market has nothing to do with the fairness of a monopoly (and again implies that you believe the record industry as a whole is a monopoly, an implication that you deny).
Your comment about control of both recording and distribution is an interesting one. But the fact remains that there are still multiple (if few) separate major record companies, even if they are quite vertical. Who decides where the lines between businesses should be drawn? You imply that production and distribution should be separate; need we also enforce separation between the various endeavors of manufacturing, marketing, talent search, etc.?
While compelling on the face, your argument has no objectively correct answer that I can see -- again, it would necessitate taking some person or group's opinion and impressing that on the entire industry -- precisely what you're objecting to!
2) Of course there are things that we think we're being overcharged for. The goods that the record companies produce are, by definition, THEIRS, and so they can charge whatever they want, take it or leave it. Are you asserting that you have some RIGHT to Britney Spears music, and thus should be able to get it for a minimal price?
3) Which was exactly my point at the start. It sounded as if you advocated completely scrapping the existing business. This would be wrong, as the status quo does have some advantages for at least some people.
That said, the opportunity for disruptive technologies and business models to shake up the status quo, giving us the possibility of something better, is every bit as important as avoiding the assumptions I worried about above.
1) I must disagree. There are certainly broad areas in which the large players act in alliance. But don't believe for a second that if BMG had the opportunity to acquire Sony's market (say, by some marketing gimick) that they'd hesitate to hammer nails into Sony's coffin. And this jockeying for position is what enables markets, and prevents the thype of monopoly that is (I think) being referred to here.
Looking at it another way, the classic solution to Sherman Antitrust cases is breaking up the entity, e.g., ATT into the baby bells, Standard Oil, the IBM "Chinese wall", and the various Microsoft proposals (extra points for working MS into the thread?). Since Sony, BMG, etc., are *already* legally separate, what would break this hypothetic "monopoly"?
2&3) These points seem to be merging. Obviously each one of us puts different values on the various features of cars and music media, and therefore formulates an individual value for those goods. So it was absurd for the root post of this issue to suggest that CD prices are universally too high. It's clearly true for *many* people, but as judged by sales, there are still a very large minority willing to work within the status quo.
Interesting idea, but I don't think it would actually work.
Would the applicant have any recourse if you (the volunteer vetter) provided bad input? It wouldn't be fair if he didn't have a way to challenge bad calls. Consider the liabilities that you could incur.
Also, it's likely that interested parties would be competitors. It would be difficult to ensure impartiality (it may also be hard for me to spell it:) )
The only thing over-inflated here is your confidence in your own opinions.
1) Yes, a monopoly is when production of a good or service is controlled by a single entity. But here, we've got many -- Sony, BMG, etc. NOT a monopoly. While frequently their interests overlap, it's a sure bet that any one of them would love to grab the others' market share. So we clearly can't regard them as a single entity.
2) "Jacks up" relative to what? Are YOU the final authority on what a CD "should" cost? Of course not! Only those involved in the transaction are. The amount that "should" be paid is precisely the point at which buyers are willing to pay, and sellers are willing to take. Since this seems to be occurring now, without the record sellers reaching into buyers' pockets, there must be an agreement that the price is, in the context of today's market, fair. Or would you rather see a fascist society in which some government agency sets a "correct" price for goods?
3) It's true that in the presence of additional choices, the point at which that balance occurs might shift. But on the other hand, for some people -- say, my Mom, who has no use for MP3s as such nor the knowledge to burn her own CDs -- the current model may still be optimal.
And to the previous replier -- some people are moving to p2p as an alternate medium, but this is certainly a minority. The recording industry is still selling gazillions to happy Britney Spears fans.
The new models may be better for some people. But (a) not for my Mom, and (b) the means for artist compensation and other factors still needs to be shaken out -- there IS no "new model", just a bunch of experiments that people are trying.
...to actually do any research.
The Yukon feature set is pretty well nailed down. MS had announced quite some time ago what they planned to put into it. Nor is this vapor of the sort designed as FUD to stall people from buying the competitor: some customers have had beta builds of this for a while.
It's just that it's a rather ambitious goal, certainly the biggest upgrade since v. 7.0.
This is no different than today. I had to sit through hours of my grandparents' Alaska videos, in which he got the pause button out of sync. Long segments of my grandfather's feet as the camera swung from his shoulder, punctuated by being placed on tables. Each of is is responsible for filtering the crap out before subjecting others to it.
Anyway, I like to keep a record of my vacations, but it's difficult recording the action while being part of the action. Maybe this will help.
American domestic intelligence activities take place in a society where individuals enjoy broad latitude of action outside of state control.
I disagree. I challenge you to name one area of our lives that is entirely outside of government control. I can't think of any.
Or, this can IMPROVE your car
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The only way to get 100 more hp from just software is if you have a turbo engine with an electronic wastegate.
You pulled that "100 hp" out of the air: nowhere in the article is such a claim made.
However, significant gains can be made in some areas without running afoul of your first failure mode. If you are willing to commit to always using high-octane fuel, for example, then you can safely derive significant benefit by changing the ignition advance settings in the ROM maps.
Other useful features can be added to your ECU as well. Consider the products from TechnoMotive. You can add security so that the engine will only start if you tap a secret code on the gas pedal. You can make instrumentation display many different data -- helping you prevent the types of failures you mention. You can even have bugs from the manufacturer fixed:
Wouldn't it be nice if the engine computer turned off the air conditioner when the RPMs got too high or when you put your foot through the floor? There is really no reason why it can't - on the DSMs, the ECU has direct control of the air conditioner clutch relay! Not only are you robbed of performance due to the drag of the air conditioner compressor, but you are risking the health of the compressor by driving it at such high RPM. A couple people have actually had the compressor "explode" when they missed a shift and ended up driving the compressor at over 7000 RPM.
ObDisclaimer: not associated with TMO in any way, but have heard great things from their customers.
Everyone here seems to believe that the only reason for greater performance in a car is to go fast. Forget about horsepower for a moment, and consider the torque. This allows you to accelerate more quickly. Here in New Jersey, that's a safety feature, believe it or not. With our traffic congestion, being able to blend into traffic from an on ramp is critical.
You read my implication correctly, but not my intent.
If you'll excuse a bit of generalization, it seems to me that many open source supporters eschew anything that smacks of commercialism, which is (I think) exactly why someone bothered to post this story.
My intent wasn't to cast aspersions on open source, but the other way around. I wanted to imply that open source needs to do this sometimes, so you shouldn't look down your noses at commercial organizations for the same sorts of things.
I don't think what we really need is perfection in a system of "tyranny by the majority". I don't care how many people want something, government should make decisions based on RIGHT and WRONG.
What we really need is a realtime feedback system to punish politicians and bureaucrats for flouting the Constitution.
10. USE AND CONTROL OF INFORMATION; MEMBER COMMUNICATION; ADS
We may, without obligation, liability or notice, except to the extent prohibited by applicable law, distribute, loan, sell or otherwise share with other persons or entities user lists as well as aggregate information....This shall not be construed to limit our use of other information not addressed in this Section 10.... We may also from time to time provide online, telefax, telephone, email, mail and other communications to our Subscribers and users on matters pertaining to the Service, its features, its sponsors or its use without compensation to them or reimbursement of costs for doing so.....
You also acknowledge that advertising and promotion may occur on the Service and also that neither you nor any user shall in any event have any claim with respect to any proceeds from such activities.
The addition of seemingly nonsensical words is aimed at confusing the antispam filters that incorporate Bayesian analysis techniques, such as SpamBayes and SpamAssassin.
Don't make this decision based solely on credentials. Try to keep an open mind and read both sides. In particular, consider
this:
The authors used a theory from 1859 that the absolute area of animal habitat controls the number of possible species, despite ample proof in recent years that that simply isn't true. Without that connection, any predictions about actual extinction rates are hogwash.
Never before -NEVER- have I seen the Constitution dispensed with in broad daylight
Then you haven't been paying enough attention. Witness the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign finance reform, in which the 1st Amendment was suspended; or the countless violations of the 2nd over the past century.
The only piece of the Bill of Rights for which I can't think of obvious, ongoing violations to is the 3rd Amendment. The 9th and 10th were long ago declared obsolete.
Double jeopardy protection doesn't apply: the hypothetical message's "visitation" in each of 50 states are separate events. Otherwise Colin Ferguson could claim he should only be charged with a single murder, because he only went on one murderous rampage. No, each event is separate.
However, the multiple prosecutions still don't make sense. It may or may not be spam when it was sent and when it was received, because we can look at the intent and reaction of the sender and receiver. But while it was being routed, it was no more than a packet of bits, neutral in content. Consider that some packets -- but not the whole message -- might have passed through state X, while others passed through a different state.
Also, the sender has no control over the path via which the message travels. Legislators recognize, in other contexts, the impossibility of preventing such an infraction, and have granted immunity. Consider the so-called "Voelker Amendment". This protects firearm owners. If you're travelling from Point A to Point B, and your guns are legal at both Points, then you can't be prosecuted for transporting them so long as you take a reasonable path from A to B. (Imagine your plane was re-routed to NYC due to weather; with out this, you'd be subject to prosecution through no fault of your own).
No, cable was created for people in geographies that couldn't (usually because of mountains) receive broadcast signals. The rest was an evolution of the model to expand the market to people that didn't really need it.
let's not let silly facts get into the way of another overblown attack on the patriot act - which few (if any) of the people against it have actually read it.
Why should I read it? My legislators didn't. This several-hundred-page document was given to the legislature MINUTES before a vote was called. My own representative (Rush Holt, NJ 12th) admitted to me that he didn't get to read it first.
Feingold said last week during debate over the Patriot Act, "...It is quite another to press for the enactment of sweeping new powers for law enforcement that directly affect the civil liberties of the American people without due deliberation by the people's elected representatives."
Slashdot Mirror
In discussions about RIAA, etc., the assertion arises that what we see with P2P reflects that the "traditional" model of the music industry is dead.
:).
It seems to me that not only does this statistic refute that "Napster killed the music industry", but it even supports a claim that the music industry's business model works as well as ever (even if they are evil in their souls
I think we must be talking at cross purposes, because some of what you're seeing seems transparently incorrect to me, and apparently you feel the same way.
1) You claim that you "never said the record companies were monopolies", but in message #8572595, your rhetorical question "Have you never heard of a monopoly?" clearly implied it.
You say that my definition of correct pricing is a general statement implying that monopolies are fair. This doesn't make sense. First, my definition is objectively true. I can't see any other way to define pricing unless you want to resort to fascistic government price controls, and you certainly haven't offered any alternate definition other than an abstract "too high".
Second, the way that prices are agreed upon in a market has nothing to do with the fairness of a monopoly (and again implies that you believe the record industry as a whole is a monopoly, an implication that you deny).
Your comment about control of both recording and distribution is an interesting one. But the fact remains that there are still multiple (if few) separate major record companies, even if they are quite vertical. Who decides where the lines between businesses should be drawn? You imply that production and distribution should be separate; need we also enforce separation between the various endeavors of manufacturing, marketing, talent search, etc.?
While compelling on the face, your argument has no objectively correct answer that I can see -- again, it would necessitate taking some person or group's opinion and impressing that on the entire industry -- precisely what you're objecting to!
2) Of course there are things that we think we're being overcharged for. The goods that the record companies produce are, by definition, THEIRS, and so they can charge whatever they want, take it or leave it. Are you asserting that you have some RIGHT to Britney Spears music, and thus should be able to get it for a minimal price?
3) Which was exactly my point at the start. It sounded as if you advocated completely scrapping the existing business. This would be wrong, as the status quo does have some advantages for at least some people.
That said, the opportunity for disruptive technologies and business models to shake up the status quo, giving us the possibility of something better, is every bit as important as avoiding the assumptions I worried about above.
1) I must disagree. There are certainly broad areas in which the large players act in alliance. But don't believe for a second that if BMG had the opportunity to acquire Sony's market (say, by some marketing gimick) that they'd hesitate to hammer nails into Sony's coffin. And this jockeying for position is what enables markets, and prevents the thype of monopoly that is (I think) being referred to here.
Looking at it another way, the classic solution to Sherman Antitrust cases is breaking up the entity, e.g., ATT into the baby bells, Standard Oil, the IBM "Chinese wall", and the various Microsoft proposals (extra points for working MS into the thread?). Since Sony, BMG, etc., are *already* legally separate, what would break this hypothetic "monopoly"?
2&3) These points seem to be merging. Obviously each one of us puts different values on the various features of cars and music media, and therefore formulates an individual value for those goods. So it was absurd for the root post of this issue to suggest that CD prices are universally too high. It's clearly true for *many* people, but as judged by sales, there are still a very large minority willing to work within the status quo.
Interesting idea, but I don't think it would actually work.
:) )
Would the applicant have any recourse if you (the volunteer vetter) provided bad input? It wouldn't be fair if he didn't have a way to challenge bad calls. Consider the liabilities that you could incur.
Also, it's likely that interested parties would be competitors. It would be difficult to ensure impartiality (it may also be hard for me to spell it
The only thing over-inflated here is your confidence in your own opinions.
1) Yes, a monopoly is when production of a good or service is controlled by a single entity. But here, we've got many -- Sony, BMG, etc. NOT a monopoly. While frequently their interests overlap, it's a sure bet that any one of them would love to grab the others' market share. So we clearly can't regard them as a single entity.
2) "Jacks up" relative to what? Are YOU the final authority on what a CD "should" cost? Of course not! Only those involved in the transaction are. The amount that "should" be paid is precisely the point at which buyers are willing to pay, and sellers are willing to take. Since this seems to be occurring now, without the record sellers reaching into buyers' pockets, there must be an agreement that the price is, in the context of today's market, fair. Or would you rather see a fascist society in which some government agency sets a "correct" price for goods?
3) It's true that in the presence of additional choices, the point at which that balance occurs might shift. But on the other hand, for some people -- say, my Mom, who has no use for MP3s as such nor the knowledge to burn her own CDs -- the current model may still be optimal.
And to the previous replier -- some people are moving to p2p as an alternate medium, but this is certainly a minority. The recording industry is still selling gazillions to happy Britney Spears fans.
The new models may be better for some people. But (a) not for my Mom, and (b) the means for artist compensation and other factors still needs to be shaken out -- there IS no "new model", just a bunch of experiments that people are trying.
...to actually do any research. The Yukon feature set is pretty well nailed down. MS had announced quite some time ago what they planned to put into it. Nor is this vapor of the sort designed as FUD to stall people from buying the competitor: some customers have had beta builds of this for a while. It's just that it's a rather ambitious goal, certainly the biggest upgrade since v. 7.0.
This is no different than today. I had to sit through hours of my grandparents' Alaska videos, in which he got the pause button out of sync. Long segments of my grandfather's feet as the camera swung from his shoulder, punctuated by being placed on tables. Each of is is responsible for filtering the crap out before subjecting others to it.
Anyway, I like to keep a record of my vacations, but it's difficult recording the action while being part of the action. Maybe this will help.
I disagree. I challenge you to name one area of our lives that is entirely outside of government control. I can't think of any.
You pulled that "100 hp" out of the air: nowhere in the article is such a claim made.
However, significant gains can be made in some areas without running afoul of your first failure mode. If you are willing to commit to always using high-octane fuel, for example, then you can safely derive significant benefit by changing the ignition advance settings in the ROM maps.
Other useful features can be added to your ECU as well. Consider the products from TechnoMotive. You can add security so that the engine will only start if you tap a secret code on the gas pedal. You can make instrumentation display many different data -- helping you prevent the types of failures you mention. You can even have bugs from the manufacturer fixed:
ObDisclaimer: not associated with TMO in any way, but have heard great things from their customers.
Everyone here seems to believe that the only reason for greater performance in a car is to go fast. Forget about horsepower for a moment, and consider the torque. This allows you to accelerate more quickly. Here in New Jersey, that's a safety feature, believe it or not. With our traffic congestion, being able to blend into traffic from an on ramp is critical.
You read my implication correctly, but not my intent. If you'll excuse a bit of generalization, it seems to me that many open source supporters eschew anything that smacks of commercialism, which is (I think) exactly why someone bothered to post this story. My intent wasn't to cast aspersions on open source, but the other way around. I wanted to imply that open source needs to do this sometimes, so you shouldn't look down your noses at commercial organizations for the same sorts of things.
This sounds suspiciously like how the world of commercial software works :o
I don't think what we really need is perfection in a system of "tyranny by the majority". I don't care how many people want something, government should make decisions based on RIGHT and WRONG.
What we really need is a realtime feedback system to punish politicians and bureaucrats for flouting the Constitution.
10. USE AND CONTROL OF INFORMATION; MEMBER COMMUNICATION; ADS
...This shall not be construed to limit our use of other information not addressed in this Section 10. ... We may also from time to time provide online, telefax, telephone, email, mail and other communications to our Subscribers and users on matters pertaining to the Service, its features, its sponsors or its use without compensation to them or reimbursement of costs for doing so. ....
We may, without obligation, liability or notice, except to the extent prohibited by applicable law, distribute, loan, sell or otherwise share with other persons or entities user lists as well as aggregate information.
You also acknowledge that advertising and promotion may occur on the Service and also that neither you nor any user shall in any event have any claim with respect to any proceeds from such activities.
All the way out at Mars, they get 4 times the bandwidth I can get here in New Jersey... But the content isn't any better :-)
The addition of seemingly nonsensical words is aimed at confusing the antispam filters that incorporate Bayesian analysis techniques, such as SpamBayes and SpamAssassin.
Umm. SpamAssassin isn't Bayesian, it's rule-based. Someone needs better research.
Don't make this decision based solely on credentials. Try to keep an open mind and read both sides. In particular, consider this:
Then you haven't been paying enough attention. Witness the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign finance reform, in which the 1st Amendment was suspended; or the countless violations of the 2nd over the past century.
The only piece of the Bill of Rights for which I can't think of obvious, ongoing violations to is the 3rd Amendment. The 9th and 10th were long ago declared obsolete.Maybe it is "oragami".
Oragami is to Origami
as
Creem Whip is to Cream Whip
A little misspelling excuses many other sins...
Double jeopardy protection doesn't apply: the hypothetical message's "visitation" in each of 50 states are separate events. Otherwise Colin Ferguson could claim he should only be charged with a single murder, because he only went on one murderous rampage. No, each event is separate.
However, the multiple prosecutions still don't make sense. It may or may not be spam when it was sent and when it was received, because we can look at the intent and reaction of the sender and receiver. But while it was being routed, it was no more than a packet of bits, neutral in content. Consider that some packets -- but not the whole message -- might have passed through state X, while others passed through a different state.
Also, the sender has no control over the path via which the message travels. Legislators recognize, in other contexts, the impossibility of preventing such an infraction, and have granted immunity. Consider the so-called "Voelker Amendment". This protects firearm owners. If you're travelling from Point A to Point B, and your guns are legal at both Points, then you can't be prosecuted for transporting them so long as you take a reasonable path from A to B. (Imagine your plane was re-routed to NYC due to weather; with out this, you'd be subject to prosecution through no fault of your own).
No, cable was created for people in geographies that couldn't (usually because of mountains) receive broadcast signals. The rest was an evolution of the model to expand the market to people that didn't really need it.
From an article in WND.com