Slashdot is like a well-engineered and well-maintained car: it's predictable. Now, if Slashdot were hosted on Comcast's network, it would be like a car on a road full of pot holes, and there's no telling what sorts of comparisons the posters might try to make.
Non-DRM books: merely a few centuries of proven success, only adding up to a few trillion dollars of revenue to date.
DRM books: a few years of lost revenue, customers complaints about interoperability problems, and watching your non-DRM-using competitors eat you alive.
C'mon, you can't compare a few years of loss to centuries of success. That's apples to oranges! Clearly, the jury is still out of telling customers to go fuck themselves because you don't need their stinking money. What would you do with their filthy stinking useless money anyway, other than spend it on tech support for the DRM-caused problems? It's still an untried business model. How disappointed I am, that they gave up on the grand experiment of turning away customers. I'm sure telling customers to go fuck themselves and give their money to competitors, would have eventually worked out, if only they had persevered.
Quitters. Cowards! The anti-DRM crowd is just a bunch of lame asses who only care about raking disgusting heaps of profit. Businesses doesn't need that type. The publishing world will soon forget your puny centuries of accrued wealth and prosperity. The poverty revolution is still coming, and soon the publishers will renew the race to see who can lose money the fastest. You anti-DRM hippies will be left out in the cold, shivering in your piles of cold hard cash.
If you reject someone flat out for petty reasons like not having the same spirituality, you shouldn't respect yourself.
The subject is petty, huh? Oh well, different strokes for different folks. And no, I'm not going out with you, Joe.
Seriously, I think mysticism implies irresponsibility. The stars predestined your actions, huh? No wonder you cheated on me, Aphrodite.
Dude, you act like I said you should reject a girl for not having big enough tits. But we were talking about fucking astrology, ok? I've been with ladies who were into that crap, and the laughing and enjoying our short time on Earth, was short indeed! Find someone with some sense and ethics, and you'll laugh harder, and enjoy your short time in much more intimate and satisfying way. I love my girlfriend deeply, and if I hadn't vetted out this type of bullshit, I wouldn't have been able to trust her enough for that love to be possible. Never again will I risk heartbreak on a religious nut.
Microsoft uses its legal monopoly in OSes to illegally create a monopoly in browsers. Apple uses its legal monopoly in portable music players and online music sales to extend that dominance into the phone market.
Yes, they could try that comparison, but it wouldn't work well. Who in their right mind would believe that Apple has a monopoly in players or music sales?
Apple's player product (iPod) can't even play a Vorbis file yet (after how many years!?) and their syncing software (iTunes) is so unfriendly that it has been found to cause premature baldness in its users.
And if we bring/. in as evidence to establish the credible facts, we must remember that their player lacks wireless and has less space than a Nomad, making it so lame that it can hardly be seen as a serious contender in the market at all! You dare compare a +5 comment to that?!;-)
Apple music sales service (iTMS), while a significant (though far from monopolistic) force in online music sales, is invisibly pathetic in the overall music sales market. When it comes to music, Apple is nobody.
How many of you would contribute $50 to take a controlling interest in this festering pimple of an "IP" company?
I wouldn't, because I want the current criminal who owns that $50 of stock, to lose his $50. Actually, I'd like him to lose more, but if I have to settle for $50 of punishment, so be it.
I would say that content providers are wholly interested in making a profit,
This isn't clear. With music, DRM is just about dead now: the content providers are really focusing on creating usable/buyable products. That is, they are trying to maximize their profit, rather than, say, Apple's or Pioneer's.
With video, though, DRM is far from dead. They are still trying to lock people into using specific players and monitors. This is perhaps a move to maximize profits, but not necessarily for the content providers. When you have big players like Sony, who sells both media and the equipment to view that media, things get complex. It looks like there's an effort to maximize profit for the equipment manufacturers and proprietary software companies, rather than the content providers.
It's accepted that you can now listen to music on whatever you want. (If I sell MP3s or CDDA/wav, I don't have to worry about who can buy it.) But with movies, there's still a fight over what customers should be allowed to watch the movie on. They're still acting like they don't want a free market in playback devices, even if that costs them content sales revenue.
When the content providers start moving to maximize their own profits (or the profits of their content division, in cases like Sony), you'll know it. It'll be about selling bytes to as many consumers as possible, instead of limiting their sales to the subset of movie watchers who have bought the "right" player products.
Wanting to make everyone richer, isn't contempt for welfare. Wanting waste is contempt for welfare. Your agenda is destructive, and to everyone, even the people who you claim to be concerned about.
The hard problem isn't to decide whether or not to have copyright law. It's how do we let Disney be paid for every copy of a movie, while still allowing the common man to make a backup copy of his DVD library, or lend a movie to a friend, or use a clip in a remix?
Hard problem? That was the status quo prior to 1998! The IP industries didn't want it so they lobbied for DMCA. If there's a hard problem, it's convincing legislators that 1978 copyright law was a damned sight better than today's.
That's horrible. If you're right, it means things are going to get a lot worse than they already are. Cable is already 99% filler and 1% what you want. What's funny is that when this crap started, some people were complaining that music wasn't a la carte enough: they listened to styles of music where there's a CD with one song they wanted and 9 songs they don't, and they resented paying for those 9. (Not my thing, but hey, whatever.)
The move to TV-show downloading also suggests people don't like the cable TV approach. The want to just get the shows they want.
Selling music one file at a time does not reflect the "fluid" nature of digital media and is rightfully held in low regard by filesharers.
Well, then, those filesharers are weirdos, because I have 100x the regard for a la carte music as I do for all-you-can-eat-buffet music. I want my money going to Exodus, not Britney!
theft as deprivation of a good or theft as an unjust enrichment
I think he misses a little, with that "acquire value without paying" (unjust enrichment) expression. Worrying about other people getting ahead isn't really a good way to look at it. (Air has value and is free. Same for Linux.) A better way to express that view might be "denial of market." If you freely acquire a good that I have a government-given monopoly for, then I don't get to sell it to you. It devalues the monopoly.
I'm not arguing against the FairTax. But any argument for the implementation of the FairTax, that does not address the issue of eliminating the thousands of jobs in the accounting industry across the country caused by the elimination of federal income taxes, is not worth discussing.
(Is this a joke?) The "issue" is implicitly addressed: those people can go get jobs or ventures in something productive. Or they can retire. Or emigrate. Whatever. Right now, all those people are a destructive parasitic drag on the economy. Getting them to do just about anything else, results in a gain.
Also, by this definition, it's fair that someone who makes $27,000 a year (minimum wage, working two full time jobs) would give up 37% of it and be just scraping by
The problem, then, is that the tax is too high. That guy looks at the tax he's paying, thinks about the government services he's receiving, and thinks, "This isn't worth it. I would opt out, if I were allowed to." So, of course it's not fair. Solution: vote to lower government's expenditures.
Recent developments regarding Abraham Lincoln
on
The Knol Hypothesis
·
· Score: 1
articles like "Abraham Lincoln" won't need much maintenance anyway
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's a clever idea. JSBiff for FCC chairman.
They cost $20 to make and the Army buys them for $5000 apiece.
Slashdot is like a well-engineered and well-maintained car: it's predictable. Now, if Slashdot were hosted on Comcast's network, it would be like a car on a road full of pot holes, and there's no telling what sorts of comparisons the posters might try to make.
This article quotes a Wal-Mart spokesperson as saying it was due to lack of demand. Hey, don't blame me, I'm just posting a link and summarizing it.
Non-DRM books: merely a few centuries of proven success, only adding up to a few trillion dollars of revenue to date.
DRM books: a few years of lost revenue, customers complaints about interoperability problems, and watching your non-DRM-using competitors eat you alive.
C'mon, you can't compare a few years of loss to centuries of success. That's apples to oranges! Clearly, the jury is still out of telling customers to go fuck themselves because you don't need their stinking money. What would you do with their filthy stinking useless money anyway, other than spend it on tech support for the DRM-caused problems? It's still an untried business model. How disappointed I am, that they gave up on the grand experiment of turning away customers. I'm sure telling customers to go fuck themselves and give their money to competitors, would have eventually worked out, if only they had persevered.
Quitters. Cowards! The anti-DRM crowd is just a bunch of lame asses who only care about raking disgusting heaps of profit. Businesses doesn't need that type. The publishing world will soon forget your puny centuries of accrued wealth and prosperity. The poverty revolution is still coming, and soon the publishers will renew the race to see who can lose money the fastest. You anti-DRM hippies will be left out in the cold, shivering in your piles of cold hard cash.
The subject is petty, huh? Oh well, different strokes for different folks. And no, I'm not going out with you, Joe.
Seriously, I think mysticism implies irresponsibility. The stars predestined your actions, huh? No wonder you cheated on me, Aphrodite.
Dude, you act like I said you should reject a girl for not having big enough tits. But we were talking about fucking astrology, ok? I've been with ladies who were into that crap, and the laughing and enjoying our short time on Earth, was short indeed! Find someone with some sense and ethics, and you'll laugh harder, and enjoy your short time in much more intimate and satisfying way. I love my girlfriend deeply, and if I hadn't vetted out this type of bullshit, I wouldn't have been able to trust her enough for that love to be possible. Never again will I risk heartbreak on a religious nut.
Yes, they could try that comparison, but it wouldn't work well. Who in their right mind would believe that Apple has a monopoly in players or music sales?
Apple's player product (iPod) can't even play a Vorbis file yet (after how many years!?) and their syncing software (iTunes) is so unfriendly that it has been found to cause premature baldness in its users.
And if we bring /. in as evidence to establish the credible facts, we must remember that their player lacks wireless and has less space than a Nomad, making it so lame that it can hardly be seen as a serious contender in the market at all! You dare compare a +5 comment to that?! ;-)
Apple music sales service (iTMS), while a significant (though far from monopolistic) force in online music sales, is invisibly pathetic in the overall music sales market. When it comes to music, Apple is nobody.
It's easy to answer, once you phrase it like this: Should you continue to date someone you can't respect?
Well, RSA was considered a munition, after all.
I wouldn't, because I want the current criminal who owns that $50 of stock, to lose his $50. Actually, I'd like him to lose more, but if I have to settle for $50 of punishment, so be it.
Here we have a guy whose name is well known for:
- Destroying a company
..
- .. for purposes of manipulating stock prices to make cashing out work better
I doubt any legitimate business will ever hire this guy, but I can see why crooks might. Let's all watch where this scumbag goes next.This isn't clear. With music, DRM is just about dead now: the content providers are really focusing on creating usable/buyable products. That is, they are trying to maximize their profit, rather than, say, Apple's or Pioneer's.
With video, though, DRM is far from dead. They are still trying to lock people into using specific players and monitors. This is perhaps a move to maximize profits, but not necessarily for the content providers. When you have big players like Sony, who sells both media and the equipment to view that media, things get complex. It looks like there's an effort to maximize profit for the equipment manufacturers and proprietary software companies, rather than the content providers.
It's accepted that you can now listen to music on whatever you want. (If I sell MP3s or CDDA/wav, I don't have to worry about who can buy it.) But with movies, there's still a fight over what customers should be allowed to watch the movie on. They're still acting like they don't want a free market in playback devices, even if that costs them content sales revenue.
When the content providers start moving to maximize their own profits (or the profits of their content division, in cases like Sony), you'll know it. It'll be about selling bytes to as many consumers as possible, instead of limiting their sales to the subset of movie watchers who have bought the "right" player products.
Yes? What about them? Did you have something to say?
Think of it as the opposite of Das Keyboard. This product will train you to look at your keyboard. You, too, can finally unlearn touch typing.
Wanting to make everyone richer, isn't contempt for welfare. Wanting waste is contempt for welfare. Your agenda is destructive, and to everyone, even the people who you claim to be concerned about.
Conspiracy theories are metaphors. They're full of exciting, if unrealistic, images.
That's horrible. If you're right, it means things are going to get a lot worse than they already are. Cable is already 99% filler and 1% what you want. What's funny is that when this crap started, some people were complaining that music wasn't a la carte enough: they listened to styles of music where there's a CD with one song they wanted and 9 songs they don't, and they resented paying for those 9. (Not my thing, but hey, whatever.)
The move to TV-show downloading also suggests people don't like the cable TV approach. The want to just get the shows they want.
Well, then, those filesharers are weirdos, because I have 100x the regard for a la carte music as I do for all-you-can-eat-buffet music. I want my money going to Exodus, not Britney!Analogies are like cars. They help you get there.
I think he misses a little, with that "acquire value without paying" (unjust enrichment) expression. Worrying about other people getting ahead isn't really a good way to look at it. (Air has value and is free. Same for Linux.) A better way to express that view might be "denial of market." If you freely acquire a good that I have a government-given monopoly for, then I don't get to sell it to you. It devalues the monopoly.
No, obviously he means EVIL tm CLINTON Administration started it, since that's who was president 8 years ago.
(Is this a joke?) The "issue" is implicitly addressed: those people can go get jobs or ventures in something productive. Or they can retire. Or emigrate. Whatever. Right now, all those people are a destructive parasitic drag on the economy. Getting them to do just about anything else, results in a gain.
The problem, then, is that the tax is too high. That guy looks at the tax he's paying, thinks about the government services he's receiving, and thinks, "This isn't worth it. I would opt out, if I were allowed to." So, of course it's not fair. Solution: vote to lower government's expenditures.