Copyright (and other IP forms) are functionally equivalent to a form of taxation. It's transfer of money from one sector of the economy to another, and as such it does not affect the strength of the economy outside its comparative efficiency at generating value for the spent resources.
By your reasoning any profit from value added activities is a tax. If you want candy you have to pay the "chocolate bar tax."
Perhaps you wish to claim that the copyright industries are extremely efficient at generating value for their consumers, much more than the value the consumer would have gotten from the alternate products he would have bought for those funds, but frankly, most breakdowns of where the money goes indicate otherwise. Which would suggest that copyright damages the wealth generation of an economy as a whole.
Copyright doesn't make the economy better or worse, it makes it different. It's like trying to argue which is better, a 99-cent hula hoop or a 99-cent song. Both products fill a similar customer want (entertainment), but have aspects which are more efficient or less efficient.
And of course, compared to a really optimized system of IP creation without monopoly effects and middleman funding, the economic outcome if utterly atrocious.
Copyright doesn't prevent such a system, it just places the choice in the hands of the creator. Different people have different motivations to create, whether it's money, attention, or participating in a community, copyright allows all models to work.
The reason for keeping some commercial copyright is simple - if you make money, the original author/artist/whatever should make money.
Copyright is about giving creators control to encourage investment. While generally it's used as a vehicle for profit, it can also be used to ensure a work isn't used in ways you don't want it to (eg GPL).
Define "for sale." Does this occur when the initial draft is submitted for consideration by another party? If a demo is released to secure funding to complete a project, does the copyright clock start ticking? There are many cases where rights to a work are placed for sale even though it is incomplete.
Killing off the record companies could possibly be the dawn of a new age with much more diversity. Without the massive inefficiencies of the current music business, how many more musicians can be supported with the same revenue? The fact is, their massive control over the market, requires draconian control and just a few over-promoted stars that blot out the rest. The changes in the music world brought about by technology and the internet has already dramatically increased the access to many artists that we would have had previously.
As you say, there is nothing stopping an independent artist from releasing their own music, so the diversity is there. The record companies drive the economic expansion of the industry by exposing music to new markets. For example urban music wouldn't have the same penetration into the suburban markets without record company promotion.
Test results usually work pretty well in figuring out who is or is not capable of the "intellectual track". Why does an "underprivileged" family need resources at all? We're talking public schools here. Lots of poor kids do well in school; I came from a lower-middle-class background myself. Either the kid can or can't perform, and if he can't, it shouldn't matter how much money his parents have.
Test results, especially for younger children are more a reflection of the education/interest of the parents vs. the actual capability of the child. Which 8 year old is going to score better, the one whose mom works 2 jobs to pay the bills, or the one that has the resources to stay at home and hire a tutor.
Should someone in one of the lower-end classes be entitled to attend an AP class, even though they have no hope of understanding calculus?
There's a difference between a student entering an AP physics class not knowing calculus, and one who is incapable of learning calculus. The student can sit through every class, fail every test, yet still accomplish the most important thing which is learn. In college I took Solid-state physics, which was outside of my Material Science curriculum. I failed the class because I had skipped a few of the prereqs. However, even in failure, I learned enough so concepts in my engineering courses were less "black box." I also took some extra electronics and programming classes (which I passed), and I think the exposure to different ideas made me a better engineer overall.
When you start herding students onto specific tracks, you lose the potential for some revolutionary ideas. You're not just keeping the "dumb" kids out of AP classes, you're keeping the "smart" kids out of shop or other vocational classes. There are plenty of intellectual types that could benefit from spending time on tools actually making stuff to get a new perspective.
All I met by my comment that engineers create jobs is that, while many products/inventions aren't successful, many successful inventions go on to have large companies with lots of employees. Steve Wozniak - guy created the Apple Computer in a garage, right? And that product led to lots of jobs for business people, laborers, and other engineers all through Apple's history.
As originally conceived, the Apple was a do-it-yourself kit like most other homebrew technology at the time. It was Jobs who went out and found an interested customer, the caveat was the computer needed to be pre-built. Marketing a product by identifying and meeting customer needs was the difference between creating a multi-billion dollar company, and just another hobbyist project. Many companies build the same widget as everybody else, but they are successful by leveraging efficiency advantages in procurement, manufacturing, and sales. A better supply chain, or marketing model can be just as important to company success as the design of an item.
There are millions of people out of work, including engineers, businessmen, and laborers. None of these skill sets is more important than the others. Ultimately, It is entrepreneurship, which can come from anybody, that is the real driver for economic expansion.
The bad kids need to be identified as early as possible, and shunted off into a different program where they're prepared for careers as janitors and burger-flippers, and society doesn't waste any more time or money on them than necessary.
At what point do you label somebody a "bad kid?" I went to an honors high school, and the kids, while nerdy, still would engage in frowned upon activities... chemistry: blowing up a 5 gallon water ball with IPA and O2, slide bowling (destroying slides with a ball bearing), playing magic the gathering in the back of the room in physics, randomly burning things in class, filling the methane pipes with water, so that the pressure when on of them is opened shoots water accross the room. That was just the classroom stuff, plenty of underage drinking, and drug use also went on. It was essentially just like any other public school. Only when it came to demonstrating academic proficiency the students produced excellent results
Students achieve success in different ways, some are naturally gifted as artists, engineers, programmers, etc. Others are driven to succes by their own force of will, just outworking the other guy. What you essentially propose is a caste system, which can have far more destructive social impact. How does the child of an underprivilidged family ever get the resources to move to a higher caste when they are deemed at 5 years to not be capable of the "intellectual track"
Businesspeople, as a class, tend to be greedy and also tend towards big egos. Therefore, they end up thinking that they're the ones who create the jobs, are entirely responsible for a businesses successes, etc.
There are plenty of people away from the business side with the same "me-first" mentality. Whether it's scientists/engineers bickering over what project should get funding, or laborers who think the whole company would fall apart without them, nobody wants to think that what they do isn't important. Having worked in manufacturing, engineers often pull out the same "I'm more important card" when dealing with tool operators. It doesn't matter that the engineer is working on a project that will finish 5 years down the road (if it isn't cancelled) and the operator is cranking out thousands of widgets that will result in tens of thousands in revenue. As an engineer who spends time dealing with the commercial side, I'm annoyed with colleagues so focused on their project they don't see the bigger business picture. Brilliant pieces of engineering don't necessarily mean there's a market - Virtual Boy, Segway, etc.
Engineers and scientists who think of it as a partnership, tend to find themselves buried in the organization, while the mbas end up with all the power
As you point out this happens because engineers and scientists aren't interested in the stuff it takes to run a business. They wan't to make "cool" gadgets, not deal with details like how many 100 ohm resistors do I need to buy, or which janitorial service should I hire. Of course those mundane details will slap the company down when they make too many widgets and the excess inventory sits in a warehouse sucking away profit as it loses value, gets taxed, and requires resources to manage. Where engineering types flex their influence is on the boards and committees of industry associations; and faced with high stakes they play the same dirty political games. Positions of control, whether commercial or technical will always attract people with egos. How can you tell other people what to do if you're not convinced you are right?
The organization should usually work just as well if all the businesspeople are working for the engineers and scientists to keep the money flowing to the R&D department.
Just pouring money into R&D projects does not mean you'll ever make a profitable product. The US automakers spent billions in R&D designing cars that people don't want to buy, Xerox developed a bunch of great ideas they couldn't figure out how to sell. A company's success is not based on any one aspect, it requires good workers at all levels.
Bob Dylan is not famous for knowing English grammar and spelling. He is famous for what he does with them. Teach him Chinese, and he can most likely make amazing songs in Chinese as well.
There is a difference between an intimate understanding and just translating the words. Dylan was great because he mastered the English language to not just follow the rules, but bend and break them - "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose." Every programming language has it's own little quirks that must be navigated. High level concepts may translate across languages, however, the most elegant implementation is often derived from experience.
Different skill sets can be applied to the same problem and come up with different solutions that work. There is no perfect curriculum for a particular job, success ultimately depends on how well one adapts their toolset to meet the needs of a particular task.
A comparable (for some people anyway) situation would be whether we should use the so-called "research" various German doctors did using Jews and others in the various death camps during WWII. The doctors kept meticulous records on all the procedures they did, much of which would not be permitted to be performed today even on willing participants.
It wasn't just the Germans, the US did unethical "research" on blacks and soldiers.
US legislators appear to have forgotten that during the early phases of US growth, the US refused to acknowledge any foreign intellectual property
And most people have forgotten that hunter-gatherers didn't recognize the ownership of land since it was unnecessary for their migratory societies. Yet today we recognize individuals can maintain control over a section of the earth merely with a piece of paper that says so. Technology has changed what is considered valuable. The domestication of plants and animals required investment to develop land and therefore provided incentive for protecting pieces of land. The printing press diminished the significance of the physical act of writing, and placed more importance on the ideas conveyed. Automated mass production has elevated design above the skill of manual craftsmanship. Now, the internet once again has changed the structure of the economy, further intellectualizing and virtualizing the resources we desire. Generally, people "pirate" the creations of giant marketing machines. They pay for virtual clothes for virtual people in virtual worlds. We are transitioning into an ethereal realm, where identities, economies, and communities can't be covered by the laws designed for the physical world. The legal concepts under development aren't just there to stop the downloading of the latest pop music, intellectual property protects our DNA code, purchases, travel habits, and other information individuals consider private.
So really, my beliefs are not represented at all in congress and those who are supposed to be listening to me don't, nor do they even take the time to check what their actions did to the world.
Elected officials aren't going to listen to everybody. They listen first to the people who helped them get elected, the people who voted for them, then their own gut feeling. Rather than trying to influence your representative directly, educate and organize your neighbors. Unless you can deliver a congress person votes, there is no practical reason for them to listen to you. The DMCA exists is because legislators are afraid of anything that could cost their districts jobs and money. Why would a representative change the staus quo and upset businesses when those asking for change can't deliver votes?
Well organized vocal minorities can have a great amount of influence. The trade embargo against Cuba has continued because it's an important issue to Cuban exiles in Florida, an important electoral state.
Just writing letters or even e-protests won't make a politician change. Convincing your neighbors to vote in accordance with the issue(s) you find imporant will. It's a lot of work, but freedom isn't easy.
I'd like to remain in IT, but in less of a front-line role where I can actually get some work done without being interrupted every five minutes by a jamming printer or frozen instance of Outlook.
You work at a help desk, so it seems your job is getting in the way of whatever you prefer to work at. From your description it looks like you want to move into a managerial role of technical decision making. You can accomplish this by championing projects that you prefer to work on, or starting your own company. All an advanced degree will get you is a different entry-level position, where you'll still be interrupted every five minutes by something. At some point you'll need to show independent leadership to get your preferred kind of job.
It's interesting that the Wall Street Journal would publish a story trying to discourage individuals from making money on the Internet.
Not only would they publish such an article, the WSJ actually faces the digital convesrion conundrum under Murdoch. What they point out is that in the world of blogging, much like iTunes app store publishing a creator faces perfect competition. Facing an industry with 0 economic profit, differentiation and other services are needed for economic profitability. That's why selling of merchandise, or other value added services is important for creating a viable blogging business. This isn't just for the individual, it's for anybody getting involved in the blogging world. Corporations have the advanatage of leveraging their existing trademark, or as we often see spending millions of dollars to buy an already popular blog. Ultimately they face the same problems of selling something other than their blog to pull of a real profit.
That is what science is about. Revelation based on fact, not faith. At the end of the day I think it's a lot more rewarding, although a lot harder to come by.
Many scientific revalations were based on faith, the assumptions a scientist makes when creating their theory. Unlike blind-faith commonly associated with religion, science allows those faith based assumptions to be tested. Ptolemy created a scientifically valid geo-centric model of the solar system, in that it could accurately predict the motion of bodies in the sky. Einstein created the cosmological constant based on his belief the universe was unchanging It's important to understand that with science all you have at the end of the day is a working model. While it might be more rewarding by giving us planes, computers, and spaceships; the search for "truth," is a lot harder to come by, and requires more than just science.
The problem with economics is that is probably more a sociological study than a idealized science.
It really is no different than dealing with other extremely complex systems such as global weather patterns, biological systems, or quantum mechanics. Just as in other sciences predictions are made, but then new data comes in that overturns conventional thinking. The biggest difference is that the successes and failures of economic models are internalized more because of its direct effect on individuals. The discovery of dark energy didn't make planes fall out of the sky, nor make computers stop working; however, such a drastic change in thinking for economics would cause financial panic. It is this compounding effect at the individual level that makes economics more volitile than other sciences. Look at the recent economic collapse in the US - people aren't less skilled or productive, factories didn't just vanish. What changed is that "financial experimentation" didn't have the expected results.
Economics talks of supply and demand and perfect markets.
Economics goes beyond that and talks of supply and demand in all kinds of market environments - perfect competition, monopolies, oligopolies, etc. In fact, supply and demand is just one model used to understand how resources are developed and consumed.
Yet we all know the advertising and social herd behavior affect purchases much more than any real needs or demands.
It is important we recognize that humans are driven by more than the easily quantifiable - look at the old Nomad vs iPod debate. Many aspects of modern culture have evolved from judgements that go beyond pure utility. The arts are important parts of human civilization but not a fundamental need, nor easily assessed for their utility. Because of their relationship with individuals, economic systems too have had to rely on the esoteric concept of value beyond utility. Gold for example generally isn't mechanically useful other than its corrosion resistance. Yet it is considered valuable because 1) It is rare, 2) It is "pretty," 3) Because it is "pretty" it is easily traded. The herd mentality of accepting gold as an exchange medium for trade helped develop complex economies. Today we have moved beyond the need for a pretty piece of metal and become more abstract in our use and acceptance of what is valuable - fiat currency and even electronic transactions.
While we often see marketing as a negative side-effect for unlimited wants, we also shouldn't ignore the positive from the desire for more. Unlimited wants have driven human creativity, entreprenuership, exploration, and social development. Organized civilization developed when technology had reached a point where needs were met (neolithic revolution), and excess labor could be applied to wants with specialization and trade. Civilizations that become satisfied with their state of being typically stagnate in their cultural and technological development.
The space program, research investments, funding of arts, the Olympics, etc. are all marketing ploys to show national dominance. They also help move humanity forward in understanding the world around and ourselves.
Games are very much like a cup of coffee, the race to the bottom is what happens in perfect competition. The net economic profit in such a scenario is zero - which is exactly what Bogost describes: "That's just about enough to pay for the iPhone and Mac laptop or desktop you'll need to develop for the platform in the first place. Put more plainly, for the average developer the App Store is a financial wash."
The only way for a seller to make an economic profit in such an environmnet is to differentiate their product. In fact, the coffee industry with many suppliers and substitutes is analgous to the iTunes store, and demonstrates different business models for individual companies to turn a profit.
He concludes: "If everyone selling games doubled or tripled their prices, then the average cost of games for iPhone might rise above the threshold of cognitive dissonance." Not everybody needs to raise their price. Some coffee beans are purchased on the commodity market for your "freeze dried Taster's Choice," while coffee retailers serving $5 lattes pay higher rates for specialty contracts. The game industry will have similar price stratification catering to different consumer needs. There will be a market for the 99 cent hit-or-miss products and a seperate one for the $15 marketing blockbusters.
We must get past the idea that we are controlled by some magical "soul," and realize that all our activities are the result of electro-chemical reactions. Mental illness or disorders are misnomers. It should really be classified as desireable and undesirable actions. We shouldn't excuse undesirable actions, and look at ways to modify behavior with chemicals, training, or surgical methods
No, it represents the fact that 25% believe that creationism and evolution are probably true. For many people the two concepts are not necessarily contradictory. Some people believe God manages evolution, he set the rules up for evolution to happen, or everything on earth evolved naturally except for people. Religion is a very flexible philosophy
With internet connectivity you can probably play your game at your friend's house, just log into your account. Resell though will be killed, since the selling of accounts circumvents copyright with a service EULA. Also, there will be psychological attachment with achievements. You won't want to sell your game because you need the points to meet meta-game promotions.
For the big software companies service models are better than DRM since it gets them out of the unwinnable arms race. It creates value for players and convinces them to not pirate.
Games will continue moving towards a service model with micro-payments that is far more locked down. MMOs, Steam, XBox Live, show the success of removing the physical media and binding games to hosted accounts. In this model it's more difficult to resell a game, since game access is provided as a service of your account. Moreover, the companies can restrict reuse by offering access to certain content only via their servers.
Well, that is only to be expected from a nation founded by fundamentalists
Yes a nation so fundamentally Christian they established a secular form of government and declared "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"
I wonder, though, how long will America be able to retain its supremacy with what seems to me a rapidly increasing ratio of fundies vs. evolutionists?
Have you looked at American history? The rise in religious fervor is nothing new, the society goes through cycles between "Awakenings" and "Enlightenment." While there are some negative effects from such cycles (Prohibition) there have also been positives (Abolitionism, women's rights, and public education). The US has thrived in part because it goes through these cycles of rapid technological progress, followed by a lull for social reorganization. A constant headlong rush of technological progress without time for social change has the ability to marginalize portions of the population resulting in political instability.
The debate between evolution and creationism is academic. It doesn't matter whether the fast food guy thinks the meat he serves comes from creatures of God or is the product of millions of years of genetic changes. The US isn't going to suffer and fall behind the rest of the world because there exists factions that question scientific theory. It still funds research into biology, genetics, paleo-geolgoy, and numerous other disciplines which conflict with the idea of creationism.
The fundamentalist attitude in the debate is primarily social and political, not scientific. When 66% say creationism is probably true, and 53% say evolution is probably true, it means the general population doesn't have a firm grasp on the subject. There are great implications for looking at life strictly as chemical mechanisms. When you remove the magic of a supreme being from the equation, it could be reasoned that not every human is created equal. Might we end up with genetic feudalism or social castes entrenching those most fit for leadership, intellectual, or physical labor? Religion is the opiate of the masses, they aren't rejecting science, they are grasping onto religion in the face of the social void the science will create.
Sometimes it's okay to slow down scientific progress while a society digests the implications. Instead of reacting in disgust that creationist exist, we should take a step back and use the debate as an opportunity to more fully reconcile the science with the social aspects. There will always be a group of flat-earthers and creationists, but the masses are open minded and will eventually transition to new ways of thinking.
Sigh, I'll bite with some weak logic Stephen Hawking, citing Godel's Theorems, asserts that the laws of physics will always be incomplete. This implies phenomena will exist that cannot be predicted by any complete and consistent definition of "natural." Therefore, any description adhering to the laws of physics for an omniscient and omnipresent being ["God"], will be either incomplete (allowing for supernaturality), inconsistent, or both (like most religions).
Why do people get so caught up in a steadfast answer to the existence of "God" and what he does? Apart from philosophical debate, we should treat it as a utilitarian device just like other conjectures. We can choose whether or not to use it depending on how suitable it is for a specific discussion. In this approach it doesn't matter whether creationism or evolution is "truth." What's important is evolution theory provides a more useful understanding of biological mechanisms. Conversely the concept of "God," regardless of its existence, has been useful in the development of social interaction and structures.
Slashdot Mirror
By your reasoning any profit from value added activities is a tax. If you want candy you have to pay the "chocolate bar tax."
Copyright doesn't make the economy better or worse, it makes it different. It's like trying to argue which is better, a 99-cent hula hoop or a 99-cent song. Both products fill a similar customer want (entertainment), but have aspects which are more efficient or less efficient.
Copyright doesn't prevent such a system, it just places the choice in the hands of the creator. Different people have different motivations to create, whether it's money, attention, or participating in a community, copyright allows all models to work.
So instead of having the poor quality of entertainment from traditional media, we'll get the high quality of Youtube videos and Myspace music. /sarcasm
Copyright is about giving creators control to encourage investment. While generally it's used as a vehicle for profit, it can also be used to ensure a work isn't used in ways you don't want it to (eg GPL).
Define "for sale." Does this occur when the initial draft is submitted for consideration by another party?
If a demo is released to secure funding to complete a project, does the copyright clock start ticking? There are many cases where rights to a work are placed for sale even though it is incomplete.
As you say, there is nothing stopping an independent artist from releasing their own music, so the diversity is there.
The record companies drive the economic expansion of the industry by exposing music to new markets. For example urban music wouldn't have the same penetration into the suburban markets without record company promotion.
I think those are the more modern units measuring how fast a fortune can be pissed away. Back in the 90's we called them MilliVanillis and MCHammers
Test results, especially for younger children are more a reflection of the education/interest of the parents vs. the actual capability of the child. Which 8 year old is going to score better, the one whose mom works 2 jobs to pay the bills, or the one that has the resources to stay at home and hire a tutor.
There's a difference between a student entering an AP physics class not knowing calculus, and one who is incapable of learning calculus. The student can sit through every class, fail every test, yet still accomplish the most important thing which is learn.
In college I took Solid-state physics, which was outside of my Material Science curriculum. I failed the class because I had skipped a few of the prereqs. However, even in failure, I learned enough so concepts in my engineering courses were less "black box." I also took some extra electronics and programming classes (which I passed), and I think the exposure to different ideas made me a better engineer overall.
When you start herding students onto specific tracks, you lose the potential for some revolutionary ideas. You're not just keeping the "dumb" kids out of AP classes, you're keeping the "smart" kids out of shop or other vocational classes. There are plenty of intellectual types that could benefit from spending time on tools actually making stuff to get a new perspective.
As originally conceived, the Apple was a do-it-yourself kit like most other homebrew technology at the time. It was Jobs who went out and found an interested customer, the caveat was the computer needed to be pre-built. Marketing a product by identifying and meeting customer needs was the difference between creating a multi-billion dollar company, and just another hobbyist project.
Many companies build the same widget as everybody else, but they are successful by leveraging efficiency advantages in procurement, manufacturing, and sales. A better supply chain, or marketing model can be just as important to company success as the design of an item.
There are millions of people out of work, including engineers, businessmen, and laborers. None of these skill sets is more important than the others.
Ultimately, It is entrepreneurship, which can come from anybody, that is the real driver for economic expansion.
At what point do you label somebody a "bad kid?" I went to an honors high school, and the kids, while nerdy, still would engage in frowned upon activities... chemistry: blowing up a 5 gallon water ball with IPA and O2, slide bowling (destroying slides with a ball bearing), playing magic the gathering in the back of the room in physics, randomly burning things in class, filling the methane pipes with water, so that the pressure when on of them is opened shoots water accross the room. That was just the classroom stuff, plenty of underage drinking, and drug use also went on.
It was essentially just like any other public school. Only when it came to demonstrating academic proficiency the students produced excellent results
Students achieve success in different ways, some are naturally gifted as artists, engineers, programmers, etc. Others are driven to succes by their own force of will, just outworking the other guy.
What you essentially propose is a caste system, which can have far more destructive social impact. How does the child of an underprivilidged family ever get the resources to move to a higher caste when they are deemed at 5 years to not be capable of the "intellectual track"
There are plenty of people away from the business side with the same "me-first" mentality. Whether it's scientists/engineers bickering over what project should get funding, or laborers who think the whole company would fall apart without them, nobody wants to think that what they do isn't important. Having worked in manufacturing, engineers often pull out the same "I'm more important card" when dealing with tool operators. It doesn't matter that the engineer is working on a project that will finish 5 years down the road (if it isn't cancelled) and the operator is cranking out thousands of widgets that will result in tens of thousands in revenue.
As an engineer who spends time dealing with the commercial side, I'm annoyed with colleagues so focused on their project they don't see the bigger business picture. Brilliant pieces of engineering don't necessarily mean there's a market - Virtual Boy, Segway, etc.
As you point out this happens because engineers and scientists aren't interested in the stuff it takes to run a business. They wan't to make "cool" gadgets, not deal with details like how many 100 ohm resistors do I need to buy, or which janitorial service should I hire. Of course those mundane details will slap the company down when they make too many widgets and the excess inventory sits in a warehouse sucking away profit as it loses value, gets taxed, and requires resources to manage.
Where engineering types flex their influence is on the boards and committees of industry associations; and faced with high stakes they play the same dirty political games. Positions of control, whether commercial or technical will always attract people with egos. How can you tell other people what to do if you're not convinced you are right?
Just pouring money into R&D projects does not mean you'll ever make a profitable product. The US automakers spent billions in R&D designing cars that people don't want to buy, Xerox developed a bunch of great ideas they couldn't figure out how to sell. A company's success is not based on any one aspect, it requires good workers at all levels.
There is a difference between an intimate understanding and just translating the words. Dylan was great because he mastered the English language to not just follow the rules, but bend and break them - "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose."
Every programming language has it's own little quirks that must be navigated. High level concepts may translate across languages, however, the most elegant implementation is often derived from experience.
Different skill sets can be applied to the same problem and come up with different solutions that work. There is no perfect curriculum for a particular job, success ultimately depends on how well one adapts their toolset to meet the needs of a particular task.
It wasn't just the Germans, the US did unethical "research" on blacks and soldiers.
And most people have forgotten that hunter-gatherers didn't recognize the ownership of land since it was unnecessary for their migratory societies. Yet today we recognize individuals can maintain control over a section of the earth merely with a piece of paper that says so.
Technology has changed what is considered valuable. The domestication of plants and animals required investment to develop land and therefore provided incentive for protecting pieces of land. The printing press diminished the significance of the physical act of writing, and placed more importance on the ideas conveyed. Automated mass production has elevated design above the skill of manual craftsmanship. Now, the internet once again has changed the structure of the economy, further intellectualizing and virtualizing the resources we desire.
Generally, people "pirate" the creations of giant marketing machines. They pay for virtual clothes for virtual people in virtual worlds. We are transitioning into an ethereal realm, where identities, economies, and communities can't be covered by the laws designed for the physical world. The legal concepts under development aren't just there to stop the downloading of the latest pop music, intellectual property protects our DNA code, purchases, travel habits, and other information individuals consider private.
Elected officials aren't going to listen to everybody. They listen first to the people who helped them get elected, the people who voted for them, then their own gut feeling. Rather than trying to influence your representative directly, educate and organize your neighbors. Unless you can deliver a congress person votes, there is no practical reason for them to listen to you. The DMCA exists is because legislators are afraid of anything that could cost their districts jobs and money. Why would a representative change the staus quo and upset businesses when those asking for change can't deliver votes?
Well organized vocal minorities can have a great amount of influence. The trade embargo against Cuba has continued because it's an important issue to Cuban exiles in Florida, an important electoral state.
Just writing letters or even e-protests won't make a politician change. Convincing your neighbors to vote in accordance with the issue(s) you find imporant will. It's a lot of work, but freedom isn't easy.
You work at a help desk, so it seems your job is getting in the way of whatever you prefer to work at. From your description it looks like you want to move into a managerial role of technical decision making. You can accomplish this by championing projects that you prefer to work on, or starting your own company. All an advanced degree will get you is a different entry-level position, where you'll still be interrupted every five minutes by something.
At some point you'll need to show independent leadership to get your preferred kind of job.
Not only would they publish such an article, the WSJ actually faces the digital convesrion conundrum under Murdoch.
What they point out is that in the world of blogging, much like iTunes app store publishing a creator faces perfect competition. Facing an industry with 0 economic profit, differentiation and other services are needed for economic profitability. That's why selling of merchandise, or other value added services is important for creating a viable blogging business.
This isn't just for the individual, it's for anybody getting involved in the blogging world. Corporations have the advanatage of leveraging their existing trademark, or as we often see spending millions of dollars to buy an already popular blog. Ultimately they face the same problems of selling something other than their blog to pull of a real profit.
Many scientific revalations were based on faith, the assumptions a scientist makes when creating their theory. Unlike blind-faith commonly associated with religion, science allows those faith based assumptions to be tested. Ptolemy created a scientifically valid geo-centric model of the solar system, in that it could accurately predict the motion of bodies in the sky. Einstein created the cosmological constant based on his belief the universe was unchanging
It's important to understand that with science all you have at the end of the day is a working model. While it might be more rewarding by giving us planes, computers, and spaceships; the search for "truth," is a lot harder to come by, and requires more than just science.
It really is no different than dealing with other extremely complex systems such as global weather patterns, biological systems, or quantum mechanics. Just as in other sciences predictions are made, but then new data comes in that overturns conventional thinking. The biggest difference is that the successes and failures of economic models are internalized more because of its direct effect on individuals. The discovery of dark energy didn't make planes fall out of the sky, nor make computers stop working; however, such a drastic change in thinking for economics would cause financial panic. It is this compounding effect at the individual level that makes economics more volitile than other sciences. Look at the recent economic collapse in the US - people aren't less skilled or productive, factories didn't just vanish. What changed is that "financial experimentation" didn't have the expected results.
Economics goes beyond that and talks of supply and demand in all kinds of market environments - perfect competition, monopolies, oligopolies, etc. In fact, supply and demand is just one model used to understand how resources are developed and consumed.
It is important we recognize that humans are driven by more than the easily quantifiable - look at the old Nomad vs iPod debate. Many aspects of modern culture have evolved from judgements that go beyond pure utility. The arts are important parts of human civilization but not a fundamental need, nor easily assessed for their utility. Because of their relationship with individuals, economic systems too have had to rely on the esoteric concept of value beyond utility. Gold for example generally isn't mechanically useful other than its corrosion resistance. Yet it is considered valuable because 1) It is rare, 2) It is "pretty," 3) Because it is "pretty" it is easily traded. The herd mentality of accepting gold as an exchange medium for trade helped develop complex economies. Today we have moved beyond the need for a pretty piece of metal and become more abstract in our use and acceptance of what is valuable - fiat currency and even electronic transactions.
While we often see marketing as a negative side-effect for unlimited wants, we also shouldn't ignore the positive from the desire for more. Unlimited wants have driven human creativity, entreprenuership, exploration, and social development. Organized civilization developed when technology had reached a point where needs were met (neolithic revolution), and excess labor could be applied to wants with specialization and trade. Civilizations that become satisfied with their state of being typically stagnate in their cultural and technological development.
The space program, research investments, funding of arts, the Olympics, etc. are all marketing ploys to show national dominance. They also help move humanity forward in understanding the world around and ourselves.
Games are very much like a cup of coffee, the race to the bottom is what happens in perfect competition. The net economic profit in such a scenario is zero - which is exactly what Bogost describes:
"That's just about enough to pay for the iPhone and Mac laptop or desktop you'll need to develop for the platform in the first place. Put more plainly, for the average developer the App Store is a financial wash."
The only way for a seller to make an economic profit in such an environmnet is to differentiate their product. In fact, the coffee industry with many suppliers and substitutes is analgous to the iTunes store, and demonstrates different business models for individual companies to turn a profit.
He concludes: "If everyone selling games doubled or tripled their prices, then the average cost of games for iPhone might rise above the threshold of cognitive dissonance."
Not everybody needs to raise their price. Some coffee beans are purchased on the commodity market for your "freeze dried Taster's Choice," while coffee retailers serving $5 lattes pay higher rates for specialty contracts.
The game industry will have similar price stratification catering to different consumer needs. There will be a market for the 99 cent hit-or-miss products and a seperate one for the $15 marketing blockbusters.
We must get past the idea that we are controlled by some magical "soul," and realize that all our activities are the result of electro-chemical reactions.
Mental illness or disorders are misnomers. It should really be classified as desireable and undesirable actions. We shouldn't excuse undesirable actions, and look at ways to modify behavior with chemicals, training, or surgical methods
No, it represents the fact that 25% believe that creationism and evolution are probably true. For many people the two concepts are not necessarily contradictory. Some people believe God manages evolution, he set the rules up for evolution to happen, or everything on earth evolved naturally except for people. Religion is a very flexible philosophy
With internet connectivity you can probably play your game at your friend's house, just log into your account. Resell though will be killed, since the selling of accounts circumvents copyright with a service EULA. Also, there will be psychological attachment with achievements. You won't want to sell your game because you need the points to meet meta-game promotions.
For the big software companies service models are better than DRM since it gets them out of the unwinnable arms race. It creates value for players and convinces them to not pirate.
Games will continue moving towards a service model with micro-payments that is far more locked down. MMOs, Steam, XBox Live, show the success of removing the physical media and binding games to hosted accounts.
In this model it's more difficult to resell a game, since game access is provided as a service of your account. Moreover, the companies can restrict reuse by offering access to certain content only via their servers.
Yes a nation so fundamentally Christian they established a secular form of government and declared "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"
Have you looked at American history? The rise in religious fervor is nothing new, the society goes through cycles between "Awakenings" and "Enlightenment." While there are some negative effects from such cycles (Prohibition) there have also been positives (Abolitionism, women's rights, and public education). The US has thrived in part because it goes through these cycles of rapid technological progress, followed by a lull for social reorganization. A constant headlong rush of technological progress without time for social change has the ability to marginalize portions of the population resulting in political instability.
The debate between evolution and creationism is academic. It doesn't matter whether the fast food guy thinks the meat he serves comes from creatures of God or is the product of millions of years of genetic changes. The US isn't going to suffer and fall behind the rest of the world because there exists factions that question scientific theory. It still funds research into biology, genetics, paleo-geolgoy, and numerous other disciplines which conflict with the idea of creationism.
The fundamentalist attitude in the debate is primarily social and political, not scientific. When 66% say creationism is probably true, and 53% say evolution is probably true, it means the general population doesn't have a firm grasp on the subject. There are great implications for looking at life strictly as chemical mechanisms. When you remove the magic of a supreme being from the equation, it could be reasoned that not every human is created equal. Might we end up with genetic feudalism or social castes entrenching those most fit for leadership, intellectual, or physical labor? Religion is the opiate of the masses, they aren't rejecting science, they are grasping onto religion in the face of the social void the science will create.
Sometimes it's okay to slow down scientific progress while a society digests the implications. Instead of reacting in disgust that creationist exist, we should take a step back and use the debate as an opportunity to more fully reconcile the science with the social aspects. There will always be a group of flat-earthers and creationists, but the masses are open minded and will eventually transition to new ways of thinking.
Sigh, I'll bite with some weak logic
Stephen Hawking, citing Godel's Theorems, asserts that the laws of physics will always be incomplete. This implies phenomena will exist that cannot be predicted by any complete and consistent definition of "natural." Therefore, any description adhering to the laws of physics for an omniscient and omnipresent being ["God"], will be either incomplete (allowing for supernaturality), inconsistent, or both (like most religions).
Why do people get so caught up in a steadfast answer to the existence of "God" and what he does? Apart from philosophical debate, we should treat it as a utilitarian device just like other conjectures. We can choose whether or not to use it depending on how suitable it is for a specific discussion.
In this approach it doesn't matter whether creationism or evolution is "truth." What's important is evolution theory provides a more useful understanding of biological mechanisms. Conversely the concept of "God," regardless of its existence, has been useful in the development of social interaction and structures.